Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 7

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


Editwar by religion map

Hallo, my English is not so good, so I write in German:

Ich bin wirklich kurz vorm verzweifeln. Ich hab einen Edit-war mit Smeggypants bezüglich der von mir erstellten Karte Image:Europe religion map en.png.

Smeggypants ist mir das erste mal im Dez. 2007 aufgefallen. Dabei hat er ohne Änderungskommentar von der Religionskarte einige Länder (Kreta, Israel, teile des nahen Ostens, Jan Mayen...) weggeschnitten (vorher/nachher). Zugleich hat er einige Länderbeschriftungen ab- oder weggeschnitten (Cyprus, Iraq, usw.). So weit hab ich mir dabei nichts gedacht. Für mich war es Vandalismus und nach dem zurücksetzen war's auch soweit erledigt. Die Karte wird immerhin in 49 Wiki-Projekten verwendet, da kommt schon mal soetwas vor.

Nachdem ich die Karte im Juni 2008 weiter optimiert habe (u.a. Buddhismus in Kalmückien ergänzt) ging das Ganze wieder von vorne los. Smeggypants hat vor einer Woche wieder damit begonnen, die Karte zu beschneiden (dieses mal aber vorwiegend im Süden). Zusätzlich hat er nun auch die Farbe des Meeres geändert (vorher/nachher).

Nach meinem zurücksetzen der Karte hat Smeggypants die Karte wieder überschrieben. Daraufhin hab ich Smeggypants auf seiner Diskusionsseite angeschrieben und ihn gebeten, dass er das abschneiden von Ländern/Beschriftungen bitte unterlassen solle. Wenn er will, kann er gerne seine abgeschnittene Version unter einen anderen Dateinamen hochladen. Seine darauf folgende Antwort war dann für mich noch erstaunlicher (Er meint es ja nur gut. Israel und Nordafrika gehören nicht zu Europa und gehören somit auch nicht auf die Karte). Einige Länder auf der Karte gehören nicht zu Europa, das stimmt. Aber ist es jetzt schon verboten in einer Europakarte Nachbarländer darzustellen, zumal es ja unvermeidlich ist diese darzustellen. Soll ich in Zukunft Nordafrika und den Nahen Osten mit schwarzen Balken zensieren? Wohl kaum, oder?

Es ging aber noch weiter. Gestern hat Smeggypants mit dieser Änderung einfach meinen Namen als Autor rausgeschmissen und durch seinen ersetzt. Kein Wort dass die Karte auf meiner Arbeit beruht. Ein klarer Lizenzverstoß.

Nun hab ich auf seiner Diskussionsseite erneut versucht ihm zu erklären, dass er doch bitte seine Änderung unter einem anderen Namen hochladen soll. Kein Erfolg. Ich habe nichts gegen eine geänderte Version von meiner Karte, aber bitte unter einem anderen Dateinamen und wenn möglich mit richtigem Lizenzverweis. Smeggypants weis ganz genau wie man Dateien unter einem bestimmten Namen hochlädt, er hat es unter anderem hier schon mal selbst gemacht. Dennoch will er anscheinen unbedingt die Karte überschreiben. Die Benuterbeiträge von Smeggypants zeigen, dass er bei Image:Europe_belief_in_god.png schon mal das gleiche gemacht hat. Anstatt den Autor zu fragen oder das Bild unter einen neuen Namen hochzuladen wird einfach das bestehende Bild überschrieben.

Was mache ich nur falsch? Hab ich mich nicht deutlich genug ausgedrückt? Ist mein mittelmäßiges Englisch falsch verstanden worden? Bin ich im unrecht? -- San Jose (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I put a warning on the user's talk page and protected (for now) the map concerned. Lycaon (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. -- San Jose (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheerleading-sp (talk · contribs)

Uploads by new user Cheerleading-sp are looking fishy, in addition to the fact the he/she put "Comissão Paulista de Cheerleading" in all fields of the info template. --Túrelio (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Fishy indeed. Project scope, logo'd, spammy. Used on pt wp (w:pt:Especial:Contribuições/Cheerleading-sp). My Portuguese is as bad as my other languages but this seems to be a little promotional. Any pt folk care to look?

User:Russavia

User is confusing trademark protection with copyright protection and refuses to stop removing the license from Image:Aeroflot.svg despite being asked to here[1]. -Nard the Bard 02:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected the page per edit warring. Giggy (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

75.47.213.244

Can someone keep an eye on this while I'm offline? We've got pretty wild attacks and legal threats. I blocked the IP, but it looks dynamic, so maybe not that useful. See here:

Thanks... I'm not sure how we handle legal threats on Commons. rootology (T) 03:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would handle them as you have done. Revert, block and watch. Watching too thanks --Herby talk thyme 06:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • He has done those non-sense on my talkpage. It's probably not just that IP I beleive all 75.47 IPs. I've seen this too, trying to harm an admin. 75.47's IP is just as bad as what happens on Wikipeia. He has use alot of profanities and slurs under the belt no matter at what place. All 75.47 IPs was block from Wiki for 2 mos for universally profanities and slurs on Wikipe, I guess a 3 week block for all 75.47 ranges for 3 weeks might help, then he will finally learn Civility. he don't seem to learn from 2mos block on Wiki--Freewayguy What's up? 03:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Carcharoth

I do not speak french but just in case "Capture d'écran personnelle" does not mean "self-made" than I suspect that user has uploaded numerous screen captures from late Dan Osman movies: see [2]. Also Image:Cheval-strasbourg-contempo.jpg might have FOP issues. Can someone contact user in French. --Jarekt (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I (fr-1) would translate that to "self-made screenshot". Hopefully someone with more French skills can take it from here. Giggy (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a self-made screenshot all right. I contacted Carcharoth, but he hasn't contributed to Commons since August 2007 nor to WP:fr since January, 2007. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:TheZachMorrisExperience

User:TheZachMorrisExperience is mass tagging images for deletion. I'm not sure if his interpretation of freedom of panorama is correct, but he in tagging the images for deletion he is stripping all the relevant inforation from the images. It's making it hard to find and fix the errors. When asked to stop for a few minutes, he has started an editing war. He also went on a rampage and started a new mass tagging: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of PAHistorical&MuseumCommissionMarkers. Please ask him to take a breath and work cooperatively. Evrik (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reino Helismaa

Hi, could someone who speaks Russian touch base with User:Reino Helismaa (I believe it's Russian, I could be wrong). He seems to be having problems with the whole fair use vs. free thing. rootology (T) 00:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a problem, because at ru:WP fair use is allowed. Sad but true. And some people can't see the differences between Homewiki and Commons. And yes, if it's true, what he writes on his site, he's russian. A Job for S1. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I really thought he finally has learned it after all the trouble about a year ago. He then was blocked at ru.WP for a month, so he started editing everywhere else and on this talk page at de.WP we had quite a lot of discussions about the whole thing. -- Cecil (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

BoussinesqDiagram.jpg

Uploaded by mistake. Please delete.

Drall (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Giggy (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Uploads by User WEKO

Could somebody check the uploads by user WEKO.

  1. Author: WEKO?
  2. Publishing rights of the people on some of the pictures?

The de.wp "article" has been deleted (as a commercial :-) Thanx --Nolispanmo 12:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it it is "promotional" at best. Equally if de do not want it that is an influence. I've deleted the offerings & will warn the user. Thanks for letting us know. Regards --Herby talk thyme 12:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
ok - thanx! --Nolispanmo 12:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Problem uploads by User:DJ LoPaTa

Another likely problem user: DJ LoPaTa (talk · contribs). Found two clear copyvios (Image:Тоше Сарма.jpg and Image:Боза.jpg), one similar case that was also pinched from the net and falsely claimed as self-made (Image:Сарма.jpg, cropped from [3], although ironically that is ultimately in turn from another free Commons image, Image:Sarmale.jpg). Numerous other uploads with the tell-tale signs of badness (small size, web resolution, no camera data, etc.), probably all copyvios. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User: Bmedick

User: Bmedick is adding the flickr review tag to their own uploads, and as far as I can see is not an admin or trusted user. At least some, such as Image:88-Keys.jpg and Image:The-Dream.jpg don't have suitable licencing on flickr. William Avery (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you first of all explain on his/her talk page, then come back here if the problem continues? The user may be unaware that it's not allowed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nico Brussels (talk · contribs)

New user, seems to upload mainly copyrighted material. --Túrelio (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Dodo employs sock-puppetry

It has been noted, at Wikipedia in spanish (and with Commons being part of the issue) that User:Diádoco is a sock puppet of User:Dodo (both users have their matching users at that wikipedia). Here and here we can see Dodo replacing the signature of Diadoco with his own. Here he makes an uncivil attack to another user of wikipedia. It's in spanish, translated to english would be more or less like this: "Actually, you're not as smart as you think - You are not as smart as you think (link)(link) but your mouth is still as big as always. Goodbye, bacalau". Those links are the same links I have just given.

Later, in his own blog he made this entry. Here he explains that he has created a sock puppet and revealed it as such with the purpose of disrupting wikipedia to "test" the reactions with a "newcomer". Again it's in spanish, and can be translated this way: "The big mouth - Things done so far (Note: link to sub page of articles made by the puppet) and what won't come to be (Note: Link to sub page of purported projected articles). Goodbye bacalau (Note: link to the attack of the previous link provided). Next, in your screens, the random life of a newcomer in wikipedia, with full details."

I realize this was a trick aimed against the Wikipedia in spanish rather than Commons itself. However, he did employ Commons as part of his scheme, and despite the 4 different accounts involved, we are still talking about the same physical man. Should a de-adminship consult take place, or just a block for the sock-puppet Diadoco? Thialfi (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the sock puppet has done nothing wrong on Commons. If he has used Commons to disrupt other wikis, then it's a different matter, but then you must show this did happen. There's no basis for deadminship procedures without anything wrong done here. Patrícia msg 20:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Having alternate accounts is not forbidden. Only its misuse (like multiple voting, block evading, etc) is. He hasn't broken any policy with the alternate account, so there's nothing to see here. -- Drini 20:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, Thialfi, keep your problems with Dodo in the Spanish Wikipedia. This is not the place for vendettas. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 07:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I see that harassment to a new user? The diff, I mean. Regards. --Dodo (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Having actually looked at the evidence it seems like this user is just playing around and suffers more from a bad sense of humor and talking to himself rather than making trouble for the project. The "new user" I referred to appears to be one of his socks. -Nard the Bard 00:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
So, should I be deadminshipped at Commons because Thialfi says I have harrassed (I still need the diff, BTW) a sockpuppet of myself at es:, or what? --Dodo (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Nard the Bard, Dodo didn't harass anyone. Thialfi has a long time grudge against Dodo and it's being reflected here, in Commons. -- Drini 00:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Drini, are you trying to say that Thialfi has harrassed me here? Oh, come on! Everybody knows that making false accusations it's very funny indeed and of course has no consequences at all. Right? Regards. --Dodo (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture Check

Hi from Germany. Please check Special:Contributions/FreitagWA. Does the uploader owns the rights to upload the pictures to commons? --Nolispanmo 13:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In view of the user name, this might be the agency that took these images. The question is whether these images are of use for anybody here. --Túrelio (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Well maybe, the user could the agency but nobody knows! So far its a copyright violation. They are not used in wp. --Nolispanmo 11:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Twec (talk · contribs)

It's looking like everything this person is uploading are copyright violations from geil.com. I've marked one and another user has marked another. I can't find exactly where all the images are from, but it looks like they were lifted as well. J.smith (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done all images deleted. Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

req. for deletition

hi! please delete the pictures of Special:Contributions/Marcusheinisch. no encyclopedic usage possible. the de article has been deleted --Nolispanmo 11:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Professorking (talk · contribs)

Considering the non-productive upload/edit history of this user and finally the unveiled threat (Erase it and I'll delete your entire account. Don't mess with me low life admins who have nothing better to do than compute.) in this Image:MEIMFREE.jpg, isn't it time for a final block? --Túrelio (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. No interest/concern with scope/licensing etc. Equally the tone become increasingly aggressive as noted above. I've blocked. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 06:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rwelizondo (talk · contribs)

There is something fishy about this user. His contributions since June 2007 are really great photos and all carry the statement I am the author of this picture and wish to release it into the public domain. But, in Image:Fundi2c.jpg he is Joser Calvi. In Image:Funfinoct1.jpg, Image:Domoimax2.jpg and others he is Fermin Tellez. In Image:Santaluc11.jpg he is Joser Calver. In Image:Santaluc12.jpg he is Regio en USA. In Image:Mmetrom.jpg and Image:Mtapiam.jpg he is also Antgar. In Image:Senderomtymetro.png he is also Omaaar. The latter image was also uploaded in a different file format as Image:Sendero station.svg by Omaaar (talk · contribs) who seems to share many image objects with Rwelizondo. --Túrelio (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of a an Image by an administrator on wrong pretext

Without even informing me User:Mardetanha who also is an administrator here has deleted an Image I translated to Arabic on the basis of (falsely translated):

I wrote the name of the Persian Gulf in Arabic as it is accepted in the Arabic Wikipedia الخليج العربي AKA the Arabian Gulf. This also is the official name that the Arab countries call it.
Does this mean if a Frenchman translating an English map would be falsely translating it by calling "The English Channel" "La Manche", therefor this should cause the image to be deleted immediately??!
Second what happened about neutrality here, I do not think this admin was neutral, maybe because of his nationality? I think it would have been better if he referred the issue to another admin. He should also have given me the chance to defend what I have translated in discussion, maybe I might abide by what he thinks I ought to do, why the assumptions?
Please also note that many other maps in Commons relating to the area in Arabic calling the Gulf exactly the same way I have called it.
I am a serious trusted Wikipedian, and I have over 25,000 edits from August 2007 till to day in the Arabic Wikipedia and I have uploaded at least 500 images here. I believe there is something wrong here, and I think I ought to be treated with the same serious way I participate in Wikipedia.--Producer (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You may have a credible argument for undeletion, but you should list this at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than here. Bastique demandez 23:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the link to the deleted image above. Apparently it has been restored by the deleting admin already. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
To dear producer i haven't delete because of my nationality this image was tagged for deletion by other user and have deleted as my regular deletion actions.So please never accuse me for not being fair.Thanks for your consideration --Mardetanha talk 23:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye out?

This is not a request for any action other than keeping an eye out... and giving some gentle guidance where it may be of benefit. user:CarolSpears appears to have some concerns about various matters (I cannot succinctly describe them...) and perhaps is expressing them in ways that are not the most effective. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Zntahh (talk · contribs) and Tachfine (talk · contribs)

was uploaded by Tachfine (talk · contribs) and deleted as copyvio a week later in May 2008.

  • Image:Algeriaa.jpg was uploaded by Tachfine and deleted as copyvio a week later in May 2008.

same for:

Users Tachfine and Zntahh are probably one and the self person. I would suggest to block them both. -- 85.177.33.242 08:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

All images deleted. No point in blocking as neither user is currently active (but less us know if it comes up again). Giggy (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


Joker92

I've found a number of copyvios in the uploads of Joker92 (talk · contribs). I strongly suspect many of the remaining images also are copyvios, but I can't find them. What I found so far:

All claimed to be "own works". Can others find the rest? (skyscrapercity is a prime candidate, but how does one search these stupid forums?) Lupo 20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left the user a note to stop uploading non-free images. I'll see if I can locate any of the other ones as copyvios too. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Some more:
I'd say nuke the rest of the photos. Lupo 11:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done deleted some of the images, please take a look at the remaining images. Thanks, --Kanonkas(talk) 14:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd say also delete Image:Chorreagold.png, given that it apperas also here. (Albeit it is smaller there, and Picasa doesn't say when it was uploaded, our version can easily be a blown-up version of that one. Or vice versa. Or both are taken from a third source. But given the upload history of Joker92...) Lupo 14:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Adolf ss (talk · contribs)

This new user needs to be watched. He took image files already present at Commons, uploaded them again (Image:Jacob and Marie de .Guise.jpg, Image:დრეიკი.gif, Image:Stuartd.jpg) and claimed them as "own work". Also, he took Image:Flag of Virginia.svg, converted to to png and uploaded it as "Own work by uploader". I'm sure that this image is a copyvio as this, but I couldn't find it. --Túrelio (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hum - the block on ru might be worth bearing in mind too based on the name I guess. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Google translates the Russian letters to Unacceptable username (obscene, offensive or provocative). That translator gets better and better (or the words were short enough for the program to bring out a logic result). -- Cecil (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the username clearly refers to Adolf Hitler/Nazism.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Account

I want to create an account called Rusitha Ukwatta. I already have an account called Rusithaukwatta but I need to create a new account called "Rusitha Ukwatta". Unfortunately, when I tried to create it I was asked to contact an administrator.

