Adambro

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome to my talk page

• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
• If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there.
• Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
• Leave me a message

Archives Jun 07- Oct 07 Nov 07 - Apr 08 May 08 - Nov 08 Dec 08 - Feb 09 Mar 09 - Sep 09 Oct 09 - Sep 10

Latuff cartoons and Liftarn block

I was a bit puzzled by your block of Liftarn, since it was I who tried to correct the categories of Latuff's cartoons. The truth is I wans't aware of the size of the problem and my action was a good-faith attempt of starting a productive discussion and reach a consensus. Now that I have started a dicussion in Village Pump, do you think it is necessary to keep Liftarn's block? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Based upon past experience, now that this issue has popped up again, I have little hope that some of those involved will be able to resist continuing to play around with the categories despite there being appropriate places for them to discuss it. I hope that eventually they might decide to stick to discussing things properly but it doesn't seem we have reached that point yet. Adambro (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alvesgaspar; this block is controversial; see my comment at Liftarn's talk page. Heymid (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, okay. You don't seem to have explained exactly what you consider to be controversial about the block(s) but you, like Alvesgaspar, are welcome to raise it for wider discussion if you feel it is necessary. The other option is to explain what the problem with the block is to me here and things might be dealt with more quickly and with less hassle. Adambro (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So what is the plan? You block some users but not others [1]. Perhaps you should make a note at COM:AN and tell about the plan. If some user adds a wrong category and you block users that revert that then who will dare to cleanup? We need a plan. --MGA73 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It may not be immediately obvious but the plan, or at least my plan, is like this: Where I have over a prolonged period of time asked users to stop tinkering with categories they know will be controversial, edit warring and the like, and instead participate in proper discussions to try to find consensus and they don't bother and just continue disruptively changing categories they will be blocked. As for Rocket000, like Alvesgaspar I don't recall months ago, as was the case with the three users concerned today, asking them repeatedly to stop edit warring and discuss things. I'd welcome your feedback on this or suggestions as to an improved plan for dealing with this. Adambro (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Mbz1

Hi, I'm asking this to you because you've been commenting on her talk page recently, and I don't think there's any official procedure for such a case. The two first threads on her talk page are copyright violations, and should be deleted. I know it's a bit delicate, because the tension level is high already, and it could be wrongly interpreted, but I don't think we can just leave it and pretend it's cc-by-sa/GFDL licensed. If you don't want to do it, just let me know and I'll ask someone else. Thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You are of course correct about this. I had noticed the text but overlooked the potential copyright issue. I've removed it and suggested she should avoid such extensive reproductions of copyrighted material. Hopefully this issue is now resolved but I'll see if she suggests any other options for dealing with these concerns. Adambro (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

way out of line

I think you are way out of line for the 6 month block of mbz1. What exactly is the precedent for this? Six month block because she said what she feels to be true, and there are many who feel the same way? This is a BIG BROTHER kind of block. Would you do the same to a Muslim who felt that another user was putting up "Islamophobic" and said it stinks? Well, we don't know, but I would guess not. Would you do the same if a black person complained that there was a caricature of blacks put up that wasn't labeled as a caricature? Maybe you wouldn't agree with him but I don't think SIX MONTHS? Maybe the first block but the SIX MONTHS because she disagrees with you about what she considers antisemitic? So you are banning her for SIX MONTHS for what she might do or say in the future. Sorry but I am really outraged at this! Stellarkid (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not six months for disagreeing with him. It's six months because she has been warned over and over and over to tone down the way she talks to people about the subject. She was banned for a week for insulting someone who, I fully admit, is a complete jackass, but does not seem to understand, even after said block and numerous others, that this behaviour is not acceptable here. This is not the first block, it's the fifth in four months, the seventh in the past year, tenth overall (twelfth if you count her own requested blocks). How many more blocks do you want? She is incapable of working in this topic, but will not accept a topic ban voluntarily. Therefore, as she cannot work with others, she is being disruptive to the project, and as a policy we ban those who are disruptive and are unwilling to change. Usually for longer than six months. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And may I say I find it distinctly curious that your only contributions here on Commons appear to be to show up and support Mbz1 every couple of months. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You may find it anything you like. Mbz1 is not the only user in the world who believes that Latuff's cartoons are antisemitic, and crudely so at that. Numerous other editors have complained that it is anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda and there are well-accepted sources that say so. But the only sin on the Commons seems to be to suggest that anyone or anything might be antisemitic, which seems to be very much worse than actually being antisemitic, which, according to many here, does not even seem to be a possibility. This is nonsense, of course, since there is very much antisemitism now everywhere, with most Jews feeling that it is almost as bad now as in the leadup to WWII, if not worse, because it is so generally accepted, and not recognized for what it is. That led to a lot of dead Jews, so many of us just happen to be a bit sensitive to that. Perhaps you would like to ban me as well for sharing Mbz1's opinions? Indeed one of her blocking admins said that it was "inappropriate" to bring up the Holocaust or WWII in virtually any venue here. That being the case, I think all WWII or Holocaust related images on Commons should be removed since one cannot discuss them, and that would include Latuff's stuff. And sure it is about disagreeing. She did not insult anyone, by the way. She insulted "those who put up antisemitic images" -- she did not name anyone. If that person you freely call a "complete jackass" identifies himself as one who is putting up antisemitic images, then he can rightly take it as personal. If he doesn't feel they are antisemitic images, then how can he be offended by Mbz1's comment? You see, there was no personal attack, only an interpretation made by others. Pure insanity. Stellarkid (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

