Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 14

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

TPMGermany (talk · contribs)

This account is only uploading out of scope images (and copyright violations) about this company. I already informed them about our project scope, but I doubt they will ever make useful contributions (looks like a single-purpose account). I suggest blocking it now or at least keeping an eye on it. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 11:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked them infinitely as it was out of scope and promotional images and the user(s) are using a promotional user name. Bidgee (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. –Tryphon☂ 11:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha

The following discussion was prompted by the Ottava Rima discussion above, but since it is only tangentially related to that discussion, I have added a new heading, Malcolm Schosha since it is primarily with and about this editor. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to apologize to the administrators who participated in this discussion for calling them "intellectual midgets".

On reflection, it would have been better to use the more politically correct term "intellectually challenged". In any case administrators being apparent dummies is secondary to the much more important problem of administrators who characteristically display ethically challenged (ie vicious) behavior. I suppose it was inevitable that administrators would become wiki-tyrants, but there is no reason for them to expect that their victims will accept that outcome as good. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Sorry if any bruising has occurred in this discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That was the most two-faced apology I've ever seen. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I said I am sorry if feelings were hurt by what I said. I did not say that I want to retract what I said, because I consider what I said correct. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Essentially, "You're all stupid assholes, and I'm sorry if you don't like it." And then you feign martyrdom when you're blocked. What a joke. Wknight94 talk 13:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
"feign martyrdom"? Where do you get that? I did not even bother to appeal my block. I said I think the administrators are completely wrong on the issue of this section, and I characterized the administrative total self confidence, while completely wrong, in abrasive terms. Under the circumstances, I think that bluntness was justified. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Please refresh my memory, why do we have to deal with this? --Dschwen (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
We don't. I was very tempted to just block him for that comment. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
@Schosha, this is feigning martyrdom. Wknight94 talk 13:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You have completely misunderstood the purpose for that image. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
That is not quite the point. Right now it is pretty much irrelevant whether you are right or not. It is not the content of your view, it is how you try to express it. There is no community that is too stupid to understand a member's view point, there are only people who are unable to express it in a manner appropriate for the community. If you constantly insult community members and make irritating postings, such as the fireing squad image, that people supposedly misunderstand, than you have a communications deficit with respect to this community. You can either work on it, or you can leave. I am frankly baffled here, I would have thought that 65 years should be plenty of experience in human contact to understand these very basic concepts. --Dschwen (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
My thinking is explained, in a brief form, on my talk page. I can not make you understand, or agree, or approve. I explained the basis for my edits here in a far more complete and comprehensive way than any administrator involved. I can not make you agree, and if I had such power I would not use it because that would deny the freedom of choice which makes you responsible for your own actions. I can assure you that my approach is rational and considered. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
He understands fine. He wants to be blocked. Ottava Rima has been subject to a glorious martyrdom - in Schosha's picture - and now Schosha wants the same. He's left retired messages but apparently can't disengage, so he wants our help, and he wants to be able to simultaneously blame us and start a little mini-movement for himself. Someone please oblige him. Wknight94 talk 14:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Wknight94, your mind reading skill are not as good as you think they are, and you misread and misrepresent my actual thinking. I removed the "retired user" template because it is ugly, and I do not like the wording either. I replaced the template with this message [1] on the top of my talk page, which in any case better explains how I regard my present editing status. I only replaced that message a week ago, with the current quote on the top of my talk page, so administrators could easily understand that I do not regard my approaching wiki-exile as anything serious. I do not "want to be blocked", but have come to regard it as likely, and do not particularly mind if that happens. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This is completely ridiculous. What is he thinking? Is this supposed to be some psycho number to intimidate administrators into thinking whoever blocks him now must be an evil tyrant? So he can get away with more audacities like the stuff above? Sorry, I don't think any sane person would buy this tactics. --Dschwen (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Its the administrators who have done all the whining, not me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Are we allowed to ban for rulesurfing here? Because if so, I think this is worthy. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
If so you might have to block yourself. I have not cited any rules here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just ignore pure provocation? --Eusebius (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Eusebius here. Even a block is giving it more attention than it deserves. –Tryphon☂ 15:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
If it is pure provocation then why put the burden on the community? An indef block is the ultimate ignore tool. --Dschwen (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Dschwen - I could not have said it better. Wknight94 talk 15:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is out of place in this section, unless I'm hopelessly confused. If we want to discuss the behavior of Malcolm Schosha, that discussion should be moved to a new section. However, my suggestion is to suspend that discussion, close the Ottava Rima discussion, and allow Ottava Rima's block to run its course. By May 28, passions may have subsided a bit. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the above discussion is primarily with and about Malcolm Schosha, I have added a new heading to that effect. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio images

User:Rob3494 has been repeatedly uploading images from flickr that have the label "all right reserves". --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done I'll warn the user and watch his uploads, thank you. --Eusebius (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
File:S&ST5.jpg doubt the licensing --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Another image File:MadonnaBentlearningBenefit.jpg --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted and user has been blocked. Bidgee (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:David20vk

Repeatedly uploading images that are copy vios and some of dubious licensing. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Only one bad upload since last warning. Next bad one should result in a short block. Wknight94 talk 11:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
3 bad uploads since last warning. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
✓ Blocked for three days. Tiptoety talk 03:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:CanterburyPhoto

Promotional account. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't require special handling here. One upload in January, one upload yesterday - both now deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Not worth blocking at this point. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Look at the account name. Doen't it suggust a role acount? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I hate to break the news to you, but this is WikiMedia Commons, a website where people are meant to upload photos. -- User:Docu at 23:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah but look at the username. I even got told off for using User:Troop350! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This user sent me an email: <pastebin link redacted> --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So help him. And for cying out loud DON'T PASTE EMAILS IN PASTEBIN. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what to do! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

