Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 6

Request unprotection to File:Flag of the United States.svg

Neither the image description page, nor the image, has ever been subject to any kind of vandalism, and there was no discussion as far as I can tell before the page was protected. Protecting them makes them overly difficult to improve (especially the description page). In particular, I want to add the information from w:Flag of the United States#Specifications and w:Flag of the United States#Colors to the description, and swap out the image for one with updated colors based on that (after some research and a discussion on the wikipedia talk page, clearly linked from the commons talk page for anyone interested to hop over). Some admin could perhaps upload this file, w:File:Recolored Flag of the United States-d.svg, to the name File:Flag of the United States.svg, but at the very least image description pages should in general always be editable by logged in users (ideally all users), barring some exceptional disruption. –Jacobolus (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Uploading now. I will unprotect this in a second and keep it on my watchlist. If problems arise I'll protect again. --Dschwen (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually.. the image is used so very often I'll leave it protected. Please request changes on the image talk page. Sorry. --Dschwen (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be possible to edit the description?  Docu  at 19:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Think so too. Ill lower the protection level for description editing. I dont see a reason to remove the upload protection, so will keep that. --Martin H. (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fine by me, didn't think of that :-). --Dschwen (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (I don’t mind terribly if upload is protected; it was never a problem, but it shouldn’t be a hassle to ask for admin help if any better version ever crops up.) –Jacobolus (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:LoverOfDubai

The User:LoverOfDubai has uploaded many images of copyrighted buildings in the UAE. But there is no freedom of panorama in the UAE. Please block the User:LoverOfDubai from uploading images to Wikimedia Commons. --84.61.131.18 10:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a block is necessary, but a warning is. I've deleted some of his images and nommed others, would anyone else like to take a shot? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And they haven't been active since November 2008! Bidgee (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Popelnice.jpg

The file is fully and indefinitely locked in order to enforce opinion of several users who didn't answer my factual arguments in the discussion and don't accept rules of geographical categorization. However, the protection restrains also whatever other correction of a description or categorization. I think, such protection isn't backed by Commons:Protection policy. --ŠJů (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how anyone can argue over what would be called a dustbin in the UK. However it is obvious that there is edit warring so the protection looks appropriate for now to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

ŠJů, please read the Full protection in the Types of protection section of the Protection policy which states "Pages experiencing edit warring as the result of a dispute may be temporarily protected". The page's protection is temporary and was well within the policy, so I see no issues with the protection. Bidgee (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Paedophile bans from en.wp

Moved from Commons talk:Sexual content#As if there wasn't enough controversy..... -mattbuck (Talk) 12:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Commons has just been hit with a brand new sexual controversy, this one coming all the way from Wikipedia's ArbCom and a policy they made up all by themselves.^{That may not be true; see "Followup" below} According to w:WP:Pedophilia (before recent edits),[2] "It is the policy of the English Wikipedia to indefinitely block any editor who self-identifies as a pedophile or who advocates pedophilia and refer the editor to the Arbitration Committee." This block was accompanied by a formal ban of indefinite duration (apparently a surprising percentage of those bans are for this reason). According to w:Wikipedia:List of banned users#Banned by the Arbitration Committee this happened to w:User:Tyciol on October 29, 2009; there is summarized as "Emergency-banned by ArbCom for activities detrimental to Wikipedia's reputation." Commons User:Tyciol remained active, and continued to edit here, and from a brief look at the contributions I see how someone might get that idea. This continued until I got into a now-deleted conversation on Jimbo Wales' talk page,[3] questioning the role of Wikisposure,[4] which appeared to be stealth canvassing to get various editors banned who they say are pedophiles. (They also made such an allegation - unjustifiably - against a Wikimedia employee, who has not been fired) Their name came up when I commented about a Fox News article[5] that cited an article for deletion [6] as the object of the international pedophile conspiracy, even though there were only six "keep" votes total and the page was merged after discussion. After I noted that this external organization had in fact gotten at least two editors blocked who they had listed as "currently unblocked on Wikipedia" (i.e. that they were stealth-canvassing), w:User:Delicious carbuncle noted that Tyciol was listed among the editors they had gotten blocked, and though he was blocked on Wikipedia he wasn't blocked here. I see now that as of July 1, Commons User:Tyciol is blocked, with the summary "(pedo advocate transplant from WP.)" I see no evidence that he was given any opportunity to discuss his case here.

w:WP:Pedophilia has been described as a "zero tolerance" policy, made by Wikipedia's ArbCom and many of its defenders claim that Wikipedia editors have no right to revise or repeal it, despite w:WP:AP. That debate should stay on that page; I think there's a role for some part of the policy, given that it is measured, democratic, based on evidence and not controlled by an unreliable outside interest. The question now is, how did this user come to be blocked here? Does Wikipedia's ArbCom also promulgate new policy on Wikimedia Commons?

As complicated as the issue is on Wikipedia, I wonder if the Brabson v. Florida case that I mentioned above might potentially confuse things further where Commons uploads are concerned. I wish someone with Lexis-Nexis access would look that up... Wnt (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already mentioned on en:Wikipedia talk:Sexual content my strong opposition to any policy that blocks users solely because they "self identify as pedophiles" (on the theory that a moral pedophile who does not act on their fantasies or engage in advocacy should be permitted to participate). However, I would support universal cross-wiki blocking of persons pursuing or facilitating relationships with minors. I could go either way on advocacy - sometimes POV pushers do okay on Commons, since it's hard to push an agenda through uploading images alone - while other times they go on making a nuisance of themselves. (Clarifying edit: I know nothing about this particular user and have no opinion on whether they should be blocked - more concerned with general policy questions.) Dcoetzee (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to have him blocked at commons. Wikipedia arbcom rules do not apply at commons. This block should be reverted as soon as possible. Kameraad Pjotr 11:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no particular reason to ban this user here - we are not beholden to en.wp, and unless some Commons rules have been broken a ban is out of process - especially doing one without any consultation. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth the user appears to have been blocked anyway by MBisanz... (indef). Certainly out of any form of process here on Commons. Not correct in my opinion. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh - & without any block notice on their page too... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your actions are abusive and unacceptable. There is nothing within policy that allows you to do that, and Commons is directly part of the WMF, so your statements have no basis in logic, reason, or any standard here. You have acted inappropriately before and many people have told you that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the user needs to be unblocked and the block log oversighted. I can't imagine that calling someone a pedophile is acceptable behavior by an admin here. --Carnildo (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

While I agree we need to judge the situation for ourselves and not base our blocks simply upon the Arbitration Committee from another project, I also feel their is sufficient evidence to justify this block. Do we really want to support Pedophilia on this project? Tiptoety ^talk 23:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What has the user done on this project to warrant a block? Also, does anyone have a link to the ArbCom ruling? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think removing pedophilia categories from multiple files as well as comments such as this (given the users edits on other projects and self proclaimed pedophilia) are inappropriate. Tiptoety ^talk 01:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To me it doesn't look like the Danse Macabre or von Bayros artworks involve any children, so that can hardly be relevant. You could make a case that by removing a "pedophilia" category from the White Slave statue that he was either being dishonest or had a profound lack of understanding about what "white slavery" connoted in the United States, given the apparent age of the female in the artwork. But you might also argue that the age of consent/age of marriage in 1913 was also generally sooner, so it might not have been pedophilia, as she is at least somewhat postpubertal. The "mug shot" of a Berlin child prostitute might also have deserved the tag, but it doesn't seem undisputable. I think an indefinite block for removing one category from one or two images where it was probably but not certainly appropriate may be out of proportion.

I should also note that the hastily proposed (enacted?) m:Pedophilia may make all this irrelevant. Note also that by claiming the right to discuss this here, you've already violated a major principle that Wikipedia's ArbCom maintains, that they should make these determinations without public discussion. Wnt (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom are free to act how they wish, but we don't have our own ArbCom, we just have COM:AN, and we need to discuss this somewhere, otherwise we're just blindly following people who made a decision based on the policies of another project, many of which do not carry over to this one. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I was working under m:PEDO which had been changed to a proposal 7 hours before I made the block (my fault for not re-checking that, I assumed it was a set policy), I wasn't importing an enwiki ban, just using the common sense that if a significant number of people have researched a user and found they advocated something and that something is now globally banned and they appear active here, it would make sense to block them here. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in any drama, but I want to state that I have indef blocked this person (Tyciol) from the Simple English Wikipedia under our rule that a person who is blocked on any other WMF site may be blocked on our project, without comment! I do find it interesting, however, that this person's account has edited our article on Pedophile as evidenced, here. I make no judgements from this, and I merely perma-blocked the account because it is blocked on enwiki by the ARBCOM. Yours, fr33kman -s- 05:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's my hope you revert those in the future Fr33k. I like the Simple idea for the ipedia/tionary platforms and hope to learn more about how to improve it in the future. TY© (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That 'research' is flawed. I do not advocate anything that is globally banned. Just to cover as many bases as possible here Bi: I do not consider myself any kinda of paraphile, I do not believe there are advantages to having sexual fixations (and thus do not advocate for/promote/defend or whatever them), and I find both molestation and rape abhorrent. Feel free to mail or post on my talk if I missed anything I can clear up for you. TY© (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A person that was convicted as paedophilac is without much doubt a paedophilac. And is a paedophilac not just in his own country, he is a paedophilac whereever he relocates. But in the real world the latter option isn't given, when he's in jail, he can't move!

In Wikipedia there is no jail, if you're convicted and blocked indefinetly on one single project, it's a click away to move to another project and continue with whatever he did! Ok, you can even change your name, but that's a checkuser issue ...

My vote: universal block for everyone abusing wiki{p|m}edia for illegal actions! axp_de^Hello! 08:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia. Rules are different here. This user has done nothing wrong here and should be unblocked asap. Kameraad Pjotr 08:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit was probably intended to make some en:WP:POINT, but no reason for a block. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In the real world, they also don't have laws against thoughtcrime. Pedophilia is not, in itself, illegal or immoral, as long as they don't act upon their fantasies - and the user has no known history of contacting underage users. Editing media to push a POV is against policy however and if the user is unblocked, they should be monitored. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Admins have wide discretion to use blocks to prevent disruption of the project. Monitoring of such a user if unblocked causes disruption of the project; hence, why unblock? fr33kman -s- 10:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Granted, but we don't block people for what they might do, otherwise we may as well block everyone. We block people for what they have done - uploading copyvios, being abusive, etc - and as far as I can tell this user hasn't done any of those, or at least if they have then it wasn't to a ban-worthy extent. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Per Mattbuck - Commons is Commons and makes its own decisions. My block log is longer (last time I looked) than any other Commons admin (not proud, not ashamed, it's the job) but it is for actual disruption nothing else. User should be unblocked and some actual discussion take place. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There does appear to be a bit of POV-pushing, so maybe a topic ban would be better. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise, but what are you topic banning him from? Edits related to sex and/or children? Almost every edit he did was related to sex and/or children. You may as well leave him blocked. Wknight94 ^talk 11:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? He has done nothing wrong. If he violates policy, then we should block him; not before. This is unacceptable. Kameraad Pjotr 11:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Why?" for a topic ban or a block? I was just responding to Mattbuck's topic ban suggestion. Wknight94 ^talk 11:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Both. And my comment was not specifically directed at you. Kameraad Pjotr 11:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I should point out here that I emailed ArbCom asking about this, and did receive a reply, and I can see why this particular user was banned, hence my change to suggesting a topic ban. However, if, as stated, he only edits in the fields of a topic ban (sexuality, children, etc), then maybe an outright block isn't such a bad thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd support the proposed unblock with contingent topic ban. It may be true that this particular user's only edits on Commons in the past were related to children and/or sexuality, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose they might in the future make contributions to other areas instead (they certainly had edits on En in unrelated areas). Dcoetzee (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Followup: discussions at w:Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia give me the impression that it is no longer being claimed much that ArbCom made this policy (as I said above); it is now being described as a Jimbo Wales policy under w:WP:CONEXCEPT. There is still some discussion ongoing about what CONEXCEPT covers on the English Wikipedia. I think that this provision gives Jimbo Wales greater power on en.wikipedia than what is reserved to the WMF on other projects, so I wouldn't think this is automatically Meta or WMF policy, but I'll leave it to the experts here to figure that out. Wnt (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wales has nothing to say here, nor has the Wikipedia Arbcom. And frankly, if WMF makes this kind of rulings, one wonders whether they are capable of running this website altogether. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Your actions are not inline with reasonable expectations for admin nor are you abiding by any reasonable policy or interpretation thereof. Your actions in the past show a severe bias and lack of appropriate ethical considerations, and many people have expressed this multiple times just in recent months. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering that two days have passed since any discussion has taken place, and that the block was carried out without consensus, I have unblocked Tyciol, but told him he should (for the time being) refrain from making edits to paedophilia-related topics (a combination of sex and children). Kameraad Pjotr 17:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Contest the unblock, though I didn't make it. I've notified the blocker and unblocker. That there are so many here who care more about proving the POINT that "this isn't en wiki" than stopping a person with such a history is downright scary. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

He did nothing wrong at commons, thus there was no reason to block him. Kameraad Pjotr 08:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hogwash. Pedos are very subtle and manipulative and he's starting that here. There should be zero tolerance for this stuff. Commons lack any sort of direction on any but especially this. It's like hummingbirds hoping they fly in the right direction or horses pulling a tree in different directions. My opinion of all supporting this and Commons just went way downhill. Supporting pedos is just sickening. You should all be ashamed. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Provide some evidence that he did what you say he did and broke commons rules, and I will block him. Otherwise, you are making personal attacks, which is against commons policy. Kameraad Pjotr 11:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on this case in particular, I'd certainly hope that behaviour on other wikis is considered relevant to discussion of a block on Commons - we aren't in a little bubble here where we ignore all sins elsewhere. If a user uploads shock images to Commons for to use in vandal edits on en, they would get blocked on en for the vandalism. The only violation of Commons policy would be related to copyright, and that's not an instant block at the first offence, but I hope they would get indef blocked here because of the vandalism on en. Or more relevantly perhaps, if I contact minors for sexual reasons through en, (I hope) that would trigger a global block even though the only offense was on one wiki.