Please tell me the way to create the account, "Rusitha Ukwatta".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.144.53 (talk • contribs) 00:05, October 15, 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. My email is email addr hidden Gnangarra 08:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You can request your account be renamed. Please visit Commons:Changing username, but please log in first. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have user name Pruthvi.vallabh on English wikipedia. Today I set my preferences for unified username accross public wikis. This is how my current account on Commons got created. However, I have user account Pruthvi.Vallabh (not capitalized V) on Commons. In stead of creating new user account I would rather prefer to merge my existing user account with unified account. Please let me know if I need to provide more details. Thanking you in advance Pruthvi.vallabh (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Accounts can not be merged. You can transfer the edits from Pruthvi.Vallabh to Pruthvi.vallabh through Commons:Changing username/usurp requests (see instructions at COM:CHU). Giggy (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Mezelf14

All of the images uploaded by User:Mezelf14 have obvious licensing issues. Can someone who knows the Commons deletion process take care of this? RockMFR (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

looking at images to see what i can do. Anonymous101 talk 07:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted/DR'd most of the images. User warned in Dutch (his native language) to stop uploading Copyvios. Anonymous101 talk 07:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I give him the names of the users that can help him in Dutch. Sterkebaktalk 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Anonymous101 talk 13:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Topitoxx

I'd just like to suggest a ban on user:Topitoxx because he keeps uploading copyrighted images after they are deleted. Also all his images are under deletion request, so you get my point. Fernando (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Sterkebaktalk 15:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Multichill

I'd like to ask for the community's comments on recent interaction between User:Multichill and myself. Recently I contacted Multichill regarding what I consdered a malfunction of his bot and asked him to remove categories which the bot had mistakenly added. I also requested that he depopulate a category created by User:ClemRutter and populated by Multichill's bot.

Neither seems terribly interested in cleaning up after their mess. This all started when about a thousand images belonging to the Commons:CJK stroke order project were tagged as uncategorised by User:BotMultichill and subsequently placed in Category:Chinese kanji stroke order (see some relevant discussion).

I don't have a bot to do this sort of cleanup efficiently and would prefer it if these gentlemen, who I'm sure have the best intentions, would take care of it themselves. I'm raising this issue here to ask the community for their opinions since I haven't been active long on Commons (my interest is mainly in the Stroke Order Project and its use in the b:Japanese Wikibook). Every Wikimedia project is different and has its own culture and I'm interested in finding out if this sort of behaviour is normal and/or acceptable. Are editors (especially those with extra priviledges) held accountable for their edits or is it more of a laissez faire type of place? --Swift (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me this can be taken care of by the users involved. BTW "Hello! Good to see you around."  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. There's plenty of work to be done here and I'm looking forward to pitching in.
When you say "users involved", are you referring to those involved with the image files, or those involved with the bots? While I would personally like to see the latter assume the responsability, they haven't shown much interest doing so.
In a related note, the bot continues to make mistakes. See: Category talk:GNOME Desktop icons and User_talk:Multichill#Categories_build_in_a_template for the latest blunder that has been spotted. Would it be imprudent of me to request that action be taken to shut the bots down if this isn't resolved? --Swift (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

AnSto (talk · contributions · Statistics)

even more copyvios -- 85.177.190.167 08:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked & deleted. --Herby talk thyme 08:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Gogo1234 (talk · contributions · Statistics)

Hi, the above user has grabbed a bunch of photos off various New Zealand government websites and put them here under public domain license. A vast majority of the photos are not in the public domain ( NZ govt licenses are not free AND scanned images are copyright in NZ for 20-soemthign years even if they rae old). Can someone with bulk remove please have a look. Around 40 images. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done by sterkebak and me. abf /talk to me/ 20:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Abusive language & difamation from an administrator

I am a wiki commons user specialized in svg coat of arms dessin (more that 500 images already created) and since today, never have had any personal problem with any user. During last May, I helped one user that posted a request in Lab School[5] by creating then the file named COA Kingdom of Morocco. To create this image I expend a lot of time investigating official sources for the correct balzoning, and also in graphic work and at that time, I were very happy with that creation. On 25 august, I noticed that several changes were done and I asked for the reasons and the aswer resulted convincing for me and therefore I accepted those amendements [[6]. Later, I noticed that a "new" file were created with a different name but although based on my creation I couldn't see any mention to my ID as creator. I asked again to the same colleague, but this time the answer was not convincent and I didn't agree [7] [8]. After that, I didn't see any questions or mouvement, but recently I was again surprised founded that original file were deleted without any warning before; therefore I asked the responsible of deletion to confirm it wasn't a abuse or error[9], and later it was admited that something was not very clear in this procedure [10]. However, the user name Celil that had entered in the discussion, addressed to me with offensive language: Next time please name your uploads in a proper way. And please refrain from unfounded accusations as long as you don't know anything about something. Oh, and don't tell shit. You knew exactly that there was a problem, you even removed one of the warnings from the image.. After my complains, this user persist "in crescendo" and accused me of laying [11]. After my new complain, the aswer is even more agressive [12]. As I said, I accept now the result of the deletion and I am happy seeing that my work is still recognisez, but after I cannot understand such rude behaviour from a administrator and as far as I see that he will become more agressive, I beg the community for help. Thank you in advance. --SanchoPanzaXXI (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see very abusive behavor. But i can understand Cecil. You have wrote that you didn't know that the images was tagged for a rename. I also see you remove the template, so you did know it. I think is for the best to keep away for Cecil and just keep doing nice things for commons. No need to get in to fights about nothing. Sterkebaktalk 20:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but...who understand me? I am not saying that "I didn't know nothing" at any time but that I didn't know nothing AFTER my last edition on that file...and this is really important as my last edition was certainly a negative for that deletion. So do you think is reasonable that people that you never have heard about do not inform you at all if you have demostarte you are in desagree? do you think reasonable that instead of investigate or ask (like me do) for a explanation, pleople prefer to tell you "you are laying"? This is now a question of honorability, I am not a liar and will not permit that anybody tarnish my reputation here. Regards, --SanchoPanzaXXI (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
As usual on wikipedias, administrators do not like to criticize bad behaviour in other administrators. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Without dissecting who did what when in this conflict, I think the main problem is what the proverb "Der Ton macht die Musik" in my native language means (could be translated to: “It’s not what you say, but the way how you say it”). Writing ...you don't know anything about something and don't tell shit surely isn't mellow behaviour and doesn't make it easier for a user to finally accept something he/she doesn't like or understand at first. When writing (and reading) something potentially controversial, we should also keep in mind that on Commons many people talk in a language that is not native to them. Subtile irony or phrasing can easily be misunderstood. --Túrelio (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
You say you wasn't informt. But the inform you when you removed the template. But i don't see a big problem here. Why not just forget and move on? Sterkebaktalk 21:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice you have contacted Cecil already. I suspect that once that conversation has panned out, there will be no need for action from anyone else. Please discuss your problems with her directly.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I give up, this is worthless and sad because you show there is no way for mediation and third part problem solvers: you have admit that something in Cecil behaviour was not clear and you decided do anything, and I guess that this is because the administrator status. In any case, I will never admit that anybody treat as a liar another colleague...this is really sad. Bye.--SanchoPanzaXXI (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
If it helps, I thought the text from Cecil that you quoted above was way out of line. But then I don't know whether you were or weren't being disingenuous, as Cecil claimed. Powers (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Balkanregion (talk · contribs)

Could someone have a look at User:Balkanregion's contributions? So far s/he has uploaded several non-free photos from Flickr with wrong license information, including something that looks like a scanned postcard. Thank you. --Daggerstab (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, definitely an issue. There are new uploads, but I haven't found a speck of problem there. At this point I would say leave it for now. If it continues on, do the normal procedure and warn and later block. (I don't wanna go that far). I would also see if he/she needs help.Mitch32(UP) 00:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

שמופי (talk · contribs)

this user was a troll on the Hebrew Wikipedia. i saw he uploaded some copyvio's to commons (such as image:Mugrabi4.jpg image:Mugrabi3.jpg image:Mugrabi2.jpg, which came from [13]). Hidro (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

SUL. --Kanonkas(talk) 00:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Steve ryder001

I ran across this user on enwiki, where his non-userpage edits were almost entirely the addition of recently-uploaded images to articles. I strongly suspect that the copyright tags on the images he's uploaded to Commons are completely incorrect, as he claims that all of the images are his own work.

I don't know what the procedure is on Commons, but someone should probably flag and delete these images, and do whatever it is that Commons does with users who abuse license tags. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Images deleted and user warned. Thanks!. KveD (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Heraldicos

When I tagged this user's uploads as copyright violations, he started tagging my images for deletion, even ones that did not warrant it[14][15][16][17] and quite a few more. When User:Herbythyme warned him to stop, he mockingly copied the warning back to my talk page[18]. This user may also be using a sock (based on some checkuser information from Herby). Maybe he should be given a small time out of a week or so. -Nard the Bard 22:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Skyluis

User:Skyluis appears to be a block-circumventing suck puppet of User:Skylu. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend nuking all his uploads. This guy doesn't care anything about copyright, descriptions and even the practical notes I left the talkpage of User:Skylu, and he didn't even stop his upload frenzy when I was so desperate that I put a message on his userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done blocked sock puppet indefinitely, deleted sock puppet's contribs and blocked the actual user for 3 days. Thanks for reporting. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Usnavy (talk · contribs)

The user uploaded many image from Military Forums without any source, the metadata also provide no informations about the author. What to do? Massdeletion because of copyright violation or {{No source}}? I blocked the user because i think, he dont read any informations (no source info and the info to delete duplicates with {{duplicate}}), so maybe he now recognized that someting went wrong with his uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Nyo

User "Nyo" has posted my (and other photog's) images without permission. [19][20] He is skirting the law by first uploading my (and other's) images onto PhotoBucket (under the user name Lavelk) [21], then linking to WikiMedia, claiming that it is "fair use" because the images first appeared on PhotoBucket. I know he took one of my images from my Flickr account, but I have no idea how he obtained the other (full-resolution) file. Not entirely sure WHY this person is going through so much trouble to distribute other photographer's art instead of just creating some of his own, but either way he does NOT have my permission to do so. I would like to request that WikiMedia immediately remove the following copyrighted images (they appear in my published book CHINA: Portrait of a People, so I can assure you they are mine, they are copyrighted, and I will take legal action if they are not deleted) and please also suspend this user and his IP address from further uploads. Thank you. Tom Carter [22] --Tomcarter (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/China images. Lupo 08:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Mike.lifeguard

User:Mike.lifeguard's signature is confusing. It lead me to b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard, where I left a comment not related to wikibooks. I have unified log in so I didn't notice that I crossed projects.

I've included the signature here: Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb In retrospect I now see that the signature has three parts. Really, this is confusing. Someone in his position shouldn't be misleading people like that. Would someone mind asking him to change it? Evrik (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's confusing. The bit that links to enwikibooks even says "@en.wb" which fairly clearly means "at English Wikibooks"  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd add that hovering the mouse over the link clearly shows where it takes you as well. --Herby talk thyme 19:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You would think its not confusing ... and yet when I thought I was going to a commons talk page, I ended up at wikibooks. I generally dislike fancy signatures, but confusing one are worse. Evrik (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Generally, it is more acceptable to talk directly to the user if you have a problem with his signature than to post this as a "user problem" on the AN. I'd suggest you'd start with that, on his talk page. I don't have much problem with his current signature, but then again I mostly type in a couple of characters on the browser location bar to find which page I want to go to... Patrícia msg 21:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as deviation from the plain [[User:Foo|Foo]] goes, his is pretty tame, and if any one isn't allowed to do it, no one would be (or should be). ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Gryffindor (de-adminship)

Hello to all sysops,

This could be the last time I am posting here as a sysop. Disputes with three users about the naming scheme of files that I took from the established Yorck project has now led to a process for de-administration. After I tried explaining my actions on the discussion pages, to no avail, I stopped renaming files since I thought it would be best to avoid further conflict. It seems that that was to no avail, German user User:Herrick has now started a campaign and gotten other users from the German Wiki to vote against me as well[23]. Since I don't rename files anymore since those discussions, I don't know what else he wants from me or what to do. I get a feeling it's more a personal thing than really any rules having been broken, none that I aware of at least. Maybe if someone wants to take a look here and comment would be appreciated Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Gryffindor (de-adminship). Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Malydis

Hi, this French-speaking user coming from fr-wp is apparently not very familiar with copyright law and our license tags. See this logo and this scan. As I am not sure whether Malydis understands English (all previous notes on Malydis' talk page remained unresponded), it would be kind if some French-speaking admin could take at look at these cases and write a notice on Malydis' talk page at fr-wp as Malydis seems to me more actively working on fr-wp than on Commons. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done, I tried to explain him clearly what the problem was. I offered himself my help, we shall see what will happen. →Diti the penguin — 18:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Hana kacar

Hi, I've just closed two aged deletion requests of images uploaded by this user (see here and here). The remaining uploads do not look much better. We've more copyrighted stuff of http://www.vertigo-bird.com/ and private photographs including art without permission etc. Shall we simply nuke the remaining uploads or should I file them regularly for deletion? The uploader didn't react on any of the previous deletion requests and is inactive since August. Thanks for your advise, your apprentice-admin at work, AFBorchert (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Endime cx bw v01.png

The Logo should be deleted. The Permission from endime ENGEL DIGITAL MEDIA is missing, the article in de has been deleted. Greetings --Nolispanmo 17:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Teteumj (talk · contribs)

I fear that most of the uploads of this new user are copyvios or at least images without permission; probably most taken from sites related to Ceará Sporting Club. Communication with this user might be more effective in portuguese or spanish. --Túrelio (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it, thanks, Patrícia msg 12:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Uploads by Lukas19902 (talk · contribs)

Someone with knowledge of Polish should take a look at the uploads of this new (2 weeks) user. In addition to using very bad filenames, putting nonsense strings into the description of most of his uploads, leaving images uncategorized, and, most importantly, despite declaring all images as "own work by uploader", the image of this user come from many different digital camera models (Samsung D70 / D75 / S730 / S750, Casio QV-R61, Panasonic DMC-TZ3, NIKON D80, Sony DSC-P73, Sony DSC-S500), including professional cameras such as Canon EOS-1D Mark II, NIKON D200, and Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL. --Túrelio (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings

Please look at this user's behaviour against consensus here with Commons talk:Sexual content, and note that the behaviour extended here from the same proposal at the English Wikipedia, and is being displayed in all sorts of other Wikimedia Foundation organs.

Privatemusings states that he respects consensus and then drives a coach and horses through it.

Please extend this investigation to all Wikimedia organs, ensuring that all relevant administrators are aware of the issues, and generating an impartial investigation.

Please understand that an assumption of good faith was made for a substantial time, but has proved to be impossible to maintain. Timtrent (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The lokal crusade log can be found at User:Privatemusings/ifd log. Multichill (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Timtrent, please calm down a bit and chill. Commons is not "another forum" - it is a separate project. His behavior here, while misguided, has not crossed any lines as far as I can see. He proposed a policy, the community rejected it. He hasn't been incivil. He hasn't edit warred over anything that I can see. Privatemusings hasn't done anything wrong. --J.smith (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Please make no assumptions about my state of calmness and whether or not I ought to chill. I find that offensive.
Follow this user's history here and on the English Wikipedia and form a view from that. Timtrent (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, many people here find unproven suggestions such as I wonder if it was you who got the IWF to block parts of Wikipedia in the UK.[24], especially by as-of-yet single-purpose-accounts, highly offensive. --Túrelio (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what J.smith has said. ATM I've only seen uncivil comments by yourself (Timtrent) such as the quote Túrelio has listed above. It's up to the Community to make a civil decision on a possible new policy and it's up to others to say why an image should or shouldn't be deleted and is up to the closing Admin. Like it or not editors on Commons have different views which has it's positives and also its negatives. Bidgee (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't be bothered to register here before the global login thing happened. So the Single Purpose Account, while pedantic as a statement and thus correct, is a valid and incorrect assumption at the same time. You guys do just what you please. If you want this user trampling all over Wikimedia projects and proposing his ever rejected but just one day might be accepted policy and forum shopping everywhere, go ahead. Odd how the IWF thing cropped up just when this came up, though, isn't it? I've drawn it to your attention. I care what you do, but not enough to continue to participate in the discussion. Timtrent (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It has been my experience that Privatemusings actively does not recognize consensus, unless it is going his way. Regardless of how much time is spent explaining things or how many people tell him so. That said, as of yet, he has not been massively disruptive here... his activities merely waste time that could be better spent elsewhere, but not egregiously so, as long as we stay calm and respond with "no thanks" and not invest a lot of drama discussion into dealing with his proposals. Now... to the nature of the proposal itself: Commons HAS a problem that needs to be wrestled with in this area, there are a lot of images with questionable provenance, questionable permissions, etc, that need further attention. And substantial effort in that area would be welcome. But if policy change is needed, our existing policies are the place to start... propose revisions to them rather than new policy that overlaps and conflicts. We have just went through a round of improvements on the policy in this area, but certainly more would be welcome. So I encourage everyone to pitch in and identify and review questionable images, to make suggestions about areas to tighten policy and the like, but not to be distracted by PM. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Lar puts it well. Durova (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Some background: Privatemusings was previously sitebanned for 90 days by the en:wiki Arbitration Committee and is the subject of ongoing formal dispute resolution at that project regarding his refusal to accept consensus when it goes against him. During his ban from that project I mentored him here at Commons, and until this episode Privatemusings has been a productive drama-free contributor here. Due to that positive history I proposed a formal mentorship at the sister wiki. Both Lar and I were appointed mentors (the third mentor was Jayvdb) and all three of us resigned in unison due to difficulties in the mentorship. Asking fellow Commons contributors to extend understanding consideration toward editors who express exasperation: PM has carried his sexual content campaign from en:wiki's Village Pump, to policy proposal, to Jimbo Wales's user talk, to the Australian mailing list, and now here. Although he has been in good standing at this site, the negative reaction doesn't come out of the blue. Here's hoping that Privatemusings returns to his traditional Commons work of useful uploads, and a request to fellow Commons admins to keep an eye on matters and help keep things mellow. Best, Durova (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Mellow sounds good :-) - I hope I haven't indicated anywhere that I think my ideas match the current consensus - they're simply ideas that I think are sensible, and directions that might or should be looked at, in my view - that's all :-) Here are the links to the material I've been studying, and please add further guidelines or policies I may have missed;
  • Commons:Nudity
  • Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people (though I'm unsure if it applies when all you can see is a bottom! - probably)
  • Commons:Deletion_policy - how we handle 'model release' stuff seems unclear currently - it's sort of implied in the above that a release may be required - it also seems we use a 'personality rights' template to warn a downstream user that there may be an issue, rather than move to delete on occasion.
  • and incidentally, it's only tangential, but here's the Personality Rights cat. referred to above.
  • It's my view that the key issues here are nothing to do with censorship, but to do with common sense and good practice - however I'm currently a minority of one, t'would seem (and therefore bonkers by Orwell's definition!) - so COM:PS#Censorship is relevant too.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