←For starters, lets all mellow out a bit. Tyw7 is a user asking for assistance from administrators, and is doing so in good faith. There is no need to reply in all caps, or act like he somehow does not deserve our help. As for the issue at hand, it sounds like the person who emailed you owns the copyright to some of the files he has uploaded that are subsequently being deleted. If that is the case, then you should direct him to OTRS, where he can provide the OTRS team with a statement of permission(s) for the files in question. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS sent. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, wait. Maybe you misunderstood, or I was not clear enough. The copyright holder needs to send an email to OTRS, not you. Tiptoety talk 06:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I forwarded the email to OTRS. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


But seriously, LOOK AT THE NAME OF THE ACCOUNT! It's the same as the company's name. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Another clueless unsigned message by Tyw7. It is quite an awfull thing to do to post emails with private mail adresses on the internet. Removed that IMMEDIATELY please. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
All email redacted. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Once again, everyone please mellow out. I agree that pasting an email in pastebin then publicly posting it is in bad taste but there is no need to yell at one another in all caps. Pulling Tyw7 aside to let him know would have accomplished the same goal. Also, Tyw7 drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse. It has been determined that no action needs to be taken against this account at this time. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 07:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I was just dealing it as per the Wikipedia's policies, which I know. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I do not know the mores of enwp, but here we respect copyright. Do not publish works by others without permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The only way to ask about advice about an email is to show it... I have redacted all of the private email address now. Plus, I forgot to sign because the toolbar is not working under IE8. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and suppressed Tyw7's addition of the email (seeing as it listed a non-public email address). Unfortunately, given the number of revisions since then it will still be partially visible in the page history. Tiptoety talk 07:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Training AirMedia Learning

Resolved

Another Promotional account. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Already dealt with. Tiptoety talk 07:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 14
This user was on a long-term block which expired a few days ago. My beef with him is his categorizing the Red Army Faction as "antifascist resistance" in violation of Wikimedia's NPOV policy. Looking through his recent contributions I see he also edited File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (censored).jpg, replacing "Category:Censorship" with "Category:Anti-Communist Propaganda".[2] My hope is that somebody will back me up in explaining to him why these edits are inappropriate, or maybe ban him again.Prezbo (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The second allegation is the easiest to refute, just compare File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (censored).jpg and File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (original).jpg. In my opinion it is easy to see that those are different shots (different camera location, but most of all a lot of details have changed). Erik Warmelink (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right, those are different photographs of the same event. The titles are misleading. Changing the categories is obviously not a real way of dealing with this problem.Prezbo (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Labelling those two pictures as „(original)“ and „(censored)“ is a nice example of Anti-Communist Propaganda, which makes Category:Anti-communist propaganda a rather fitting category, IMHO.
Now you have seen through one piece of US propaganda, could you read en:Gulf of Tonkin Incident#Distortion of the event and then tell me who are the terrorists, the Johnson gouvernment of the USA (which sprayed napalm on children) or the RAF? Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you exactly mean. Are you saying that the picture labeled as "censored" is an original picture that has not been altered in any way? This is wrong. This is not an optical illusion due to a different angle and this is a known fact that Kamenev and Trotsky were removed from the picture during the Staline era. See File:RedSqlenintrotsky.jpg which is (a cropped version of) the original picture. However, I'm not quite sure about the "censorship" category, to me it looks more like history revisionism. — Xavier, 22:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
No, User:Xhienne/Xavier, I was saying
"it is easy to see that [⁠File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (censored).jpg and File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (original).jpg] are different shots (different camera location, but most of all a lot of details have changed)".
Considering that you can not even correctly quote my words, I would appreciate a direct quote from a reliable source for "a known fact that Kamenev and Trotsky were removed from the picture", especially since there are at least two pictures, which makes "the picture" ambiguous. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course your words say that those are two differents shots, but in the meantime, you are recategorizing the picture as "Anti-communist propaganda", and you are adding a description that says "the US propaganda wants us to believe that this picture was censored". Correct me if I'm wrong since Dutch Low Saxon is not a tongue I understand.
This not a neutral description and I'm still waiting that you support your claims with a valid ref. Until then, we will stick, as usual, to what is written on Wikipedia, in w:Censorship of images in the Soviet Union. I have provided a link to the original photograph, with Kamenev and Trotsky (same shot, same angle, same time) therefore there is no doubt this picture was altered. If the US are behind this, then prove it, else your claims are original research and a mere personal opinion.
Now, unless you bring a strong evidence that you are right, stop edit-warring on File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (censored).jpg. — Xavier, 00:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I say File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (censored).jpg and File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (original).jpg are different shots. Do you deny that ("This not a neutral description")? Do you have a valid ref which claims both pictures are the same? Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

People, don't be mistaken by this irrelevant question and judge by yourselves. Erik is just carefully hiding behind a former misunderstanding (not mine) in order to camouflage an edit-war and to push his personal PoV again and again.

