Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: [[:]]

This page is for any user to report a problem with a user. Please feel free to post a new request. Remember to sign and date all contributions, using "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp.

Admins: once you've dealt with a request, please make a note, so that other admins don't waste time responding to it.

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Usernames to be checked

moved to Commons:Village pump#Download A .SVG File? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Editor at Large (talk • contribs) at 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user have a history of verbal abuse and disruption to prove a point (see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 7#Mbz1 and now he's at it again. Both verbal abuse[1] (including in edit comments[2]) and removal of valid categories[3][4]. The last time he did such things it resulted in a one week block (later cut short). // Liftarn (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Both users recieved a time out block, the where bot involved in a big editwar and we dont accept that here on Commons Abigor talk 21:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Abigor.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to address the issue of repeated personal attacks. // Liftarn (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Again familiar all faces. Hi Pieter, I understand you do not feel comfortable. After all you yourself uploaded the very image that won the second place in the International Holocaust Denial Cartoon Competition. I'm only calling the things with their real names, nothing else.
For admins: Please do with me as you wish, but while I'm not blocked I'm afraid I have no choice but trying to prevent Commons from becoming a laughable institution of promoting latuff propagada. And it was my last post here. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1, I'm sorry if you disagree, but Latuff's work is within scope, and frankly it is about politics of Palestine/Israel. We host propaganda willingly - because it has historical significance if nothing else. We host propaganda from every side, or would if they released it freely, and leave it up to the individual user to decide which is right. I'm, sorry if you feel that Latuff is wrong and hateful, but that's really no reason to delete these things or move them out of the categories. It's certainly no reason to call people names. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I agree with mattbuck. For propaganda, we have the same requirements as for any other image. Naturally something that is called propaganda may be illegal to spread (in the U.S.), and we don't host that. Such cases are extremely rare and I have personally never encountered such material on Commons. Also, some propaganda may be "personal artwork" without widespread circulation, and therefore outside our project scope. But the principal still holds: we have the same requirements for all media files. Samulili (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Mbz1 again in light of his continued disruptive behaviour in edit warring over categories which is simply the latest in his disruptive campaign against the images by Latuff. Adambro (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thank you, everybody for the comments. I take a full responsibility for the edit warring. I started it and the block was fair. IMO Liftarn should not have been blocked for edit warring.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hi, Liftarn. Back already? You know what was the funniest part of my two last blocks? It was that every time you asked to block me we were blocked together. I could not stop laughing, I still do. What do you think about this? Was it funny for you too?
I've already proven beyond the reasonable doubt that some of latuff caricatures are antisemitic pictures and are hate propaganda. You upload them to Commons, add bogus categories to them while refusing to add the right ones, which are antisemitism and racism. How else you want me to call your actions? Oh, and btw I might have considered that "it" ( he/she/it) as PA, but because that "it" comes from a person(?), who does spread hate propaganda and antisemetic pictures all over Commons, I am not really concern about this "it" and not going to press charges. Please have a nice day and enjoy the break in our blocks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it quite amusing that you use the user problem noticeboard to continue your utterly unfounded personal attacks. // Liftarn (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that both parties refrain from commenting further here at the current time. No new issue has been raised. This section is not intended to provide a place for anyone to repeatedly air their grievances about Mbz1 or anyone else. It is unfortunate that whilst Liftarn suggests that Mbz1 shouldn't be using the "user problem noticeboard to continue your utterly unfounded personal attacks", they themselves have not helped with this issue by stirring things up immediately upon their return from a block. Please, no more. It is not in the interests of the community and certainly not in the interests of the users involved if they at all value their privilege of being allowed to contribute to the Wikimedia Commons project. Adambro (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Adambro. I'm sorry for the post I made in response to Liftarn post. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you are not sorry any more.[5] // Liftarn (talk)

Mbz1 now uses edit comments ([6], [7]) to make accusations of spreading hate. He also makes allegations about sock puppets. Please do a check user on me. And make this guy shut up. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper when Adambro mentioned that he believed IP user might be you, and you did not say "no", I assumed that it was so. I should not have assumed it. It was wrong. I am sorry for this. I wish I were able to say that I am sorry for everything else.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame this on Adambro. He did "not suggest" that I was reverting as an IP number. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask everybody involved to stop discussing here. This discussion is not needed. If all involved ignore the other users we can just move on. Abigor talk 10:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If all involved ignore the ... - The problem is, publicly writing "... to one, who spreads hate, antisemitism and racism all over Commons not only himself, but using a sockpuppet." addressed at a clearly identified user (and even real-life person) may already be libel. Though I'm not yet suggesting legal action against the culprit, the Commons community cannot tolerate or simply ignore personal attacks of such a severity.