  • "I'm unsure if it applies when all you can see is a bottom" - it dosn't in that case.
  • "how we handle 'model release' stuff seems unclear currently" - again, we don't handle model releases. We don't need them and we don't require them. Our downstream re-users might need them,, but that is up to them. Thats why we have the {{Personalityrights}} tag. J.smith (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
coolio. (and thanks) - see also this. Privatemusings (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Ahem. "Here's hoping that Privatemusings returns to his traditional Commons work of useful uploads". Please re-read that, PM. Please drop this insane crusade. You have now been shot down in five separate venues. Drop it. Roux (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just been mentioned to me that seeing my history, this is a matter of dropping it, or getting blocked. I really don't want to get blocked, and would really really appreciate a clear framework for non-disruptive contribution in this area. I'm really keen to buy into anything short of 'just shut up' - and have tried to follow the advice offered thus far - particularly Lar's - I see the wisdom in discussing evolutionary change rather than just creating a whole new proposal - I've begun discussions on existing guideline's talk pages, and I feel that we're moving forward there.....thoughts on how that's going most welcome.. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Again: "Here's hoping that Privatemusings returns to his traditional Commons work of useful uploads". Please re-read that, PM. Please drop this insane crusade. You have now been shot down in five separate venues. Drop it. Roux (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
roux has asked me clearly to stop editing the Commons:Sexual content page, and doesn't seem to be up for any conversation. I can't really see anything new on the table here, so can only really re-iterate my desire for a framework for non-disruptive contribution in this area. Privatemusings (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Topicban request

Since a gentle request from Durova was not enough to get PM to stop, I am now requesting that he be topicbanned from any discussion related to censoring of images, broadly construed. He is continuing to edit his rejected proposal, against consensus that it is, well, rejected and dead and done and over. He has forumshopped this request to five separate venues and has been conclusively shot down at each one, moving on to the next as soon as it happens. He will not listen, as Lar pointed out above, to anything other than point-blank "stop this now" statements. Anything less than a clear-cut black-or-white statement is met with more disingenuous "oh, okay, i'll just drop a note..." behaviour.

This crusade has now been taken across two projects, two proposed policies, one mailing list, Jimbo's talkpage, enwiki's Village Pump... where will it stop? It's disruptive, divisive, and has been so utterly rejected that any further editing on the topic has gone far beyond good intentions and into wilful disregard of what anyone else thinks.

It needs to stop. Roux (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected the proposal and talk pages for one month. --O (谈 • висчвын) 05:16, 16 December 2008 (GMT)
Ta. Hopefully that gets the point across. Roux (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
heh.. it'll certainly mean no more editing! - Could I ask nicely for someone to fix the red COM:NUDITY link - replacing it with COM:NUDE (at Commons:Sexual_content) - and there's no rush or anything, but I'd like some info. on where we go from here... whether it's cool for me to continue to engage at the existing guidelines, whether it'll be cool to bung any new ideas into the proposal in January etc. etc. - I guess everyone deserves a Chrissy breather though :-) Seasons greetings to one and all regardless! Privatemusings (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

< having just chatted this through a bit - I think it's important for me to note that I think this is an unhealthy development. I don't think protecting the page of a rejected proposal is a good idea, and I don't understand the basis in policy. I continue to believe that some are conflating disagreement with disruption, and that the necessity for protection is self-certifying, and a bad direction to go in. Having said all that, I'm a mellow chap, and am not feeling particularly heated about this, especially now I've clarified my perspective :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Forumshopping your proposal to five separate venues is de facto disruptive. Refusing to accept consensus is just another example of your continual refusal to accept consensus when it is against you. I strongly advise you to heed Durova's words here, as well as the words at your RFCU on enwiki: drop the crusades. Roux (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It's possible we could do with a mediator, roux, but I'm afraid I just don't agree that I refuse to accept consensus - further I utterly reject the assertion that I'm 'forum shopping' - I've been here, and in other places I've raised this, and other, ideas, for quite some time, and I both enjoy contributing, and believe there's merit in some of what I'm proposing. If we disagree on that - well that's cool, and I think the wikis can handle it. I hope we can find a path better than the 'just shut up' chilling effect here.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Mediator? No. What's required is for you to stop refusing to listen when consensus is against you. You proposed this at enwiki VP, where it was rejected. You then made it a proposed policy, which was rejected. Then you tried Jimbo's page, where it was rejected. Then you tried the AU mailing list where, presumably, it was rejected. Then you came here, where it was rejected. That's forumshopping even by the narrowest definition of the term: you have kept trying to propose this policy in multiple places in hopes of gaining a different answer. We all know you believe there's merit in what you're proposing. And you believed there was merit in your Steve Crossin crusade. And the crusade before that, and the one before that.. and in every case, you have been told in no uncertain terms that no, you're wrong and there is no support for what you are saying, now please drop it. And yet you persist. As Lar put it above, you actively refuse to accept consensus when it is against you; you act like people aren't saying they disagree--indeed, you take people flatly telling you that you are wrong and there is no support as "further dialogue". Honestly, it's gotten to the point where it is impossible to tell whether you have good intentions that are wrong, or whether you are subtly trolling the various WMF projects. Your obstinate refusal to ever accede to consensus and your insistence on pursuing issues well past the point at which everyone has told you to give up is well, well beyond 'good intentions'. But of course you've heard all this before at your RFCU, and refused--unsurprisingly--to listen to it. Go back to contributing where you're actually useful, and drop the crusades, drop the refusal to bow to consensus, and in general, drop the refusal to listen to anyone who doesn't support you. Which, at last count, is basically everyone. Roux (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
heh... I think someone should maybe work on a 'limits of consensus' essay - if I express an idea outside of consensus, in and of itself that should not be a bad thing - I remain open to discussion of how I go about that to ensure minimal disruption. I'm afraid I find that you, roux, either choose not to engage substantively, or have other reasons why you don't - I'm sure this'll all come out in the wash in time anywhoo.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, you really are at the point where your refusal to listen is actively trolling. Nobody has said that expressing an idea out of consensus is a bad thing. What you have been told on more occasions than I can count is that when consensus is wholly against you after you have expressed your opinion, you need to at some point back away from the dead horse. Oh, wait.. I've already said this exact same thing to you, the second time you forumshopped. And you refused to listen to it. I think there might just be a pattern here. For God's sake, man. Learn when to freaking drop an issue already. How many people have to tell you it's a problem before you will listen? It took an RFC/U to grab your attention before, and even then you steadfastly refused to comprehend that what you were doing--what you always do--is a problem. What, seriously, is it going to take? You dropped this crusade on enwiki barely in time to avoid an RfArb; I still have the draft request on my computer. What is it going to take to make you stop engaging in these crusades and start listening to consensus? Roux (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

< - you sort of shift the conversation around a bit, roux - it seems that you're now saying that it's cool to express ideas outside consensus, but not ok to work on them in the absence of consensus? (or that the way I went about it isn't ok?). I probably should point out too that I really don't see myself on any sort of 'crusade' anywhere, and don't really like my actions being characterised in that way - it seems pejorative, and unhelpful. Privatemusings (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read what I wrote, and actually try to understand it. Here's the relevant bit: What you have been told on more occasions than I can count is that when consensus is wholly against you after you have expressed your opinion, you need to at some point back away from the dead horse.
And of course you believe you're not on a crusade. The evidence--namely, forumshopping to five different venues in an attempt to get the answer you want--clearly says otherwise. You are completely refusing to understand (huh, that rings a bell) that your pattern of behaviour--refusing to listen to consensus when it is against you--is a problem. And seriously, with that I'm done. Greater minds than mine have led you to more bodies of water than I can count. Your continued refusal to drink can only end in your abilities to edit being either removed or severely curtailed. Roux (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
ps. If an uninvolved editor feels that the 'roux PM' chats above are a better fit at either mine, or roux's talk page, then I'm cool if they're moved - they seem a bit of a not-so-great-fit here to me, but obviously I shouldn't make that call. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm really finding that both of you are being rather unhelpful (to each other) by letting this continue 5 days later with the mud slinging. If the Admin's feel that PM isn't willing to except a consensus they will deal with it but ATM Wikipedia affairs should be left at Wikipedia. I don't agree with PM's view of a policy and some image deletions but he does have a point on some of the images he has listed for deletion but reading the above I'm just shaking my head in shame that we have this mud slinging (Civil or not). Bidgee (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Truth != mudslinging. PM's refusal to accept consensus is well known on enwiki, and it is ridiculous in the extreme to allow him to continue the same disruptive behaviour here. Roux (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think PM gets the message, and is backing away from the horse, and dropping all flogging implements. Aren't you?!  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, PM only stopped because O protected the page. And has indicated he's going to keep editing the page after the protection is over. So uh.. no, he hasn't backed away.Roux (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Erratic Sz-iwbot bot behaviour

Since several months, we have to revert more than half of the speedy gallery deletion requests introduced by Sz-iwbot (talk · contribs) because the galleries are not empty at all. Remarks or questions on the talk page of the bot or the owner remain without reply. The last checks I did revealed that some newly created galleries that contain no images are flagged as empty within 3 to 5 minutes after their creation, which might be frustrating for some users. As there seems to be no way to start a conversation, can I ask to stop the bot till we can engage a discussion on the problems ? Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I support a new temporary block, if the bot owner is not reacting on the issue. Patrícia msg 12:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I left the bot owner a note also. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I oppose a block. The bot operator is aware of the issue and has made some changes. Lets see how the changes play out. J.smith (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem is clearly not solved: gallery plenty of images. --Foroa (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
In this instance the bot added the speedy tag 26 minutes after creation. This particular gallery was never empty. It already contained files at its first draft.
It took me over half an hour to figure out this was a bot. I spent that half an hour leaving a note on the bot's talk page, and reviewing the documents on the project's scope. I thought my files fell within the scope.
Applying the {{Speedydelete}} tag leaves instructions for humans -- to inform the uploaders/creators -- which the bot ignores. In my opinion it is highly corrosive and damaging to delete the good faith contributions of good faith contributors, without telling them, and without telling them why. I've seen good faith contributors go rogue when they feel they have found themselves at the receiving end of those in authority repeatedly bending or breaking the rules.
If bots like this are going to be authorized I suggest it is absolutely essential for them to fully comply with all our policies -- as this one does not -- even when it finds galleries which meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Shizhao, the operator of that bot, announced at 12:41, 17 December 2008 that the bot will pause the nomination of galleries for speedy deletion. This happened after the last incorrect nomination at 03:42, 17 December 2008. In consequence, a block does not seem to be necessary for now. I concur with the suggestion by Geo Swan and want just to add that such notifications are at least delivered to uploaders whenever an image is nominated (see here). --AFBorchert (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry, Because bug (imagelink() error in pywikipedia), my bot have stop tag {{Speedydelete}}--shizhao (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, all. Now bot have can notifications page author --shizhao (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ChristianBier

On 24. Nov. ChristianBier tagged the Image:Wapen Sassnitz.svg with {{Rename media}} and gave typo in spelling as explanation. But actually it wasn't a typo, Wapen is the Low Saxon word for coat of arms, while the German word is Wappen. The Low Saxon image description was unintentionally removed by Ollemarkeagle on 15 Nov. while updating the image. So I wrote a message on ChristianBier's discussion page and told him, that there was no typo in the image name and that the information was present in the history. I just looked for an Oh, sorry, didn't see that and I didn't even request to move the image back to the original name. But to my surprise he didn't say sorry but "we use German".

I asked who is meant by "we", cause at least I didn't know of any rule to explicitly use German. He answered that the guys who were working on German coats of arms the most had agreed on using German names in the form of "Wappen X.jpg/png/gif/svg". When I asked for the reason for this rule (cause every rule needs a purpose and a rationale to be justified), he said, that they wanted to apply a uniform naming scheme to be able to have an infobox "Municipality in Germany" that automatically includes the coat of arms without having to specify the image name in a parameter. I wrote a lenthy post about why this couldn't work (relying on image names in templates is very unstable, it works only on German Wikipedia cause placenames may differ in other languages and even on the other German Wikimedia projects [disambiguation appendixes etc.]; it's a very narrow solution, cause the naming scheme won't work outside Germany etc. etc.). Additionally I mentioned, that a very low number of coats of arms is available in SVG format. That means, even if we would consider the uniform naming scheme reasonable, it will still last several years until all images are available in SVG. And only if all images have the same format, the naming scheme will become functional. There is no point in changing image names as long as the images are not available in a uniform format. Especially since images can't be moved. They can only be deleted and re-uploaded under a new name. Old versions will be lost. That's actually a violation of the licence terms (OK, German coats of arms are PD, so in this special case it is no licence violation, it is only bad style to omit other people's contributions). Another handicap of the moving process is, that images disappear from the user's watchlist.

To my knowledge the "coats of arms from Germany have to use German names" rule is documented nowhere and there was no vote or broad discussion about it. It was only the two or three most active users in this field creating facts.

ChristianBier did not answer on this post. Instead Niteshift came up with yet another argument, that non-German image names impede the internal search for images. I demonstrated, that it still works just the same, if only there is a German image description given in the image (this was the case with the discussed image since the very first version). So they gave no argument at all, which I wasn't able to disprove, why a uniform naming scheme should be applied.

At last Geograv came up with a POV rant instead of an argument, that Low Saxon is a useless language just as the Low Saxon Wikipedia. (That obviously was meant as a personal attack, cause I didn't say a word about Low Saxon in my arguments. I only argued against a forced naming scheme and pro freedom of choice. I never proposed to change German image names to Low Saxon ones or anything like that.)

I waited for new arguments (and hoped for insight), but they came up with none. Instead, ChristianBier went through my contributions and tagged all my contributed coats of arms for renaming. That was an attack. There was no reason to do so, but to provoke me. I reverted those renaming requests cause the discussion was not yet ended. I wanted to write a comment about his "raid" on his discussion page, but when I tried so, he had reverted my reverts and blocked me for three days. I don't see any reason for his very long block. I was never blocked on any project and at least on all projects I am familiar with three days is a block extremely long for a first time block. I guess he did this, to give the rename-bot time to execute the requests. I am an admin (I guess ChristianBier did not know this) and unblocked myself. I haven't read the policy about unblocking oneself, but I guess it is okay for obviously exaggerated blocks. I will revert once again the rename requests, cause of the danger the bot will create faits accomplis.