With respect to this user, why did he get blocked on en in the first place? What evidence was there that triggered the ArbCom action? If that edit pattern is translated over to here, then it may become grounds for a block. In any case he has been warned not to make these edits on Commons, so if that persists he can be blocked for violation of Commons rules.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• To address these: I have never uploaded shock images (not even sure if I uploaded images at all, so doubt copyright either) and I don't contact anybody on any wikiproject for sexual reasons, nor any minors I'm aware of (though with the lack of screening, I guess it's impossible to know for certain, which is why verification processes would be useful, especially for those in authority who deal with more serious matters). As far as I know, this is a combination of people making a precautionary block based on individual character assessments combined with avoidance of media problems from the likes of ED/Fox/NBC/WikiReview. TY© (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• The comments there had nothing to do with this case (ie you) but were general hypothetical statements, showing that Commons is not "completely independent". Its merely rebuttal to Kameraad Pjotr's apparent assertion that we should punish on Commons only things that happen on Commons, which is clearly not true - as those two examples demonstrate.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"he did nothing wrong at commons" is inappropriate and akin to advocacy yourself. You are speaking without basis in consensus or fact, and both of those combined with the extremely problematic nature of this matter is very inappropriate in addition to your highly inappropriate abuse of ops. It would seem that the WMF policy would state that your actions cannot be tolerated or acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a disgustig smear. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sue Gardner has stated that we have "a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography". To try and go against that is pure abuse. It cannot be construed in any other manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine, that's it. I'm sick of you and of your groundless accusations. Either go do something useful or f*ck off. If you make any of those comments again, you'll be blocked. Period. Kameraad Pjotr 18:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And now who's making personal attacks, threats, being incivil, etc? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a statement from the WMF executive stating what our policy is, a policy you directly went against. When this was pointed out by multiple people, you respond with attacks and incivility. That is not appropriate conduct in any manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to hope you were talking about his prior comments which at the very least could be construed as an attack however the actual comment you replied to was quite clearly not. The fact that Sue did indeed say that is completely germane to the discussion and threatening to block because of it unacceptable. Also, if you are going to yell and scream about someone elses comments please watch your own as well: Telling someone to f*ck off and leave the discussion is nearly as inappropriate as Ottava's comments about his "advocacy". Better wording may have been better but it is quite obvious (and in many ways understandable) that the subject of child protection brings out passion. Believing (and stating) that the harm outweighs any "he didn't do it here" argument is again, germane. Jamesofur (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am as disgusted by pedophiles as anyone, but I have to admit that there is something missing with the en.wp ban. How did it get to the point of an emergency arbcom ban? Is there something scary enough that we shouldn't let him add "people wearing blue clothes" to a few harmless images? Wknight94 ^talk 19:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WMF is zero tolerance towards advocacy and pedophilia. As stated before, this guy even edited the page here related to the matter. Any ground for pedophiles to have access is an opportunity for abuse, especially since we have thousands of editors under the age of 18 who use these projects. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The case I got from an arbcom member on that regard was that actions like that were in fact attempting to advocate by making it more "normal". I.E, if we just have to put "pedophilia" on the description or categories then we have to also have "rocks in images" "grass in images" "people in blue clothes" etc even if it's only that 1 small rock in the corner of the image because that is only "fair" and to keep everything on an even footing. The argument is not totally illegitimate in my opinion. Jamesofur (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, I'm not honestly sure I follow that logic. So when I've created something mundane, like Category:Blue churches, I could be construed as advocating pedophilia? That's an awfully scary thought. Or maybe I'm trying to make religious terrorism more "normal" by creating such a category. Sounds like I better be careful. Can't we just make it simple and say that someone found certain Tyciol info on Google and decided to shoot first and ask questions later? That actually sits better with me. Wknight94 ^talk 19:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

En wiki arbcom would not have taken such an action without legitimate cause. There was lots of private evidence involved. And yes, this is one area where blocks should be global. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but you'll probably need to give this particular community more to go on - that's just the way things work here (not saying I agree). Did the private evidence involve him using Wikimedia as a headquarters for pedophilia advocacy? E.g., was he sending inappropriate e-mails? Using socks to make sneaky advocacy edits? If you can give a general explanation, that would get the block more support. Like I said, I'm all for burning pedophiles at the stake, but I am seeing neither the cause nor even generalized discussion of what got him blocked. He was just suddenly blocked and no one gave even vague examples of why. Jamesofur came the closest above, but I really hope there's more to it than that. That's a little too witch-hunt'ish even for me - and I love toasty witches. Wknight94 ^talk 20:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am against burning pedophiles at the stake. It is barbaric. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Abiding by policy and prohibiting criminals from having any ability to potentially harm children on our servers is not akin to "burning at the stake". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Are you calling me a criminal now? Where does this come from? TY© (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• By definition, pedophiles are criminals, just as murderers, rapists, or thieves are. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sexual acts with a minor under the age of consent is a crime. As would be child molestation. Neither of these are prerequisites for the paraphilia diagnosis. You can educate yourself here (click the DSM-IV tab on the far right for current requirements, by default it displays future revisions). I have not committed any crimes, no do I fulfill the requirements for this diagnosis. Please do not continue to infer I am either a criminal or a paraphile, I am neither now, nor do I believe I ever was. TY© (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the crime of "child endangerment", which includes promoting inappropriate child sexuality and the attempt to legitimize pedophilia in a place that is filled with minors, which includes WMF projects. Furthermore, the DSM-IV has nothing to do with the law, and it has been proven that treatment does not help pedophiles so referring to psychology has nothing to do with any of this. You have made statements on your own admitting to such plus crossed the line of advocacy here. We have a zero tolerance policy to protect children and you have shown that you clearly fall within that. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottava's interpretation of mere attraction or advocacy as "child endangerment" is not supported by case law. Actively inciting or facilitating child abuse would be a more serious concern. (Note that Ottava cannot respond as he is currently blocked.) Dcoetzee (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

PK-So what do you think of what pedophiles do? I hope you're not saying that it's okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I really detest those hypocrites among the Roman Catholic clergy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Pedophile priests? Put them at the front of the line for the stake. Wknight94 ^talk 03:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Tyciol's only other content edit to Simple Wikipedia in this field was this one, pointing out that girls cannot get pregnant from pedophilic sex: "This is called pedophilia. Unlike sex between adult humans, girls can't get pregnant from it." While this is no doubt true if the child is prepubescent, it strikes me as an odd thing to point out in an article on sexual intercourse, almost like trying to point out the advantages of pedophilic sex, and it does not inspire me with a whole lot of confidence. Sorry. --JN466 22:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that was a statement applying to both that and bestiality. It's a similarity the two abnormalities share. I would have included homosexuality too but that could cause confusion with transgender/intersex where relationships people consider homosexual could result in pregnancy. The reason I thought it was good to point out is due to the association with sex and reproduction. Whether or not someone considers that an advantage or disadvantage is relative. Many people would like to reproduce, the inability to do so is a sore point amongst infertile couples and homosexuals in some cases. TY© (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment This ban is extremely well-justified. Tyciol is a pedophile, it's a danger to the society, subsequently to Wikimedia, including Commons and all the other wikis. I strongly disagree with Mr. Pjotr's action. Tyciol should have never been unblocked, ever. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

All this seems slanderous to me. Or libelous, or whatever the legal term is. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Possibly yeah, but I don't have enough money to go prosecuting people so unfortunately can't take it that far. TY© (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Could we please try to not cast aspersions on each other and try to work through what the right thing to do is? ++Lar: t/c 00:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I think we all agree with "prohibiting criminals from having any ability to potentially harm children" is a good idea. And if I notice any criminal acts I will sure try to notify proper authorities, but in the mean time I would prefer to see a little less rhetoric and some more facts. This whole discussion seems to be about user:Tyciol and obviously "Tyciol is a pedophile" and "a danger to the society" (as claimed by user:Diego Grez). However the only edit quoted to support this claim was provided by JN who found this on simple Wikipedia. (Thank you JN for injecting some facts into this discussion). I agree that this edit shows poor judgment but I do not think it can be the only thing what gets someone labeled as a "criminal" and "pedophile". So unless we see some more examples of criminal activities I think that a warning to stay away of doing any edits related to children and sex should be out only message to user:Tyciol. --Jarekt (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment The common practice in the real world is that a known pedophile should not work with Children, I think this is a rule we could consider to apply on our projects (Commons and other projects alike) as well. He is free to contribute on contents that has no relation to children, but he should not be allowed to edit children related content. If he violates this prohibition, he should be banned. --Wing (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

a) that is not common practice in most legal systems; b) there is no evidence that Tyciol is under any such restrictions in the real world; c) it is a strange interpretation of "working with Children". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Got any proof of the percentages or is that just opinion? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, this issue continues to be contentious, but here are the facts as I am currently aware of them: the user Tyciol has, at some point in the past, confessed to being a pedophile (a person experiencing sexual attraction to children). He apparently recants this statement, but has engaged in advocacy on other projects. He's made some edits on Commons that were related to pedophilia, but appear to range from benign to a little suspicious at worst. He has no known history of contacting underage users. In light of past advocacy a topic ban is advisable, just to be safe, but he doesn't appear to be a threat. If he violates his topic ban or (of course) solicits underage users than a block is in order. This is no different from how we treat many other POV pushers imported from other projects. As a matter of broad policy, I would support automatic global bans for users who had solicited minors on WMF projects, but I don't believe we should restrict in any way moral pedophiles who do not act on their attraction or engage in advocacy (that is, I believe En's policy of blocking "self-identified pedophiles" is completely unjustified). Dcoetzee (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• • What would the topic that he's banned from actually be? Any image containing persons that might be minors? That seems unclear. That said, I'm not sure I agree that en's policy is "completely unjustified". Seems more like prudence. There is no "right to edit". ++Lar: t/c 12:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Let me say "contrary to their long-term goals and inconsistent with their general practice" then. As for the specifics of the topic ban, I'd go for a narrow ban regarding images related to both minors and sexuality, pedophilia advocacy, and in particular images in the Category:Pedophilia category tree. Others might favor a wider topic ban - I'm not too particular about this. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Sue Gardner made it clear that WMF policy is zero tolerance to pedophiles. He is an admitted pedophile. He cannot be allowed to continue or use these boards in any manner. That is a WMF policy that affects all WMF projects. The user should be immediately locked by a Steward as we have no ability to override or even attempt to override it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you or others want Stewards to lock the account then ask on Meta not here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No one asked here for a lock to be made on the account. However, the WMF policy applies to all projects, so all projects must respect it. To do what Kameraad Pjotr did is to ignore a zero tolerance policy and to use admin tools against the adminship policy. That is not for any admin to do. If they want to complain about our policy as given to us by the WMF, they must go to meta, but we enforce it locally until it is changed by the WMF, which it is highly unlikely to happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I obviously misunderstood your statement The user should be immediately locked by a Steward... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. I was mostly stating that someone should go and request a lock in addition to settling this matter. However, there are ways for local projects to get around locks, which I wont get into. So, there is still the possibility for abusive unblocking locally even with a lock. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have requested a global lock at m:Steward requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Tyciol. Please feel free to express your opinions there. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 23:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know Sue Gardner's statement was not based on any sort of actual established policy but was just reactionary posturing for the purpose of public relations. I don't take it seriously. If Jimbo Wales cannot make policy at Commons, why should Sue Gardner be able to create policy everywhere with a single sentence? (addressed below) Dcoetzee (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dcoetzee.

I'm commenting because my statement on pedophilia has been mentioned here by you and Ottava Riva, as well as on this English Wikipedia page about child protection --- thanks to those who brought it to to my attention.

The statement people are referring to is one I gave in response to a media article that made allegations about editing behaviour on the English Wikipedia. In it, I said that we have a longstanding zero tolerance stance on pedophilia. In saying that, I was referring to practices and policies put in place on the English Wikipedia several years ago by the Arb Com and Jimmy Wales, which were aimed at appropriately protecting kids while preventing false public allegations of pedophilia. Those policies and practices have only been documented fairly recently, but they've been consistently in place and enforced for years.

Personally, I believe that zero tolerance for pedophilia and pedophilia advocacy is just common sense, and shouldn't necessarily need to be explicitly articulated in policy in order to be regularly and consistently enforced by admins. It's possible that the board of trustees may in future make a statement offering guidance with regards to the appropriate protection of children --- I don't know. But I do hope that the projects in the normal course of their work would act responsibly, without necessarily needing to have policies or guidance explicitly articulated for them by the board (or any other party). Sue Gardner (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Sue, we appreciate it. I respectfully disagree with your position that a zero tolerance for pedophilia and pedophilia advocacy is necessarily in the best interest of the project, per my arguments as described above, but I do understand that point of view and the basis in English Wikipedia policy for your public statement, and I retract my previous characterization of this statement. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you could describe what zero-tolerance means to you without using similarly broad language. Exactly what would actions would happen in a zero-tolerance environment which wouldn't happen otherwise? I'm asking you to spell it out because I think it's easy to support oppose a label as broad as "zero-tolerance" without having any firm idea of what it actually means. Differences in that understanding could be contributing to the argument here. --Gmaxwell (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gmaxwell, I'll briefly explain: my understanding of "zero-tolerance for pedophilia" is that it implies that any person who is determined to be a pedophile should receive a global block on all projects, regardless of their actions. I consider this to be pre-emptive action, in that it excludes legitimate, strong contributors who happen to be attracted to children but believe it's wrong to act on those attractions as a matter of morality. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we drill a bit into "determined"? Is that limited to cases where the person admits to it? If they deny it— does determined when 'many' users believe the claims are credible? When just one or a few 'important' users believe the claims to be credible? Or do we require something like a conviction? If they must admit it, how do we distinguish that from trolling? Making that kind of claim on one of our projects that didn't automatically block people making claims like that would be a _fantastic_ way to troll (few other modes of trolling could get your stunts in the international news!).