Another point: While I've to admit that I didn't like Latuffs political cartoons from the very beginning, IMHO we should seriously think about hosting them any longer as they have already caused so many problems within the Commons community. And to those crying "not censored": these cartoons are available at enough other sites on the net.--Túrelio (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in agreement with Túrelio here.

I am delighted that Commons is not censored, However it is intended as an educational project. Images that spread & create bad feeling and hatred some - to me - to be outside my views of what Commons is for & about.

Further, media that causes valuable Commons user to argue, cause disruption & take up time of others would seem to be of little real use. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it easy to blame these images but they themselves don't cause problems, it is of course individual editors who do. It seems we have people who really hate these images and people who might be wanting to promote them. We've had deletion requests about these image and there was no consensus to delete them. My biggest concern is that this consensus might change because of the challenges faced in dealing with users who are determined to cause disruption. We should be concious that those who don't like them will find the disruption convenient since it is increases the chance the the community might support the deletion simply because they want rid of the hassle they bring. Wikimedia Foundation projects cover an amazingly broad range to topics. To not host certain media files because they offend some individuals would harm our ability to properly serve these projects. If the Commons community doesn't wish for this to happen, and values our not censored policy which forms an important part of preserving the usefulness of the proejct, then they have to understand that people who don't like the images will do anything to try to have them deleted. It worries me that they might eventually get their way. Not because their arguments that they are not in scope is valid, merely because the community wants to hear less arguments about them. The community needs to appreciate that images that are controversial will always cause some controversy. We should allow proper discussions about these images but not allow the project to be disrupted be those who have no intention of discussing things properly. The way this is achieved is by removing those individuals from the Community, not simply granting their wish that these images are deleted because they continue to disrupt after the community have already discussed them and decided they should be kept. Adambro (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Adambro here, and I would add that even the slightest exception to our no censorship rule is in fact self-censorship. I really hate those images, but I'm glad they're on Commons, because it goes to show that we take freedom of speech seriously.
Regarding Mbz1, I really don't understand his behavior, because it only gives these images a wider audience; I would have never heard of them if it wasn't for the constant attempts to have them deleted; I would have forgotten about them, but he won't let me, constantly bring the subject up again. My advice to Mbz1: leave those images alone, let them gather dust as we forget about them. Also leave Pieter Kuiper and Liftarn alone, they are not the ones spreading hate; if anyone, Latuf is. And you should take into account the fact that people have brains, they won't hate Israel just because they saw one of these images. Anyone can deal with it with their own free thinking. --Tryphon (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I'd like assure you that my post here is not indented to bring attention to me or to my cause. I need nobody help with this. But I do need your help to achieve the result I'm asking for. I used to be a valued contributor. I am not any more. For the last two months the only things I was doing ..., but you all know what I was doing, no need to repeat. Now I need your help please. May I please ask you to block me for few weeks/months/years or whatever, and then unblock me with restrictions (cannot comment on such and such subjects.) You know what subjects I mean, don't you? Then I will once again became a valued contributor and everybody and first of all me will be happy. I'm sorry to ask you to help me with this, but I am too weak to do it myself. I'm also selfish. I need this block in order to sleep well. I will know that I've done everything I could to stop the hate. Please help me! I hope it is not so much to ask for. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

He's not the only one sneaking in mass licensing changes: [8]. howcheng {chat} 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fir really should know better. He's an admin here for god's sake! --Dschwen (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took me almost 2 hours but Template:MMahdi is completely sorted and subst: Abigor talk 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have appreciated if I was told of this instead of bringing it here and calling it sneaky! I don't notice changes to Fir's pages. Double standards? --Muhammad 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matter of time. As it happens Fir is an admin, otherwise I'd have his templates protected as well. --Dschwen (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