btw, how do you get off calling someone a "complete jackass" and calling for someone else to be blocked for personal attacks in the same breath?! Just asking. Stellarkid (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that was uncalled for. I shall try and refrain from such comments. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I'm surprised to see this. Did you gain consensus for this or was it based on your judgement alone? The discussion at COM:AN/U seems to have petered out before reaching a conclusion to block Mbz1 for 6 months... Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope my efforts in trying to address Stellarkid's comments aren't wasted. I'm concerned since he(?) has been very quick to misrepresent the reason for the block here but I will try nevertheless. It certainly isn't "because she said what she feels to be true" but how she has disrupted Commons by her behaviour including attacking editors who disagree with her. You ask whether I would block a Muslim user who might say someone was uploading Islamophobic content and like in this case, I wouldn't, it takes more than that. I have dealt with those Muslims who, like Mbz1 has done here, have crossed the line regarding images of Muhammed which the object to on Commons or Wikipedia and that will have included blocks.

Stellarkid suggests I am "banning her for SIX MONTHS for what she might do or say in the future" and that is correct. Blocks are not meant to punish users, they are meant to prevent Commons from further disruption. As I explained in my comments to Mbz1, I have seen similar behaviour continue since about December 2008 and despite numerous warnings and blocks, Mbz1's "Before you let my block to expire" comments provide no indication that this behaviour will end, in fact she even states that "I cannot promise I would never again use the language I used at kuiper's talk page".

Regarding Lar's comments, this is a personal judgement rather than an assessment of consensus of any recent discussions. I come at this having taken a period of time out from involvement with this situation and so aren't aware nor participated in relevent discussions from the past few months. Having returned to look at what has been going on, the block is a response to concluding that it seems very little has changed and the view that some decisive action is needed here to break out of the continuous pattern of similar problems. I note that Mbz1, has I think you have suggested, has raised the possibility of a topic ban to try to deal with this. As I've explained, I am not completely comfortable about that because I don't like the idea of saying she cannot discuss issues she cares about but her great photos are welcome. Mbz1 has noted however that in the case of a topic ban it would be for her to decide whether she still wants to contribute her images in those circumstances so this is an idea I'll look to explore in the next few days. For a topic ban to be effective it will have to be carefully devised and accepted by Mbz1. Adambro (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see consensus sought for whatever is decided, as this is a long term to unilaterally impose. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• I also agree that a six month's block is way too much. If the purpose of the block is to 'cool down', then one month is more than enough; if it is considered that Mbz1 will never be able to repress her bad temper, ignore the (implicit) offenses to her political convictions and stop the personal attacks, then a permanent block is the logical solution. But a broad consensus has to be reached before making drastic decisions, and Mbz1 should be listened to in the process. On the other hand, I firmly believe that a closely related subject has also to be solved in a fair way, if we want to reach a stable solution. I'm of course referring to the categorization of anti-semitic material, in special to Latuff's cartoons. In my opinion, either those images are deleted or properly categorized. The politically correct solution of avoiding the controversial categories is a non-soluction that only reflects our incapacity to solve the problem rationally and will cause further ressentments to one of the factions (and joy to the other). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

  Regarding the Latuff categorisation, I don't see how deleting them if we can't manage to categorise them is a solution. It is really just throwing our hands up and saying that stirring up arguments about categorisation is a legitimate alternative to properly convincing the community that content should be deleted. As I see it there are two main groups causing problems here. There are those who let their personal opinions about the images get in the way of discussing proper categorisation and I think there are probably some who constantly see stirring up the issue as a good alternative to convincing the community that they should be deleted. I don't see how that is a genuine solution to this problem not least because it involves us damaging the integrity of Commons as a repository for freely licensed content for our sister projects.