I'm sure you will admit that Erik qualifies as a problematic user. So, please, keep an eye on him and if he persists to beg for a block, don't hesitate to fulfill his wish. — Xavier, 22:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We have two not-too-low resolution pictures, File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (censored).jpg and File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (original).jpg, these are different pictures. A US propaganda site (newseum.org; links from commons) claims on the page to which commons links quite often (http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/9_10.htm) that File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (censored).jpg is a retouched version of File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (original).jpg (though their copies are lower quality). You claimed that File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (censored).jpg is a retouched version of File:RedSqlenintrotsky.jpg, yet you don't explain how it is possible that the "original" is cropped (the window on the left, people before the podium) and of lower resolution. I am not convinced, and you want me to be censored. Rather ironic, isn't it? Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
And what now? Will I get blocked if I mention that only some low resolution images on a propaganda site support the claim? Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This user has also repeatedly acted in bad faith on COM:SEX. Examples here, here, and here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The first two examples are the same contribution. I noted that Commons:Sexual content is rejected. The third removed an attempt by Stillwaterising to force a US law upon an international community. Erik Warmelink (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Mistake in diffs corrected. Section was also blanked by Erik here (for a second time). That same "correction" was made repeated by the now indef. blocked User:Roux here and here. There was also numerous additions of the rejected tag by Roux (see here, here, here, here, here, here, etc). This is evidence of cooperative edit warring with other users. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You claimed that the US law was the definition, showing a rather embarassing lack of education. Le loi des Etats Unis n'est pas le loi, c'est seulement un loi. Quand divers personnes défont vos contributions, peut-être vous avez tort. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
FR: Monsieur Warmelink, tu es Babel en-2, (por votre userpage description). S'il vous plait, corresponde en Anglais ici. EN: Mr. Warmelink, you are Babel English level 2 from your userpage description. Please correspond in English here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
A strange comment. Commons is a multilingual project... --SJ+ 01:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
In any multilingual forum, you find a language that the people participating in the discussion can use. If one participant, fluent in the language of the discussion, switches languages to one that another participant has troubles in, it's rude and frequently offensive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Switching to French or Dutch in the sex discussions would solve many problems... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

3 day block by Bidgee

Erik Warmelink has been blocked for three days by Bidgee for an attack on an editor. Please see User_talk:Erik_Warmelink#You_have_been_blocked_for_a_duration_of_3_days.[3] Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to extend Warmelink's block to indefinite

Per comments by myself and others, I propose to extend Warmelink's block to indefinite. His hate-mongering should not be tolerated here. He's had long-term or infinite blocks on four different projects - including this one. If he hasn't learned by now, he isn't going to.