First it was Liftern and me, now Drork believes that Adombro brought us in... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Independant of the edit-warring there remains the question why we need or have Caricatures of Ariel Sharon by Carlos Latuff and Caricatures of Ariel Sharon, two galleries that are totally redundant in content. This smells somewhat like Latuff-promotion.--Túrelio (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of discussion is probably better elsewhere but I don't think we do. One can simply be a redirect to the other until such time as some other caricatures of Ariel Sharon are uploaded. The fact that we have two identical galleries is probably more a product of the confused, frequently changing situation rather than a desire to promote Latuff. Adambro (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turelio, those categories were created by Drork: "20:32, 11 March 2009 Drork (Talk | contribs) moved Caricatures of Ariel Sharon to Caricatures of Ariel Sharon by Carlos Latuff ‎ " /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirection seems appropriate. Adambro (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason for that? --Túrelio (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just that there are a number of incoming links and redirects cost nothing so it doesn't seem really necessary to delete it when it could be useful. Adambro (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems not to have been useful since 1 year and as of this thread it seems to be a focus of quarreling. To avoid the latter, for me is even more valuable than to avoid redundant structures.--Túrelio (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have deviated from the intended purpose of this page, the discussion of "user problems". As such it would probably be better to take this discussion elsewhere but I remain unconvinced as to what harm keeping this redirect could possibly cause in reality. Adambro (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately people here keep ignoring the core problem. There are certain people who are not acting in good faith. I know this is a heavy accusation, but I don't see the point of beating around the bush. Any attempt to reach a solution is futile unless people are acting in good faith, but in this case, some people who are deeply involved in the matter try to game the system in order to promote certain views. 110 cartoons by Latuff were added to the Commons. He has a special gallery here. In addition, people try to add his images to all kind of categories to which they don't belong. Drawing portraits of Ariel Sharon or George W. Bush with the word "terror" above them doesn't make the image part of the "terrorism" category. Opening a special gallery called "Caricatures of Ariel Sharon" when all of these caricatures are Latuff's is also misleading. Latuff receives here undue weight because there are certain users who wish to promote him and his radical views. They should be told that this is not the place to do that. Drork (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I must say I welcome Drork's decision to actually discuss the issues with File:Stopfundingterror.gif instead of simply enforcing his views upon everyone. However, the appropriate venue to discuss this remains the file's talk page. Drork accuses some users of not acting in good faith. I'd invite him to not be afraid and actually name some names and present some evidence so that the community can consider the validity of his accusations and what is necessary to address this. I would agree that there are perhaps some users who have shown a desire to add Latuff's images to inappropriate categories but also some who wish to remove his images from patently relevant categories. The Caricatures of Ariel Sharon page was created over a year ago now and by someone who as far as I am aware, hasn't been involved in editing related to Latuff images recently so to suggest the gallery is intended to promote Latuff is probably lacking merit. Drork's description of this page as a "special gallery" perhaps indicates his misconception that creating categories/galleries is in any way endorsing Latuff's work. As I have already said, I have no problem with calling the gallery Caricatures of Ariel Sharon by Carlos Latuff since it is a more accurate description of its content whilst we don't have any caricatures created by anyone else but it seems useful to retain the redirect. Adambro (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

• He has a special gallery here.

  Because you guys don't want his content in other galleries.

• Drawing portraits of Ariel Sharon or George W. Bush with the word "terror" above them doesn't make the image part of the "terrorism" category

  Really? What's it referring to then?

• Opening a special gallery called "Caricatures of Ariel Sharon" when all of these caricatures are Latuff's is also misleading.