  As for Mbz1's block, perhaps it should be indef since it currently doesn't seem like any change in her behaviour is on the horizon. By only blocking her for six months I'm being optimistic, perhaps overly, that maybe things will change. As I've explained above, an alternative is perhaps a topic ban of some sort which Mbz1 herself has offered up as a possible solution. Like I say above, I'll try to work with Mbz1 to see if this might be feasible. I think the time has come now that this has run on so long to stop having grand debates about this and start taking some action to try to do something about it. It is unfortunate but it seems that most discussions relating to this, and I can understand why, end up getting distracted by arguments about the Holocaust and similar as if that some how excuses the behaviour. Mbz1 herself seems to have previously acknowledged that this is a subject where she struggles to keep her emotions from getting the better of here. A 6 month block is not trivial but as I've said, something needed to happen. Whilst I can understand why some are critical of what is a quite dramatic action, what we really need here is suggestions of possible alternative solutions. I am sceptical whether trying to open this up for discussion to find consensus would be effective. Experience has shown that it is unlikely. Now is the time for some bold action to try to sort this. Adambro (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The only reason that you (the universal you) are even considering the characterization of the Latuff propaganda as antisemitic is due to Mbz1's continued agitating on the subject. This is what you are calling "disruptive behavior." Otherwise the status quo would be maintained, and there would be no discussion of this issue whatsoever. What you see as a response to "disruptive behavior," others see as an attempt to silence an important POV. There is no reason whatsoever not to work at coming to some resolution of this problem, but it will never be achieved by banning users, especially such productive users as Mbz1, which in effect sweeps the problem under the rug until it bubbles up again at some future time by other users, at which time you will have to ban more users, or make a rule that you cannot speak of things like Holocaust or WWII or antisemitism because it is "inappropriate." It is exactly appropriate for the Latuff cartoons. If you do decide to permit discussion on whether or not something can be characterized as "antisemitic," I certainly hope you allow, no, encourage, Mbz1 to have a voice in it, ban or no ban. Stellarkid (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a bit much to suggestion "only reason that you are even considering the characterization of the Latuff propaganda as antisemitic is due to Mbz1's continued agitating on the subject". That is complete nonsense. The reality is that the more people are attacked by Mbz1 et al for not simply accepting whatever they say the more people will be less inclined to take what they say seriously. I think we've gone beyond the point where we should keep trying to normally categorise these images now but you will have seen perhaps how on various occasions I've argued for and against categories like the antisemitism one. I've always been open minded with regards to these issues. I don't think I've ever agreed that all Latuff images should be characterised as antisemitic though but unfortunately definitions of terms such as that are themselves disputed so that is part of why I think trying to categorise based upon such terms is unwise. It is quite lazy in my view to suggest this is about silencing a POV. I think a more detailed look at the situation here would reveal that, whilst I have been open about my own opinions, I have acted fairly to deal with users who I conclude are disrupting Commons regardless of whether they agree or disagree with me. That I've managed to be accused on Wikipedia of writing "israeli propoganda" whilst at the same time others make veiled suggestions that I'm being antisemitic would seem to suggest I'm managing to stay neutral about these things. When you are neutral unfortunately you get attacked as being biased by those people at both sides of the argument. Adambro (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Then whom exactly did she attack when she left a message on Kuiper's page saying that people that uploaded antisemitic pictures to WM stink? If she had left that message on my page I wouldn't have considered it a PA. If Kuiper or someone else did not feel that the pictures were antisemitic then he should not take offense either. Someone took offense, even though apparently Kuiper himself did not take it up for consideration, though unsurprisingly thinks the block is warranted. Another admin wrote on Mbz1's page that it was "not appropriate" to discuss the Holocaust or WWII when that is what Latuff does in his cartoons all the time, with Nazi symbols plastered over Israeli symbols. Cartoons and caricatures talk. Boats with Holocaust victims are likened to Palestinians, Gaza is likened to Auschwitz, and his cartoons win prizes in Holocaust Denial contests, but we are not to discuss Holocaust of WWII or say that a cartoon is antisemitic, or that it "stinks" to put up antisemitic cartoons. We may apparently call people "complete jackasses" and tell them to "f*k off" and that isn't a PA. Re: the fact that you have argued both "for and against categories like the antisemitism one"-- I can't do anything with that. But of course you consider yourself quite "open minded and neutral". Don't we all? I also stand by the fact that Mbz1 was blocked because you disagreed with her. You clearly believe that her concerns regarding antisemitism are overstated and disruptive. She does not. That is the crux of the disagreement as I see it. I suggest that if you are really "open-minded and neutral" as you say, you will bring this up for discussion again quite frankly per Lars, above. Or simply rethink this block altogether. Stellarkid (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Pick A or B please