  •  Support indef. Wknight94 talk 21:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support indef. --JN466 21:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, he definitely has some anger/tolerance issues - but I Strongly oppose banning someone for being antisocial or having wayward political beliefs, if they are making good-faith improvements to WMF. Erik is making good-faith improvements, has added 100 freely-licensed images from his native Netherlands to the project - and he is better served by negotiating terms like "avoid user talkpages" than "we r totally gonna ban u againz!" which have proven ineffective. Let's work on rehabilitating, not alienating, good-faith editors - no matter how wayward they seem. Erik seems like the ultimate opportunity. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Telling him to avoid user talkpages wouldn't prevent him from attacking people based on their nationalities or wasting others' (my) time with incredibly tendentious politically-motivated arguments. I doubt there are any sanctions that could be imposed which would compel him to act in a reasonable way, especially given that he doesn't think there's anything wrong with his behavior.Prezbo (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I do encourage people to block users with antisocial behaviour. This is poisoning the atmosphere on the project and driving contributors away. This is in no way outweighed by the contributions of the antisocial people. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - that can wait until the next block. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support indef. This type of behavior pattern is not conducive to fostering a positive environment amongst contributors. -- Cirt (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad bad User! Don't be so bold again! Widescreen ® 06:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Itu ® per Widescreen ®
  •  Support - The user has been behaving unacceptably. Jehochman (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • We can try our best to work with folk but at some point we have to cut our losses. Erik shows no sign of wanting to behave in acceptable ways. I suggest either indef or 4x the last long term block duration, subject to lifting if he does in fact undertake to behave better, including an explicit acknowledgement of what the issue is. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Using the term "four times the prior" is a nice way of couching the fact you're advocating a two-year ban for someone you've locked horns with in the past. And to say we'll only unblock him "when he acknowledges that we're right and he's wrong" seems incredibly childish. Why not focus on limiting his contributions on Commons to those fields where he's helpful, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 16:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
An exponential backoff (2 to 4 times preceding block minus the last reasonable productive/peaceful period) seems fair provided that it can be given swiftly without long discussions. --Foroa (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
How do you define "productive/peaceful"? He has been banned entirely from three different projects and has even, by his own apparent boasting, managed to get his IP address banned from a couple projects. Can you find any peaceful period if you gather together all the projects and all the accounts and IPs? Even his quieter category work is spiked with unnecessary nastiness (which I had to fix with COM:CDC - and there was still a left over one just now). That was bordering on simple vandalism. At least in the mistaken category, someone might find them and fix them. Wknight94 talk 17:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose That does not qualify for indefinite. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Max Rebo Band and Matthiasb. I'm also very uncomfortable with the idea of us dishing out indefinite blocks when consensus is consistently divided according to partisan viewpoints in an ongoing controversy. As of present, at least six participants in this discussion (including myself) appear to be influenced by inherent bias.   — C M B J   05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Max Rebo Band and Pieter Kuiper. Maybe after the next block. Trycatch (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support per above. User is notable for abusing second chances. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Max Rebo Band, short-term block itself is unjustified as well. There seems to be a habit here nowadays to block users for being right. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I consider antisocial behaviour a reason to block, I do not consider wayward political beliefs a reason to block. For obvious reasons, I don't think my political beliefs are wayward ("I am a centrist, others are extremists", but almost everyone thinks their political believes are centrist). I need to change my choice of words, if I don't, my political opponents will get me blocked. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You can have whatever political beliefs you would like. The problem is that you are attacking other people here when you think they have differing political beliefs. It's bad when you attack those people, it's even worse when you attack the wrong people! You attacked me for having a "fascination with instruments of murder", then downgraded to "knowledge of instruments of murder". Not only are those clear attacks against pro-gun people, but you don't even know if I am a pro-gun person! It's completely irresponsible and unacceptable in an online community. Wknight94 talk 20:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That was not an attack. An encyclopedist can be fascinated with such instruments without being evil. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course we all know it was meant as an attack. Just like "nuclear terrorist" was an attack, and "murdering civilians" was an attack and "US (lack of) education" was an attack. Wknight94 talk 21:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with this analysis by Wknight94 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not surprised. Only the first one is a personal attack, but that was 11 months ago, and Erik withdrew it...[4] Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
@Wknight94:Sure, just like y'all know I meant a slang meaning of "wikt:retarded", even though I don't live on ethnically cleansed land. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The ancestors of many of us Yanks came here in flight from ethnic cleansing, to a land that had already been "cleansed" of many of its original inhabitants. Just because you are lucky enough to live in the land of your ancestors, extending back to the Garden of Eden, you still have no right to castigate the rest of us for the accidents of our births. --Curtis Clark (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
LMAO, here you are again! What does "ethnically cleansed" land mean?! Why are you saying that to me? Are you accusing me of some sort of war crimes and murder?! Or are you literally just dropping your political beliefs into the middle of sentences, whether they are relevant or not? Do you really think it's okay to stereotype every American like that? Again, shall I just drop references to Apartheid into the middle of every sentence to you? Wknight94 talk 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, well he's blocked again - no surprise there. So Guido den Broeder, maybe you can answer the other question I had for you. What is your explanation for this edit, if you don't think it is an attack? Why does he mention Wsiegmund next to "murdering civilians"? Is Wsiegmund in the US Army? Has he been convicted of some sort of war crime? Is he a murderer?! What is your alternate explanation? Wknight94 talk 22:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I am considering the possibility that you WANT to see an attack, to have an excuse to get rid of the opposition. Much easier than to try to work with someone, learn, and together spread knowledge instead of rubbish. I'm not saying it's the case or that it's deliberate and conscious, but it happens. Keeping only best buddies around is so appealing. It kills the project, however. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question at all. You have no explanation for why he says what he says - to Wsiegmund earlier or to me above. I say his words are simple blind attacks and stereotypes against Americans (in this case anyway - maybe he attacks other nationalities in other cases), and you give no alternative. Wknight94 talk 00:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
That is quite a leap of bad faith. I have no explanation for why you say what you say. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - having just come across this behaviour in the last few comments I have blocked him for a week. From the block log this is a serial offender who clearly does not have the capacity for better behaviour. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    You block him in the middle of this discussion? Then what are we all here for? Is this a show court? Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    This is not a court of any type. I saw someone make an edit which I considered to be an attack and so having seen he'd been warned before I straight out blocked him. We do not require his presence, his attempts to "explain" himself are just more attacks. He is not contributing constructively to this discussion, so therefore the only point of his being here is to give us more rope to hang him with. Look at it this way, by NOT being here, he staves off the indef block longer. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment it seems to me that some users here think they have a fundamental right to use commons for political soapboxing, discussion just for the sake of discussing, and making a stand against "censoring", "oppression of free speech", and what not. They are mistaken about that. This project has a fairly well defined mission. We welcome users to contribute to this mission, which includes productive and cooperative discussions. If you are more abrasive than helpful and the bottom line of your presence is more hurtful than helpful for the project this is no place for you. These users should take their admirable views out to the real world where their concerns might have merit. It is only a logical consequence that these users should be blocked. To stay on topic, Erik is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to continuously voicing it in an insulting an abrasive manner. If he doesn't get this then he should be indef blocked and we should move on with this. I don't quite understand why this much contributor time is burned on this issue in any case, we have a precedence case with Mutter Erde where it was discussed in epic length that no amount of productive contribution outweighs outright antisocial behavior that alienates plenty of other contributors. --Dschwen (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    He is perfectly entitled to make other users aware that other opinions exist, when that is relevant to a commons asset, and thereby attempt to correct or make neutral the asset's description. So far, nobody has shown that Erik is doing much more than just that. He is also entitled to be upset when confronted with a proposal to block him; that does not retroactively prove the block right. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If his only purpose is to make other users aware that other opinions exist, he's doing a terrible job of it. His words are filled with so many distractions, that no one hears anything else. I still haven't heard any real message - just that he associates me with ethnic cleansing and murdering civilians. I suspect there is no other message. Wknight94 talk 02:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support This editor has a long history of being unwilling or unable to desist from attacking others. It is clear to me that these problems do not stem from a lack of fluency in English. Many of our best contributors and administrators are less fluent in English than Erik Warmelink but communicate effectively and in accordance with our policies and guidelines. In deletion and undeletion discussions, it is not necessary to discuss the attributes or motivations of other editors who comment. Erik Warmelink chooses to do so, frequently in a harassing or intimidating manner. This is not the behavior of editor who is concerned about being misunderstood. I think that until Erik Warmelink agrees not to attack other editors, not to use Commons as his soapbox, and not to assume bad faith, he should remain blocked. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support indef.--Mbz1 (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support indef. No net value to the project.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support per nom and comments. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Melanom (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Quick note that four of the oppose votes above have a total of six uploads this calendar year - two of which have zero. It's easy for someone to support problematic behavior when they are not the ones dealing with it. Wknight94 talk 13:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have zero uploads this year, and I support, so I'm not sure that analysis will go anywhere.--Curtis Clark (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
By the same reasoning, it could be argued that those uninvolved would find it easier to take an objective position. Courts go to extreme lengths to find people unfamiliar with someone accused of a crime.
As mattbuck said, the user continues to give us more rope to hang him with. Obviously he needs to rethink the manner in which he conducts himself in disputes. But at the end of the day, indefinite blocks are, well, indefinite, and this discussion was inadvertently tainted from the get-go. Unless a user, any user, is intentionally disrupting the project, we should ensure that all other means of correction have first been exhausted.   — C M B J   00:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I think too much is made of intention. If you're disrupting the project, and you aren't going to stop, you need to be blocked, intent or no.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And done