  Like everything on a wiki, it's a work in progress. If I upload a caricature, no a cartoon (there's another compromise), that's isn't done by Latuff I can't add it to the gallery now. Now it will always only contain Latuff cartoons. They're really not that many to warrant it's own gallery. It is undue weight, but else are we going to do? You don't want them in any other gallery. It's you that's giving it undue weight. Rocket000(talk) 01:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that redirecting charicatures of ariel sharon seems inappropriate, because someone may upload non-Latuff ones, in which case people would probably complain again. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I know nothing about any compromise that was reached a year ago, I wasn't involved in it. I know one thing - we have a serious problem of people using this site for illegitimate political purposes. The Commons are not an ex-territory, quite the contrary, it is a project that serves all other WM projects. It is clear that Mr. Latuff doesn't like A. Sharon nor G.W. Bush. Uploading many of his caricatures, which are meant to defame these two people, and placing them in the page about them, means giving undue weight to a single person's opinion. This is unacceptable in all WM projects. It shouldn't be acceptable here. Mr. Latuff's cartoons are very problematic, and there is no use referring to them as just some more free-licensed images for our collection. Having 109 cartoons of his (after the most provocative one uploaded was deleted) in a special gallery dedicated for him, is more than enough. Those people who try to open more galleries for him, and place his cartoons in any possible vaguely related category, are not acting in good faith. I am not the only person who feels uncomfortable about it, but many prefer to keep silent in order to avoid the kind of debates I have to handle here now. These debates are tiring and time consuming, and those people who wish to promote Latuff apparently have enough time and energy to continue them for days and weeks. Just see the debate about Latuff's defaming caricature of Dershowitz. Even though most users asked to delete the image, those users who wish to promote Latuff refused to end the discussion and kept asking question and present fable arguments. This is not how things should be done here. Drork (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a clarification - are you arguing that the problem here is that we are being biased? Neutrality is not an issue to Commons - we don't say no more pictures of X because we don't have enough of anti-X. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave aside for a moment the whole issue of scope and what kind of images should be uploaded and how many of one kind. When you open a page or a gallery on the Commons, you are actually writing an article. You select images to present in a certain person or a certain topic. You could argue that the Commons should not have pages at all, but once you have them, you should design them according to the NPOV rules which governs all WM projects. Drork (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read this project's scope, Drork. FWIW, I agree with both Rocket's and Mattbuck's comments here. Caricatures of Ariel Sharon is already an acceptable compromise, and represents a reduction in the "promotion" these cartoons get (which is already a misunderstanding of the issue - nevertheless, it is an acceptable compromise). A similar analysis can be made of other cases mentioned. I'd appreciate if all involved users (not just Drork!) could try to avoid stirring the pot - it is very unhelpful to the project.  — Mike.lifeguard 13:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, you expressed your opinion before. For you, any file may be uploaded here as long as there are no official legal limitations. You regard any other approach as an unacceptable censorship. I am sorry, but this is your interpretation of the Commons' goals, and there is no consensus about this policy, not even among the Commons' users, let alone the different communities using the Commons. Unlike certain users, I appreciate your view and trust your good faith, and yet you have a radical view of the scope of this site, and you cannot present it as mainstream. As I said, opening a gallery of Latuff's cartoons about Sharon means giving undue weight to one single Brazilian citizen's opinion. His opinion is as important as the opinions of milliards of people around the world. It is one thing having his caricatures here, it is another thing promoting his images by opening special galleries or adding them to irrelevant pages and categories. Drork (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, that is not what I think & you would do well to stop erecting straw men.  — Mike.lifeguard 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