I ask for comments: Is this behaviour tolerated? I feel intimidated by his agressive style of acting. Instead of discussiong things he's going the way of force. And, independantly of the question whether his behaviour is accepted, I too like to hear opinions about the legitimacy of rigid naming schemes. I don't know whether many people here read the foundation mailing lists. The last days there once again was a thread about how many contributors don't like Commons. Cause of language barriers and the arbitrariness of decisions. People who only occasionally contribute images to Commons won't like it, if they come back some time later and their images are deleted. (They won't know the image was renamed, at least not, if they are not able to read the English deletion reason). It's not good to interfere with the contributions of users without a good reason. And language discrimination isn't good too. --Slomox (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that this use of renaming is not OK. Until renaming images is implemented in MediaWiki, it is not a trivial process and should be reserved for obviously insufficient names like Image:DSC4938271.jpg etc. Furthermore, you're correct that relying on an image to have a certain name in a template is a terrible idea & should be fixed immediately - that is a bug not a feature.
After two disputes involving renaming images in the past week, I think it is high time we put some thought into this issue, and make a guideline on image renaming.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The Users, who are involved in the German COAs here on Commons (e.g. User:Geograv, User:Rosenzweig, me and some others too) started in 2004 to create a system for naming of German COAs (including the categories as well). So over 20.000 COAs were uploaded/transfered and named like "Wappen XYZ.xxx". Also other languages do so (Spain: "Escudo de ....", France "Blason ville....", Finland "XYZ.vaakuna.xxx", Brasil "Brasao XYZ...", Sweden "XYZ vapen...."). I see no reason to start a new naming system like the Lower Saxon Names for the COAs. Whats the reason for the Lower Saxon name for a COA of Ossetia? This is language bashing and a clear POV. For German COAs an other possibility could be a solution. The COAs from Germany are all Public Domain, so everyone can upload the files under a new name and delete the bad named as a dupe. Where is the difference between this solutions: Bot or Hand-made? ChristianBier (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
What is the Ossetian word for CoA? Does it matter if the filename is en Finnish or in Low Saxon? Just be happy that someone made Image:Wapen Ossetien.svg. If you cannot stand Platt, pretend it is in Dutch (Image:Wapen Amsterdam.svg). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
@ChristianBier:
Others do it too is not a valid argument. Do you know the words Wenn alle Kinder vom Dach springen, springst du dann auch? As far as I know those other naming schemes were produced by bot uploads or at least by bulk uploads of single users. That's of course no problem. But you want to force a naming scheme on images that are existing already.
I see no reason to start a new naming system You missed the main point, I say: We need no naming scheme at all! I don't propose to rename to Low Saxon names, but I want all images stay the name they are.
Whats the reason for the Lower Saxon name for a COA of Ossetia? You wanted it renamed to an English file name. Whats the reason for a English name for a COA of Ossetia? I chose Low Saxon, cause I don't know no Ossetian, no Russian and no Georgian. Even if I'd know every choice would be POV, wouldn't it? Low Saxon is perfectly neutral. And in the end: it's just a designator.
Where is the difference between this solutions: Bot or Hand-made? I didn't say anything against bots. The answer to your question is: None, they are both bad. Just don't rename images until the software supports it (and even then only with a logical rationale). --Slomox (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
(after an edit conflict) ChristianBier, may I ask you two questions?
  • Do I understand it correctly that you blocked Slomox in a conflict you were involved in?
  • On your talk page you state regarding this case that Die Benennung der Dateien hat immer im Sinne der Community zu erfolgen, roughly translated, files are to be named always in terms of the community. How do you understand that? Shall we seek for some consensus and document it, or is it some majority, or is it sufficient that some volunteers go ahead on an informal concept which gets established by being practiced for some time?
To some extent I can understand both of you. I understand the naming scheme you've in mind and that it can be helpful to have a common naming scheme for such a large set of images that can be formally related to the set of German villages. In my opinion, however, it could have been helpful to write down such a proposal, announce it, and ask for opinions such that it gets some official consensual status. Otherwise we run into the problem that uploaders see their images suddenly renamed even if they had a perfectly looking name due to some undocumented scheme which is known to some closed group of insiders only, leaving the uploader as uninvited outsider. This is even more annoying if it runs into a case of conflicting languages — so far I thought we had already plenty of language conflicts in our category system. From this perspective I can understand that Slomox got upset. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. Couldn't image redirects be a solution to this problem?
I am dismayed to read this. My apologies if this is another closed shop which outsiders are barred from commenting on but after spouting on about abuse of admin powers I feel I have to be consistent and condemn such behaviour where ever I see it and by who ever it is commited by. Call me naive but I do not believe that admins do not own the tools and powers that comes with adminship, instead I believe that they are given access to tools and powers to use on behalf of the community, when those tools and powers are not used on behalf of the community but to achieve the personal goals and aims of the individual then an abuse of power has occured. ChristianBier used his powers to block another user to prevent another user interfering with his changes/to intimidate another user into submission/to punish another user for disagreeing with him. In my eyes this is a grave abuse of power. In this case the blocked user was another admin and knew how and where to seek redress, what happens when this happens to a normal user. In the Gryffindor debate much noise was made of the fact that, this is not how we do things/other avenues have not been pursued. Can I presume that these avenues will be followed in this case and appropriate and punitive sanctions will be brought against ChristianBier. KTo288 (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  •  Question would not image redirects accomplish the same thing without renaming the images? J.smith (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    I would not recommend using image redirects on a regular basis. AFAIK image redirect inclusions do not show up in the CheckUsage tool and are thus very hard to process. I'm not even sure whether CommonsDelinker can handle them. I don't see why you can't use the actual name of the image. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no rigid naming scheme, and hard-coding templates with image names is a very very very bad idea, because it will only work nicely in one language. If redirects aren't being counted properly, this should be fixed, not deprecated. In the meanwhile they are working properly, so they should be used if specific projects wish to have hard-coded templates with image names following a scheme.
I concur with Mike.lifeguard, it's time we shape up the renaming guidelines, there have been too many incidents over the years because of these issues. I thought it was clear that renaming was only to be done when a) the filename is absolutely non-descriptive or b) when there is a consensus to do so, but I guess I was wrong.
The block was completely out of order. Slomox shouldn't have unblocked himself either, but I'm happy he decided to come here and discuss the matter before taking further action.
Mutter Erde, that is not a redirected file, it's a renamed one. Patrícia msg 10:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's renamed, but it links to the source (or should). What happens, when you restore the link to the source? (should be self-evident) Mutter Erde (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not following you. If you restore the original image, you end up with two equal images. What does this have to do with the present case? Patrícia msg 13:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks, got it. Please do not restore the pic. It's a proof in another case. Perhaps you have heard about it :-). Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think, that we should massively use redirects on Commons. If projects decide to have a certain filename redirected, that redirect can be created at the local project and not on Commons. This way it is not our task to take care of broken redirects and weird templates. As has already been pointed out, using hardcoded image names in templates is a veery bad idea. I do not see why we should assist this behaviour by creating support redirects. Also checking inclusions of redirects means a complication of the software. I have read a few lines of CheckUsage code in the last few days and AFAIR it only gets the first 100 inclusions, if there are more. If redirects also had to be checked, every single one of these pages would have to be fetched, parsed to see whether it is a redirect and then an additional process would have to be started to check the inclusions of the redirect. This makes it unforeseeable how much time and cpu power a single check of one image might require. I am sure the restrictions already in place (not more than 100 images displayed) are there for a good reason. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think redirects of Commons images on local projects actually work, but I'm not sure. It would be interesting if they did. But your arguments against redirects are very convincing, I was not aware that they are so troublesome. Thanks for explaining that :). Patrícia msg 11:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You are right, I tried at de:Bild:Testing.jpg, it doesn't include the image on Commons. However, I think this is much easier to fix than implementing usage checking of all redirects of an image. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems, ChristianBier tries not to rename coats of arms anymore for now (although he hasn't answered any questions in this thread), but Polish was _too much_ for him, I guess: [25]. --Slomox (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Just as an information: I already asked ChristianBier in August to refrain from renaming coats of arms, ... unless there really is an error in the filename and he then promised to stop it. Seems it took only a few month for him to forget about that. -- Cecil (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Another serial copyvio uploader

Sazan (talk · contribs) uploads many Balkans landscape pictures. All declared as self-made, but typical signs of "found it on the web somewhere" (missing camera data, widely varying formats, low-res); this one has an obvious copyright notice. Probably all copyvios. (I have a feeling as if I had previously deleted some of these same images on en-wiki, but I can't put my finger on it right now.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you do a personal note on his page, and come back here if he ignores it? He may just need educating. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Done at his en-wiki page, en:User talk:Albnaian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Update: Identified and tagged a couple of proven copyvios now. I'd say it's safe to start deleting the rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Niabot (talk · contribs)

see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Böses Weißbier.svg

File:Böses Weißbier.svg, uploaded by User:Niabot yesterday, has the sole purpose to further his personal conflict with de:User:Weissbier on the German Wikipedia. I cannot imagine any encyclopedic usage of this image. IMO, this is a gross incivility. The intention of this file and the context is explained in this edit on de: [26]. --Jergen (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The File was deleted, the user was warned. Please re-report him if he is doing that again. Thanks, regards and Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 21:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User problem

I just received a personal message http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G.dallorto&diff=cur#Attivismo containing insults (I was called in the female gender, since I am a gay activist) and threats (I was invited to meet some fascist terrorist who are freshly out of jail) for daring mark for deletion some image dealing with the Italian Fascism. Which I did merely because there is no indication about authorship.

Since this is the first time such a thing happens in years I have been contributing to Coomons, I'd like to know how to deal with this fascist user. If we allow fascist threats and insults to go along unaccounted for, they may distrupt in short the spirit of Commons.

P-S. Of course the user, "Captain 007", is a serial copyvio uploader... Furthermore, he plainly removed the deletion request as per log here http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFrancesco_Aureilo_Di_Bella_.jpg&diff=17186184&oldid=17186046 . Respect of rules is not his cup of tea indeed. I would definitely call him a problematic user at large. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him for 24h, since he may be serial but not really active and only 1 threat so I'm willing to give him a chance. By the way, we need an italian translation of the blocking template. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) To me, it's more than a threat: it's a sexual discrimination, with legal issues. I asked several long-term administrators at fr.wikipedia and it seems that kind of threat is internationally forbidden, thus such users over there are often indefinitely blocked. But given your experience, maybe I should trust you for the one-day block. →Diti the penguin — 01:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe it doesn't translate well - it didn't seem too bad judging by google translate. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

user:mattbuck

ResolvedNothing can be done. Mattbuck was correct in his actions, and Wikipedia does not accept original research items.

Admin mattbuck deleted my image on his own will and I believe he overused his power as administrator. I made my image in response to images by w:Carlos Latuff (Carlos Latuff some of which IMO are hate propaganda. latuff participated and was placed second, winning $4,000, in the 2006 Iranian w:International Holocaust Cartoon Competition, (which was rather Holocaust denial Cartoon Competition). IMO there's a really fine line between freedom of speech and hate propaganda, and IMO it is better to stay few inches off this line than to cross it because as you might see from the post just above it, if commons are to tolerate hate propaganda,fascist media, it will come back to hunt us.Here's the deletion request:Commons:Deletion requests/File:It is easy to make a homicide bomber2.jpg. All images I used to create my image were released in public domain and the information about "evil" Bugs Bunny was taken from this Wikipedia article w:Tomorrow's Pioneers. I did not make the Bugs Bunny evil, hamas did! Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the actions of mattbuck (talk · contribs). Mbz1's recent uploads of his self-created images which he tries to use to express his own political opinions have no place on Commons. I am quite prepared to block Mbz1 (talk · contribs) if he does not cease his disruptive personal campaign against the artworks by Carlos Latuff. Adambro (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
If you are to block me, please block me indefinitely because I will never stop fighting hate propaganda, fascists images and people, who support them!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I really would prefer it if Mbz1 were not blocked. We keep some "hate" images without any apparent antagonism towards them.
I would sincerely prefer not to get into wheel warring however I certainly might. This is an area for discussion not blocking. Mbz1 is a long term valuable contributor to Commons. --Herby talk thyme 17:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) While I agree on the "hate should be fought", it should be fought intelligently. Some people seem to think that image containing the 'hate' word have an impact on the actual 'hate' issues. I think they are wrong here. Hate does not come from images, but from problems, poor living conditions, poor interactions between people. You don't fight them by censoring any image that contains the hate word, you fight them by explaining that the hate speech has no ground and no sense at all. Seriously, I just 'Hate' when people try to be politics for the sake of it. Problems arise and need to be solved, hate, violence, and such means are never the solution. They are just a scapegoat to hide the reality of the issues. It is not because an image exists that it will become popular. It's the usage that is done of the image that is usually the problem. If I take a flag of a country, and label it 'country of the idiots', it will probably become an offensive content, but that does not make the image as 'offensive'. The same goes for the anti-israel stuff, the hate and anti-hate stuff, I think most people are overestimating the actual impact of such images, they are just images, they don't necessary express an ideology and are not necessary interpreted as such. The same goes for the Svastika symbol, is it a nazi symbol ? is it the older symbol, that was tarnished by the nazi since? Take this Image, File:Autel église Avenas.jpg, there are svastikas on this altar, but they date from the 13th century. I honestly think we are giving too much publicity to those issues. Esby (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the image as a copyvio, the fact that it is an attempt to disrupt commons is fairly irrelevant to that. If it WERE just an attempt to disrupt commons, or say that commons promotes terrorism, then I wouldn't have speedy deleted it. As it is, Bugs Bunny (image 2) is a copyright character, so a copyvio there; and the TV screenshot has a FUR on en.wp and is also not free, so therefore that image is a copyvio as well. However, Mbz1, I would like to suggest that in future if you have a problem with someone, your first recourse should be to speak to them (in this case, me). Bringing me up on AN/U doesn't do anyone any good. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
mattbuck, you might be right about me bringing you up here. I could say only two things in my deffence. First, I was bringing up myself more than I was bringing up you, and second that IMO the matter of hate propaganda images by Carlos Latuff that flooded Commons is way too important, and I wanted more people to know about this matter. Please do not worry, if somebody is going to be blocked from this one, it's going to be me. Anyway, I am sorry, if you feel offended, but I am not sorry that I uploaded the image.There were no copyvio in my images. All images that I used were public domain images.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Please make sure your hate propaganda respects copyright law. --J.smith (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, I cannot make sure my "hate propaganda respects copyright law". See, I do not create hate propaganda images and I never will. I fight them! The images that I created to fight hate propaganda images did respect copyright law.My image is not a hate propaganda image, and my image is not propaganda at all. My image is a corrected representation of how hate propaganda images help create homicide bombers. So please make sure to think before you post, J.smith. I provided all sources to support the point of view, which is expressed in the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is a discussion about one of your hate images going on over at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hate by latuff kills.jpg. If I would use the same logic as you do I would say it's a clear message that all Brazilians should be burnt in buses. // Liftarn (talk)
What a stupid way to interpret the image! I uploaded my image only because there's this image: File:IsraHellburningbuses.png with the file name Isra Hell burning buses. Nobody bombs Brazilian buses, and I hope nobody wiil. Isreali busses do get bombed because of you, liftarn and others like you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No less stupid than some other interpretations. Calls for peace and an ending to the violence is be some seen as promoting violence.[27] For your information I have not bombed any bus, neither in Israel nor anywhere else, but I think that remark is way out of line so I started a separate section for your personal attacks and disruptions. // Liftarn (talk)
Because Adambro keeps removing my and muttbuck posts from the deletion requests here's the new link. Once again there was no copyvio in my image, and IMO it at least should have been given a chance to go through normal deletion process.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that my irony wasn't very clear. Let me reiterate the point I was making in a clear manner: The image you made (File:It is easy to make a homicide bomber2.jpg) could be seen as "hate propaganda" just as people on the other side of the issue see Carlos Latuff's images as hate. I pointedly did not ask you to not upload your image (ironically being referred to "hate propaganda") because the issue of if it is hate or not is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the project. What is relevant is weather or not the image fits within our scope as a project and if is legal with respect to copyrights.
Once again, my image cannot be considered as any propaganda at all simply because all points made in the image were sourced.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
As I explained, the individual cartoon may be out of copyright, but the character of Bugs Bunny is not. The single frame you used may therefore be free, but since the character is not, we can't use it. See Commons:De Minimis for more info. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
If the purpose of the image is to spark debate and get it deleted so you can shout and scream about some point your making, then it should be deleted. If you created the image with the intent to include it in an article, book or some other project of ours then I'm fine with it staying. So far, that hasn't been your intent. --J.smith (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
There was no copyvio in my image. Most commons images are not included in any book, or other projects and they stay. I am sure my image would have probabably been used for a fair minded news papers or magazines.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Your right. I've checked the source images and it appears that everything is fine in regards to copyvio. "Scope" is still an issue. What educational article or wikibook do you think the image would be appropriate for? Specific examples would be nice. --J.smith (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure, The image could have been used in w:Propaganda of the deed w:Hamas,w:Suicide attack;w:Tactics of terrorism to name a few. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
It could not have been used in Wikipedia articles. Creating anti anti propaganda images is original research and not what Wikipedia wants. If some other notable person had created these images, they could have been used. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Diti