✓ Done - blocked indefinitely. User was still harrassing people via his talk page, even while blocked. Let's draw a line under this sordid affair and move on. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If user was "harassing people on his own talk page", clearly they were goading him by continuing to visit and edit his talk page...and should a user who voted on the proposal really be the one closing it? Especially when there is a significant amount of opposition? Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 18:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not a vote, and if consensus had clearly said no to indef then I wouldn't have indefed. But the vast majority of people were in favour of it, and having seen his behaviour continuing, even while blocked, I felt that someone needed to implement the consensus.
Now, let me get this straight, you're saying that if Erik used his talk page to be abusive it's the ABUSED'S FAULT? Give it a rest. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
13/21 is 65%, which is not "the vast majority of people" - put it this way, could I, or someone else who voted opposed, have followed our oppose vote by closing the debate and saying "It's not a vote, if consensus had clearly said yes to indef, I would have banned, but I feel someone needs to implement consensus, so no block" on the exact same evidence? Of course not - which is why it's ridiculous for you to be closing this after voting. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 01:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Half the opposes are not regular users here. If not for the sudden attention from Mr. Wales, this discussion would have been a landslide. I'm not sure why you're even opposed. If your interest is in keeping a porn supporter, rest assured that I've stopped weighing in on such discussions, so that evens things out. Wknight94 talk 01:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I have been on WMF for five years, Melanom has been here for 4 years, CMBJ, PK, Widescreen and MatthiasB have each been here for 3 years, Trycatch is 1 year, Guido is a newb. Which "half" of the opposers are not regular contributors, may I ask? I see 7/8 being regular contributors - compare that to the "Keep"ers; already a weak majority supported the indef...shall we examine the fact Jayen is 1 year, Prezbo, Stillwaterrising, Jehochman and Itu are each less than a month old? That brings it down to a 9/7 vote, closed by one of the voters in favour of permanently banning another member from the project. Please do not muddy the waters by making false statistics to support your vote. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, of the opposers, one said wait until next block, which was before the 1 week block I gave him last week. Another said per that so they are both effectively supports. Yes, several of the other opposes were people who have never been active on commons and just appeared to add weight here when one of their own is threatened. I wouldn;t be surprised if there was some canvassing going on somewhere. I'll accept I was a bit hyperbolic by vast majority, but that is still 2:1 in favour. If it were a vote. Which it isn't. I find the supporters of the block to be more compelling. However, that is I accept personal opinion. But more to the point, I looked at his behaviour on his talk page, which is all he's been able to edit for the past few days. It was clear that the last ban has had no effect on the user's behaviour. It doesn't seem like any length ban would - his block log is almost a mile long. At some point you need to just bite the bullet and say "enough is enough". That point is now. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and should your objection really be out of losing him on porn issues, (which I really hope it isn't, as frankly you should care more that someone is being a dick to people) then let me be clear - I support the inclusion of nudity, pornography and related materials on Commons. I did not block him because of his opinions, but because I find his behaviour towards others to be reprehensible. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Based on the fact I also opposed indefinitely banning SWR who nominated 90% of my uploads for deletion (interestingly, this week apparently he and tyvw seem to be REnominating all their failures) - no, it definitely has nothing to do with his "porn votes" - it has to do with an increasing sense of micromanagement amongst administrators who seem to believe their job is to remove those lesser than them from the project (and I don't dispute he is much lesser than you); which seems like a slippery slope away from why WMF was founded. I'm just against heavy-handed indefinite bans, since they only encourage committed vandals/trolls to return under alternate identities and prolong the problem, more than actually reforming the user may have done. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
While I admire your faith in reform, Erik Warmelink has not expressed a willingness not to attack other editors, not to use Commons as his soapbox, and not to assume bad faith. With no such undertaking, the only alternative I see to an indefinite block is for the community to continue to tolerate such behavior. Consequently, I endorse this action. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Warmelink hasn't come back to the English Wikipedia since he was banned there, so if future sockpuppets are your main concern it may be misplaced.Prezbo (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I am certainly not new. Thanks, dear Mattbuck and friends, for providing us with the reason for your behaviour; you seem to have made yourself known as one of those immature souls that are viewing Commons as a porn repository. I seems that the WMF will end where it started. Thank you also for generously reminding me of the many reasons for my retirement. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Guido, I don't view Commons as a porn repository, I see it as a repository of educational materials, and I believe that sometimes pornography is educational. I wasn't saying you were new, merely that some of the opposes were.
Max, I'm glad it wasn't based on porn votes. I don't like indef blocking people who are not merely serial copyvioers, I feel that we should try and integrate people into the project, and it's certainly not because he's not an admin. Most people on Commons aren't admins, and without them the place would die. But just because someone does good work doesn't mean we should put up with people who consistently display a bad attitude. Commons works through consensus, and you can't build consensus when someone is attacking the other over aspects unrelated to the debate. I wish there were another way, but there had been many previous blocks, and throughout it all the same bad attitude and general disregard for others was displayed. We shouldn't be forced to put up with that just because he makes some good edits along the way. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Often enough, a little sidetracking makes it easier to arrive at a consensus, and the consensus will be stronger and of better quality, because you get to know where everybody's ideas are coming from. If people feel they are attacked in such cases, it is usually because they displayed significant ignorance and misinterpreted the intentions of the other side. Some irritation may then show, but a hindrance to consensus this is not; the ignorance is. Ignorance should therefore always be attacked. That is the very basis of our civilization and knowledge. So yes, in any undertaking, if it is to be successful, you should be forced to put up with that.Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Warmelink engaged in an American form of reductio ad Hitlerum ---- maybe he was inventing reductio ad George W. Bush. That is a far cry from "a little sidetracking". He didn't sidetrack and bring another POV, he completely distracted from discussions to the point where the original discussions were nearly forgotten. Of course that is a hindrance to consensus. It's simple straw man tactics - rather than respond to someone, he finds something else in their background - a straw man - to attack. The other person is then defending themselves from that attack - or in this case expressing revulsion to being called a murderer - rather than contributing to consensus. Your calling such people "ignorant" does not make it so. Wknight94 talk 11:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
It is your own responsibility not to get completely distracted. You can't blame the other for that. (Note how I don't let your ramblings distract me.) Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
That's bullshit in so many ways that I won't bother "rambling" a response. Wknight94 talk 12:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Enjoy your retirement. You've been another excellent example of why I think users banned elsewhere should also be banned here. The list grows longer and longer. Wknight94 talk 13:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Warmelink had a point. I made it here. But probably that also counts as "bad attitude". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
There are simply lines which must not be crossed during discussions here. You mentioned "cultural bias" ---- that phrase does not cross the lines (not to say I agree with your point). If Warmelink consistently mentioned "cultural bias" instead of American "ethnic cleansing" and Americans "murdering civilans", he would be welcome here. But he didn't. Instead, he crossed those obvious lines of social acceptance with almost every comment - here and at the other projects where he has been banned. Wknight94 talk 11:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Our goal is to build a repository of freely-licensed images, not to build an online community of friends. Warmelink was shitty to deal with, but he did contribute to our repository of free images. He did not vandalise pages, change captions to his biased views or nominate images he found distasteful. In short, he was less harmful to the project than many, many others who are allowed to remain simply because they have nicer social skills. I tried engaging him on his talk page, decided he was an ignorant jerkoff...so stopped talking to him. That doesn't mean he should be banned, it means he should be ostracized. Very different. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 12:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem is not that he contributes bad images or anything, but that his argumentative attitude can often cause others to spend time arguing rather than uploading or categorising or whatever. That's what makes him disruptive. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I never said he had to be friends, I said he needs to be approachable. People need to be approachable in a collaborative project. Someone is going to disagree with Warmelink at some point - it's inevitable. To say that the person who disagrees with him has to stay quiet and not engage with Warmelink because Warmelink is in "ostracized" mode is a bit silly. As Dschwen put it in a similar discussion, your "just avoid him" or "just ignore him" idea puts the burden on the rest of the community. BTW, who are the "many, many others" that you are saying are more harmful? Wknight94 talk 12:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
@Mattbuck: Time spent arguing is often well spent. It is in fact the essence of the wiki process. Blocking a user for that, rather, is disruptive: not only can Erik now not continue to contribute, but see how much time you are all spending on this noticeboard! Not to mention that you are now left with only one side of the argument, which reduces the quality of the project. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Warmelink's only contribution was to say all Americans are uneducated murderers. We got the message - so noted. No need to repeat it over and over. We wouldn't spend time on this noticeboard if you would stop repeating your poor argument. Wknight94 talk 13:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thread archived. Block is in place according to consensus and the ongoing discussion is no longer particularly productive. 99of9 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Taric25