You appear to be distinguishing pedophilic desires with acting on them, but there are many more distinctions possible: What happens when there equivocation about the exact meaning of "pedophilia"? For example— an 18 yr old who has engaged in sexual activities with a 17 year old that they have been dating for years could be convicted is some US states (E.g. California §261.5a/b), even though they have no attraction to anyone any younger. A person who, as a minor, was convicted for the production of child pornography because of photographs they took of themselves? Should we reject these people? What about someone who did something like that but was never prosecuted? A significant fraction of our users from locations with high ages of consent may be technically guilty of violating a child sex law. If we don't reject these people the criticisms that Wikipedias allows people guilty of child-sex-law crimes will remain true.

Someone who endorses sexual activities with pubescent but significantly underage persons might accept the pedophile moniker, as that activity is illegal and socially unacceptable in many places. Or they might reject the moniker, arguing for the DSM definition which appears to require attraction to pre-pubescent children.

What of people who don't actually have any sexual attraction towards children but believe that such interaction might be beneficial, with some random crazy ideas about which situations should be made legal? What about people who don't personally fit any of those descriptions but think that people who do have done nothing wrong?

I'm sure I'm missing many other things... I've only spent a few minutes thinking about this.

I don't think we can usefully have an opinion on "zero tolerance" unless there is first agreement about these kinds of contours. To me the words "zero tolerance" also imply a very expansive definition of the thing which is not being tolerated, but considering the examples I gave I don't believe an expansive definition would be a useful one. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Since when is ED content considered evidence? A lot of what's there's done for comedy/entertainment. Perhaps the entry on 'TOW' there should be used as a reference for expanding Wikipedia:Wikipedia? TY© (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying it's okay to make jokes about being a pedophile? That's downright scary too. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I support the global blocking of those who engage in pro-paedophila advocacy, I also believe that due to the stigma associated with the issue, public accusations or allegations are potentially harmful and likely to be disruptive. I am hopeful that the WMF will soon issue a policy statement, including instructions on how to deal with suspected paedophilia advocates. Until that time, I think these discussions are best handled privately with admins. 69.165.145.81 02:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't take it upon myself to judge the morality of humour, if you dislike the kind of data users there add (I never added such content to that article) I suggest you take it up with the admins there. I think much of what's considered acceptable there crosses many people's lines of decency, even I have trouble stomaching their "pain" series. TY© (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

← On a side note: Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Kameraad Pjotr (de-adminship). Tiptoety ^talk 16:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional cases make for bad policy

I am not aware of any past major incidences of pædophile activity on commons such as cruising or grooming younger contributors, "normalization" of pædophile belief systems, or even obsessive contributions in that subject area. It's possible but I've forgotten but I can certainly remember such issues on enwp going back many years. I hope someone will remind me privately if I've forgotten something important.

Even given my possibly lossy memory I think it's pretty obvious that we haven't had a _serious_ problem with this here. Perhaps we may in the future, but it is easy to argue (as some have argued above) that commons is a far less useful forum for this kind of activity than other projects like English Wikipedia. I think that that argument is compelling. We need to learn from other projects but we need to be cautious that we don't let their community dysfunctions or drama infect commons. In particular we need to reject attempts to create drama on commons in order to further political arguments within other projects or within the WMF. Where we have issues we must solve them quickly and efficiently, but where there are only hypotheticals invoked to create false controversy we should save our energies. ... and I do suspect that there many be a little of that going on here.

One thing which is clear to me is that a lot of people on all sides of the argument are resorting to intense highly personal attacks against their opposition. There are shades of "you're either with us or against us!" coming from many sides. This is not healthy. There are hundreds of Wikipedia but there is only one Commons. We are one community and we all want the best for out project, for ourselves, and for the world. We all have so much more in common with each other than we have different between us. We need to look to these commonalities in order to to sort out our differences.

I'd like to suggest some principles:

• (1) Everyone has the right to a commons which is free of undue influence. The content and character of commons shouldn't be distorted by people pushing a particular agenda, be it commercial, religious, sexual, or otherwise. (e.g. pædophilic). Commons doesn't have the same NPOV rules as the Wikipedias but I think we can all support the notion that the lens of our cameras should not be used to promote distorted views. We're here to educate, not spread lies.
• (2) Everyone has the right to a commons which they can contribute to without stalking or other kinds of predation.
• (3) Everyone has the right to a commons where they can contribute without being subject to vicious allegations by people who simply disagree with them. This includes accusations of fascism against people who advance rejecting some kinds of activities on commons and allegations of pædophilia support for those advocating a more passive response to concerns about pædophila.
• (4) No complex problem worth discussing has a simple costless solution. Every decision involves trading things off among incomparable options. People will have different opinions. Sometimes the opinions will be wrong, but that doesn't mean that we can't learn from them or that the people advancing them are necessarily bad.
• (5) We can't solve all problems instantly, and just because something is terrible doesn't mean that we should drop everything and focus on that. Otherwise we might all be chained to silos with atomic weapons right now— since large scale atomic war would moot every single issue that we are discussing here... no point in worrying about the children if they are all dead and glowing in the dark. ;)

I think we simply don't have enough experience with this sort of thing to do anything more to handle each case on a case by case basis as best we can. Fortunately with so few incidents it doesn't seem that we really need much of a policy. For a first approximation, we can probably assume that anyone actually claiming to be a pædophile here is most likely a troll, exactly as we'd assume of someone claiming to be a cannibal. Perhaps that line of thinking will be helpful, I'm not sure.

Had someone come to me quietly and showed me evidence of someone gromming, or 'normalizing' I probably would have quietly blocked the user in accordance with the principles (1) and (2) that I stated above. (Many years ago I was involved in the investigation of along those lines on EnWP. The matter was handled quietly and without issues). We'd thinking nothing of blocking a user who is spamming, breaking our copyright rules, or repeated doing any one of a million other harmful acts. But when it becomes a public argument like it has here a lot of people rightfully fear a witch hunt and will defend activities that they wouldn't so eagerly defend otherwise. Instead of thinking "oh, thats bad" they think "hey, something I've done or might do could be misconstrued as that!".

I was accused of being a pædophilia advocate today in a letter sent to I don't know how many journalists— and I hadn't even weighed in on this discussion. The fear of witch-hunts is a powerful fear with a real basis in reality. On the other side, the strong rejection of the perceived attack creates disgust and resentment "How can these crazy people support pædophiles?!" "What do you mean calling me a pædophile supporter?!" Emotions run high and no real communication happens.

For future events I would strongly suggest contacting one or more commons bureaucrats, checkusers (like me), one of the more experienced admins, or failing that a Wikimedia Steward to get an investigation going if you're concerned that something bad is happening or is at risk of happening. While no one has agreed to anything like them specifically, I think we all support principles similar to the ones I've listed above. If your evidence is so thin that none of us will help you, then perhaps you need to rethink your evidence. This is no different than how we handle other "touchy" issues such as threats of violence, suicide threats, people intentionally propagating malicious software, etc. It's a system that works because third parties don't feel like they'll be next on the hit-list, and it doesn't waste a lot of energy and bruised feelings trying to hammer out a one policy to solve all issues for an issue that only comes up once every few years.

In any case, thanks for your consideration. I look forward to hearing people's thoughts. --Gmaxwell (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Much of this is good but it does not match the case at hand exactly, so your proposal is not applicable. I also do not agree with the last clause of item 3, that should be zero tolerance. In the case at hand an indef or topic ban is in order. There is considerable support for a topic ban in the main thread here. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Some en:WP edits by Tyciol: [7] [8] [9][10][11]; there is also more about him on the web. I would support indef; not necessarily because I'm worried about inappropriate contact between Tyciol and minor contributors, but because Tyciol's approach to the whole thing strikes me as more trollish than anything else. I think Tyciol's prime interest is the controversy about pedophilia.

As a thought on the scope of topic bans: "anything to do with pedophilia" does not really hit the mark. An actual pedophile would need to be topic-banned from children's-culture topics to prevent their forming relationships which they could then expand via "E-mail this user".

en:WP recently made it a policy that discussing or questioning whether or not another editor is a pedophile in project space is a blockable offence (e-mail to arbcom is the only option for bringing things like this up). I second Gmaxwell's proposal that Commons should adopt an analogous principle, i.e. e-mailing a Commons bureaucrat or checkuser. Public discussions around this are potentially libellous and result in a lot of upset. --JN466 11:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There is more on him on the web. I can come up with more public info on Tyciol if people want — Rlevse • Talk • 11:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That 5th diff you posted certainly looks quite trollish Jay. I mean, it's not as if I was trying to prevent people from being confused and assuming 'opposition' applied only to the first word when clearly it's meant to apply to all of the things listed and I was only clarifying that. TY© (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The first one was pure OR, and the fifth one was absolutely pointless. I didn't spend hours looking through your edits, but in what time I spent I couldn't find a single one that actually cited a source and was based on published thinking, rather than your own. (Actually, I do remember one, where you cited Neil Gaiman's opinion.) Methinks you think too much about pedophilia and see problems where there aren't any. --JN466 10:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend we broaden the current topic ban of "sexuality and children" to instead be "sexuality or children". In light of previous counterproductive opinions about obscenity expressed in wikipedia [12], IMO it is harmful to have this user participating in the formation of sexual content policy on commons [13] (here with regards to obscenity). That edit itself was not disruptive, but there is a slippery slope, and I think the topic ban should set wider boundaries to prevent influencing policy or articles in these areas. --99of9 (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite favoring a narrow topic ban, I do not feel strongly about this point and would also support the proposed wider topic ban.

While I understand Gmaxwell's statements that private discussions about individual users and pedophilia avoid drama, this also creates the problem that we have no opportunity to form an informed policy based on open discussion when we have no publicly known past examples to inform it. This may be the first public discussion of the issues that isn't purely theoretical, and I think it really helps to shape our considerations and consensus. In cases where the user already has a wide reputation for their confessions, there is little additional harm done in referring to them. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Why have a big policy discussion over an issue with an apparent rate of one per six years? Moreover, I don't see any reason to believe that this particular incident is particularly representative of anything but itself. I mean, how often do we have a blocking discussion where an Encyclopedia Dramatica article about a person is being cited as primary evidence? So I think we're still deeply in the realm of theory here in terms of any ability to set policy. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is all quite true - I'm not saying that this individual case should or should not have been treated privately, but that in a general sense, I think some of these cases should be treated publicly, where it does no harm to do so, because otherwise the community will never have input into how they're handled (or at least, input informed by actual cases). It is a hot button issue, but part of the purpose of policy is to allow us to treat hot button issues (like BLP) with a calm, structured approach based on experience. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't work. Examples should be discussed, generally and without any identifying information, to help formulate policies. But individuals should not be discussed openly - doing so makes very public these accusations of pedophilia, and if false this would be an extremely serious problem. Why is it that accusing someone of pedophilia is a case for oversight, but a public dragging through the wringer isn't? This should be in private to protect those accused. - Bilby (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sure, I would support suppressing irrelevant personal details regarding the identity of the accused users (even in cases where users have already been publically accused). The only information we need for discussion is the actions taken by the accused and the response by the administration. It's difficult sometimes, though, to provide specific information about their activity without exposing their identity. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that we haven't recently made any real progress on the question of User:Tyciol. I'm going to state a view here which I have been building up for a few days after conducting my own investigation, reviewing the enwp arbcom evidence, etc. I believe that there are strong indications that this account is used for trolling far even more than for anything else. For example, as pointed out above User:Tyciol has played a non-trivial role in maintaining the vicious attack page which has been used as evidence against him. Considering the nature of his editing on commons, which I think no one would describe as pro-pedophilia without believing it to have come from a "confessed pedophile", he could have easily adopted a new identity and continued without any drama, it's not like he has a long history of brilliant contributions here that he'd lose. We could not stop him from doing this even if we chose to do so. But he chooses not to do this, preferring to watch the fireworks. Even if these controversy inducing activities are not intentional, it would appear to me that it would be impossible for the account to continue to be used in any manner without creating endless drama. Because of this, I think questions potential harm are moot: We've blocked less disruptive accounts in the past without controversy.

And I think shame on anyone who would cite such trollish evidence for _anything_. You have all been trolled, I think.

I think a legitimate argument can be had about where we draw the line on people publicly condoning illegal, immoral, harmful, or otherwise unpopular views. Or a discussion on what exactly we can do to protect all our contributors from predators, or how we deal with criminals. But User:Tyciol is a terrible starting point for _any_ of those discussions. I could not have invented a worse example case for any of those questions if it tried: The facts are just so they support only an absolute minimum of informed discussion but a maximum of high emotion.