1. Delete both these images:
   • File:Anti-Islam.jpg
   • File:No Israel.svg
2. Or delete neither. They are both out of scope if one is out of scope, period.

Thank you - Floydian (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to go to COM:DR regarding the second, I gather it has been the subject of previous unsuccessful proposals to delete it. The first one is no longer a problem. I would be grateful if you wouldn't reinstate abusive comments. Adambro (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't reinstate the abusive racist comments, but the other is a legitimate comment and you have no right (yes, even as an admin) to delete it. Again, there is no room for slip here. A or B, not C. If the first one has not successfully been deleted as out of scope, what makes you think this one can be speedied? I am coming here as a second editor, out of three, supporting the existence of this image. It should be undeleted and then (possibly) deleted through a standard deletion review. - Floydian (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, don't reinstate such comments. When people can't manage to avoid such abusive comments and then stalking me over to Wikipedia then they loose the right to see their comments remain here. The latter comment is certainly not something for an image talk page and the first comment is no longer relevent anyway. The intention of the image and the comments this apparently new user made was to stir things up. I hope that isn't your intention here. Adambro (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My intention is equality and a lack of one-sidedness. A problem spread through all wikis. You are being one sided, you are deleting legitimate comments, and you are edit warring. I am starting a discussion at the village pump. You can revert that too, but I doubt it will go over well. Thanks. - Floydian (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy link. - Floydian (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ironic. Adambro (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather see it all deleted. Barring that, it's unjustified to frown upon one and place another on an immunity throne. - Floydian (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've previously expressed concerns about the use of File:No Israel.svg on user pages. I think stuff like that isn't appropriate on user pages and only serves to upset people. I may have even said that it should be deleted but now I'm not sure since I understand it is used in the main namespace on some projects and that usually means it is considered in scope. However, regarding File:Anti-Islam.jpg, I think it is important to look at the context. An apparently new user turns up and uploads an image whilst referring to the controversial File:No Israel.svg and then as soon as it is deleted launches an attack on the admin responsible suggesting they are racist and antisemetic and then using various new user accounts and IPs to continue the abuse here and elsewhere. Then the other issue is the image they upload and its filename. It isn't immediately obvious why the opposite of File:No Israel.svg is "Anti-Islam". I hope you can understand why, having considered the context, I'm not particularly convinced this was a constructive contribution. Adambro (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking

Hi Adambro, I noticed this in the logs:

21:55, 8 October 2010 Adambro (talk | contribs | block) unblocked #42542 ‎ (unblocked by Rocket000)

I thought unblocking the user account automatically reversed the IP auto-blocks too. Is there some step I missed? How did you unblock a hidden IP ("#42542")? Rocket000 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it is supposed to automatically unblock any autoblocked IPs. It doesn't seem to. When it became apparent that Malcolm still couldn't edit I went and had a look at Special:BlockList to see if there were any autoblocks active and could unblock it from that list. Adambro (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. That's good to know. Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Full protection of user talk:Mbz1

By protecting this to sysop-only you are preventing Mila from editing her own talk, and users from communicating with her at this project. Unless you did this by e-mail-request from her, I strongly suggest you reverse that protection. If some users want to chat in a "forum-manner" that may be misuse of a talk page, but not necessarily abuse. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope you didn't protect this due to my little exchange with Malcolm. I mentioned I was done commenting in my last comment. I feel uncomfortable with having said the last thing before protection. Please reconsider. Rocket000 (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have undone your full protection as it is inappropriate. Please seek consensus for putting it back before consider doing so. ++Lar: t/c 00:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_&_protections#Full_protection_for_Mbz1.27s_user_page where I have raised this matter. That might be a good place to seek consensus. ++Lar: t/c 01:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