First a general remark - to the best of my judgment most of them are not within scope, and in any case, uploading 100 cartoons made by one person would make people believe that we wish to promote him, especially as we don't have similar collections of other cartoonist. You should consider how people view us, not how we view ourselves. Now to the point of categorizing - the cartoons are already categorized. A person who wishes to know Latuff's opinion about certain issues can find them in the category dedicated to him. In addition there is a special gallery for his cartoons. That's more than enough to help people navigate to his cartoons. Placing Latuff's opinion in remotely related category doesn't help much in navigation, and strongly implies that the Commons wish to promote his views. Once again, what WE say or think is irrelevant here, we should consider how a common person who surfs here sees it. Drork (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have suggestions for other political cartoons we can add to Commons' repository, I'd be happy to help you upload them. This is not about promoting Latuff or his views - it's about having a complete collection of freely-licensed educational media files.  — Mike.lifeguard 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people like categories, some prefer galleries. I'm personally pro-category, but I can understand if people want galleries, as they can add more info. Making a gallery isn't promoting his viewpoint any more than having the category is. We are not promoting his work by hosting it here, what is promoting his work is the endless drama these are forcing upon us. You don't like what he says, fine. But it's not illegal, it's within scope (work by a notable artist), and I haven't seen any images which advocate terrorism. Yes, they're anti-israeli, but that's not a crime, it's just a viewpoint. What people make of these images is up to them - but we can't delete stuff like this simply because you believe it advocates terrorism. I'd personally say that photos of George W Bush are better advocators for terrorism, but in the end they're just photos of a man. In the end, these are just cartoons by a cartoonist. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I guess because it's a sensitive subject for some people, we give a little more leeway (boarding on understanding). Although I'm pretty close to blocking the user myself. Constantly reverting (multiple) users, nominating things for deletion, redirecting, renaming pages, removing links, changing categories—just causing chaos—to promote a certain viewpoint is certainly not healthy for the project. Rocket000(talk) 08:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's similar to Evrik's frustration yesterday with the Dali image, Sometimes people get frustrated and do things they shouldn't. If Dror continues, he knows he is facing protective measures. If he no longer edit wars, what would the point be in blocking now? Our aim is to protect the project, not punish users. -- Avi (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given Dror a warning/explanation on his talk page. Let us hope that that is sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an unanswered question here: are you going to put in the "Category:terrorism" every cartoon on which the cartoonist write "Terror" in bold letters? That would turn this category into a useless dump. And another thing, in what way Rocket000's opinion on the matter is better than mine? Drork (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing, I have found plenty of poorly maintained or poorly defined categories. I found a lot of irrelevant material in many categories, and missing material in others. I found errors in images' categorization. Am I to blame for fixing these issues? There are almost 1300 new documentary images uploaded to the Commons thanks to a project led by me, my colleagues in wm-il and other Israeli organizations. Should I feel ashamed for this initiative? Should I feel ashamed for correcting many poor categorizations along the way? Would it be better if I chose to upload hundreds of provocative caricatures, or attributing the "Category:terrorism" to Israeli organizations? Drork (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your first comment, if media files are related to the subject of terrorism then they should of course be in that category. I wouldn't say the word "Terror" as part of an image would be sufficient though. If Category:Terrorism does become too large then of course the correct solution to address this problem would be to come up with an appropriate way of sorting the files into subcategories.