Following this rationale I'm have blocked the account. I hope that people will continue to have a considered and professional discussion about how we should handle future problems without the distortion of this oddball case or concerns about urgent risk getting in the way. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good rationale for the block. I have always  Supported this :) Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• That seems sound reasoning. The chap had been blocked on en:wp for other disruptive actions which (looking back) were probably trolling rather than competence issues.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that the user should have created a new account, but our general policy of blocking socks of blocked accounts made this an unattractive option for Tyciol - he would have had to change his IP and hope to avoid detection based on behavior. I would tentatively support a block for disruption, but only if a clean start account which does not cause similar disruption, of the sort you imagined above, is explicitly permitted. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I posted rather extensively on these issues at w:Wikipedia talk:Child protection, including my own suggestion for a redraft.[14] Wikipedia has been favoring the idea of hiding discussions like these, only allowing discussion by ArbCom in e-mail, and punishing those who bring such allegations in open forums. Some of the above drama might be taken as support for that way of doing things. But I think that the better way to improve things is to insist that discussions like this start off with the complete list of questioned diffs, with the subjective reactions of individual readers being clearly subordinated to this factual evidence. I think that the run-of-the-mill policies about harassment, civility, and neutral point of view can provide entirely satisfactory results on this issue. I don't think that forcing admitted pedophiles to get new accounts is actually protecting anyone. I think that public libraries and shopping malls deal with these issues every day, and as far as I know they knowingly issue library cards and shopper loyalty cards even to convicted sex offenders. They would, however, rapidly respond to someone who "comes out" to the next family in line at the checkout counter so as to intimidate them - self-identification can quickly rise to the level of a threat of a very serious and violent crime. I don't approve of make-believe security schemes. Wikipedia is a site that anyone can edit, for better or worse - parents and children need to be on their guard and there is simply no substitute for that. Wnt (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Commons isn't English Wikipedia, Wnt. Please don't bring enwp fights here. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Europe religion map en.png

Old protection, not needed anymore. I want to remove the border. --Beao 16:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done--DieBuche (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg

Please transfer the protection from File:UK Royal Coat of Arms.svg to File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg, as the latter file has begun to replace the former as the high-risk image. Sodacan (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have semiprotected for edit/upload and fully for move - seemed odd to allow people to upload but not edit. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right, people should be able to edit but not to upload, that would make more sense. Thanks again. Sodacan (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Autofellatio-Kiki51.jpg

WARNING: NSFW

This image was uploaded by Kikijaco, and since then has been the target of persistent category messing-up by the same person. I'm really not sure if this is well-intentioned or not - can a (preferably French-speaking) admin take a look? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you were right to say NSFW - not a pretty sight. I've added one valid category that Kikijaco was trying to add. The others, such as this one, seem either irrelevant or just plain wrong. Hope that helps. Perhaps a quiet word with the contributor would help? Regards, Anatiomaros (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Btw. ... do we really need this crap? axp_de^Hello! 08:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was in use. And yes, it's something we have very few photos of. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason we have very few photos of this stuff. It's not a mere photo of a human body, it's performance of sexual acts and should be deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

See COM:CENSOR, COM:NUDE and COM:SEX for an explanation of why we're not about to delete it outright. Tabercil (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also COM:SCOPE, where it defines educational as having a possible use on a wikimedia project. en.wp has an article on autofellatio, so.... -mattbuck (Talk) 12:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also see COM:PORN#Commons_is_not_an_amateur_porn_site where it says this is not a porn site. Also where it says US porn laws apply. One could also claim anything is educational, including illegal abusive acts, so I find that argument totally unconvincing. and COM:CENSOR is way overabused itself. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, Mike Godwin said that Wikimedia is NOT bound by those laws, PR's slapped on it anyway, it's a self-made photo and it is in scope precisely because en.wp has an article on it which this could be used to illustrate. Yes, we do host images of abusive acts - we have photos of genocide for crying out loud. But this is not illegal, not even in the most conservative US state, and if it offends your sensibilities to see someone sucking a penis then don't look at pictures of people sucking penises. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe this photograph to be pornographic in the least. It depicts the act in a very clinical manner. I respect Rlevse for feeling aroused by it, but he is surely part of a small minority. Rama (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

COM:PORN#Commons_is_not_an_amateur_porn_site does not apply in this case. We have only two images from the given accoount, both images are clear and both are eminently useable. Tabercil (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Same thing now on File:Autofellatio-Kiki42.jpg with this edit. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've left a short message in French on his talk page explaining that category names need to be in English here and asking him to desist from these edits. I'm not sure it will have much affect; his edit history is somewhat bizarre, to say the least. As we're only talking of a couple of files couldn't they be protected for a week or so? Anatiomaros (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been going on for months. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's true. I have a feeling he probably won't take any notice of my polite warning. Guess all we can do is wait and see. I'm not an admin here but if I were I'd be sorely tempted to give a formal warning of an impending block if he continues, but that's your call, of course. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect Template:No source since/en

Please unprotect Template:No source since/en or at the very least reduce the protection level to semi-protection. Neither Template:No permission since/en nor Template:No license since/en are protected at all, and I see no reason to treat this any differently. The /en subpage is not trivial to reach, and thus appears to be an unlikely target of vandalism. Indeed, neither of the unprotected siblings have been affected by vandalism. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Half-protected--DieBuche (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Toubabmaster blocked for repeatedly tagging centuries-old maps as copyvio

Toubabmaster (talk · contribs) got into a French discussion with someone and started mass-tagging all of his own files as {{Copyvio}}. I started deleting them but when I checked the last few, I realized they were maps that were clearly 100+ years old. I restored and untagged those but Toubabmaster got into an edit war insisting on tagging them as copyvio. After a warning, I blocked him for three days. I also notice he has removed license tags from his images in the past. What is going on here? Do the other images I deleted need to be restored as well? Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 14:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page trying to clarify the situation, as he apparently thinks that simply scanning an image creates a new copyright. I will follow up with him if he has further questions. –Tryphon^☂ 14:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the block was simply to stop the tag warring. If someone gets a feeling they will stop, or at least bring them to COM:DR for further discussion, feel free to unblock. Wknight94 ^talk 14:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Potd/2010-08-02_(en)

Please create the above by moving Template talk:Potd/2010-08-02 (en) there. As description for the POTD for tomorrow, it's already protected. Thanks.  Docu  at 08:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Huib talk 08:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Delete incorrectly uploaded this picture: File: Szokokut.jpg. Thank you.U'd'T (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect Template:Copyvio

Please unprotect Template:Copyvio or at the very least reduce the protection level to semi-protection. It was protected in 2007-01-16 by User:White Cat (User:Cool Cat at the time) with the reason stated as "eek cascading was a mistake." That doesn't really say anything about why it's protected, and I have not been able to find any discussion leading up to this protection. According to the notice on the talk page, which was added by User:RocketBot, it is protected "because it is a highly-used or visible template". Really, it's not that highly used. If it's used on more than a couple of hundred files at a time, we're in trouble. It has never been the subject of vandalism. There's been a suggestion on the talk page to convert the template to {{Autotranslate}} layout since May, which I'd like to act on. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Reduced to semi since deletion templates tend to get quite some test edits. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've completed the conversion to {{Autotranslate}}, which you also helped lay some of the foundation for, so thanks for that too.

If anyone notices anything odd about the template in general after the changes, please comment on Template talk:Copyvio. If you have comments about changes to the English text, please leave them at Template talk:Copyvio/en. I have both on my watchlist. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect File:Coat of arms of Kenya.svg

There is no reason why these Arms should be protected. They are not subject to vandalism, and they also require some corrections I intend to make, including the colours of the shield, which the Government ofKenya states on it's Embassy website in Paris must be the same colour as the National Flag. Fry1989 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's give this 24 hours for comment, then, barring any good reasons for the protection being brought up, I'll do so. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No objections and it's nearly 24 hours now, so I'm lifting the protection. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:S1

I don't think it's a good thing for an administrator to protect his/her own talk page. If someone is using their talk page inappropriately, that person should be blocked; but removing entirely the possibility for regular users to contact them is a really bad idea for an admin. Please unprotect. –Tryphon^☂ 20:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Done and notified him/her about this section. ZooFari 20:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Kurdish-inhabited area by CIA (1992).jpg

There was edit warring on this file File:Kurdish-inhabited area by CIA (1992).jpg, which is a CIA map circa 1992. Some users insisted in uploading modified maps according to their points of view. As this map is extensively used in WP, I reverted to the original version and protected it against edits and uploads for 2 weeks, to allow things to cool down. My view is that simple editing should be enabled to allow addition of descriptions in other languages while the page must be protected indefinitely against uploads. Any objections? SV1XV (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That is good. Saadwand (talk · contribs) and others are edit warring over this and other related files. Warnings on talk pages may be helpful. I asked Saadwand and Abuadab to follow Commons guidance on disputed diagrams. I reverted and protected File:Kurdish-inhabited area by CIA (2002).jpg for two weeks. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Edit protection for unregistered users expires in two weeks. Protection against uploads is now permanent. SV1XV (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please block User:This flag once was red

Hi! Once upon a time I was "This flag once was red". Then I changed username on en.wiki, and now I'm "TFOWR". I redirected the old userpage to my new one back in June 2009, but the old account has been lying dormant ("TFOWR" is a global account across all projects).

Earlier today I discovered that I have an impersonator on simple.wiki, so I'm being a wee bit more security-conscious than I have been previously.

So... could I ask someone to block This flag once was red (talk · contribs)?

Many thanks! TFOWR 19:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I reviewed the information and there are relevant elements showing than TFOWR = This flag once was red.

An not more used account could indeed be a security hole, so the request isn't illegitimate.

Furthermore, this block doesn't create any prejudice to any user or regular site operation, so I accept the request.

Thus, the account User:This flag once was red is blocked indefinitely. --Dereckson (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Dereckson. TFOWR 07:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

File protection

Should we change most of our protected files to upload and move protection only instead of edit protection? In most cases, the description page doesn't need protection (unless there's some dispute or persistent vandalism). This will allow non-admins (and bots) to update templates, add/improve descriptions, change categories etc. while still preventing the image from changing. I modified {{Protected file}} to generate a different color icon (green for now, but I think en.wp uses purple so I'll change it that) in the top-right corner instead of displaying the standard warning so that users will know they can still edit the page itself. Rocket000 (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem unreasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason this wasn't done earlier is that in the last implementation of the "upload protection" feature there was some bug and everything had to be reverted to full protection. AFAIK the current version is bug free, but I rarely come across protected files.  Docu  at 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Allme128

• 2ne14ever (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) (sockmaster)
• Allme128 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) (sock puppet)

I need a block on User:Allme128, whom I just blocked on en.wiki as a clear sock puppet of blocked user and serial copyright violator User:2ne14ever. In addition, all images uploaded by Allme128 need to be checked for copyvios; at least one of them is a magazine cover that lacks any licensing information. Regards, MuZemike (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked. I will let others take a look at the uploads, though, they appear to be copyvios to me. Tiptoety ^talk 04:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 07:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock File:Google_Buzz_logo.png

This should be deleted and kept on Wikipedia only. The logo currently on Commons is from the old version of Google logos because contributors simply thought that the thought bubble caused it not to work under the current licensing. Like most Google logos, this should be on Wikipedia with the thought bubble and a logo fur (fair-use statement). Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Google logos like this one are ineligible for copyright ({{PD-text}}). If the version with the thought bubble complicates the image so that it does not justify the PD-text license, then yes it should be on Wikipedia. This particular version does not need to be deleted and kept at Wikipedia, however. ZooFari 05:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes more sense. Thanks so much! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Japan and Korea maps

Could an admin handle the edit warring at these Korea - Japan maps? I have tried showing how the parties can resolve the dispute without reverting but there seems to be a language and/or comprehension issue. I am hoping that protection will focus minds on productive work.

• File:North Korea launch site in Sea of Japan map.png, should be protected at this revision, which is the same as the original revision. See File talk:Japan sea map.png#Stop edit warring for the alternate version I created that should have satisfied both parties.
• File:Japan sea map.png, this needs reverting to this version and then protection

Thank you. -84user (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done - don't make me come back there. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection of File:Nuvola apps iconthemes.png

I just reverted three vandalisms (1, 2, 3) from File:Nuvola apps iconthemes.png. I request a semi-protection of this file, due to its global usage. Thank you. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 07:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Done [15] by User:Dferg Gnangarra 02:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ;) -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

---

User:Idh0854

Idh0854 (talk · contribs) is fighting edit wars on several pictures (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). His reason to do so is based on "POV", so he says (see all links here given). Several attempts have been made to talk to this user by me, User:84user and User:DieBuche to convince him uploading his versions to these files to seperate own files (see 8, 9(Better to see here), 10 and 11), but he refuse doing so and while discussing went on he keept up uploading his versions. (By the way: we showed him how to upload to a own file, too, see 12 and 13).

I warned him three times on his user talk page to stop his vandalism behaviour but he deleted them (14). As he was also vandalising en-wp in almost the same matter and got blocked there (15) I don't think that keeping on talking to him is usefull as he also seem to refuse accepting every argument not forwarding his point-of-view.