More accusations

This is irritating. I did not abuse any FP process. The image satisfies the criteria, and was voted out because of canvassing on hewp. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The title you have given this section is "more accusations" yet I have simply described the reason I blocked you back in December 2009. I explained my reason for doing so at the time which you unsurprisingly disagreed with. I'm therefore not interested to hear now that you still disagree. I shall assume that, unless I read something to suggest otherwise, everyone who has previously expressed an opinion about my actions still stands by that opinion and so it is unnecessary for anyone to remind me. Adambro (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset with Cirrus clouds at Land's End in San Francisco .jpg

Feel like removing kuiper trolling from my image nomination? The nomination was opened for 5 days, kuiper never voted on it before today trolling, which came just a few minutes after lycaon filed a report about me at AN/U. This "vote" has nothing to do with the image. It is harassment, wikihounding, retaliation and trolling on its worse. I am not asking to block kuiper , but to remove his vote under such circumstances would be the right thing to do. I know he does not like me personally, but this should have nothing to do with the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates seems to have become less about the image and more about the uploader. I don't think removing Kuiper's comment would do much to address what seems to be widespread problem. Adambro (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believed you'd simply ignore my comment altogether, so thanks for responding to it! No, removing kuiper's vote that is an absolutely, no any shadow of a doubt was made to oppose me,not the image, will help the matter a lot, and it is the right thing to do. I agree, you have no power to remove all the problems around FP nominations, but it does not mean that this one should be left alone. Removing it, will mean we have one problem less. --Mbz1 (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I feel that much of Kuiper's participation in nominations relating to your images is problematic, I don't wish to start removing his comments because I think it would open up a can of worms which I don't really want to get involved with right now. You are probably correct that his comment "was made to oppose me,not the image" but the problem I have is that there was nothing particularly uncivil about his comment so you're effectively asking me to enforce a ban of Kuiper participating in featured pictures nominations relating to your images. If we start banning people from voting who don't like you, are we then going to ban people from voting who may be influenced to support because they do like you? I think FPC needs completely overhauling. Ideally it would be possible to have a discussion about an image whilst hiding who the uploader is but that would probably require changes to the MediaWiki software so isn't going to happen any time soon unfortunately. Adambro (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO wikihounding and taking a revenge as in this situation is actually much worse than PA or incivility, but no worries. I made my request only for the record, and I've got a response that was anticipated. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If I was to remove Kuiper's comments, then what? Should I remove Lycaon's and Alvesgaspar's? What about anyone else who has opposed the featured pictures nomination of one of your images? I am sure that some are influenced by their personal opinion of you to oppose but I suspect some may be influenced by their personal opinion of you to support. Can you not see how I alone can't suddenly make featured pictures just about the image, not their uploader? What reasonably do you suggest I can do here to help? I currently don't see any practical way of addressing your concerns I'm afraid. Adambro (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've already done a lot just by talking to me, and maybe trying to understand. Of course some users support and/or oppose FP nominations partly due to their relationship with a photographer, but one should remember that every oppose vote could be overwritten only with two support votes. So opposes due to personal dislike of a photographer have 2 times bigger impact than supports due to personal liking of a photographer.

lycaon is a special case. That man has hated me for 2 years I believe, and I still have not a slightest idea how and why it all started. He used his sock (or undeclared alleged wife) account to double oppose my nominations, and was caught on doing this. Isn't this enough of involvement to stop him reviewing my nominations now?

kuiper, as we all know, loves to retaliate to editors he does not like. He retaliates to some by filing DR on their uploads, and he retaliates to me by opposing my nominations. He was blocked for retaliating to administrators. He promised to stop such behavior. IMO he should be blocked for a week every time he retaliates to somebody including opposing my nominations. IMO it is the only way to stop such behavior.

Alvesgaspar will do anything including edit warring, dishonest reviewing,dishonestly enforcing his own dishonest rules to protect lycaon.

In the end I do not know what you could do about those users, but I do know that what they are doing to me is a cowardly, dishonest, the worse kind of harassment that is probably the hardest case to deal with.