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.
ResolvedDiti has been slapped and made promise not to prematurely execute controversial blocks ([28]) anymore. As the block has been confirmed by another admin and consensus on this page, there was no abuse of admin tools on Diti's side here. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Diti (talk · contribs) blocked User:Mutter Erde who is productive in uploads (500 good images since August) and who is active in categorizing the Bundesarchiv uploads. Diti did this with an appeal to the admin-chat (I have no idea what is going on there) and with reference to "what everyone stated above and below" (source). As can be easily checked, that is just a plain lie. Diti should not have the admin buttons. Unless he reverts the decision, he should be de-admined. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I really hope you can change your opinion above regarding the desysop part. Also IRC is not consensus, just so that is said. --Kanonkas(talk) 23:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
As stated above, the fact that the user does a good work doesn't mean he is allowed to threat and harass people. We have a blocking policy, I followed it. About the “what everyone stated above and below”, please take a note that, two people excepted, the rest was for an indefinite block; I didn't chose it. So, can you tell me clearly why I shouldn't have done so? The user had been warned and blocked several times, and is even (please note that it didn't influence my decision, since Commons is not Wikipedia) banned on en.wikipedia and de.wikipedia; it means that he didn't adapt this behavior over there too. →Diti the penguin — 00:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
An abusive user has been blocked after most people who commented (and let's face it, mutter erde canvassed it enough to try and get support) wanted to ban him. I really see no issue with that. While it shouldn't have been done with IRC consensus, it would have been done eventually, and 1 year is a lot more lenient than most people wanted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This started with a kind of "indictment" by Kanonkas, to which Shagatai and ChrisiPK immediately subscribed. mattbuck at first proposed a ban of "a month or two", but later on also clamored for an indefinite ban, + some more people. Spacebirdy and I were opposed, Herby was "in two minds", AFBorchert seemed to subscribe to Spacebirdy. You should not have claimed consensus, and you were wrong in stating that your actions were "in accordance with what everyone stated above and below". It was the "cabal" chatting on its private chat. Highly improper procedure. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, the main problem is not that the decision was consencus or not over IRC, it is that it was over IRC. The admins on the named channels are only a small part of the commons admins, I don't like the cabal terminology, because it supposes more than what this channel is actually. The issue is just that any decision taken over an IRC channel cannot be a consencus of the wikimedia-commons admins. I somehow feel that we should maybe open the debate and vote here, for the decision to take, choosing by a true consencus what to do... Esby (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm making another note here: people overreact about IRC, why not. But (I let people whom I was talking to the care to introduce themselves if they want) what I called a consensus is more considered as a piece of advise. Several administrators wanted to block the user, but nobody wanted to at this moment. So, I read the “debate”, the user contributions, concluded the same things as the others (I didn't want an indefinite block), and they advised me what to decide. Please, take a note that IRC wasn't used in order to find a consensus, but to decide how to apply it. Try not to think about IRC and see above: administrators here decided for a block. I tried to find the right “alternative” to an indefinite block thanks to IRC, but I followed the other administrator's requests as well, the same administrators who weren't on IRC at this moment. Now, I let other people set up a vote for Mutter Erde (talk · contribs) if they want to. About my case, do whatever you want against me if you feel like it, but please provide me links to recommendations or policies that proof I abused my tools. It can be the case, I'm not sure (learning from my mistakes is a nice way to improve myself). But I didn't decide the block all by myself. Thanks for your attention. →Diti the penguin — 01:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
IMO User:Mutter Erde should not have been blocked.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be best if User:Diti resigned his adminship voluntarily. According to User talk:Diti#IRC he has now even blocked himself (!) because all of this is too stressing. He shut himself of from answering, he does not take full responsibility for his actions, and he is hiding behind an anonymous cabal. In the meantime a user is blocked who uploads more images in a week than what Diti has uploaded in total (53). Why did he ever become an admin? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your approach is almost as bad as ME's in my opinion. People like you hounding folk who are all volunteers are making Commons a very difficult place to work. The unpleasantness & aggression will have me out of here soon. --Herby talk thyme 12:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, Herby, but you need to realise just how valuable you are... These folk sniping at you haven't done anywhere near what you have to make this place great. Don't let them get you down... instead trust the community to get this right. It will. It make take a bit of time and patience, but it will. Remember meatball:DefendEachOther and COM:MELLOW and hang in there. ++Lar: t/c 23:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
And you're trying to crucify him for blocking a disruptive user who WOULD HAVE BEEN BLOCKED ANYWAY. As for your argument on number of images, that's irrelevant. The amount of good work someone does is NOT determined by their upload count, or even their edit count. Mutter Erde may have uploaded a lot of good images, but his attitude made this place hell for some people. And frankly Kuiper you're not helping. In fact, you're doing the exact same thing - "I don't like what user X did so I'm going to try and ensure they get deadmined". That's fucking pathetic. Mutter Erde was going to end up banned, that much was clear. Frankly it's better this way than after another 10 rounds of debating. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
@mattbuck, as the indenting is now, it looks like you were replying to Herby, which is eventually not the case.--Túrelio (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I also have to agree with Mattbuck and herby here. The fact that Diti made an error by banning someone 'by IRC' does not mean his ban was wrong in the long run; ME would have ended banned anyway. Esby (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe mattbuck could stop SHOUTING and swearing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Despite the bad faith/agression shown I don't fully accept the ME block - see my comments here.
As to Diti's block I would certainly not criticise it as such but I do not feel we have exhausted the possibilities yet - maybe I'm more patient than some. --Herby talk thyme 13:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
+ec to Pieter Kuiper - if you were a little more thoughful & plesant maybe you would not provoke such reactions. --Herby talk thyme 13:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
What Herby said. Pieter, you need to dial the invective down a notch or three, your approach is unsuitable. Drop the attitude and work collegially, or not at all. ++Lar: t/c 23:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The block was premature & was totally bungled (which is a Very Nice Replacement for the real word). I would suggest that Diti not place further blocks in controversial situations without further experience. As well, a reminder to all admins that talk page editing and email are to be allowed, except where abuse has occurred, or is very likely to occur.

However, the fact that Diti bungled the block absolutely does not mean that Mutter Erde is in the right. In fact, it is becoming more and more clear as discussion above continues that his behaviour is a huge issue & blocking will end up being the solution. In this case, both people are wrong.

Since discussion is continuing above & we will hopefully have consensus on what course of action to take with respect to Mutter Erde's block soon, I don't see any lasting damage, except to Diti's reputation. As such, calls for desysopping are premature & generally a bad idea. This is not a case of blatant abuse, and Diti has done good work in the past. I'm confident that he will continue to serve the Commons community well, though I suspect he will not be placing blocks for a while.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Although the block was in my view premature (more discussion would have been sensible to seek a consensus first), I do not think it is right to come down like to ton of bricks on Diti. He has been an admin since 23rd November, and this was I think only his second block. It is perfectly clear that the block was done in the utmost good faith and the fact that others may have done things differently is most certainly not a reason to sanction Diti, let alone to call for a de-admin process to be started. Even if there is consensus that the block was premature (and not everyone agrees that), the worst that can be said is that an honest mistake was made. And who around here has not made mistakes? Commons' approach is to be mellow, and calls for sanctions on the basis of "one strike and you are out" should be firmly discouraged. No more to be said. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I called for him to revert his decision. Instead he blocked himself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, the calls for de-admin are completely counterproductive. If both parties just take out the biggest possible stick everyone just retreats into their little shells and no real discussion gets done. To me the block was badly executed. I do not see a "paper"-trail for the consensus finding. But Diti certainly shouldn't be crucified for that, instead the block should simply lifted ASAP and a proper discussion should be started/resumed. Commons won't go down in flames if Muttererde can edit for a few more days. If nobody objects I'll unblock him/her myself in a while. --Dschwen (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The objections are basically already up there. So I'm not going to use a no proper consensus action to undo one. --Dschwen (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the discussion above constituted adequate objection.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Edit conflict. --Dschwen (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
So, the opinions are divided, leaning to unblock. The main point is: there is no consensus for this block. It should be lifted. Merry Christmas. --Dschwen (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that the ban should be lifted since it was not valid technically speaking. Esby (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
This thread is about Diti. You probably want the one above called "Should ME's block be continued, and if so what is the right period?" --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Diti has now unblocked himself, but has not yet reversed his block of Mutter Erde, a block that was criticized by most of the users that have commented on it. Maybe a majority of the comments objected on procedural grounds (or on its extraordinary length), but procedure is important in using the admin buttons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The divergent opinions on ME block prevent me from unblocking him at this moment. Most of the critiques addressed to me are because I decided to block him “by myself”; fine, for this reason I logically won't decide an unblock by myself either. If ME's unblock is wanted, another administrator will perform it instead of me. Plus, I don't want to unblock someone who replied to my apologies with a blackmail (but you can without problems ask someone else to do so). Such behavior was the reason of his block. See User talk:Mutter Erde#Herby_has_got_an_email for more infos. →Diti the penguin — 11:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Blackmail?? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. "Do what I want or I will tell people dirty secrets about you" or thoughts along that line. More like "do what I say or I'm going to get you deadminned on every project you're on."
Hmm, wait... isn't this where we came in? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Slapping Diti does not seem to have had much effect, if I see what he is doing with Mutter Erde's user and talk pages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The template on the user page was added by me (the blanking Diti reverted again). After all Mutter Erde is now blocked indef because of block evading. Actually I think the proper ways would be that the user page is a redirect to the talk page, where the template should be displayed. The blanking of the user page then would be correct. -- Cecil (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
In general, I replace the talk page with the template & delete the user page where appropriate. Other wikis place the template on the user page and redirect the talk page & protect it. I don't think any of this makes a difference really & I don't see a particular problem here. Perhaps consistency would be good, but it's a rather trivial issue.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) This is how administrators at fr.wikipedia take care of an user who is indefinitely blocked. This makes sense, since I doubt ME would like the world to see his threats showing up on Google —blanking the page fixes that. I don't see why Pieter Kuiper thinks every of my edit is controversial. →Diti the penguin — 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Replacing content of user and talk pages of indefinitely blocked users with this template is not a controversial action. I don't know why this should be an abuse of admin tools on Diti's side, I did it myself now. As the user will never come back here, there is no need for us to host his user page and the talk page with all the accusations. If you really need to have a look at them, check the version history. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You guys have no shame. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Bullshit: ME sucked here as well and deserved it to be banned. EOD here! --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

I recognized per his edits that there where some issues in the past. After Commons:Deletion requests/Series by Nyo II, Commons:Deletion requests/Series by Nyo other mass deletions and discussion at the Administrators noticeboard again a user marked Images as copyvio:

Nyos course of action is like in Commons:Deletion requests/Series by Nyo II: Upload to photobucket and transfer to Commons with OTRS ticket. There are 176 images left for this ticket, what to do? I propose mass removal: without knowing the backround the copyvios are blatant, the abuse of the Commons communities confidence seems to be profoundly. --Martin H. (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add further comment to this. I have found that some of the uploads are cropped from the original work, making it harder to find the vios on a scanthrough. The most insidious one I found was just now (File:Dongba priests, Lijiang, Yunnan 3.PNG), which was cropped from chine-informations; the chine photo was scanned and has a border that the photo bleeds into, Lavelk cropped away the border and saved the work as PNG. Until I closely examined chine-informations' image, I would not have templated the file here on Commons for deletion (since without noticing the details, one might think either could have taken each other's work). The file format of PNG is more than enough suspicion that Lavelk has something to hide (this format is not used as a default for camera work). Surely, Lavelk does not deserve any more good faith on his collection. Commons has Bad sources, and similarly Lavelk is one source that is bad; all pictures attached to the OTRS should be invalidated and the uploads from Lavelk's collection deleted. Jappalang (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mutter Erde (talk · contribs)

I'd like to discuss some issues I have with Mutter Erde. Not only once has he been warned but continues his disruptive behaviour. I really didn't want it to end up with his behaviour having to come up at AN & hoped he would change, but here I am. Multiple times by different users & me he has he been warned that such behaviour is not allowed, but promptly seems to just ignore them. My suggestion is that if he continues a civility block of 24 hours is being placed on Mutter Erde and further an indef block. I think this is pretty mild & should have been done before unfortunately. Mutter Erde's latest threats is just enough, this isn't the first time he is acting like that. He has also been blocked on multiple projects, see en.wiki & de.wiki (See this & this). It doesn't seem like assuming good faith with Mutter Erde actually works, unfortunately. Also see his block log.

  • Here is some history:
  • "Next time I will bann you" First the heading was "Hi Troll" (see this) and was later changed to "Not amused".
  • Mutter Erde harassing OsamaK, as a result of the block Mutter Erde tried to evade the block. [29], more, & contribs. Then Jimbo himself wrote "Only 3 days?" but didn't have any recommendations about how long the block should have been. [30].
  • He starts again harassing other users, see this, resulted in a block.

Then we've got some warnings again.

  • User_talk:Mutter_Erde#Civility -> [31], [32].
  • There are more but I really am tired to find more warnings & looking through their history. I hope that's fine so please check their edits/talk to evaluate this user even further, as there are more warnings & some comments which are just rude/disruptive.
  • Some comments from me: It seems like Mutter Erde is rather rude to admins who delete something Mutter Erde doesn't want deleted. Also that an admin makes a decision kept on an image that was at COM:DR, a decision that Mutter Erde personally disagreed with, after which he started getting rude. A recent example of that is File:No Israel.svg. See this, and then Mutter putted it up at the forum. After that Mutter Erde posted this message to Mattbuck, which I find to be a rather threatening comment.
  • In short, attempts have been made to change this user's behaviour. This is also a long term problem. I believe the community has extended its good faith too much & this kind of behaviour can not continue at all. Such behaviour is just damaging. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
As can probably be deduced from his behaviour towards me, I am in favour of banning Mutter Erde, at least temporarily (month or two). Threatening people who do not agree with you is not something we should tolerate. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Granted I've not been around for the most recent "round"... I feel that we've given him far too long of a leash. He's been a problem for months and had run ins with almost every admin. As mentioned above he was less than pleasant with me in the PK photo DR, and I was totally uninvolved in that other than "Administrating" it. I really couldn't care which way it went... So I agree, lets ban & be done. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this user definitely needs a block. I wonder why it took so long on Commons, as this behaviour has been going on for quite a long time now. He seems to be unwilling to accept, that other people can also be right and he could be wrong, and that people should be treated with respect, even though they are believed to be wrong. As he has always shown this behaviour and keeps doing so after several warnings, I am unsure whether a time-limited block will help at all. Also note that he has been blocked before on Commons and that he is indefinitely blocked on two other projects, certainly not without reason. I recommend an indefinite block. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hab ich Dir jemals irgendwas getan? Was denn? Mutter Erde (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Mir konkret hast du nichts getan, aber mir ist schon einige Male dein äußerst unfreundliches Verhalten gegenüber anderen Mitarbeitern aufgefallen. Du scheinst ein generelles Problem damit zu haben, dass andere Benutzer andere Weltanschauungen haben, was sich besonders stark äußert, wenn genannte andere Benutzer Entscheidungsgewalt haben. Dan kommt sofort die Drohung mit Deadmins etc., obwohl gar kein Verstoß gegen die Projektrichtlinien vorgelegen hat. Du bist inzwischen bereits mehrmals darauf aufmerksam gemacht worden, auch außerhalb von Commons. Letztendlich bist du bereits auf zwei anderen Projekten gesperrt worden. Normalerweise würde ich bei so einem Verhalten erst einmal versuchen, das ganze mit freundlichen Hinweisen und notfalls auch einer temporären Sperre zu lösen. Leider hast du aber auf 2 anderen Projekten, wie auch hier, sämtliche Hinweise ignoriert und setzt weiter deinen One-Man-Kreuzzug fort, was sich auch in deinem letzten Posting auf dem Forum wieder gezeigt hat. Du bist nach wie vor überzeugt, im Recht zu sein und ich beführchte, dass ich nicht dazu in der Lage bin, dir zu vermitteln, dass das, was du hier machst, einfach keine Umgangsformen sind. Das ist zwar schade, aber da du bis jetzt keine Einsicht gezeigt hast, sehe ich mich ohne weitere Möglichkeiten. Solltest du bereit sein, dein Verhalten zu überdenken und sich merkbar Besserung einstellen, habe ich nichts dagegen, auf eine unbeschränkte Sperre vorerst zu verzichten. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
As requested, I am doing a rough translation of my statement above. Mutter Erde said: Did I do anything to you? What?. Here is my reply: You didn't do anything to me personally, but I have noticed your unfriendly behaviour towards other contributors several times. You seem to have a general problem with other users having different views of the world, which becomes especially clear, when such other users have the power to decide. In this case, you immediately start threatening with deadmins etc., even though there was no project policy breach. You have been notified of this several times so far, also outside of Commons. After all, you have already been blocked on two other projects. Normally I would deal with such behaviour by trying to solve it all with friendly notices and if need be a temporary block. However, unfortunately you have ignored all notices on two other projects, same as here, and are continuing your one man crusade, which also shows in your last post on the Commons:Forum. You are still convinced to be right, and I am afraid I am unable to convey to you, that your doing here are simply not good manners. This is sad, to be sure, but as you have shown no understanding so far, I see myself without any other possibilities. Should you be willing to think over your behaviour and noticeable improvement take place, I don't object to go without an indefinit block for now. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Tja, das ist eben das Problem, wenn Leute sich ihre 3 Knöpfe mehr erschleichen (siehe Fall Amicon - da ist es besonders auffällig) und dann denken, sie könnten die Leute damit beindrucken. Ich finde es ausgesprochen mies von Dir, in dieser offensichtlichen Veranstaltung (mit 2 gelöschten Beiträgen von mir) auch noch so zu tun, als ob das mein One-Man-Kreuzzug wäre. Pfui (Bitte Übersetzen) Mutter Erde (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Translating per request what Mutter Erde said: Well, that is the problem with people finagling their 3 more buttons (see the Amicon case, it's especially obvious there) and think they could impress people with this. I think it decidedly mean of you, to pretend at this obvious event (with 2 of my edits deleted) that this was my one man cursade. Boo! -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Leider gehst du nicht auf meine Bedenken ein, sondern beschwerst dich nur wieder erneut darüber, dass Admins sich die Knöpfe erschleichen. Die gelöschten Beiträge wurden ja inzwischen wiederhergestellt. Außerdem war die Löschung gerechtfertigt, wir bauen hier keine Zitatsammlung auf. Ein Link zu den entsprechenden Statements reicht durchaus. Du siehst dich leider nach wie vor im Recht und als Opfer der bösen Adminmafia, worunter die Kommunikation mit Admins und andersdenkenden Benutzern leidet. Solange du nicht etwas mehr Gefühl dafür entwickelst, was man wem weshalb an den Kopf werfen darf, sehe ich keine Möglichkeit, dass du hier nicht gesperrt wirst. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Translation of my above statement: Unfortunately you are not addressing my concerns, but rather keep going on complaining about admins finagling their buttons. Your deleted contributions have been restored already. Furthermore, the deletion was justified, we are not building up a quote collection. A link to the statements is really sufficient. Sadly, you still think of yourself as being right and a victim of the bad admin mafia, which makes the communication with admins and with users with other views suffer. As long as you do not develop a sense for what you can throw when at whom, I don't see a possibility that you will not be blocked. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Useful contributor. I am concerned about all these admins wanting to silence an oppositional voice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't want to lose a useful contributor especially, what we want is for Mutter Erde to stop threatening people if he doesn't get his own way. If the only way to do that is by banning him, then it's a shame, but I think necessary. The emphasis is on Mutter Erde to change, and he has never shown any signs of being willing to do so, despite being given ample opportunity. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
This reminds me of what happened to Juiced Lemon. Very similar circumstances; this one can be easily replicated if things worsen. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:39, 19 December 2008 (GMT)
I don't think I was around then. Could you give me the quick version? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
All of the drama is at User talk:Juiced lemon and some AN archives. Basically, the user used to be very useful in Commons organisation, in particular the category system. However, hostilities with other users on how to maintain organisation ended up in an indefinite block after much discussion and trying to work with the user. --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:39, 19 December 2008 (GMT)
I have not found the link which documents his ban. Please help Mutter Erde (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a collection of your warnings. If I have forgotten one, please add it -Mutter Erde
  • Again:
  • From my talk site from yesterday:
  • This is a collection of your warnings. If I have forgotten one, please add it:
  • Look what you have done to this "incorrectly named" (your words!) file Image:Guido Cagnacci Death of Cleopatra.jpg. And now see the history in the now correctly named file: Image:Guido Cagnacci 003.jpg. Shame on you! Where is the source that this pic is now correctly named? I can present 10 more of your manipulations. If 10 are not enough, when the next 10 will come and so on. Unbelievable, that you have some supporters for this crazy rubbish. Mutter Erde (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC) PS: I order you, that you give back the correct names to all these manipulated files. Why should another admin do this for you? Mutter Erde (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Mutter Erde, please it doesn't help talking like that. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Source: User talk:Gryffindor


Hi together. Is it forbidden to link a topic (here: User:Gryffindor's de-admin), which relates all wikipedia projects, on the commons Village Pump?