If you disagree in blocking him, could you instead please protect those files? Thank you. --Valentim (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I find your summary at least a bit misleading; on File:General map of South Korea.png, he was reverting to the original version.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And on File:Korea north map.png you went in and changed these controversial names from the original, which he's reverting; same on File:Southkoreamap.png. On File:North Korea launch site in Sea of Japan map.png you uploaded over Idh0854's upload with the exact same file with explanation "Reverted to version as of 01:02, 27 August 2010. Continuing vandalism of User:Idh0854." (No, really, check, your upload is bytewise identical.) At File:Japan sea map.png, you have successfully vandalised the CIA's map, and got it protected. Could someone at least add to the description that this is no longer a map from the authoritative source it claims to be, that it's been hacked to express parochial political opinions? As for File:Map of korea.png and File:Korea_south_map.png, the history and blame is more complex. Still, in three of these files, you went in and changed names on the original maps and edit-warred to protect your changes. If you need new versions to support your local version of Wikipedia, then make new copies of them, and note that you changed them to use the names requested by your local version of Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you telling me, it is all right to revert a file to its first version regardless of what happend between or why changes were done? Is it really your opinion that it is all right to revert files like this image or this one to its original version and force people here to upload every single version to a seperate file? --Valentim (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Up above, you tell us that you've tried to encourage him to upload to separate files. If there is to be separate files, the first file generally should be the original. In general, controversial changes should go to separate files, and all your changes were about a controversial name of a geographic feature, nothing factual.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Before I go on discussing: Could you provide a link to this Commons rule? Reading this page myself will certainly shorten discussion here. --Valentim (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Block of Slomox

Slomox (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring with one user [16] and three other administrators [17] [18] [19]. I believe this constitutes grounds for a temporary block, but since I have been involved in the reversions, will not apply it myself. The direct cause of the reversions is over what we believe to be his personal attack on a user, which is extremely concerning behaviour for an admin, and may justify other censure, but this request is just about the edit warring. Related discussion can be found here [20]. --99of9 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you guys... always finding things to fight about. What good will a block do? If he's willing to edit-war, what's stopping him from unblocking himself? Blocking admins never makes sense. Desysop him if you really think it's problem. Rocket000 (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Would you like to name the time when I last "found something to fight about"? I do not remember fighting about anything recently, and certainly haven't with Slomox, who I have never come across before. The "good" of a block is usually just to make a user take stock and cool down, that's all it's designed to achieve. If an administrator overturned a justified block, that would be a clear breach, and I would certainly call for desysop, but I do not think Slomox would do this, I believe he would respect a block. --99of9 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. I meant the general "you", as in Commoners that do things like this. Maybe just a threat of blocking would work? Rocket000 (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A few months ago an English wikipedia admin got blocked for 31 hours or something like that. He unblocked himself, and blocked his blocking admin for the same time. Of course he was desysoped at once. If an admin did something the other editor will get blocked for, he should be blocked, and either respect the block, or post unblock request as everybody else will. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what 99of9 said was enough to answer my question. I didn't disagree with him. Move on and talk about the block. :) Rocket000 (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact he unblocked himself back in 2008. I am not sure what happened back then, but even if a block was issued by mistake, a proper unblocking process should have been followed.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to bring up stuff from two years ago, I think it's only fair that you do find out what happened back then (it's not that hard to find). See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 7#User:ChristianBier. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, if it's a mistake, you can unblock yourself. In the same way you can undone any (real) mistakes without going through any process. Let's not get crazy bureaucratic for no reason. Rocket000 (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Slomox's action. His "crime" was to edit his own talk page. To me, putting a ban circle over Floydian was not a serious personal attack; just a parody of Floydian's own action that stated a simple opinion about images on userpages. More to the point, he was defending Commons from an unproductive idea of running around deleting things you don't like from others' userpages. His "edit warring" remained within a single 3RR bound. There is no reason for a block or other penalty. Wnt (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Wnt. It's refreshing to hear a sane comment on here (getting so rare nowadays). "Personal attack" is so misused and overused, it's getting up there with "troll" and "vandalism". I'm not sure people even know what a real attack looks like. Furthermore, one could just look at that discussion to know Slomox didn't mean it as such. It just seems like an excuse to suppress things you don't like and control others, but what do I know. Rocket000 (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I also see Slomox edit on own userpage as a parody. The whole thing could have gone better but no reason for a block. Lets not waste more energy here. I am going to close this. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No reason to block. My respect for this fellow admin dropped to a 2 out of 10 however. We have enough of this bull on enwp, I see no reason why we should accept this from admins on Commons and be silent about it. Like I said before, he can talk all he want, but to make personal attacks by an admin is never a good thing, and doing it as visible as this isn't appropriate at ALL. And then yourself issuing a block, although technically perhaps allowed was an even larger oversight. If it was so bad, you could have asked any fellow admin to look into it, to avoid a conflict of interest and coming across to the other user as a power hungry admin. Basically, total fuck up and it could have easily been avoided by some common sense on the part of Slomox. TheDJ (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read my initial statement? This is NOT about the personal attack, this is about edit warring. Surely we don't need the 3RR to recognize an edit war when we see it? The only reason it didn't come up was because the other party was always polite enough to only revert once. 99of9 (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bright-line rules are easy to understand and enforce. I don't see any reason to try and enforce non-bright-line rules here, especially as the initial behavior is over.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, is this really over, when User:Slomox (1) abused his or her position; (2) is unrepentant; (3) and we have every reason to believe they will feel free to repeat this kind of behavior in future?

Most of you, maybe all of you are administrators. I am not an administrator. As an ordinary contributor I want to feel I can trust the administrators I interact with to behave responsibly. If they have to be firm, I also want them to be fair, to be as tactful as circumstances allow, and to set an example for other contributors.

Many of the comments here seem to offer the opinion that since all Slomox was doing was parodying someone who he or she thought had acted badly and who had frustrated them, there was no harm done. I strongly disagree. I want to participate in projects where the administrators hold themselves above responding in kind -- even if they think the ordinary contributor they are mocking has shown bad faith.

1. you should not respond in kind because it sets a bad example for newbies, who should look to you for the kind of behavior they should emulate;
2. you should not respond in kind because it is not an equal battle. if you must parody others parody your fellow administrators -- where it is a fair fight.
3. you should not respond in kind, even if you think the other party has acted in bad faith, because on some occasions you are going to be mistaken and be alienating someone who made a good faith mistake.

Some of the comments here, and back on the thread on the village pump point out that the contributor who first raised Slomox's use of imagery to mock them was an unsympathetic character, who raised their concern in an unsympathetic fashion. Well even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. Without regard to that contributor's wrongful action in editing third parties' user pages without consensus or permission to do so, they should not be mocked. That was unprofessional. Various people have defended Slomox's parody, saying, essentially, that his real meaning should have been obvious, and it wasn't a personal attack. Well, the individual who was the target felt they were being attacked. That is sufficient to make this use of mockery a mistake, one that sets a bad example for newbies. Do we want newbies to claim their use of mockery was OK because they saw an administrator claim their real meaning was clear?

If we can express our concerns in a civil, clear policy compliant manner that is what w should use. If we can't express our concerns in clear policy compliant manner I suggest those concerns should remain unexpressed. Geo Swan (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here. An administrator creating anti-user images is completely unacceptable. ANY USER creating anti-user images is unacceptable. I also agree with Floydian that political images should not be allowed on userpages as a statement - I made such a proposal a few months back after the latest no-israel flareup. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Mattbuck. Completly unnaceptable from any user (and even worse from an administrator) in my humble opinion. In other projects where I am active that kind of behaviour would lead into an inmediate block for personal attacks. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 18:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to block Floydian for calling him an asshole?[21]--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How is Floydian's behavior relevant to a discussion of whether Slomox crossed the line into unacceptable behavior?

Aren't ALL contributors encouraged to not respond in kind when they perceive they are the target of incivility? Aren't all administrators asked to step aside when they feel their emotions have become engaged, in order to prevent exactly this kind of perceived abuse of authority? If Slomox came to a low opinion of Floydian's character or judgment surely he or she should have kept those opinions to themself -- given that they had already put on their administrator hat, and exercised their administrative powers. If Slomox wanted some kind of action taken because they felt Floydian insulted him or her surely they should have asked an univolved administrator to look in, and take the appropriate action -- in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest?

I know I am human, this is why I make an effort to own up when I realize I made a mistake. As an ordinary contributor I don't expect our administrators to never make mistakes. I do expect our administrators to do what we should all do -- openly acknowledge when we recognize we made a mistake. Owning up is important for various reasons, including that it builds trust. When someone acknowledges a mistake it is less likely they will keep repeating that mistake. And when they don't, it erodes trust. So far Slomox seems completely unrepentant, which suggests they have every intention of continuing to use parody to blow off steam, even though doing so to non-administrators is a kind of bullying.

Just to be clear here -- are you disputing that Slomox's use of parody is consistent with our policies and conventions on civility? Geo Swan (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't talking about Floydian's behaviour, but about Dferg's hypothetical behaviour. This discussion isn't just about Slomox, it's also about how certain users have responded to his behaviour as we're obviously not unanimous on the subject. Rocket000 (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But shouldn't this discussion be just about Slomox's behavior? Don't we have other venues for dealing with reports of misbehavior by non-administrators? Geo Swan (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you mean Floydian's behaviour, then yes. If you mean Dferg's hypothetical behaviour, then no. Discussing people's reactions (as expressed here) to Slomox's behaviour isn't off-topic. If people didn't have opinions of what Slomox did then there wouldn't be anything to talk about. So I think it's ok to direct conversation towards people's reactions if one believes that is issue rather than Slomox. Anyway, I'm guessing anyone that still wants to keep this discussion going will focus on Slomox, so carry on. :) Rocket000 (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My last night comments were about blocking an admin in general. I've never looked at the provided differences. I did today. That admin should be blocked and before that desysoped. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Against, I understand Slomox posting as an humorous edit and dont see the problem. Note the satirical use of anti-flags on Slomox userpage, note the initial comment by Floydian ("You are the first user I have come across that is using the anti-flags in a well meaning way"), note the direct reaction. Incidentially I have Slomox talkpage on my watchlist, I saw the posting by Floydian and I saw Floydian's editing behaviour. He was vandalizing other peoples userpages, I was about to answer and warn Floydian. Slomox' reaction appears to be a cynicism on Floydian's combination of vandalism and plaudit for correct use, it not appears to be a personal attack. --Martin H. (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My view exactly. Rocket000 (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem? Among the problems are that administrators who mock non-administrators are setting a very bad example of the behavior we desire on a project where we are all supposed to be cooperative and collegial; and that when an administrator mocks a non-administrator it is not a fair fight. If the non-administrator responds in kind they are likely to be blocked or permanently banned. I regard it as irrelevant if Floydian was vandalizing the project. We have tools and procedures to rein in rogue users. This is a discussion of Slomox's behavior, and whether they have abused their authority. Do we have appropriate techniques to rein in rogue administrators? Note: Slomox remains unrepentant. Should we expect that they will bully other non-administrators in future? Geo Swan (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Geo Swan, people around here are too lenient so you might as well just let it go. Other admins have done worse. ZooFari 02:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

All in all a waste of time. Let's close this. Slomox will not be blocked because of this - really. --High Contrast (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

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

Protection Request: File:Gloria Macapagal Arroyo WEF 2009-crop.jpg

There's been a some IP vandalism on File:Gloria Macapagal Arroyo WEF 2009-crop.jpg - could it be semi'd? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

One passing-by IP only, not that much. On my watchlist now. --Martin H. (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have warned the culprit anyway. --High Contrast (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of protection for Arms of Brazil

Please remove protection from the Coat of Arms of Brazil. I have several relevant corrections to the file we have on hand. File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg Fry1989 (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

I request blocking user:Robertovo, for he has repeatedly use the same copyrighted image (changing names) of a politician he wants to promove. Thanks. Yanguas (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Please move MediaWiki talk:Editnotice-14 to MediaWiki:Editnotice-14.  Docu  at 07:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done - what did I just do? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Try Category:Test123.  Docu  at 11:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should we see an empty and ugly box while editing existing categoris? We need to hide the box itself when there is no contents for editnotice. – Kwj2772 (msg) 11:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That is now fixed. – Kwj2772 (msg) 12:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. Feel free to improve the layout further.  Docu  at 12:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are we transcluding a (unprotected) template instead of using the code directly? Rocket000 (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Some dev's don't like edit notices in mediawiki namespace.  Docu  at 05:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? It is in the MediaWiki namespace... nevermind, it's not important. Just put that template on your watchlist. Rocket000 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Inkscape logo 2.svg

Please reduce protection of File:Inkscape logo 2.svg to allow regular users to update wikitext, but keep restriction of upload/move to sysop only. Thanks, LobStoR (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done - it was set to allow anyone to upload, oddly. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Da2aTuth

Can an administrator please block Da2aTuth (talk · contribs)? This is a confirmed sockpuppet of banned user TrEeMaNsHoE, see here. He was previously blocked under the account Everyyearisciaras (talk · contribs). While I'm at it, File:Ciara- Matrix.jpg could use deletion as well. — ξ^xplicit 01:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 13:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, there is nothing to compare it to seeing as all the previous accounts are stale. That said, there do not appear to be any sleepers linked to User:Da2aTuth. Tiptoety ^talk 17:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Please move MediaWiki talk:Categoriespagetext/update to MediaWiki:Categoriespagetext to update the message. The current message dates from 2005 obscures the more detailed MediaWiki default. -  Docu  at 10:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please unblock Elkawe

Elkawe (talk · contribs) was banned by admin Sandstein without discussion. Sandstein has also harassed Elkawe with unfounded accusations of making false claims, see for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alte B.V.-Oel-Tafel.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peterbilt Logo.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Freightliner.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mack Logo.JPG. Please unblock. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Terrible block. Rocket000 (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protect File:Miniauge.gif, File:Miniauge2.gif