And of course I have absolutely no problems with the users, who honestly opposing my images. I might agree or disagree with their reviews of my images, but I have no problems with those. Here's only one example of me dealing with honest opposes--Mbz1 (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the requirement for a two-thirds majority for featured pictures nominations. As you say, that does mean that oppose votes can be more significant than support votes and so people opposing due to their personal opinions of the uploader is likely to be a bigger problem than people being influenced to support due to their personal opinions. The problem remains though how that can be resolved.

Lycaon, as you say, is probably a special case and I think after what happened with Estrilda he should at the very lest refrain from participating in FP discussions relating to your images.

As for Kuiper, I think you are right that he does seem to use discussions like deletion requests to retaliate when others have upset him. It is difficult though to then adopt your proposed practice of blocking him whenever he opposes a featured pictures nomination where the uploader is someone whom he may dislike. I just can't see how to balance allowing legitimate criticism of your images against protecting you from harassment.

Finally, regarding Alvesgaspar, I am less familar with his contributions but I don't think you're helping things there by using a discussion about a candidate for featured pictures to attack him. I think you know by now where you should be raising concerns about users, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, but even there I don't think it would be helpful to adopt such a tone in your comments.

As for your example of someone "honestly" opposing your images, I think your comments there leaves a little to be desired in terms of civility. It didn't seem particularly polite that your response to the oppose was to immediately suggest the user was wrong, "Will you please add note to the nomination? But I very much doubt there's one". Even when the user pointed out the error your response when you didn't understand exactly what he was referring to was to ask (demand?) the user "Please kindly come up with a new reason to oppose, or oppose with no reason at all" rather than ask for clarification. Whilst it was nice to see you apologised to the user it would have been better if you'd just continued to assume there was an error as he suggested and that you just hadn't found it. I think you need to try to respond better to criticism of your images.

To conclude, as I've said, I don't really know what I could do to address your concerns and you've said that you "do not know what you could do about those users" so I think we're probably just about done here. Adambro (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Your name was mentioned at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Mbz1_dispute_remedy. You might like to join the discussion --99of9 (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I sent you email. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comments are noted. I will continue to monitor the situation but don't consider any action necessary at this point. Adambro (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

help

Hi I am a user in both English (user:logicalthinker33) and malayalam wikipedia(user:സ്നേഹശലഭം). I had uploaded my image here. But I reduced its quality and uploaded another one to make it less probable from misuse. So Kindly delete my first upload from its history. Thank you--സ്നേഹശലഭം (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please block him

Last SPI showed he controlled the Kàkhvelokákh account: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/K%C3%A0khvelok%C3%A1kh

He was never blocked, nothing happened!

Now he has created a third account to continue to make contentious pov edits: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DrorK

Please block him. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the new account as either a sock or an impersonation. If someone wants to run a Checkuser, I'd support a full block of all three accounts if this new one is connected. The new account was clearly breaking the agreement regarding Golan Heights file uploads. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with the suggestion that a checkuser request would be useful. I'm not going to block Drork without checkuser confirmation because in my view I think this could be someone pretending to be Drork. It isn't particularly clear why, if Drork was trying to get away with something he'd create an account with a pretty much identical username. Adambro (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole issue is an error resulting from a problem in the SUL mechanism (unified login). SUL is case sensitive while some Wikimedia projects are not case sensitive. Since my username was first registered in a non-case sensitive project, and since I wasn't careful enough to use the exact same username when manually registering in case-sensitive projects, the SUL system mistakenly registered me on Commons as two different users: Drork and DrorK. Drork is the older one which I normally use, so it is better to keep it, while the DrorK username should be discarded. I do, however, stand behind the edits which were mistakenly made under the "DrorK" username. In this case [2] SD reverted my edits, despite the fact that I suggested a more neutral and more accurate description. In this case: [3] I provided a better version of the map, which doesn't put the Golan Heights in any country, as it should be presented under NPOV rules (Wikimedia projects, as a general rule, do not take sides in political or other disputes). The same goes for this revert by SD [4]. In order to avoid edit war, I am waiting for one of the admins to take the initiative and restore the changes, which SD tries to prevent. This is not the first time SD uses force in order to impose his political views, including this request for block behind my back instead of assuming good faith and asking me whether I was aware of the duplicated username problem. Drork (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to the maps are in violation of npov, the view of the entire world and all international organs. You are putting the country Golan is part of in the same position as a country it is not part of, there is nothing neutral about that. My edits are not a "political view" or "taking side", my edits are representing reality. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)