  • YES/NO ?
  • Examples:
  1. reverted by Mike Lifeguard
  2. reverted by an upcoming admin (referring to Mike Lifeguard)
  3. reverted by Mike Lifeguard

This has been noted several times but you might want to take a look at canvassing. Also why is it needed to be put on VP? One doesn't file that their is an ongoing RfA on VP and we would like to have your input. Most people who do want to vote do see this, without more notes about this case. Also posting this on other wikis is again something I do not encourage anybody to try at all. --Kanonkas(talk) 11:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


Mutter Erde, please just stop. You have been previously warned for this kind of behaviour before. Also your talk page note should explain your question. --Kanonkas(talk) 13:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I have asked the candidate, not you Mutter Erde (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and you've just ignored them. I'm not sure I'd like to be more COM:MELLOW with you now at all, you're just playing games which I find to be very rude. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Also I don't have much time to dig into your history but there are way more then just the ones you showed above. Now I'd like to note the only warning that you sourced is Amicon's RfA, otherwise the other replies have been gentle reminder. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
End of document ----------------


I am in two minds to some degree with this one. Mutter is actually quite a useful contributor to Commons. However the aggressive, uncooperative approach is really very trying. This is not about a dissenting voice - there are others who serve that role well & who are of value to the project - but about the almost complete disinterest in working collaboratively. The impact on others who wish to work here must also be taken into account. I for one am avoiding some of the work I have done here in the past because of the atmosphere which I see exemplified by the likes of Mutter.

I really would prefer not to see a ban/block - despite my block actions being rather large. Dialogue is always the preferred route to me. However Mutter's approach to that may mean a block might prove necessary unfortunately. --Herby talk thyme 11:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for avoiding you normally preferred "we".
What Kanonkas has collected above is what in Germany would be named: Heiße Luft (Hot air?), but it is not even hot. Interesting is for example that Kanonkas has found (it's on my talk page - no secret) that I was blocked for the "troll" two times (Giggy himself has apologized for that on his talk page, after being informed by Simplicius). But Kanonkas seems to have "forgotten" that unimportant detail. And so on.
Also interesting is, that you avoid a note about this molesting of a hard working user as me by 3 others, who had decided to place this "nothing" within 8 minutes (so quick, that they had some edit conflicts), later reverting my answer and so on. Is that the commons style you are lucky with?
The file File:No Israel.svg was 2 times restored by mattbuck and a third time by mike lifeguard - although there was a clear closed DR in January. See the file history on its talk page. That's against any rules. These facts should be focussed. Mutter Erde (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It was restored per a UDEL, so there's no issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed there is not an issue with that image any longer (the real issue was that it had been improperly deleted). There is however, an ongoing and long-term issue with Mutter Erde's behaviour. As Herby states, this is not about agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, but rather the method in which that opinion is expressed. For a long time, his behaviour has been overly aggressive, strident, and generally opposed to consensus-building of any sort. Most recently, this has escalated to blatant threats, which is totally unacceptable. Unless there is an immediate and significant change of attitude, I think we may see further behaviour of this sort. Ultimately, the path I see being followed leads to expulsion from the project. Disruption of this sort is unacceptable, even (especially!) from good contributors. I would hate to see blocks or bans in effect here, but the health of the community comes first. Slowly but surely, that health is being damaged by Mutter Erde.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Please add difflinks for your claims
I get more and more the impression, that my "crime" is having given mattbuck (and Julo) the chance, to delete both anti Israel pics by themselves - instead of starting a deadmin ([33] + [34] + [35]).
But it might be more senseful, that some users send both pics and their history to newspapers of their language. If only one of them asks Jimbo or the foundation for an official statement about these (and other) hate flags, we could save many more bits here, there and there. Mutter Erde (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerning this talk about "threats" - all of this is just virtual, there is no real threat. Mutter Erde has "threatened" with starting a de-admin request - so what? If an admin feels threatened by that and insecure of the outcome, he could resign instead of being ousted by a vote. People can have a meaningful life without administrator buttons. But here we have a bunch of admins threatening with bans, varying from a few months up to eternity, because they have been "threatened". Those are slightly more real threats, by people with the power to execute these virtual-world threats. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I felt threatened by the thought of someone trying to deadmin me, since I'm fairly sure I'd survive it. However, it seems to me that it was intended as a threat (/blackmail/ultimatum). Yes, I know it's not an RL threat, but there was no attempt here to persuade me, it's simply "do what I say or else". -mattbuck (Talk) 13:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to be rather soft spoken in evaluating the behaviour of others. I use phrasings like "seems" "might not be the best approach" and the like, to avoid direct characterisations. Not this time, I am afraid. Mutter Erde's approach is, in my view, confrontational, abrasive, uncooperative, obstructionist, anti consensus-building, arrogant-appearing, and in a few instances even threatening. (To forestall his expected reply: Sufficient diffs have been given already, asking for more diffs is a stalling tactic). In short, insufficiently collegial for the spirit of working together (dare I say COM:MELLOW-ness??) that most commons contributors wish this project to have.

So this may be a time to be COM:NOTMELLOW and make the point, with a block of say a week, that we, the community, are not kidding when we say we will not tolerate this behaviour as a routine or ongoing approach. Note that I have reason to believe based on communication that ME is a swell person in person, and further reason to believe that reasoning with him in person might do some good. But we shouldn't have to wait for that. ME needs to take away that there is need for a significant and immediate change in his approach. Now.

If this message gets through to not just ME, but also some others who have been less than collegial of late, so much the better. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Quite unfortunately, Mutter Erde is not alone in this sort of behaviour, though his stands above the rest as an example of what not to do.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with Lar's comments. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I would say this is a threat or? Until now no answer. And by the way: I can give difflinks Mutter Erde (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Mutter Erde: Statements such as this [36] are not acceptable. Please don't do such again. ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WHY ? Mutter Erde (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Time to decide

This discussion is obviously going nowhere. I think it has become clear, that Mutter Erde is not considering a change of his behaviour. Thus, I see no other way than blocking him indefinitely. Opinions? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Indefinite block here, as with every other project he's been involved with. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This is insane. I just had a look at Mutter Erde's gallery: 500 good images since August. But a bunch of admins is annoyed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, his behaviour is indiscussable. An indefinite-block is imperative. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I have no time to look deeper into this, but I have seen some statements of MutterErde that are not acceptable, but at the same he does lots of good work (and some of his statements are quite true...), so I don't think he should be indef blocked, and hope he would just continue with that good work he is doing without getting too emotinal and too unhöflich. Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
"unhöflich" = "Impolite" ;) Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 22:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pay attention, Pieter Kuiper, according to mike.lifeguard's Mutter Erde is not alone in this sort of behaviour of yesterday (without difflink, of course) you might be the next. Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
    I've heard enough. We have been talking about it for more than a hour now on #wikimedia-commons-admin. Whatever the quality of the work, such harassment is inacceptable; moreover, the user has been told several times (and blocked) that “trolling” and harassment are unwanted. Given the block log, blocking policy, the user's last contributions, and the consensus we had on IRC (4 people, 3 for it, nobody against) as well as above, the user has been blocked for a year, with email and user talk page editing disabled. Not that the user doesn't have potential (I see a good one), but he has an anti-collaborative behavior. This decision is in accordance with what everyone stated above and below. →Diti the penguin — 23:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
"This decision is in accordance with what everyone stated above and below." obviously You haven't read what is about and below. I must say I am quite annoyed how things are done on Commons lately. Deletion discussions are ignored and in undeletion requests comments are also ignored... Must one write in div tags to be heard? I guess so, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the decission was completely right. Diti has, in my eyes read everything properly and decided for a good way, even if I would have prefered indefinite (as on all the other projects). Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 23:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
His ultimatums were quite harassing, indeed, and he got quite a couple of warnings after that including one by myself. I haven't seen any continuation of this harassing activity after the warnings. His comments in this section did not raise much hope, though. But we should not forget that he is a quite useful editor. Beside his uploads he is currently quite busy in categorizing the images which were donated by the Bundesarchiv. Perhaps it is best to give a clear statement to him that we appreciate his contributions but that we will not accept any harassments. That he is invited to state his opinion in a deletion request and elsewhere politely but that he shall respect our processes and policies or leave this project. In summary, I agree with Spacebirdy and plead against an indefinite block this time. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So, I blocked him and disallowed email as well as userpage editing. Although it has been decided as it on IRC, a friend of mine told me that an IRC channel is not the way to have a good consensus. The decision was tough, but if it hadn't been me, it would have been another person. Anyway, I have a question: is blocking the possibility of the user to talk the right thing to do? Tough question as well. But think about his behavior more than his contributions. What do you think? →Diti the penguin — 23:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing it from IRC is not a good thing, but I honestly don't see Mutter Erde ever changing. While it's nice to have his work, we can all do without the attitude. I say unlock talk page, but not email. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)While IRC can't be consencus, I get the feeling that any user that can't respect other people and threaten them by any mean is in the wrong place here. Sometimes, it is better to get rid of problematics behaviours (understand blocking users until they understand they are doing wrong) while their other qualities might be exceptionnal. My opinion is that if you can be exceptionnal in one or several fields, you can definitely act reasonably and not threaten / hinder / harass the others persons. Esby (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

←Why was the talk page & e-mail blocked? Any abuse? --Kanonkas(talk) 23:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would recommend to let him edit his talk page and to use the email functionality as long as he is not abusing them. This was similarly handled in case of User:Juiced lemon. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done. →Diti the penguin — 00:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am very unhappy to see "per IRC" or whatever. A totally irresponsible use of that tool. Furthermore, Diti should know (ostensibly, they are a competent admin) that user talk editing and email should be permitted except where abuse has occured, or is sure to occur (ie Grawp et al). However, that's fixed now.

I don't see any consensus above; Diti's block was premature, in my mind. I would hope that we can come to a decision here about what to do. Until consensus is reached, I think the block should remain in place. Beyond that, I would not want to see Mutter Erde unblocked without sincere and believable admission of past errors, and clear efforts to reform. That is a high bar, given his rather egregious behaviour, particularly recently. Perhaps someone would take Mutter Erde under their wing while he is blocked & work with him to determine how he can change his behaviour to be a less volatile contributor. Until assured that further disruption to the project is unlikely, I would not unblock Mutter Erde.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

 Comment Perhaps I am considered as competent, it becomes useless when even the basic knowledge is not known. Be sure that I won't take care of block issues any more, unless they are obvious. Non-obvious issues are too dangerous and time-consuming (I should have had uploaded new Flickr photos at this moment, if people want to know). Now taking a break so I can be in company of my family (blocked until 02:22 UTC, December 25); I can still talk on my userpage, and I am assuming what I ded (a controversial block). Merry Christmas. →Diti the penguin — 02:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Without casting any aspersions on anyone, I don't think an hour or two long IRC discussion was the way to resolve this... more discussion is almost always better, and doing it on wiki is always to be preferred unless there's an emergency. I don't support an indefinite block at this time. With Mutter Erde's talk page unblocked (and let's leave it that way please) perhaps Mutter Erde can address the concerns the community raised ... if ME undertakes to stop the behaviour that many find troubling I would support an unblock... if on the other hand it becomes clear ME doesn't want to acknowledge the concerns others have and work to address them, then leaving blocked is the way forward. ME is a productive and prolific contributor. But that is not a free pass to bad behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the wording "IRC Consensus" indeed. I've been several times surprised by the rough rebellion and sometimes almost anarchist temper of Mutter Erde, but I think that this situation should be handled with a plan possibly followed by actions, not by actions with a potential plan as an afterthought. Anyway, a block of a year is equivalent as banning to me, a decision that should not be taken lightly. I have never been in conflict with Mutter Erde, but I think that an administrator should have a thick skin against insults in the heat of a conflict and not take them too personally. This is not a complaint against User:Diti, we should be a learning organisation where there is place for experiments and mistakes, by users and administrators. --Foroa (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Foroa's comments are thoughtful & intelligent here. I confess I find this rather worrying. I do not see an IRC consensus as being valid on wiki I'm afraid. I'll leave it a while but I am inclined to overturn this block. I only change other admins actions extremely rarely however I view this one as being ill advised. I do feel there should be real on wiki dialogue with ME even if the outcome is the same after it. While I have the longest block log on any Commons admin it is actually something I am reluctant to do as far as real contributors are concerned.
I must stress I find ME offensive in his behaviour, threatening & uncollaborative. However, as with de-admin requests, blocking is a last resort after all other methods have been tried.
ME and others have made the atmosphere on Commons quite unpleasant over the past little while as far as I am concerned. However I am comparatively inactive here at present so my views probably do not have the standing they might have done a while ago. However I also note concern from Spacebirdy & Mike (probably two of the Wikimedians I have the greatest of respect for). As such consensus on wiki does seem lacking.
I would urge ME to consider the impact his approach & views have on others on this project and would ask any with level heads to encourage & support constructive dialogue here. --Herby talk thyme 10:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with Foroa here. One minor difference though: This is a complaint against User:Diti on my part. I find it surprising to say the least to stumble across this block being decided upon in such an intransparent manner. It would have been appropriate for a more experienced and more seasoned administrator to handle this. Sure, ME can be a major annoyance, and no contribution record should ever justify incivilty and antisocial behaviour. But the very least an extensive contribution record should earn ME is a fair and thought out dealing with him/her. The way this was handled doesn't do commons a great service. --Dschwen (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not proposing a yardstick but I would say that even someone with only 5% the "contribution record" of ME is completely deserving of "a fair and thought out dealing with him/her" (a careful, reasoned, deliberative discussion, seeking a clear consensus and not acting in haste, with multiple chances to use less harsh methods if at all possible) ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course you are right, and it was not my intention at all to demand minimum contributions to be entitled to a fair treatment.. probably the classic A->B != B->A misunderstanding as known from statistics ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

As I wondered here, is it possible to plan to confirm, or infirm or or modify Diti decision about Mutter Erde ban so the decision is taken on Commons, by all active admins (edit: or active users), and not on IRC. I solely believe that a 1 year ban decision like that should not be taken on IRC without the consent / concensus of a majority of active commons admins/(edit:)users. I don't want to blame Diti, on that, that's not the issue, but I can only think of a temporary ban until an appropriate decision is taken or confirmed by a majority of admins. Any comments? Esby (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I agree (though consensus should be of users some of whom may be admins).
I certainly do not blame Diti at all. I am seriously considering amending the block to a week which should allow discussion. As I've said elsewhere I really would like to see some indication from ME that his approach is partly responsible for his problems. That would help the community to see that change was possible. --Herby talk thyme 14:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Well the procedure was inspired from fr wikipedia community where it involves the possibility for admins to do a communautary block. Now I have nothing against users voting or debating, as long it stays civil and ordonned. Esby (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)- (edit: edited the initial question. Esby (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

OK - I'll not be amending ME's block now. I've had an email which leaves me indifferent at best to unblocking him in any way at all. I'll withdraw from this idiocy again. --Herby talk thyme 15:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This created with me the impression that Mutter Erde had sent you a mail, and that you had perceived the communication as aggressive. According to User talk:Mutter Erde#Herby has got an email my impression was wrong. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately I do not care what your opinion is Pieter - your approach is almost as unpleasant (to me) as ME. All anyone need know is that I had an email, the content of which merely left me feeling that unblocking ME was pointless. It is my personal decision over a personal email. I have no intention of returning to the aggressive nonsense that is driving good folk away from Commons. --Herby talk thyme 19:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Although the block was indeed premature, and more discussion would have been sensible to seek a consensus first, I do not think it should be lifted for the moment. ME has brought this upon himself, and one look at the number of times he has already been blocked this year will show that an immediate reversal would not be right, particularly as no contrition whatsoever has so far been shown. I suggest a discussion and !Vote now about whether the block should be continued, and if so for how long. ME can contribute by posting to his talk page, and such contributions can be copied here as necessary. Keep comments below short, as it makes it easier to judge consensus. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Muttererde was never blocked for a period of more than 5days. Most blocks are only a few hours or 2days at most. A one month block would be in order before slapping on a 1y or even indef. --Dschwen (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note, as you know, ME is indefinitely banned on en.wp and de.wp, and he is evading those bans (as he admits on his talk page) simply to annoy us. Furthermore, he is UTTERLY unrepentant about his behaviour, and I don't think that will change whether we ban him for 5mins or 5 years. He is never going to change, and pretending that he might will just mean we repeat this conversation further down the line. Ban him for good, and leave the issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Should ME's block be continued, and if so what is the right period?