I request semi-protection of File:Miniauge.gif and File:Miniauge2.gif. The former is included on 2000+ pages on de.wikipedia, the latter on some 80, mostly talk pages, as they are/were part of the signature of de:user:Ralf Roletschek. Currently, there is a poll on de.wikipedia (de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Gestaltung von Signaturen) dealing with banning images from users’ signatures, and these files are inviting targets for disruptive actions attempting to influence the poll, and will keep on being inviting targets for vandalism, as uploading new versions will influence many pages and may cause high server load, cf. en:WP:SIG#Images (Ich beantrage Halbschutz für File:Miniauge.gif und File:Miniauge2.gif. Ersteres ist auf über 2000 Seiten auf de.wikipedia eingebunden, letzteres auf etwa 80, meist Diskussionsseiten, weil sie Bestandteil der Signatur von de:user:Ralf Roletschek sind/waren. Derzeit läuft auf de.wikipedia ein Meinungsbild (de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Gestaltung von Signaturen), das sich damit beschäftigt, Bilder in Benutzersignaturen zu verbieten, und diese Dateien sind willkommene Ziele für Störaktionen, um die Abstimmung zu beeinflussen, und werden weiterhin willkommene Ziele von Vandalismus sein, weil das Hochladen neuer Versionen viele Seiten beeinflusst und hohe Serverbelastung verursachen kann, siehe en:WP:SIG#Images). I have just protected the corresponding file pages on de.wikipedia to avoid „shadowCommons“ vandalism. Thanks --dealerofsalvation 11:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit ist Semi, Upload nur für admins ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 11:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)) [upload=sysop] (expires 11:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC))--DieBuche (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Please move MediaWiki talk:Hidden-categories/update to MediaWiki:Hidden-categories per Commons_talk:Categories.  Docu  at 06:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock-requests

Just to remind the good admins here that Category:Requests_for_unblock isn't empty, and those requests should be closed - one way or another. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Done, now empty. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:MachoCarioca

I request the block of the user MachoCarioca for harassment. This user is blocked on pt.wikipedia for the same reason, and unable to edit his user talk there. In this edit on Commons (in portuguese), he calls the sysops who've blocked him and the user who asked it "coward", "pig", "scoundrel", "psycho", etc. As in the Commons' blocking policy, an account "which are used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked". This user have special interest on images and can do good contributions. However, he deliberately uses Commons as an extension of his attacks. Castelobranco (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I placed a similar request here regarding the recent behavior of this user. RafaAzevedo (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Done, blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed from his talk page attack content. We've to watch it, to avoid future rants-only content. --Dereckson (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Late, but after reviewing I agree with the block by Cirt (talk · contribs). Such behaviour must not be tolerated from anybody. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 10:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Utah State Parks logo

I work at Utah State Parks. I posted the Utah State Parks logo to the Wikipedia page. I don't understand how this is copyright infringement. Are logos banned?

Commons:Image_casebook#Logos. To upload the logo it must be very simple or the copyright holder must agree to the publication under a free license. Fair use like on en.wikipedia with en:Template:Non-free logo is not accepted on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to block RussBot till problem solved

This bot changes the category Living people to People by name. The problem is that the category "People by name" is now mentioned twice. I have mentioned on the talk page, but it still continues see [23]. I suggest to block the bot till the problem is solved. Wouter (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

 Halted, pending reply at talk page. ZooFari 00:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Please move MediaWiki talk:Hidden-categories/update to MediaWiki:Hidden-categories per Commons_talk:Categories.  Docu  at 06:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Unarchived.  Docu  at 05:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Mbz1

Without a doubt, Mbz1 is a controversial user. A troublemaker. That is, to some. But there is much more to Mbz1 than just being a troublemaker. Mila is an activist committed to a cause, and there is nothing wrong with the cause. She is a warrior fighting antisemitism. Her methods may be bothersome to some, but at the end of the day, what kind of people defend or promote antisemitism? Do they deserve protection from critisism? The thing is, antisemitism is one of the ways that intolerance shows its ugly face once in a while. To allow antisemitism to grow, is to allow any form of discrimination and bigotry to grow. Mila can be accused of being an extremist in her rethoric, pointing out to issues, images, opinions that she considers antisemitic, in a way that may be irritable, but she has every single right to do that. After all, history has proven many times the consequences of complacency, so a hand on the bell to awaken us is never too much. Now, if she were promoting anti Islam, that would be a different story, but I see no accusations on this topic. So her problem basically is that she is anti antisemitic. What a sin. She attacks what she considers anti semitic material, and I find her attacks on the antisemitc material legitimate. Antisemitism has many ways of being expressed, from mild to strong, and can even be disguised as opinion, art, editorial, critisism of public policy, etc., etc. Mila´s voice raises when she perceives a threat, and if we are honest, she is mostly right. Freedom of speech brings along the right of refutal from the opposition. If I voice antisemitic opinions, I cannot expect silence from someone else´s contrary position. We know the consequences of silence. Is she engaging outside the rules? Is she promoting intolerance of discrimination? A block on Mila is to silence a voice against antisemitism and a strengthening of the antisemitic one. It is a victory for intolerance and bigotry. That is my opinion.

On the other hand, Mila has a little problem with three users in particular, and I´ve had confrontations with two of them. Based on that experience with such individuals, I find myself undeniably on Mila´s side. However, barring that experience with both users, as a spectator of the controversy I cannot be quiet on Mila´s block. She is being singled out and punished for the behaviour that these two individuals also engage in. Same fight, same people, but only one punished. There is a pattern of harrassment against Mila, in my opinion. This amounts to cyber bullying of the most violent form and the way that it is carried out, to be quiet is to be an accomplice. If Mila is to be punished, then punish all. If not, unblock.

And lastly (for the moment) the contributions Mila makes are invaluable and generous. Any self respecting, ethical and impartial photographer would recognize Mila´s talent, and Mila´s contributions contribute to thousands and thousands of people with her photography alone, and to deprive her continuing contributions to Wikipedia users because she offends people of questionable character, as per my opinion and experience, is an enourmous foolish act. End the injustice. I say UNBLOCK MILA NOW!!!!--Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Succinctly put. I agree 100%. Stellarkid (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And I say stop yelling. Commons doesn't need warriors, whatever their kind or cause. Commons needs people who can stay civil in the face of incivility – not out of respect for the uncivil, but out of respect for themselves and the rest of us. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Not yelling really, just voice raised slightly at the end for emphasis. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If all-caps and four exclamation points isn't yelling, I don't know what is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not all caps. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it said in a form of excitement, but exclamatory statements are interpreted many ways. I don't see why we are worrying about this anyways. ZooFari 00:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

To me it sounds like someone yelling at me to do something (and I guess he is), which makes me not want to. It kinda distracted me from the important part (the argument for unblocking, and is why I'm commenting on it instead of anything else he said). Rocket000 (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"But there is much more to Mbz1 than just being a troublemaker." Yes, every troublemaker is more than just a troublemaker. That doesn't mean that when they make trouble, we give them a free pass. Mbz1 made a personal attack, and was openly unrepentant about it. This is not the behavior that Kuiper has; he's actually fairly good about avoid direct personal attacks, which is part of the reason nobody can get a block to stick.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the comment made was not a personal attack, but an observation about content (antisemitic pictures) together with an opinion of a group of people, (those who who put up antisemitic pictures). All that was said was that people who put up antisemitic pictures "stink." This is hardly what WP considers a personal attack. As Tomascastelazo points out, we can hardly take the opposite position, ie that antisemitism is just fine. Had Mbz1 told Kuiper that she thought he was putting up antisemitic pictures and that it stunk, it would still be a discussion on content. If she told Kuiper that he was an antisemite who was putting up antisemitic pictures then there would be an argument that this was a personal attack. Calling someone an antisemite, and saying that someone is putting up antisemitic material, are entirely different. Whether we are defending or arguing against putting up antisemitic pictures, or discussing whether or not something is antisemitic or racist, we are still discussing content, not making a personal attack. I wish someone would speak to this point. Especially since all the blocks of mbz1 seem to be related to this same content issue. Stellarkid (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Going to someone's talk page and telling them that people in (some group that they are a part of) stink isn't a personal attack? The things you learn.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have an unCommon(s)ly high threshold of what I consider a personal attack (it sounds something like "fuck you asshole"—I blame cultural differences), which is why I don't normally comment on whether something's a personal attack or not. I think the others consider it one is because it was about users and not their behaviour, and that does make it personal. Rocket000 (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Declined - Have reviewed situation and agree with assessment of blocking admin, as well as prior recent block log evidence. -- Cirt (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I seriously doubt that a 5 minute review of the issues and history involved are sufficient to turn down the request for unblocking Mila. Just reading all the threads takes much more than that. Mila is being punished selectively because she is no more guilty or inocent than the other people involved, and yet she is the only one being blocked. If Mila deserves being blocked, so do the other people. Let´s be democratic about it. Convene a group of jurors that know the history of this feud. I now that there are reasoble people who will witness for Mila. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sure Cirt is at least passingly familiar with the issues. In any case, "If Mila deserves being blocked, so do the other people." is not an argument for unblocking Mbz1; it's an argument for blocking other people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Well then, if the other people are innocent, so is Mila, and thus deserves to be unblocked. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

        You really just ignored what Prosfilaes said there, didn't you. Let me restate it for you. When you say "If Mila deserves being blocked, so do the other people", this is not an argument that she should be unblocked. Instead it is an argument that we should block other people for doing the same thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

        • No I did not ignore what he said. The fact is that all of the people involved are playing the same game, so either punish all or absolve all. Whichever way you see it, the fact that only one person is being punished by a crime committed by all is an injustice. After all, the venom spilled in this fight stays within the group. To have an outsider apply selective punishment is plain wrong. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
          • No, the venom spilled in this fight poisons all of Commons. It makes it less hospitable for everyone, and sets a bad example for new users.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

            • (edit conflict) You have to ask yourself where does the poison come from so that you can apply the proper antidote. Is the poison from antisemitism, from the use or labeling of antisemitism, from editors complaining of antisemitism or what? If your editors are complaining that there is antisemitism, maybe you should be looking for it and discussing this rather than looking to ban those who might complain about it? Really if you look at the block message on Mbz1's page, it is quite ridiculous. Where does it say on WP that people must believe something (anything!) (what she said was "wrong") and must promise something (to never do it again) in order to avoid a block? Some admin seems to want to insist that Mbz1 think just like he does or else. This is the poison that you should worry about spilling over into the whole of the Commons. It makes it more like a w:Big Brother environment than a congenial one. The whole body of the Commons is already affected. It cannot be cured by cutting off parts of it at a time, by punitive blocks and bans. I urge you to reread your Orwell assuming you read it the first time! Stellarkid (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

              So you think that if a parole board doesn't release someone because the criminal still thinks it's a good thing to murder people, that that is Orwellian thoughtcrime in action?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

            • If that is the case then, the more the reason to uphold and defend the values of justice and fairness, which seem to be lacking in this particular case. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Declined

...at this time. Mbz1 happens to be right about this topic. And those arguing against categorization of images by what they are to folk are wrong. But that is not a reason to unblock Mbz1, because wikis are not primarily concerned with right or wrong, they are concerned with sharing information, and we cannot have stridency to the point that it disrupts operations here, because the projects needs come before fairness.

Further, it is absolutely true that Mbz1 is not the only person who has been strident about matters to the point of disrupting operations, or even the worst, not by far. But "he's doing it too" is not accepted as a defense. The answer is always "they need to be dealt with too, but you don't get off because they did". Now, in this case, we've done little or nothing to others who transgress far worse, but that's our prerogative as a mob community. We can be as capricious and unfair as we wish to be as long as we have consensus for it. And of course the default consensus is always "do nothing".

Mbz1 has the unfortunate bad luck of having annoyed the mob community enough that consensus seems to be reachable in this case. If Mbz1 commits to not causing further disruption by being strident in advancing her views, then perhaps this could be reconsidered. But of course she has indicated she has no intention of doing that. That does not make her a bad person, or wrong. It just marks her as stubborn and unfit to edit here because she cannot fit in. Anyone can edit a wiki. But not everyone should. ++Lar: t/c 06:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Lar. I attest to your neutrality and fairness in handling this case. I was going to say 6 months is too long and we should at least considered shortening it, but after she said she "rather stay fully blocked", I no longer feel that way. Rocket000 (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Lars, I do find it amazing that consensus (what you so rightly suggest is "mob" view) trumps all here. My understanding was that WP was "not a democracy" but perhaps the Commons is different with different rules, I don't know. It seems she is charged with the sin of stridency, in your view. She was never offered the option of making the attempt to avoid stridency and she has not indicated anything about that at all. I wish people would not put words in her mouth. Her block was for refusal to acknowledge that this was wrong (not strident) "Have I ever told you that decaying sea animals on the beach smell much better than the users, who upload anti-Semitic cartoons to Commons, and do not let to add them to the right category, which is Category:Antisemitic pictures?") and refusing to promise never to use such language again. She was blocked for what she thought was right or wrong ie for presumably ethical reasons, and for not promising to use such language again (whatever that language was, who is clear on that?). She was not blocked for how she said anything but for what she said. Upholding a six month ban for saying that antisemitism stinks -simply on the grounds that the mob (your word) approves of it - stinks even bigger. Please rethink this. Your logic and your ethical position both are faulty here. Stellarkid (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Mbz1 takes the approach of speaking truth bluntly when a little subterfuge, when dealing with the many Commons WP:DICK editors, is indicated. As for Lar, he is apparently uninvolved, and for some reason Mbz1 respects him. I think that is misguided, but that's her choice. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Next section reposted

Note: Mila has asked me to copy this statement from her talk page to here. Here's a history link to the section as of when I copied it: [24] and here is the statement. I have increased the indent levels by one so it would fit within the nesting of this topic. I stand behind this edit and do not consider it "proxying for a banned user". ++Lar: t/c 06:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mbz1

I am not an activist. I rather dislike all kind of activism. I am not a warrior. I am not a radical. I came to Commons with the only purpose - to share my images.