Clearly Drork isn't responsible for all of the problems we have with categorisation and I'm not sure why he considers he is being blamed for these. Where he does consider there to be problems, he should of course make efforts to try to address them. However, there will be instances where he should consider it obvious that it is necessary to discuss his proposals with others before taking action because it is likely others will have different opinions. His efforts to find and upload the useful images he mentions are welcome but it isn't clear why he thinks anyone wishes him to be ashamed about this work. Adambro (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adambro, we had our discussions. You led them to a dead end and then said I wasn't convincing enough. Drork (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, the discussions we and others had didn't produce the answer you wanted and so you just ignored us and acted anyway. That is the problem. Adambro (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We also have two cased of whitewashing.[9][10] // Liftarn (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Dork still goes around removing valid categories (and in the process also other things).[11][12][13][14] // Liftarn (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liftarn, your provocation are just about enough. You are pushing your political views forcefully, and try to defame anyone or anything related to Israel. I am sick and tired of that. Drork (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drork, just stop your fight. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I note that Drork has recently created Category:Real images of Alan Dershowitz and added an image to it and then added a description to Category:Alan Dershowitz that "This category is meant for images that defame Alan Dershowitz or other supporters of Israel." This kind of behaviour is unacceptable. I can assume good faith with some of his re-categorisations even where they seem strange but creating categories like this is indefensible. It is clear that the motivation is to disrupt Commons to make a point and this isn't how things get resolved. The image was subsequently removed from Category:Real images of Alan Dershowitz and I've since deleted it with reference to w:WP:POINT which, whilst not a Commons policy, provide a good explanation of why that kind of behaviour is unhelpful. Whilst writing this comment, I notice Drork has actually removed File:AlanDershowitz2.jpg from the only category it was in and reinstated the obviously unhelpful description of the Alan Dershowitz category. If another admin could explain to Drork the problematic nature of his recent edits it would be appreciated. Adambro (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to bend my head before Mr. Kuiper Liftarn & Adambro, and I am not willing to give up to the way they abduct this site for their own purposes, and this is why I am constantly condemned here, right? Apparently some administrators find this abduction very convenient. Well, I don't find this amusing at all. This is the worst scenario of abuse, and I couldn't believe in my worst dreams that this project would end up like this. Our worst nightmare came true, and there is no one to wake us up and bring this project back to its normal track. How long are you going to let this abuse continue? How long are you going to let this site be abducted by people who mock the very essence of good faith? Drork (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not disrupt Commons with edits like these [15], [16]. --Dezidor (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, am I the only person here who respect this project and is not cynical about it? Am I the only person here who still worries about the dignity of both users and administrators? One of the administrators told me on the IRC today, that he wouldn't mind having garbage on this site as long as it is free-licensed. Is this where we've reached? Are you going to keep cooperating with this trend? Is there anyone here who wouldn't turn a blind eye to what is happening here? Drork (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree. Drork has consistently refused to recognize that his actions are indeed disruptive (which would be the first and necessary step toward working constructively again). Every time someone points out a disruptive behavior, he simply dismisses it as some kind of conspiracy against him. There is no conspiracy, just one user who thinks he has to protect people against some images and is convinced he's doing the right thing; well, he's not, and until he's able to admit it, I see no other solution than a block. For how long, I don't know. –Tryphon^☂ 21:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the liberalism of the administrators here ends when they are exposed to criticism. None of them would stop to thing where we had gone wrong, or why we are criticized. The easy solution is to bend their head before people who intimidate them and to block the person who dares to criticize them. This is indeed the darkest scenario I could imagined for a project that uses "good faith" as its motto. Drork (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Drork that Commons should not be against Bush or Israel. Commons should not be against or pro anyone at all. But the fact that we have caricatures should not be taken as if we agree with the message that the caricatures have. Commons is a place to store images etc. Since caricatures making fun of people are more “fun” than those that do not make fun of people, caricatures are often “against” someone.

The images should be treated as any other images and that includes putting on relevant categories. In my view Caricatures related to i.e. Bush should be in a category related to Bush (even if it is not a real image of Bush) etc. Therefore I see no reason to remove categories on the caricatures. --MGA73 (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. You really think that saying: we are not supporting the views that we host and subsequently promote, is something people would believe? People take it as if this site supports these views, especially as you scatter them all over the place in remotely relevant or irrelevant categories. Currently people think this site is anti-Israel, and they have a good reason to think that way. And as for the conspiracy - there is indeed a conspiracy here, and you needn't be a paranoid to notice it. It is not a conspiracy against me, it is against this project. There are some users who found out this is the perfect place to promote their radical political views, in particular their anti-Israel views. They are welcomed here as if they were guests of honor, while anyone who tries to talk against them is shut up as if he were a criminal. There is only one name for that - this is corruption, and it should be handled now before it spreads. Drork (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hosting stuff does not mean we support it. These cartoons are freely licenced and within scope, and so should be kept. That is the consensus. I suppose you also believe we support Sudoku hatred because we have images of Sudoku with crosses through them? We are a media host. We host media. Some of it is objectionable, so I suggest you go read the content disclaimer. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that Drork's behaviour leads me to believe that a block should be effected. Finnrind said the DR is over, closed as keep after a UDEL. You do NOT edit war, and the user should know better. The behaviour shown here demonstrates that the arguments put forward here have not worked, and thus we must go on to more punitive measures. Commons is not anti-Israel, that image is. We host lots of anti-stuff, if you don't like it, don't look at it. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course dealing with the serious problems I raised is not an option. Better block the person who raised this issue and get it over with. Drork (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit warring and being unconstructive. The deletion request was closed, your reopening it is just being disruptive. Consensus says it shouldn't be deleted. Consensus is how we work. If you can't abide by consensus, you shouldn't be here. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