  1. Continue block for one year in the absence of any statement by ME that he will not engage in conflict. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Keep blocked - I trust Herby. If he has good reasons to keep ME blocked, I am happy to concur with him. That being said, I agreed anyway. ME's behaviour has been nothing but insulting and baiting throughout this entire process, as has that of his supporters. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Keep blocked - Sorry, but I don't have any good faith left for this one. I tried to help him get things right by apologizing and announcing a change of his behaviour, but he didn't do so. As he obviously intends to continue the behaviour, he has shown so far, a block is the only possibility I see here. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, and about the period: One year is fine by me, hopefully he will change in that time. If not, I also don't object an indefinite block. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Having reviewed this as a totally uninvolved person, I'm inclined to say Keep Blocked. rootology (T) 21:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. unblock. Calm down. Talk about a reasonable block time. Reblock. As I just wrote above ME has never been blocked for longer than 5 consecutive days. Even if ME can be pretty annoying, he/she deserves a little better. Retaining a block that was hastly executed like this doesn't do the project a big favour (there shouldn't even be a vote on this). --Dschwen (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Unblock Admins should have some skin. There should be no double standards. As long as admins swear and shout, or answer an enquiry with animal epithets in their edit summaries without being deadmined, they should not ban users for unpolished discussion. And please stop referring to anonymous communications off line to base decisions on. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC) After those letters to the NY Times, etc, this whole issue seems not so relevant. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Unblock and possibly block for a significantly shorter period — I concur with Dschwen. I do not think that it is now necessary to wait for a statement by Mutter Erde. We do not really need such statements or any apologies even if this would ease the process. His acts shall count, not his statements. So far, he was just blocked 2 hours and 5 days in another case in January 2008, and for some days in March 2008. This is, I think, no ground to block him for an entire year. In the unfortunate case that he continues with any harassments, we can still block him with periods of increasing length. At least he isn't biting newbies but admins who know how to find the COM:AN/U page. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. unblock and continue to normal, if a block is needed or not can be discussed on wiki, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  9. Reduce block to 3 weeks as a civility block in light of the e-mail that Mutter Erde sent to Diti. By unblocking Erde we may risk losing more contributors, instead of getting or earning respect on Commons & it's contributors. Also see this essay, part 3. Also Mutter Erde was recently blocked on en.wp for evading his ban over there. --Kanonkas(talk) 23:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    Change that. I fully agree with SB Johnny below. --Kanonkas(talk) 00:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  10. Reduce block to a duration that allows Mutter Erde to improve on the part he needs to. (I'd say between 1 and 4 months block.) Esby (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    Changing my opinion, I am following SB Johnny here, block until we get some evidence that he wants to improve his attitude. Esby (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    Unblock for Xmas, don't care what happen to this user after it. I ain't wasting more time to consider saving an user that do not want to be saved and does not care about the issues he creates.Esby (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  11. Reduce block to something shorter... say a week, as I proposed before. Invite Mutter Erde, on his talk page, to do some introspection, and undertake to be more collegial going forward. If he undertakes to do so, unblock early. If a week expires and he returns to the same behaviour pattern, lets try to get a more structured consensus about what to do next... perhaps an RfC or at least another discussion like this one (with support and oppose statements) rather than a free wheeling one that could fool someone into thinking there is consensus when there is not. And if a further block is required, it should be done by an experienced admin here who is prepared to take criticism over it, not an admin who hasn't had as much experience. ++Lar: t/c 23:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  12. Maintain block, until someone can either get him to agree to some ground rules, or make some clear ground rules that he needs to follow whether or not he agrees with them. Every good contributor is valuable, none is indispensable, and if one valuable contributor is causing this much stress to this many other valuable contributors, it's time to draw the line. --SB_Johnny talk 00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  13. Unblock. Consensus should not be formed on IRC (in a channel that I did not even know existed[!]), and an indef block is in any way inappropriate. --Kjetil_r 00:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  14. Unblock and possibly block for a significantly shorter period. Fully agree with AFBorchert. This smells (again) too much to revenge, people justice and lynchparties. It is not realistic to negotiate with a rebel character, just watch and strike back quickly when needed the next time. --Foroa (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  15. Unblock and possibly block for a significantly shorter period (3 days - 1 week) To my kind of view it has the smell of selffullfying prophecy and revenge. Mutter Erde is wellknown for his harsh mode of expression but also for his total dedication for image copyrights and art. If you take a look at his bloglog on de: you'd see that I had blocked him on de: in 2005[37] - so you cannot call me a really friend (w:de:Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung) of him, but commons is a better place with an active Mutter Erde. And I see this harsh mode of expression also on the side of Michael and Mike. (See Peter Kuiper) please stop referring to anonymous communications off line to base decisions on. --Herrick (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  16. Unblock A block of this length is little different from an indefinite block, and used this way pretty much a blunt instrument. If blocking is to be used, and I doubt that it is the most effective option, it should be used as part of an escalating response, 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc with each escalation coming with appropriate warnings and a chance of positive engagement. To slap ME with a 1 year block does nothing to solve ME's alleged incvility, and only serves to escalate any existing bitterness and resentment, and is bascially a lose/lose proposition. Unless of course the aim is to punish ME in which case ban away.KTo288 (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

#English is not my first language. So I went to the NET to find out what does the word "troll" means. The first hit was Wikipedia article: w:Troll (Internet). It stated: "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion". Well IMO the hate propaganda image and its description uploaded by osamak could be considered controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant and surely is provoking other users into an emotional response. So, may I please ask, if my understanding of the word "troll" is correct, and if it is, what is wrong with calling somebody, who is troll "troll"?

One more point, if I may, please. Administrator mattbuck called my absolutely legitimate removal of the wrong category from a hate propaganda image "vandalism", and in his very first "warning" said: " If you can't play with others, then you shouldn't be here".
Administrator Mike.lifeguard told me: "You will find yourself unable to edit if you cannot contribute constructively and cooperatively" for the same legitimate removal of the wrong category from a hate propaganda image. Should I consider those comments as threats? I do not think so (at least I was not scared a bit), and just to be fair and balance I believe we should. IMO he did not threaten anybody either. Isn't this ironic that a user, who fights against no value, hate propaganda images is blocked for illusive "threatening" somebody, while the image itself with its hateful description, the image that is really threatening to the whole country and her people is getting protected (I mean it. The hate propaganda image was really protected by Mike.lifeguard) . Is this really what Commons is about?. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)BLOCK FOR GOOD--Mbz1 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. Keep bloked His recent actions on his talk clearly pointed out that he does not want to change his attitute towards other contributors. abf /talk to me/ 17:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Make it a reasonable block - Mutter Erde is ultimately just proving to be a problem. Here's reasoning: 1) We do not accept constant bullying and threatening of other editors, even when it comes to vandals or disruptive users. We warn, we do not threaten, bully, or blackmail. Mutter Erde does not seem to understand this, and is making our time harder, when we can put it in to the ultimate goal of this project, making a useful galleria of images for the free people to see. 2) I do believe that evading blocks and just being a pain on other projects is wrong. One thing I would say that would rectify this, is to use certain blocks that can be done on all wikis, but this is not necessary. As with the user below, I would suggest coming up with a mentor for him, and a period of probation for his editing and contributing. This is the usual good approach :).Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 16:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Unblock, find a reasonable sort of communication and please do not transwikify problems. -- Simplicius (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    We tried. We tried and tried and tried. We (as in those of us who want ME banned) never transwikified the problem, it's simply history repeating itself. Throughout this entire fiasco ME has shown nothing but contempt for everyone, has threatened several more people with de-adminship, both here and on other projects, and has tried to blackmail the entire project by writing to several major newspapers about how we all hate israel. He has even STATED that he is not interested in changing, so I don't think we have any choice here. Is it sad to see someone who does good work go? Yes. But frankly the amount of time saved by not having to deal with this sort of thing more than makes up for it. I can't count the number of hours I've spent arguing here. Abusive users should be banned. Mutter Erde is an abusive user. Mutter Erde should be banned. I think it's quite an indictment that Herby, probably the most level-headed person on this project, has decided that enough is enough. He's right, enough is enough - enough with this endless debate on what should be done. Let's get on with our lives. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. until 1. january 2009 than unblock Bunnyfrosch (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Spinoff discussion

  1. "irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community", sadly your point does partially qualify here to the troll definition, we are discussing Mutter Erde overall attitude in this subsection, we are not discussing of your issues with particular admins or a group of them or particular distant related problems. I'll strongly suggest to move your text in an appropriate section or subsection. Esby (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you, Esby, for taking your time to respond. Your message means that my understanding of the word "troll" is right! Of course you and everybody else might believe that my prior post is "irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community". May I please ask you to feel free to call me troll, and please do not be sad because of this? I will not get offended because I strongly believe that my point is relevant. See, because I'm having a difficult time to express myself in English, it is easier for me to provide some examples to stress (should I say "stress out"? Sorry, never know how to write the right English.) my points. Here I provided examples with the two administrators, who are involved in the current issue, but I understand that some people like you for example might consider its irrelevant. I still cannot understand how my "irrelevant" point made you have such an "emotional response" as calling me "troll", but I'm glad that my point motivated you for such strong emotions. May I please also mention that IMO you change your opinion a little bit too often? Please have a good day!--Mbz1 (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    I moved out your point, what was asked there is what to do about ME case, not what you think of some admins. If you feel that ME should be unblocked or not, or anything, feel free to add a statement expressing what you actually think in the corresponding section. Esby (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not sure you have the authority to move my opinion out, especially, if you yourself have no opinion at all (I mean you said you do not care what happen to this user after Xmas.) As I explained earlier I provided only few recent examples of so called "threats" to justify my opinion about unblocking ME. Please notice I have no problems with admins, and even with you calling me "troll". BTW You also said: " I ain't wasting more time", so may I please ask why are you still wasting your time? BTW how to say this right in English: "I am not or I ain't wasting more time"? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    It's not about authority, it's about posting relevant things and not mixing together other matters, supposed they actually exist. Your canvassing about my opinion change is nil and misplaced. I can change my opinion, you can also change yours, as most people here can do. I also did not called you a troll, you started your opinion with the troll definition, I just mentioned that most of it was out of topic. Oh well, there is something that still amuses me here, ME is probably going to be blocked, not today, maybe tomorrow, maybe in one month, maybe in six, it's just a matter of time, unless he changes his ways of dealing with people not agreeing with him. We are discussing right now if we should unblock or let him blocked, but we are not going to have a consensus about the decision to take, starting by undoing the 1 year block, possibly to void or reduct the block. So the funny part is that he stays blocked because we can't even agree on unblocking him, what ever a new legitimate block should be applied or not, because we have to discuss here of unrelated matters, so in the end, we waste time and he stays blocked during that wasted time, so all I can say is "merry Xmas!" Funny, isn't it? Esby (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Mutter Erde's threats and bullying

We now know from ME's talk page, at User talk:Mutter Erde#Herby has got an email, that in response to an apology from Diti, Mutter Erde sent this email:

  • I give you the good advice to retire. Otherwise I will post your 3+1 chat consense as a running gag around the web for the next years, again and again and again. If you are an admin on other projects , I would retire there too. btw: Who were the other chat buddies, except abf ?. I guess firstly he has set this trap for you. Merry Christmas

This is, in my view, quite clearly a threat to hound Diti for "years" across multiple wikis. Such threats, whether on or off wiki are quite unacceptable and lead me to conclude that an indefinite ban is the only option now. ME has made no attempt to apologize, nor even to indicate that he will restrain himself in the future, Instead, he appears to be revelling in the fight, and attempting to drum up support by writing to national newspapers (see his talk page). ME has personally soured the atmosphere at Commons for many months now, and I think there is no option but to ensure he leaves, as has already happened on the English and German Wikipedias. Of course, admins must be able to deal with the odd bit of name-calling, but this goes much further and amounts to a threat of long-term bullying, which I have no doubt will be carried into practice if he is unblocked. Do you remember how bullies operated at school, and how the life of a victim can be made hell by the repeated and insistent use of mocking and name-calling? That is exactly what is happening here. Mutter Erde is no more than a schoolboy bully, and bullies should never be allowed to get away with their actions unchallenged. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Michael here. ME is obviously not able to see dissens on an abstract layer, but always thinks ppl not agreeing with his views are his opponents and have to be fought by all possible means on all possible occasions. See e.g. his crossposting of the Gryffindor deadminship request across all different projects and across all kinds of pages on Commons (e.g. here in a completely unrelated discussion), the posting on Commons:Forum (direct link) which once more shows that he still thinks he is right and where he stylizes himself as the victim of the admins (almost like some kind of martyr fighting for the greater cause) and especially his postings on his talk page. He gives us every possible sign to tell us that he is right and we are wrong. As I interpret this whole discussion, there is consensus that his behaviour is inacceptable, so I don't understand why people object to blocking him. I agree, he is doing some good work on Commons, but that alone is not enough. The best worker should be dismissed, if he cannot behave. ME seems to be one of these persons unwilling to restraing themselves and incapable of self-criticism. I do not see how we can work together productively on the long run with these persons. Commons is a community project, so this is not the right place for anyone just pissing people off for no or little reason. IMHO by blocking ME we will do Commons a greater service than by losing all the users he attacks over time. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. ME was blocked because of his threatening behaviour, and this shows that he has made no effort at all to change, or even be courteous to others. His work may be missed, but the removal of his attitude will be a godsend to all of us. As well as an indefinite block, I also recommend fully protecting his talk page and removing his email rights. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I have said already I would strongly prefer that ME make some overture showing he understands the issues and will try to not let them happen in future. However what I see is more of the same disruptive, belligerent, non-collegial behaviour. I think a block until and unless he does say something different, something positive and constructive and giving reason to believe that he will address these patterns... a block until then is the best (most efficient) choice. I'm not averse to unblocking but on the first sign of unacceptable behaviour, would want to see it reinstated. ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why we would unblock without some indication that his behaviour will change if we do so. At present, I'd not be prepared to unblock him since I see only indications he'd continue the problematic behaviour you refer to. Unless he makes motions to change that (convincing ones) then I don't see the block being lifted anytime soon.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I shan't, myself, unblock him, but I also will not oppose some other administrator from doing so. If no administrator chooses to do so that's that. If some admin does so, I (and I am sure many other admins) will watch carefully and will reblock at the first sign of the sort of behaviour that has brought us to this point. Make sense? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I just really prefer to give every chance for resolution here, if possible. ++Lar: t/c 23:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Bam! Lar hit it right on the nose. Its mainly up to the deciding administrator. No one has to do it. I do wish though that we give him a large probation period (see above reasoning).Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, if there's no consensus to unban him, I intend to block his email and talk page editing rights - he's only using them to antagonise people. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
More than that. If you look at his talk page, you'll see that he already started to apply his threat to me (actually, he did so as soon as he noticed that I won't reply to his email). I've seen worse, but keep i mind that I'm not the only person to have been threatened in the past months. Well, all I know is that, if he's not indefinitely blocked, we will still have future issues with him in the future (people are still waiting for his promises not to start threatening people again). I abstained myself from voting because I was involved in the conflict, but with my vote and without this written promise, half of the people is for an indefinite block. Just for your information. →Diti the penguin — 02:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Lar, please don't unblock. He has had chances enough and he had also the chance to say on his talk "I apoligize and I promise, I will try to change my editing habbits" (I mysef would immediately have unblocked in that case). But he did the complete opposite of this, so I have to agree with mattbuck to say that a talkpage-block is needed. I am very sory. abf /talk to me/ 09:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I see consensus here. The continual sniping etc on his talk page is disruptive & unproductive, we have better things to do with our time. I've reblocked for editing talk & email. Overturn if other see fit however. --Herby talk thyme 10:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I counted. There where seven votes for keeping a block (1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 18), thirteen votes for an unblock or shorter block (5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20). Therefore, 1 year (see blog) seems to be a bit over overdrawn for calming down a user who is showing quite a good work concerning images as soon as the toolserver will work (see database). -- Simplicius (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason for this block is his behaviour. Unless he changes this, he will not be unblocked and will certainly be reblocked after a year, should he continue like this. As he has not changed while he was blocked, I don't see a reason to assume that he will change in the near future. Having reviewed the blocks on the other projects, I honestly don't think he will change in a year. His block on dewiki was in 2005 and he showed the exact same behaviour he has now continued on Commons. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to transwikify here. According to the majority a shorter period of blocking will do as well. Simplicius (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not the one who is transwikifying, he is the one transwikifying his behaviour. He was not blocked on Commons for his behaviour on dewiki, but for bringing this behaviour from dewiki to Commons. As this users keeps showing the same pattern since 2005, I don't see why he should change that much in a year, as he didn't change for at least 3 years. Also not that this is not a majority vote, as there are no restrictions on suffrage on Commons. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. "Consensus" was clear, blocked for ever and ever, user page blocked, a bit back kicking... Neatly erased user and talk pages. Buried. A neat way of pushing consensus and burying the problem. A nice Christmas gesture. --Foroa (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you don't understand. The indef-bann was for editing as a one year banned user. It was a checkuserblock. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 13:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Or we understand even better. Simplicius (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mbz1

Mbz1 (talk · contribs) seem to be on a crusade here (despite the message on his/her user page saying he is, on his own wish, no longer active on Wikimedia-Commons), but now I think he has stepped over the line. He is saying I am involved in bombing busses[38] a second issue is the disruption to prove a point, something he seem to be well aware of[39][40]. // Liftarn (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I came back to fight hate propaganda images tha you upload to commons and I am not sorry I'm doing this!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, such accusations are not acceptable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