This all started with the image displayed at that user page This user page is a personal attack against Israelis, editors and readers of Commons.latuff's cartoons are personal attacks against Jews, against me.

Somebody advised me to hold my nose while dealing with people, who stink. I know it may sound very loudly, but I strongly believe that, if back in 1938 more people did not hold their noses, but instead spoke clear and loud about antisemitism issues in nazi Germany, maybe 6 millions of innocent people would not have been slaughtered, and maybe there would not have been the Second World War at all.

I cannot admit that the statement I made at kuiper's talk page was wrong. To admit it will mean to go against my conscience.I only could repeat it one more time: "Have I ever told you that decaying sea animals on the beach smell much better than the users, who upload anti-Semitic cartoons to Commons, and do not let to add them to the right category, which is Category:Antisemitic pictures?" It is up to kuiper to see or not to see this as PA against him personally.

I came to commons to upload my images. I did not make a political forum out of Commons, others did.

My prior block record

Yes, it is my "fifth in four months" block, but three of them were lifted as soon as I asked them to be lifted, and forth one was not lifted only because I have never asked it to be lifted, and my blocking admin rama never bothered to leave a message at my talk page to explain his block rational. I've done nothing blockabale to deserve any of those 4 blocks all posted by rama.

The word antisemitism and antisemitic makes at rama the same effect as a red cloth at a bull. rama wrote this anti-Semitic comment "Some of the arguments presented above are noticeable, compounding the impopularity what the Wikipedia Non-Free doctrine actually says (is essence it says Arbeit macht frei, and many people loath working) with the percieved defence of some Jewish interests." This statement by him was noticed by other editors (English wikipedia administrators) as well. en:user:SlimVirgin wrote: "Rama, I've always tried to assume good faith of you in your comments about Holocaust images, but your post today that fair-use policies are like Arbeit macht frei, and that some people loathe working (whatever it was supposed to mean), was so inappropriate I don't know what to say.". en:user:Y called the statement "anti-Jewish" and was going to block rama.

I wrote all of the above not to defend myself,but to be treated fairly, and to clarify my position on some important to me issues.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

I'd like to ask you, please, if the block is kept to put a nice and red block template to my talk page and to spell out what I was blocked for, maybe something like that:

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of six months for the following reason: refusing to admit that the statement: "Have I ever told you that decaying sea animals on the beach smell much better than the users, who upload anti-Semitic cartoons to Commons, and do not let to add them to the right category, which is Category:Antisemitic pictures?" was wrong and refusing to promise never to use such language again. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

To my blocking administrator

Adambro, I've changed my opinion about being topic banned. It would mean I am cowardly to hide behind my topic ban. I would rather stay fully blocked. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

---

(End repost)

---

Commentary

And so this is all about that fucking no israel flag on OsamaK's userpage? Please remind me why people did not support my proposal that all political statements, especially anti-X, be banned from userpages? -mattbuck (Talk) 07:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mattbuck, I agree with you 100%. It is my understanding that such content is not allowed on WP userpages, and should not be allowed on Commons userpages either. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mattbuck: I don't know why your proposal didn't get support. I'd support a pretty sweeping restriction on any political "anti" statements or images on user pages. And a restriction on images used in such statements that are purely decorative. (not used in articles, only in user space). These images are a perennial source of trouble we could do without. ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010May#Proposal_to_ban_the_use_of_File:No_Israel.svg_as_a_political_statement_on_userpages - maybe we should revive this as just a "Commons userpages are not your political soapbox" proposal. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there another way? It seems that on the Village Pump things tend to just get talked to death. Also that discussion focuses on just the one file, and the ban controversial content needs to be more general. Is there a way that Commons could just import WP:User pages, with just the minimal changes needed to adjust it to any differences on Commons? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to me that what already exists may be enough to exclude attack images from user pages. Note particularly that content for the purpose of "vandalism or attack" are not allowed. Why not just enforce it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Because people will claim it;s not attacking. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have see the equivalent enforced on WP many times. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Because I've seen no evidence that you and I will ever see eye-to-eye on what's neutral and what's an attack.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not? There should be no problem at all, at least not concerning user page content. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

By stating "rama wrote this anti-Semitic comment", Mbz1 is not only defaming me and attacking my honour, but directly accusing me of committing a criminal offence if my country of residence. I demand that something be done about this state of affairs. Rama (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop play acting Rama, you know perfectly well there is no possibility that you will be indited on charges of antisemitism. As for the issue itself, I have not seen Mbz1's accusation against you, nor do I know the cause, but in general I have foung Mbz1's accusations of antisemitism justified.

The problem is that people do not know much about the nature of antisemitism, and how all pervasive it is in Europe, and in the Americas. Low level (garden variety) antisemitism is so common that it is quite remrkable to find someone in these places who does not have some such content in his/her inventory of ideas. Even many Jews have succumbed to the pressure of these antisemitic ideas. Sad really, but for Jews la vita e cosi. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The words "rama wrote this anti-Semitic comment" are directly above in Mbz1's comment. Rocket000 (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to get into the particulars at this late stage, beyond saying that I think Mbz1 has been blocked a number of times on accusations of WP:PA, when that she said was essentially true. She is not very good at defending herself against the counter strikes from users who are better at playing Commons as a MMORPG, and she seems to become depresses (and less effective in argument) when face with the sort of mean spirited accusations that are common from Rama. And, obviously, she has difficulties because of her level of of English proficiency. I am copying below a syllogism that was once on my WP user page.

1. If it is true that the majority of anti-Zionists are antisemitic, then it follows that the majority of WP anti-Zionists are antisemitic. (premise)
2. The majority of anti-Zionists are antisemitic [25]. (premise)
3. The majority of WP anti-Zionists are antisemitic. (conclusion)

This frames the argument in the form of Stoic propositional logic, rather than the more Aristotelian term logic that I used previously. Also, this argument is really an inductive syllogism, rather than the more common deductive argument I first use; and admittedly relies on a statistical probability.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks can be true, but that doesn't make them ok. I know you really like discussing the meaning of anti-Zionism and why we need to label things with it, but as you can see, this approach doesn't get you far. Maybe it's time to change tactics? This is a game after all. Rocket000 (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. But, on the other hand, saying something a user does not like hearing is not necessarily a personal attack. And in the case of Mbz1, there have been times other users succeeded in getting her blocked for saying stuff they do not like hearing. Often she does not do a very good job of following up with a defense of her views, and gets out maneuvered by a tag teem that is very effective at presenting its arguments. But if I say user:X has made as series of talk page edits and/or uploads that may indicate an antisemitic attitude, no matter how unpleasant that may be for user:X to hear, that does not automatically make what I have said WP:PA.

As for "like discussing the meaning of anti-Zionism", the subject interests me only when it crosses into the area of antisemitism, which it frequently does. I do not "like" discussing that either, but I will persist in doing what I think is the right thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. By "like", I didn't mean it's necessarily enjoyable to you, but it is an activity you actively pursue (for whatever reason). I strongly disagree with making people say things like "I was wrong" or "I apologize" as a condition for unblocking (or for any reason, unless you're a parent trying to teach your child manners). We are not the thought police. However, I do think it's ok to ask users to stop acting on those thoughts if those acts are being disruptive. This one little website is not world and things like freedom of speech don't apply. Rocket000 (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been in many talk page discussions here on Commons over the issue of blocking productive editors who are 'disruptive'. To put it simply, I think virtually all accusations of disruptivness are bullshit, and I do not recall seeing a case where anything, or anyone, on Commons has been disrupted by critical comments, no matter how blunt or abrasive those comments are. What is disruptive is administrators blocking and banning good editors just because some other editor does some whining about having their editing goals questioned or opposed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is how bad us humans are at communicating. Huge cultural differences, relying on text only, and addressing multiple strangers at once makes it worse. I'm getting the feeling you think I agree with the reasons for her block. I don't. I merely used the word "disruptive" because people did find it disruptive or said they did. Bullshit or not, the result is the same. Rocket000 (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the problem is that some users are all too good at communication; and particularly at using claims of "disruptivness" on administrative noticeboards to get users, who oppose their personal editing goals, blocked. My comments are not intended for you alone, and the administrators I am speaking to know who I am addressing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that makes them better at it, but louder definitely. Rocket000 (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The page you cite "The majority of anti-Zionists are antisemitic" says nothing of the sort; it says "The most anti-Semitic Americans have a more negative attitude toward Israel than does the rest of the U.S. public." an entirely different statement.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So back to the point: Mila´s blocking has to do with her categorizing certain work as antisemitic, and some of them clearly are. Antisemitic images may even be necessary, paradoxically to illustrate antisemitism, and should be labeled as such. But does adding a category for such images worth the blocking of a valuable contributor? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1's blocking has to do with her telling certain users they stink and attacking someone over an issue that was at least at the time quiet and which reopening has caused a lot of fuss on Commons, and her showing no interest in changing her behavior.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Full protection for Mbz1's user page

see [26]... Adambro (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) full protected this page, but I have undone it. I think consensus is needed for such a move. If there are issues with what is being discussed there, they should be raised first instead of unilaterally introducing protection. ++Lar: t/c 00:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find much opposition to that. I would have unprotected instantly if I wasn't involved. Rocket000 (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you raise a good point, perhaps I should have found someone else to do it (and I invite someone else to take it over) since I'd recently conversed there myself. But really, if you had unprotected it I certainly wouldn't have had any concerns about it. ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Undoing an action by involved user to put under consensual discussion is not bad in my opinion. ZooFari 04:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I was talking with another user (not Mzb1) minutes before he protected it so I assumed it was, in part, because of me (not to mention one of the things I said was "this is not a forum"). :) Rocket000 (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to express some sympathy for her block to Mbz1, I think that would be the only acceptable type of edit to put on her talk page at this time.

Rocket000, or Rama, or anyone, if you want to argue with me about something, put it on my talk page....or on an administrative noticeboard if you think that justified. Do not put it on Mbz1's talk page.

Rama, if you get indited for antisemitism be sure to let me know right away. I could use some good news.

Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That sort of comment is unacceptable - take a week and cool down. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. He'd already made a similar comment on Mbz1's talk page which was one of the things which prompted me to protect it as the level of discussion seemed to have fallen. I have no problem seeing this unprotected but I do think it is inappropriate for third parties to use it to argue with each other and hope that will now cease. Adambro (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Adambro. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A week? That seems a bit much, even for a repeat offender like Malcolm. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Many will agree that a six month’s block is a disproportionate measure and I am convinced that, in a more serene environment, such decision would already have been corrected. I am asking the influential people here, especially those with administrative powers, to ignore the excessive noise and bullshit speeches (in Harry Frankfurt’s sense: [27]) that have been made and concentrate on Mbz1’s problem. In my opinion, her cause as an outstanding Commons’ contributor is being damaged by a series of artificial dramas that have nothing to do with the main issue and whose hidden goals are contradictory with Mbz1’s interests. With such friends (no offense intended) she doesn’t really need enemies. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  If not six months, what would you suggest and why? You are right though that some of those who probably think they are supporting Mbz1 by stirring up more trouble aren't really helping the situation. Adambro (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't like to suggest a number. If the purpose of the first block (one week) was to cool down, then I think she has already cooled down enough. But the best solution will be, in my opinion, to negotiate with her. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mbz1 is a principled and talented user who I greatly admire. AND she's right about the categories, which is what set this off. But being right about stuff isn't enough. One has to also get along with others, which, here, sometimes requires going along to get along. If Mbz1 would agree to avoid statements, even ones she feels are fully justified, that set off drama I'd unblock her in a second. I wouldn't blame her a bit if she declined, on principle. But that's what's needed I think. Commons isn't here to right the injustices of the world, it's here to be a media repository. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  Hear hear. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• @Lar. Why don't you ask her? In private, if you find it more effective. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Why would it be private? That wouldn't work since it's something she should tell the community not just Lar. I would also unblock if Mbz1 says something to that effect. She doesn't even need to agree that it was wrong to make that comment. Unlike what her friends are claiming, she doesn't have to change what she thinks at all (and I don't want her too). Rocket000 (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Because this kind of public judgement can be humiliating. It would have been for me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Understandable, but it's here either way. I'm just saying the actions that got her blocked were to the community so the actions that get her unblocked should be to the community. Here's Mzb1's response. I didn't mean all questions, I meant the part were she, if she wanted to, say something about not making statements like she did anymore. Rocket000 (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• @Alvegaspar: I asked, and Mbz1 has answered, and clarified. I'm not sure I see the need to convert to indef as Mbz1 asked but at this point I'm out of ideas. I want to reiterate that I completely understand and respect Mbz1's decision. It's rare that I wax lyrical about blocked users but Mbz1 is a special person. With regret, ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I guess we're done here. :( Rocket000 (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We should unblock Mbz1 right now

I support the move to unblock Mbz1 for multiple reasons:

• Multichill blocked Mbz1 on 30 September for one week for this comment on Pieter Kuiper's talk page in reaction to this partly trollish vote by Pieter Kuiper's on a FP candidacy. Mbz1's comment was not appropriate but even a block of one week for such a provoked comment seemed quite harsh in my opinion. In her correspondence with ZooFari she acknowledged that her comment on Pieter Kuiper's talk page was not appropriate and outlined her position: Yes, I will fight antisemitism, and any other forms of racism everywhere I see it. I should not have done it in response of him opposing my image. This block, where the inappropriatness of its cause (not necessarily its length) was acknowledged, expired two and a half weeks ago.
• Despite Mbz1's attempt to honestly explaining her concerns, motivations, and even acknowledging two times (see the quote above and her unblock request) that her comment on Pieter Kuiper's talk page was not appropriate, she was blocked by Adambro for six months on October 6 — short before the initial block expired. Let me quote Adambro's first sentence from the rationale of the block, posted on Mbz1's talk page: With regret Mbz1, it seems your block must be extended since you've made it clear that don't accept that comments like this are inappropriate here. I do not think that block extensions of such a period should be done without consensus at one of the boards. Then Mbz1's acknowledgements would probably have been considered by other admins.
• Much of the discussion (above and elsewhere) seems to be miss an important point: It is perfectly justified and in conformance to Commons' policies to raise concerns regarding the categorization and general treatment of anti-semitic pictures and how Commons is possibly used as a soapbox. The problem is not that such concerns are raised but how this is done. We can neither expect from Mbz1 nor from other concerned users to remain silent in these cases just because it might annoy someone. The question is just how this is done. Mbz1's comment was not ok. She was blocked for it. She acknowledged that her comment was not ok (even twice). If we keep her blocked now, this smells as if we are going to suppress such concerns in general.
• The length of Mbz1's block log was raised multiple times. Before the current case, I found nine regular blocks of which five were lifted quite early as unjust and one shortened. Two times, Mbz1 was blocked and subsequently unblocked on her own request. In addition, some tweaks of the blocks are to be found in the log. So far, the longest blocks which run through their course were one-day-blocks. To me, this is neither a ground for a block extending to a period of a week or even six months.