MfG

Hallo Gaffi,

Bilder dominieren hier sehr stark und bei Audiodateien sind die Rechtsfragen vermutlich noch komplizierter. Aus sprachlichen Gründen wendest du dich aber wohl besser an Commons:Forum, weil dort deutsch gesprochen wird. Und nicht entmutigen lassen.--Túrelio (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schau doch mal hier vorbei: de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Gesprochene_Wikipedia. --Dschwen (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

transfered from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism

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

There is nothing secret, this is part of the daily harmonisation work, mostly based on simple common sense and majority naming. When I started harmonisation of unknown/unidentified naming, there where about 60 "Unknown xxx" items , 700 "unidentified xxx". See for your self: Unknown categories and Unidentified categories. You might think that we do all that moving work for fun and to annoy people. This happens to be not the case. --Foroa (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It seems to me that "unidentified" is the most used term, as in Category:Unidentified insects or Category:Unidentified subject. A quick search gives this 2006 discussion. The change wasn't particularly controversial. Maybe you could have contacted one of the users on their talk page before reporting them for "vandalism"? Pruneau^talk 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "unidentified" is more specific, especially when dealing with species or similar, whereas "unknown" is an Commons-internal category-term that is displaid when the source of a image/file is missing.--Túrelio (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the species in those categories are indeed known (to science) but unidentified. There could be an unknown category structure, but this would contain only species that are not described and as yet unknown to science. As such the renaming exercise is the common sense thing to do. Lycaon (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apart from the fact that you don't like how these moves were handled, do you have a specific reason to oppose to these changes? Do you have an example of a category for which the Unidentified denomination would be wrong? –Tryphon^☂ 12:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/03/Category:Chemistry (unsorted). Because this whole operation is being covered up other mistakes will only be found out afterwards when other people start complaining. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment - I question whether the vandalism board is even the right board for this as the users were clearly acting in good faith for the project. Cirt (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cirt, the answer is that it is not. I concider this discussion closed, and would urge anyone with opinions about "unidentifyed" vs "unknown"/"unsorted" etc to voice their concerns at the relevant talkpages and/or Commons:Categories for discussion. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finn, there are no relevant talkpages because Foroa thinks that a discussion is unecessary plus my attempts to discuss the matter are ridiculed or ignored ([17]).--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First things first: Are the above described actions vandalism? Certainly not, whether or not they are appropriate (most probably) is a different matter, but they are in good faith. Thus, the "vandalism" board is not the appropriate place for this. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are clearly not in good faith. If they were Foroa would not circumvent the discussion. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly not vandalism, thus this is an inappropriate location for this discussion. Cirt (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then have at least the grace to tell me the appropriate location. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Gracefully open a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is there a reasonable explanation why categories that existed for over two years had to be deleted overnight, bypassing standard procedures and evading commons guidelines? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You've been given explanations several times, in several formulations, from several people: these moves are consistent with the established categorization scheme, and there is no serious reason to question them. They're pretty straightforward and for most people there is no need for a debate. If you think the debate is needed, please contribute (this is what the "catogory for discussion" subpage has been created for), but that's not what you're doing right now. So, please move on. --Eusebius (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CarolSpears (talk · contribs) has made inappropriate sarcastic comments directed at admin Durova (talk · contribs), a user CarolSpears has some history following around, etc. [18] and [19]. CarolSpears has a pattern of incivility, see block log: insulting fellow contributors, after warnings. I advised CarolSpears to avoid interactions with Durova because the user is unable to maintain a respectful demeanor. In response, CarolSpears blanked my post from her user talk page. Requesting another administrator look into this and take action here. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe interesting to check who threw the first stone in insinuating aggression from other users here [20]. Better not interfere and let it fade. Lycaon (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should let harassment and sarcasm directed at one of our project's administrators, from a user that has been blocked for such behavior, be taken lightly. Cirt (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? What stone? Durova was civil and respectful, and in return, she is being harassed. I am not an admin on Commons, but if it would be en Wikipedia (where I am an admin, and where, if my memory serves, Carol is permbanned anyway...), I'd feel entitled as an admin to cite violation of CIV and NPA policies and issue if not a block, then at least a stern warning to Carol for personal attacks, incivility and harassment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