Muttbuck, remember I told you that bringing you up, I was actually bringing up myself? Here we go.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Mbz1 (talk · contribs) now also has accused me of uploading "hate propaganda".[41] Considering that I have as far as I know never done such a thing it's a very uncivil comment. // Liftarn (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You uploaded File:Bombman.gif;File:Palestine by Latuff by Latuff2.jpg just to name a few. They are one sided images that do not tell even half of the story about the real situation in the region. Because of that I consider them to be hate propaganda images. Uploading these hate propaganda images (one more insult for your collection) was not enough for you. You crusaded against my image that was telling the truth about how homicide bombers are really made starting with brainwashing Palestinian kids by hamas tv.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Mbz1, can you please settle down so we can get back to our regularly scheduled programing? J.smith (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess I should that Commons could continue to upload and to keep hate propaganda, no value images witout any disruption. Still I'd like to add that I am not sorry for anything I've said and done for the last few days here on Commons. I also believe that both my images in questions should have been allowed to go through normal deletion request process.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW, if you believe that I am the one, who disrupt your schedule what to you think about user:Liftarn, who is uploading endless copyvio images and one more?I guess he is fine because between endless copyvio images he uploads some public domain anti Israeli images.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's blocking time now as Mbz1 (talk · contribs) neither show any remorse[42] and continue flinging insults.[43][44] // Liftarn (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no remorse at all. I am standing behind every word I said here because I am fighting for the right cause. Are you out of numbers yet?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
"fighting for the right cause"? You disagree with some political cartoons and overreact badly. Why not just agree to disagree? // Liftarn (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
You call the images "political cartoons". I call them w:Propaganda.The article states: "Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented." That's why I uploaded my images (only two) to show the other side of the story (the correct one), and as we all know they got deleted.That's why I call my cause the right one.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
And you believe the other side isn't propaganda? The point is to look at both sides and judge for yourself. However, I'm not sure I agree with a block on this issue. I suggest Mbz1 back off for a week or so, and come back with a clear head. There is no right or wrong answer, but a hard-line attitude such as his present one helps no one. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understood your question, mattbuck. If you meant, if I believe the images I uploaded to be propaganda,I do not. The description of my image with the name "It is easy to make a homicide bomber" provided a source for the every point, which was made in the image. They image contained correct information, but of course it did not tell the whole story either. The idea was to show this "other side" you're talking about. IMO "other side" is missing on Commons now.Thanks mattbuck, for not asking to block me, but my block is not nearly as important to me as the cause I fight for, and believe it is not a matter of "clear head." I said excatly what I think and feel about the issue.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
No political cartoon can tell the whole story of a very long and very complex conflict simply because the story is way too long, even if we start the story with w:1948 Arab–Israeli War, when Arab states rejected the 1947 w:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) that would have created an Arab state and a Jewish state and instead started the war, or maybe we should start the story with The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, w:Amin al-Husayni, the Chairman of the w:Arab Higher Committee,who collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II? w:Golda Meir said:"The Arabs will stop fighting us when they love their children more than they hate Jews." 40 year later this is still not the case in part because of hate propaganda. The only thing I want is the peace in the region, peace for everybody Palestinians and Jews alike. Commons is a very powerful tool to help this peace to come about.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
In what way does disrupting Commons and flinging insults around you help bring peace? And why attack a cartoonist that also wants to bring peace and understanding to the conflict? // Liftarn (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I've repeated many times already that IMO one sided, hate propaganda, false cartoons cannot bring the peace. They could bring hate and deaths to the region which has suffered a lot already.I am afraid we're talking different languages.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, Latuff is showing a side of the conflict we don't see. We see things from the Western prespective, where Jews are the victims, as they have been in our society for the past 2000 years or more. What Latuff shows us is the war from the other side, where people see Israeli aggression and merciless killing. It's no surprise they want to kill Israelis when that is what they see. Having these images is important, because we all too often dehumanise the "enemy" - no matter what our governments may say, our enemies are people too. Rational people who have their reasons for doing what they do. Maybe they wouldn't do it if someone wasn't telling them it was a surefire way into heaven, but there is always some explanation as to why. People don't blow themselves up unless they have nothing in this world that they feel is worth living for. THAT sense of mind is what the cartoons show us - that the enemy are not all faceless killers, they are just as much victims as we are. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
(sigh) Mattbuck, while I sympathize with your point - we shouldn't fall into the trap of arguing morality. There is no way to "finish" that argument. Commons is not here to end the violence in that region.
In any case, if a notable pro-Israel/anti-Palestine artist released a collection of work into the public domain (or a free license) then we would be hosting some of those images as well. Mbz1, your confused - simply hosting the image for educational purpases does not mean we condone the content in any way. Read the Commons:General_disclaimer. --J.smith (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against killers and murderers blow themselves up. The more the better. I am very much against, if in the process they're killing kids and pregnant women, elderly and disabeled, Jews and Muslims alike. No, homicide bombers and the ones, who send them are beasts, not humans. They do not care who is killed, they only care how many. Sure, they do not blow themselves up for nothing. They want Palestine from the river to the sea with no Jews around. Yes Palestinians are victims, but not because of Israel. Palestinians and Israelis are victimized by islamic iihad, w:hamas, w:hezbollah and so on. Did September 11 killers also were "victims" and we should justify their actions because as you said "People don't blow themselves up unless they have nothing in this world that they feel is worth living for "? I'm sure latuff has something "nice" about them too. I also wanted to ask you, mattbuck, how you know about "Israeli aggression and merciless killing", if Western media covers the conflict from one side only? I wanted to ask you, but I will not. your statement "...Jews are the victims, as they have been in our society for the past 2000 years or more" said it all. Who are you to talk abot the history and the sufferings of Jews with such sarcasm? I do no need to know anything more about you, mattbuck.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

With sarcasm? They HAVE been the victims for 2000 years or so - they've been persecuted regularly by the Christians for killing Jesus, and before that I don't believe the Romans were too fond of them. That's just truth, and if you interpreted it as sarcasm, that's a shame. However, a history of persecution does NOT excuse the killing of innocent civilians. How do I know that this is happening? Because it is bound to be - whenever trying to kill "terrorists" who hide among civilians, said civilians get killed. That and the BBC is generally fairly nonpartisan - in fact it has (iirc) a lot of people complaining because it doesn't call palestinians terrorists. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing you have said in the above paragraph has anything to do with commons. We are not here to decide who is evil and who is good. We are to provide media that is within our project scope. --J.smith (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we please stop arguing about the content of the images? Yes(!) they're propagandistic, hateful, one-sided etc. But all that is irrelevant. We can cut through all that by focusing on the real issue: Mbz1's behaviour. What I see here is truly atrocious disruption to make a point & a total lack of understanding of why that is problematic (and indeed promises to continue indefinitely). That's not OK, whether or not you're right & whether or not you think you're right. Having the angels on your side for one more good fight1 doesn't mean disruption of Commons is acceptable. I would hope Mbz1 can take some time away from Commons to calm themselves down - enforced if necessary. If in that time they can understand that keeping images on Commons doesn't mean we condone what the image is saying then they'll have understood a central tenant of the Enlightenment that will serve them well here. More realistically, I would expect they would understand that disruption of the project is unacceptable under any circumstances & will pledge in a convincing way to cease doing so immediately.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've commented here.
Unlike some Commons users Mbz1 is not particularly disruptive however they must behave somewhat better than they have.
Can I ask admins who are disturbed by threat of de-admin to consider the position of users who are threatened with blocking too quickly. Threats are unpleasant in either direction & to be avoided. Let us have rational discussions about the scope of the project not threaten to block people whose views are not in accord with our own. --Herby talk thyme 11:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not about Latuff, this is not about who is most to blame in the Middle East, but this is about Mbz1's demonstrative behaviour and about his wild accusations against other contributors. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support giving a sitdown period with mentoring Mbz1, to make him into a useful contributor. I do see some problems, but I believe things can be solved with peer mediation.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 16:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly be helpful Mitch. Mbz1 appears to be, ignoring this issue, a valuable contributor and it would be unfortunate if blocks had to be imposed to deal with the recent disruption. It seems he's allowed himself to be distracted by whatever political views he holds. Adambro (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


I'd like to sum, if I may please:
I'd like to thank, everybody, who commented here and who left comments on my talk page to address the issue. First I'd like to say for what I am sorry please. I am sorry that I discussed "who is evil and who is good". I agree, it was not the right place. I also like to say sorry to muttbuck about my sarcasm comment. That's it. I am not sorry about anything else. So, if you like to block me, please be my guest! If you consider my block, may I please ask do not get discouraged by the value of my contributions. After all Commons have so many valuable contributors, but me, including user:Liftarn, who uploads countless copyvio images. I do not know why nobody believes the user disrupts the schedule of the commons. Is it because between all copyvio uploads he uploads some public domain hate propaganda images? Once again I got off the topic. We came here to discuss behavior of Mbz1 and not Liftarn. Sorry about this.
Before I'm blocked may I please ask a few questions? I created and uploaded three freely licensed images made out in photo shop from a few images that I took from English Wikipedia and Commons. One of my images apparently contained a single image that did not have a free license. I was the first one to vote it to be deleted. Two other images did not contain copyrighted images. The images descriptions clearly provided links to all images used to create mine. They all were released in public domain as well as the images I made out of them. Yet they were deleted by solo admin action. So my question is why my images (that were not copyvio) were not allowed to go through a normal deletion process? Let's assume my images were out of scope, still I do not believe that a solo admin has an authority to decide what is and what is not in the scope. I also believe that there are hundreds images on Commons that are out of scope, but nobody cares to delete them. Just the opposite - File:No Israel.svg was protected by Mike.lifeguard.Of course I understand Mike is a lifeguard. He should protect something :=) I got an impression that some users got somehow threatened by my images. I wish I knew why.
In the message left on my talk page Herby wrote: "Please deal with all media that may not be appropriate not a small sub section that bothers you". Of course I fully agreed with this statement, so I went to look what else could be nominated to be deleted. Anti-American hate propaganda images are almost as popular as Anti-Israel hate propaganda images, there was no use do deal with those.They would be kept and protected anyway. So, I tried to find something that may not be appropriate about Islam. I am very glad to report you - I could not find anything. We have not a single hateful caricature of Mohammad. If we had, I would have been the first one to request it to be deleted. Here the images in category Islam. Once again I see nothing to deal with. May I please ask, everybody, to tell me what images you believe should be dealt with from any category, and of course I'll be ready for a fair review of those images.
I'd like to add please that I think that even, if my behavior disrupted Commons schedule somehow, I still believe that some screaming admins and admins, who deleted my images without allowing a normal deletion process, disrupted Commons schedule much more than I did.
I guess I'll leave you here, but the images I uploaded to Commons during a year and half I spent on Commons are here to stay. Although the images have nothing to do with politics, they will fight hate propaganda images as I will (except you will block them too) because I took them and each and every one of them has a part of my soul.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You are a good man, bro. You stood up and said your piece. I would wish you would stay. I can offer to mentor you if you'd like. You are a good contributor, just a few kinks to fix :) - I really wish you would think about it.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I dislike being implied to be a screaming admin, and I stand by my reasoning - bugs bunny is a copyright character, even if the particular image is from a cartoon which is public domain. I don't see any reason why you should be blocked if you agree not to try and disrupt commons processes again. I find your viewpoint doesn't match my own, but that's fine, and I respect your right to such a view. Welcome it even. The point is that your uploading these images was, and you stated this much, an attempt to disrupt commons. That is not right. We have ALL wasted hours of our time here arguing and got precisely nowhere. We should all just drop it and find something more productive to do. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattbuck, I think it is time to recuse yourself from this situation. If you could just let this end. It is unnecessary to go any farther, and things can be solved. Mbz1, I wholeheartedly suggest taking my offer, and this should help some things. Case closed as far as I am concerned.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering he doesn't regret anything and still continues his personal attacks[45] I think you have some work to do. // Liftarn (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

One week block

Based on some of the feedback here and the particularly nasty nature of some of his attacks, I blocked Mbz1 for a week so that this can get sorted out, hopefully without him accusing people all over the project of terrorism and other very nasty things. My block can get undone like any of my action stuff if it needs to be; you don't need to run it by me first. I know some of you are against blocking, and I seriously don't mind if it gets undone, but accusing someone of inciting terror attacks and stating you're only here to remove political image (distasteful as they may be) isn't a good thing... rootology (T) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't oppose the block, but I do think it should be uplifted until decisions and resolutions are made. Understand, that we don't want to war over something such as this.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There are three examples given of unacceptable behaviour. I'll try to quote the bits I think Rootology has taken offence to:
"[46][47][48] are just not acceptable." --Rootology
1. "Isreali busses do get bombed because of you, liftarn and others like you" --Mbz1
This is clearly unacceptable. Mbz1 needs to accept that there are reasons why commons should sometimes host vile things. Hosting an image does not endorse that image.
2. "I am not sorry that I uploaded the image" --Mbz1
This is not on its own grounds for blocking, but it is unfortunate. I don't think that Mbz needs to stop his attempts to change our current policy on hosting this material, but he needs to agree to proceed in a constructive way.
3. ":If you are to block me, please block me indefinitely because I will never stop fighting hate propaganda, fascists images and people, who support them!" --Mbz1
Much the same as above. As per 1, fighting hate propaganda is good but disrupting any wikipedia to do so is not. There are other ways. And as per 2, not everyone who supports hosting these images does so because they agree with the creator of the images.
If Mbz will agree to continue his fight using only constructive methods, I think everyone should agree to an immediate unblock. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd support an unblock under these circumstances. Mbz1 was reasonable when I spoke to him last week on his talk page. I'd really like to see us try to work to defuse tensions if we can, as right now the road we're on? I'm not liking it so much. Things need de-escalation, not escalation. ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the ball is in Mbz1's court. I'll unblock him right now if I think he understands these issues and will work constructively with others while avoiding similar problematic behaviour. {{unblock}} is only an edit away.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this block, I don't agree with the speedy deletion. I do see Commons becoming increasingly like Wikipedia. Obviously I am the one "out of step" here so I think I will be gone fairly soon now. --Herby talk thyme 08:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ben Aveling gave only a partial quote of 2. where Mbz1 wrote: "If you are to block me, please block me indefinitely because I will never stop fighting hate propaganda, fascists images and people, who support them!" Unblock only if Mbz1 retracts accusations of supporting fascism, and his accusations that uploading images by Latuff supports terrorism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I would oppose to this block. A block should be the last option to protect commons, I dont believe we came to that point yet. I would like to see a unblock but also a complete deletion reqeust. The image was nominated for deletion by me and deleted las than a day later. I can understand the behavior, he is trying to protect something he created. Why don't give we the change to make use from the image so it is in te scope. When he gets a unblock we show some good faith. When he doesn't change his behavior we come to a point he needs to be blocked. But now, not yet. Give him a change to change. Abigor talk 09:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
He's already had plenty of time to change his behaviour and hasn't done, in fact, he's said that he intends never to stop his campaign. Whilst there is nothing wrong with simply wanting Latuff's works to be deleted, there are proper ways of doing this. Mbz1's method has been to state that anyone who supports these images (or at least the hosting of them on Commons) is effectively encouraging terrorism, to upload self-created images which are completely beyond the scope of the project to use as a soapbox for his views of Latuff's works, and to selectively encourage those users who he suspects will support his viewpoint to vote delete in the relevent deletion requests by messages on their talk page. He's shown no desire to cease this disruptive campaign and constructively discuss Latuff's images in a calm manner with reference to our policies and guidelines rather than his personal view of Latuff's art. This block will serve to reduce the disruption he has been causing and looks likely to, in the immediate future, persist in causing. Adambro (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, we don't need him to stop his campaign, so long as he is prepared to conduct it in a non-disruptive manner. Also choosing my words carefully, in the posts for which he was blocked, Mbz1 doesn't accuse anyone specific of supporting fascism or terrorism. "Isreali busses do get bombed because of you, liftarn and others like you" is accusing Liftarn of taking actions that will encourage terrorism, but it and the other cited posts fall short of accusing anyone of knowingly or wittingly supporting terrorism or fascism. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Well put Ben (& thanks for that). I agree --Herby talk thyme 11:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
If you read through what I said above, I already acknowledged that there is nothing wrong with him wanting to get Latuff's images deleted, the problem is how he's been going about this. It really isn't necessary to spend time analysing every detail of what he's said when it is obvious that the nature of his comments are well beyond what would be described as civil and appropriate. Adambro (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Ben Aveling 11:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Mbz1 was unblocked, which like I said I had absolutely no problem to begin with, and I hope everything works out now for the best. rootology (T) 01:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

He still seems to think it's OK to accuse other users of being terrorists[49]. // Liftarn (talk)
Let's assume he's turned over a new leaf as of the moment he was unblocked. I haven't seen the same patten since then, which is most welcome. Until that changes, Mbz1 is a reformed & now-constructive user in my eyes. I'd hope the same would be said of others as well.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

90.184.6.158; deletions of image descriptions from Flickr

90.184.6.158 (talk · contribs) has been deleting many descriptions of architecture. The cases that I checked were informative texts. Maybe everything should be restored. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: I now see that all descriptions were by Flickr user seier+seier. Maybe that user is reserving copyright on the texts? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_7&oldid=372572716"