In summary, I suggest to unblock Mbz1 now, to invite her to raise her concerns in conformance to our policies (i.e. discussing categorizations on the corresponding talk pages or at COM:CFD, to raise concerns regarding other users at the corresponding administrative boards, and general concerns at COM:VP), to support her and others (not just admins) against any form of wiki-hounding, and to discuss conflicts at COM:AN/U before issuing any blocks to long-time contributors. Blocks in non-urgent cases will generate much less drama if a consensus is found first. This allows us to avoid the unfortunate block-drama-unblock cycle through which we have dragged Mbz1 too often. We owe her in this regard, not just for the amazing pictures. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC) P.S. That I comment this late to this case is due to the fact that I've spent a month in Ireland where I was mostly offline.

Just to respond to part of that due to time constraints, you suggest in your first point that (on October 3) Mbz1 "acknowledged that her comment on Pieter Kuiper's talk page was not appropriate". I don't think it is clear that she did so. In her comments on October 6 she said "I do not believe this message was unacceptable" which would suggest the opposite. You are of course correct though that "The problem is not that such concerns are raised but how this is done". Time after time Mbz1 has shown, and to some degree accepted, that she is unable to deal with these issues in a clam, civil, and proper manner. She has also said she "cannot accept a conditional unblock" (19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC) so it seems there is no real alternative considering how long this has already gone on for and how much it has been discussed. As for the current block, I suspect sooner or later someone may come along and remove it. What we need though is proposals for alternative solutions to this problem, not normal service being resumed. Any admin who chooses to unblock will need to explain how they intend to deal with these problems in a different way. Adambro (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with AFBorchert's assessment of this block. Looking at her block history alone the sudden escalation to a 1/2 year block is obviously excessive and disproportionate. I am weary of the continued discussion about the antisemitic material, but blocking out people that voice their opinions is not contributing to the resolution of this matter. Maybe we won't be able to resolve it after all, which would be quite sad. But especially in the recent weeks I found it very easy to remove myself from these areas of commons. The discussions are minimally disruptive and people who do not want to participate are not forced to do so. To me Mbz1 poses no imminent threat commons needs to be protected from. And that is what blocks should be used for. Not as a punitive tool, and as a replacement for the ability to select the discussions you want to take participate in. --Dschwen (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering Mbz1 have shown no regrets over her repeated personal attacks. Actually she has openly stated that she will not stop. I don't think an unblock can be justified under those circumstances. // Liftarn (talk)

Per Dschwen & AFBorchert who are two of the more sensible people around Commons. It is sad to see Commons heading down the route it currently is. It is not the Commons I have known and loved. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Every action has a reaction. The very issue that got Mila blocked started with what can be considered a provocation, and her comment was a general statement that someone took personally, or worse, an interpretation by someone that she meant to insult a third party! Before that, it was the categorization of images. What is wrong with categorization? Categorization, after all, is very subjective, and just about any image can be tweeked to fit any category. If someone uploads an image of alcohol, it can be categorized as susbstance abuse, or party aids, or alcoholic beverages by culture, etc., etc. So an image that depicts anti Israel messages can be in interpreted in a wide manner as anti semitism. Her statement is so general as to be inocuous to all, except to those who answer the call and are "probably" as an old friend would say, involved in that behaviour. The block is excesive and it does two things: The first is that it will "probably" bring joy to her detractors who prod and provoke her constantly and secondly, it will deprive Commons and its many users of high quality images that she generously contributes. She is not the only one being punished. I say unblock now!--Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing that you can consider a comment on FP about the picture and its suitability for FP a provocation (which it probably was), but the response to that on the user's talk page that says "this group of users stink" as a general statement that absolutely was not meant to insult anyone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying to lay things into Mila's mouth is not really helping in this discussion. Even if she had said that, which she didn't quite, it would not justify a one week block. The issue here is that she is now even blocked for half a year. I can only suggest taking a closer look at our Blocking policy. It talks about Accounts and IP addresses which are used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user. It takes a lot of word and fact twisting to bend snide remarks into harassment and Mila's contribution record into primarily such things. --Dschwen (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Have I ever told you that decaying sea animals on the beach smell much better than the users, who upload anti-Semitic cartoons to Commons?"[28] is exactly what she said. Once it gets to AN/I, she changes it [29]. I fail to see the semantic difference either one has from what I posted. I think part of the problem here is that we're tolerating a lot of hostility from users that do enough to keep their contribution records from being "primarily" such things.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Dschwen, Well said. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, the sequence is: provocation > response > block... take away root cause, provocation, and there is no response, thus no block. Italic text--Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Tomascastelazo, why are you talking about categorisation? Mbz1 being blocked has very little to do with categorisation. As far as I am aware she hasn't been involved in the categorisation of the Latuff images. As for the comment she left on Pieter Kuiper's talk page being a "general statement", that seriously lacks credibility. Are we really to believe that it is just a coincidence that Pieter Kuiper has uploaded images some have suggested show anti-Semitism? As for the provocation, I think Pieter Kuiper commenting on photos by Mbz1 is not helpful but his comment "I also looked at previous versions, there is too much manipulation here. Anyway, decaying sea animals on the beach are not the most appealing subjects" doesn't seem that terrible. Anyway, the recent comment that she made is the reason why she was blocked for a week. Her apparent lack of regret for making it as she's explained in "Before you let my block to expire" and more recent comments is why I didn't let the block expire or now unblock her. Too much attention here is being paid to the Pieter Kuiper talk page comment. That in itself certainly wouldn't merit a block of the current period but it is just the latest in a long history of similar edits by Mbz1 and as her own comments suggest, it is unlikely to change. As for the more recent comment by Tomascastelazo that "take away root cause, provocation, and there is no response, thus no block", he is correct but it takes two to tango. I expect Pieter Kuiper will be blocked for a significant period sooner or later but I don't believe that would suddenly resolve this issue. Maybe the reality is that Mbz1 lets her emotions get in the way of approaching these issues properly and is too easily provoked into such responses? Pieter Kuiper hasn't helped with things here but I don't accept that he is effectively responsible for Mbz1's behaviour. Adambro (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The sequence is provocation > provocation > provocation > provocation > etc. Frankly, Mbz1 abused everyone who commented on [Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A beachcomber is touching a dead whale washed ashore at Ocean beach edit 1.jpg], which strikes me as very problematic and indicating the problem is more than Kuiper.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Adambro, it all started there, if I recall, with the categorizations... or at least it was an element that helped set the environment that developed... The animosity of some users toward Mila is also evident, and that has contributed to the situation too. In any case, if I am wrong, sorry, but that is really not the point. But let´s forget everything and start with the current situation, recognize what is, backtrack to the medular points and remedy the situation where it can. Spoken words are like bullets, they cannot go back into the muzzle... they are gone and their damage done... But procedures, ah... we may find a solution there. I believe that Dschwen points to a good start: Blocking Policy. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I Propose:

1. Unblock immediately.

2. Revise block. Was it done according to policy and procedure?

3. If yes, revise length of block and adjust to similar lengths of blocks of other users for same type of violation. Credit time served.

4. If no, maintain the unblock and forget about the whole issue. The legal principle of not having to be judged twice for the same crime should apply here. Administrators should also be held accountable for their actions, especially if outside policy and procedures. They exist for a reason.

5. If behavious persists, restart within policy and procedures.

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just unblocked Mbz1 as I fail to see a consensus supporting the six-month-block after the initial block expired and per reasoning outlined above. Please allow me to address some of the concerns:

• The founding principles of Wikimedia require a creation of a welcoming and collegial editorial environment and ask us to maintain room for fiat to help resolve particularly difficult problems. I think that we at Commons should take up this challenge and work more towards an environment that accepts inconvenient statements, provided they are civil and appropriate. We all know that Commons accepts material that is controversial, biased, and possibly deeply offending. We do this as we assume that this material is realistically useful for an educational purpose, provided it is put into a proper context. This editorial context is missing on our site as we are not Wikipedia but a media repository. We keep this material in conformance to COM:SCOPE, COM:NPOV, and COM:CENSOR. We should, however, in my opinion begin to think about how we handle this material, i.e. by finding criteria to identify it, to tag it, and to restrict its usage (no display anywhere at Commons, in particular not on user pages and talk pages, no submission to COM:FP, COM:QI, or COM:VI). Our categorization system is no real substitute for such tags as due to the controversial nature of these images the categorization might be very controversial as well. Such tags should help to avoid seeing this material by accident and these tags should also make clear that the views provided by these images (like political cartoons) are not endorsed by this project. At the same time it is important, however, to focus the discussion regarding controversial images on the images and not on the users who uploaded them. Similarly we have to take care that Commons is not used as a soapbox to host biased and possibly offending material beyond what is required to fulfill our mission. Please remember that this conflict started when a controversial picture was displayed on a user page (and to this moment it still is). I suggest that we start to develop a policy how we handle controversial material.
• Secondly, I suggest that any possible violations like incivilities, inappropriate comments, deliberate provocations, or assessments of other users in regard to their upload of controversial files are discussed at COM:AN/U. I think that it is better to find first some deeper insight into an issue and some consensus before we decide how to react. This is in conformance to COM:BLOCK which asks to consult other administrators for advice if in doubt and this makes it more likely that these decisions are accepted and not immediately reversed.

--AFBorchert (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Commendable. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If this is the standard, that a user proud of her incivility and with a stated goal of turning Commons into a battleground for her political views gets unblocked, then please stop bringing Kuiper here. Acknowledge that that's your standard and live by it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That comment is simply false and your personal interpretation, which can easily be seen as a personal attack. She has never claimed to be proud of her incivility nor has she stated that she plans to turn Commons into a battleground. Stellarkid (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum that is designated to receive new incivilities and wild claims here. If you monitor a new problem or if you have a constructive suggestion how we shall proceed in this conflict, you are invited to raise this at COM:AN/U, COM:VP, or whereever this is appropriate. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with a fair amount of what AFBorchert has said but I don't agree with the conclusion that has been reached, that Mbz1 should have been unblocked. There seems to be no clear alternative plan proposed for how to deal with the specific issues here only general comments. If, and considering past experience there is a significant possibility, Mbz1 makes personal attacks on those who disagree or finds some way of disrupting Commons to make a point, what then? Do we just hand her another 1 week block? Blocks are meant to prevent disruption not punish but it seems clear that the previous short blocks have not been successful in preventing disruption by altering Mbz1's behaviour. That is why it is the time now to protect Commons and implement a longer block but yet again Mbz1 has been allowed to get away with what many others wouldn't and be unblocked whilst nothing has changed to stop the same things being repeated. Unfortunately it is a lot easier just to say there wasn't consensus or whatever and unblock than it is to actually come up with another alternative plan to address the issue. Adambro (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How about 1) taking a break and 2) develop a policy and guideliness on proper etiquette in such a way that it does not hinder legitimate encyclopaedic endeavors but prevents uncivil exchanges but yet provides legitimate space for disagreement and conflict resolution. Punishement cannot be metted out just on administrator criteria. Behavior and rules must be codified a priori. I don´t think these incidents are really disruptive, but they do point to the necessity to address certain issues. Rome was not built in one day, and neither wikipedia... this is an evolving project. And I believe that as a start, we can retake the spirit of the encyclopaedic movement of the Enlightnment [[30]]. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I forgot my stopwatch but it didn't take long for Mbz1 to start with personal attacks again. This time she baselessly accuses me of uploading "hate propaganda antisemitic cartoons"[31]. // Liftarn (talk)

That doesn't sound like a personal attack although I do think Mbz1 needs to be careful when she is making comments about some of these images that she doesn't end up attacking their uploader. That someone uploads something which she may consider to be anti-Semitic doesn't necessarily mean the uploader endorses what the images shows nor must everyone agree with her definition of what is and what isn't anti-Semitic. Adambro (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so it would be OK if I say that Mbz1 have uploaded several cartoons filled with racism and hate? // Liftarn (talk)

It doesn't have to be a personal attack to be inappropriate or offending. (This is just a comment on the use of "personal attack" and not what anyone said or may say.) Rocket000 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)