CarolSpears removed the notice from her talk page. Again. [21]. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Durova is not responsible for this, as Gerard rightly points out above. CarolSpears has had a history of baiting Durova on a number of occasions. See for example here where she says: "It is all I can do to not ask you whose ass you kissed (or worse) to get some positive recognition from FP" (back in 2007), and here where she says of Durova: "Together they what? And yes, I suspect there is a crime going on... [...] What do you think Durova did to get the warm reception? I ask because that doesn't happen from doing good work." There is clearly a history between Carol and Durova, and I would ask Carol simply to back off from Durova. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I've had dealings with Carol before [22], and I was paged, so I figured I'd step in and make a few comments. #1 Sarcasm isn't a crime. It may be less friendly, but it is hardly the most insulting things I've seen floating past the Wiki's. Hell, I've said _far_ worse things to people without a thread on COM:AN/U (or even a warning). #2 Carol has an abrasive personality, so be it. I do too. It just so happens that people tend not to like her since she's got a bad reputation. I think the idea of a block is a bit harsh. #3 Yes, Carol removed the warning from her talk page. There is no written rule saying you must keep your talk page information (that I remember). Yes, it is generally considered best practice not to remove stuff ... but it's not like this is exactly a felony. It's still in the history after all. #In Closing - Not that big of a deal. No one was terribly insulted, and Durova may or may not deserve some smacking about in the first place. @Carol (If you read this). Just placate the community, leave Durova alone (for now). I'm sure there is more history to this than what I read in 5 minutes. You probably got unfairly targeted as usual. Welcome to the joys of being the community scape goat. That is all. Carry On. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Dschwen and I approve this message. --Dschwen (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, in general. But the extreme nastiness towards Durova has been going on way too long. That is a big deal. Hesperian 03:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Cirt; you can assume that she has seen your message if she has removed it from her talk page. It isn't necessary to restore it. Be assured that it has not be deleted from her talk page history and that administrators are savvy enough to look for such deletions, or remembering them for that matter, when it is appropriate. I endorse PeterSymonds' and ShakataGaNai's observations on the substance of this matter, but I would encourage Carol not to interpret ShakataGaNai's comments to imply that she can ignore our NPA and civility standards. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Siegmund - I restored it, once, while replying to her back on her talk page. Cirt (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to fellow Commons volunteers for stepping forward. For well over a year Carol has been hounding me, by following my contributions and inserting sarcastic commentary, and making highly inappropriate suggestions (such as sexual favors traded for featured picture candidate supports). I don't hound her contributions or antagonize her, and have been very patient about avoiding lodging formal complaints in the hope she would stop, but there's serious work to be done at this site and enough is enough. I just want her to leave me alone. Durova (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A simple solution would be to put Carol under a community restriction: the next time she violates NPA policy and discusses Durova, block. Some people need "discuss articles, not editors" tattooed into their eyelids... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal with the sexual favors? Durova, do you really need to twist Carol's words around? Do you honestly think sucking up means giving a BJ as well? Sorry for the sarcasm here, but you honestly would have a more believable case without that misrepresentation. --Dschwen (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the or worse that sinks it. Although I assumed good faith when she first posted that, and for quite some time afterward, it's become apparent over time that she specializes in nasty word games that look like non sequiturs at first glance. In another context, as her only response to attempts to deal with her serious conduct issues she once posted What rhymes with species? as her only reply. Not long afterward, in a rather coy manner, she confirmed that this was her way of saying feces. That's gone on quite long enough. We have work to do here, and she's demonstrated her intention to continue stirring drama as long as it's permitted. Durova (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have work to do here, indeed we have. And it looks to me that Carol is shouldering her share of it quite well. She sure didn't get nine times the number of edits you have on this project by pure sarcasm. There is a saying in German which roughly translates as Where you plane you'll get shavings (the english equivalent You have to break an egg to make an omelet doesn't quite have the same meaning), essentially highly active editors with several ten thousands of edits have higher visibility, have a larger cross-section of interaction with users, and have a higher statistical probability of getting in the crosshairs. How about you let her comments enter one ear, and let them exit the other one right away. Isn't it consolation enough for you that apparently not everyone agrees with Carol? --Dschwen (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The comment by Hesperian (talk · contribs) [23] is accurate: indeed the nastiness towards Durova by CarolSpears has gone on long enough. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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