This user has threatened me twice on my talk page (here and here). The second diff was more of an attack, as well as a threat. User also called me a liar on several DRs I started of users own images. This hostile behaviour is unacceptable and needs to be addressed. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You made strange DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parrot polyamory mascot.gif. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I trust you (Stillwaterising) would accept you were incorrect in your nominations of at least some of those images to say there was no indication of the date the photo was taken? Also, I would suggest that you explain why a particular image violates a particular policy. Simply pointing at a policy is often not adequate. Perhaps you could consider apologising to him for your mistakes and that might help promote a more civil atmosphere. Adambro (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I would accept an apology on the condition that Stillwaterising promises not to make false statements anymore. In addition, it was Jayen466, not I, who first asserted Stillwaterising is a liar at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taric Alani Cum shot.jpg because of his obviously false statements. In layman's terms, bearing false witness is lying. Since it is not uncivil to call a duck a duck, I called Stillwaterising on this user's multiple lies:
On the latter Admin Infrogmation "Speedy closed, deletion request based on multiple obviously false misstatements." Stillwaterising also wrote Deletion Requests for all my uploads that contained images of myself:
Stillwaterising even wrote Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parrot polyamory mascot.gif, however, this user made no deletion requests to delete my uploads that had nothing to do with myself or sexuality:
Max Rebo Band called Stillwaterising on this, "Keep, appears to border on a bad-faith nomination by a user targeting uploads by a specific other user. This image is not even close to requiring deletion." at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parrot polyamory mascot.gif.
Admin Adam Cuerden has also warned Stillwaterising for his behavior at on this very page at #User:Stillwaterising.
Need I say more? The evidence speaks for itself. Taric25 (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 Comment - I am getting a very strange feeling of deja vu about this thread. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment: My first thoughts: Sillwaterising, as I mentioned on your talk page, assuming good faith from you, some of your nominations were at least careless and contained multiple factual errors. If one did not assume good faith from you and instead assumed that your actions were done with careful consideration, it could easily appear that you were accusing Taric Alani of lying, forged OTRS, child pornography, and impersonation. And that you were apparently falsifying information to support those harsh accusations. Stillwaterising, can you see how someone might become emotional if faced with such accusations, and turn around and call you the liar, and suggest that such violations of Wikimedia etiquette might prompt a block? I'd like to suggest that both users try to act with civility and assumption of good faith, even in frustrating conditions, and perhaps the two of you should as much as practical avoid each other. Infrogmation (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    I concur with Infrogmation. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment, interestingly at the same time SWR is asking administrators to close the thread alleging malfeasance on his part, he is opening threads seeking to ban those users who have pointed out that malfeasance. Note that he opened an AN/U about me last week with all manner of baseless claims, essentially seeking to have me censured because the two dozen DRs against my images largely failed. As Peter Kiuper has pointed out, SWR opened the laughable Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parrot polyamory mascot.gif (I opposed a week ago) seeking to delete a PD image of a parrot, seemingly simply because it had been uploaded by Taric, who had also uploaded an image of himself posing (semi-artistically) nude in a room. At the end of the day, SWR has shown remarkable bad faith, not only campaigning to have images s/he finds personally offensive removed - but actually trying to get such uploaders banned for "having a username reminiscient of a background character in a Star Wars book" or in this case, vague threats in response to more serious threats by SWR himself. In fact, in this first diff "threat" SWR links, Taric is remarkably polite and says he "respectfully asks you to withdraw your nomination for deletion [based on policy grounds], thank you". How the hell is that a threat? Due to your habit of misrepresenting policy and consensus, Taric is not the first person to call you a liar, and he will not be the last. If you wish for it to stop, the correct response is not to seek to ban people who call you a liar, but to start showing some honesty and integrity in your contributions to our project. I agree it would be best for both users if they avoided contact in the future, so neither of you nominate each other's images in a tit-for-tat manner, try to avoid voting on each other's images, just act like the other person doesn't exist. (Although if one user does break the rule and DR an image, the uploader would obviously maintain the right to defend their image) Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 16:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Move to close (2)

 Request Since this has been open for more than four days, and there has been no new discussion for over three days, I request for us to close this discussion and move on with our lives. I will take Admin Infrogmation's advice to avoid this user. I will also accept an apology from Stillwaterising if this user promises not to make false statements anymore. I do not accept this as a warning, since I do not believe that I was the user who created the problem. Taric25 (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have anything to worry about here, just let it die quietly. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been avoiding starting any more DR's, at least until Com:Sex is finished. I did not think accusations of lying or threats of blocking were appropiate from Taric25, but I do understand that since the photos were "own work" that it may be difficult for this user not to take the DR personally. I was careless in my fact checking, and if I did (unintentionally) cause any harm to this user I do sincerely apologize. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
As I stated before, I will accept an apology from you if you promise not to make false statements anymore. Stillwaterising, I don't mean to split hairs, but with the exception of File:Free Subtitles.PNG, none of those photos were my own work. I feel this is the very fact checking we're talking about, and I urge you to check information before submit your edits. Would you please clarify your statement? Taric25 (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Serial copyviolations by User:Jamen Somasu

Could someone take a look at User:Jamen Somasu? He or she had been warned by admin Martin H. on 25 April 2010 to uploading copyviolations,[5] but has continued doing so.[6] The user's MO has become a crop or take an entire image from blogs or forums, convert it to PNG, and upload here under the claim of self-work. None of his or her uploads are the user's own work. Although File:Recopasudamericana.JPG, a derivative of another user's valid upload, can be kept, it was initially uploaded by the user under false claims (self-authorship). I highly doubt File:Morumbi concept hall - interior04.PNG is the user's work either (no EXIF, medium size commonly seen on web, previous uploads). Jappalang (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Both new uploads deleted, last chance is running now. --Martin H. (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem also exists at Wikipedia, see gallery, the OTRS template at en:File:BocaJuniorsRecopa2008.PNG is nonsense as the author (he) is not the author and the source (own) is not the copyright holder, nor is the original source that was used when the file was uploaded the copyright holder. The other images too. May an en.wp admin please care about this, otherwise I will request speedy on en.wp untill this images are gone. --Martin H. (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done, thanks. --Martin H. (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Several copyvios by User:Sagooor

Can someone block him? He has uploaded copyvios. Warnings have been given enough! ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 14:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and uploads deleted. Adambro (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User:TFORTVB

He has already been blocked for 8 hours and uploads copyvios after a new warning again. Please block him for a loner time. Thanks! :) ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 07:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Has been done already! ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 11:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:EngoziMfon

Many or all of this user's uploads are copyright violations. Mangostar (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This user hasn't edited in around two years so this is the wrong venue. Try COM:DR. Wknight94 talk 14:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted images, new user

Azkadellia.Gale (talk · contribs) has uploaded several images from magazines in blatant disregard of their copyright and has since been implementing them into articles across wikimedia. Please delete the copyvios and appropriately warn the user. -MBK004 07:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Gah1997

Gah1997 (talk · contribs) needs a little time to read Commons:Licensing, and it looks like an enforced break from uploading copyvios is required. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Sorted thanks :) --Herby talk thyme 18:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Kerry Blue Terrier

Under the above heading it states Co. Tipperary as the source of the "original Kerry Blue Terrier". All records extant contradict this odd claim. In 1822 an English Dog Fancier first noticed these unusual terriers IN CO. KERRY. His subsequent book and letters were discovered in the last century.

Oh, well Britanica just admitted it's error in tracing the History of Ireland by calling the Irish Civil War a War between North and South Ireland. The war was about Ideas. Both sides were in the republic. The north was not the issue

Checkuser please

Can someone check to see if User:Brian00763 is the same person as blocked user User:Jaan00732? Jaan got blocked a couple of days ago, and Brian uploads two of the exact same files... Tabercil (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No checkuser necessary. Too obvious. Just block Brian00763 permanently and double Jaan00732's block. Or maybe Jaan00732 needs an indefinite block. Wknight94 talk 04:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
While not disagreeing with the comment CU may still be worthwhile to see if there are other accounts... There were :) Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough - I stand corrected! I don't usually consider sleeper accounts unless there is history of creating sleepers, but your way works too!  :) Wknight94 talk 11:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Aw, nasty serial copyvio'r had all his plans go "boom"... <G> Thanks Herby! Tabercil (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

HELP PLEAAAASE! How to publish a biography File on Wikipedia?

Hi to everyone! Please, help somebody! I 've lost almost a week trying to find out how to publish a file here about a person. The only think I could do is just to post his picture, and do not know how to download the biography information or how to send it for the approval. NEEED HELP!

I'm confused. Judging from Владимир плахотнюк, it looks like you are looking for the Serbian Wikipedia? Try sr:Владимир плахотнюк. This site is only for files like images and PDFs and videos, etc., not for biographies. Wknight94 talk 14:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


It's russian. :( This is a famous person in Republic of Moldova. Could you help me with the link where I can download biography info? Thx a lot!

You need to go to the Wikipedia front page, choose what language wiki you want to work on, then search for the name of this person. It will probably come up saying something like You may create the page "Mary anne suzanne", but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered. Click the redlink and you'll be taken to the edit page for that article, at which point you can write your biography in. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Payo155's uploads

This user is currently uploading what seem to be copyvios, most if not all relating to Parni Valjak. BrokenSphere 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No uploads in past 5mins. If the next upload is a copyvio, block. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sumdasoavina (Sndpsingh23 sockpuppet)

Please block Sumdasoavina (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , who is a pretty obvious sockpuppet of Sndpsingh23 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , AKA Shrikrishna 3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , AKA Sandysandy2010. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 13#Sndpsingh23 for case history. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

✓ Sorted thanks - personally it looks like there may be a couple of sleepers but with zero contribs I'll agf for now. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Penarc

Penarc received their first warning not to upload copyright violations in 2007. Since then, they've had to be reminded multiple times after uploading clear-cut copyvios.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

The user has also been repeatedly called upon to stop committing copyfraud by claiming to be the author and copyright holder of copyrighted and public domain works by other authors.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] A few of these have been acknowledged, but the user has then elected not to change anything about their behaviour.

Instead, this pattern has continued in spite of "final" warnings and a short-term block. This is at least the third time this user has been brought up on these noticeboards, after Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 6#User:Penarc and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/Attention 5#User:Penarc.

As if that weren't bad enough, add dozens of files with missing legal information and other bad uploads, as evidenced by their talk page, and I think it's clear that there's been enough chances. Time to put the foot down. They've left big enough a mess for the rest of us to clean up as it is. We don't need them to make it any bigger. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That is some record...! Done nothing with the files around currently but blocked for two weeks now. I suggest if they continue after that block we go for much longer/indef and reference this posting. We have plenty to do other than deal with such serial copyvio uploaders - thanks LX --Herby talk thyme 16:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Missvain

This user is going on uploading copyvios with File:Columbia Pediment by Edgar Walter (1935) (SOS! Control IAS 66400087).jpg (copyvio of the SIRIS catalog) having been uploaded a few hours ago even though several deletion request warnings have been posted on his/her talk page today (User talk:Missvain). Teofilo (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be from a flickr source which may or may not be connected officially with Wikimedia. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This is mere Flickr washing. The SIRIS catalog page mentions the source very clearly as Image on file. Goode, James M., "The Outdoor Sculpture of Washington, D.C., A Comprehensive Historical Guide," Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1974, D-25. Teofilo (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
And some of her uploads are also copyvios for other reasons. She's been warned already, so I'm going to issue a first block. She's on my watchlist anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
One question though before going on, have you checked that the book is actually copyrighted? --Eusebius (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It is the uploader's job to find the details about the copyright status of the files he/she uploads. Not mine. Even if the book happens not to be copyrighted, the proper template would be Template:PD-US-no notice or Template:PD-US-not renewed. What is quite clear is that this uploader is uploading many files, and not doing the copyright status finding (and disclosing, explaining, in a language everyone understands) job seriously enough. Teofilo (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Certainly, but my concern was about us possibly tagging as copyvio files taken from a PD book. But as I understand US copyright law, it is copyrighted (without need for renewal) as soon as there is a copyright notice in the book, which we should assume I think. I'll go for speedy then. --Eusebius (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Additionaly perhaps some procedure should be undertaken on the English Wikipedia to close the en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art forever or until it is lead by leaders who are more knowledgeable in copyrights and free licencing. Using the "Wikipedia" brand name to perform some usefulness doubtful activities on non-Wikimedia websites like Flickr is perhaps not something one should encourage. Teofilo (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done at en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art. Teofilo (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I approve what :en:user:ww2censor wrote on 3 December 2009 at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art#Images of sculptures. Teofilo (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Hum. SIRIS also says that some digital photographs come from the 1974 book... I think they don't mean that the pictures are taken from the book, but that the works of art are referenced in the book. It is not always clear where the pictures come from, but they're on a copyrighted SIRIS website. OK.

--Eusebius (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Junius

The user thinks he can upload whatever he wants just because we make the project. And also think he can upload anything because some projects has fair use and Wiki-pt is going to be too. I tried to explain to him and even give some Commons policies for him to read. But I think this won't do at all. He says he can upload logos and mascots from football because they want to be promoted. Me and user Mwaldeck explained that he he must ask permission and sent to OTRS, but he refuses that. You can see the role conversation here, here and here. I won't discuss anymore about that and I won't put some of his files for deletion because I had trouble with this user on Wiki-pt. So I ask for some admin to try to convince him. he dosn't speak english so I ask for some admin who can speak portuguese or italian to try solving this case. His user page has all files upload by him, and some are clear copyvio like these:

Mizunoryu (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the user understand now our policies. Don't need to warning him anymore. Yet I'd like someone to revise the images above. Mizunoryu (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 and Pieter Kuiper block

 Comment - Rama just blocked both Mbz1 and Pieter Kuiper over the latest Latuff flare-up. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, there was not really much of a flare up. Just the usual tension. I'm not convinced that a whole week is appropriate here for either party. And Mila was blocked >24h after her comment, after which no further incidents occurred. This does not seem to be in the spirit of blocks being used to avert damage to commons. --Dschwen (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Kuiper-bashing all over again. Kameraad Pjotr 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree. The both blocks looks entirely unnessecary. Does the uploading of in scope pictures if somebody dislikes them constitutes an element of a crime for now? Trycatch (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, you can unblock Mbz1 too. Her "intimidating behaviour" has not intimidated me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I've unblocked Mbz1 per Dschwen and others. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Lottcat (talk · contribs)

This new account seems to be vandal-only as of all his uploads so far, deserving a block or even a ban. --Túrelio (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, all the uploads deleted and the user indef'ed. Bidgee (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Global lock requested on Meta - thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Lycaon/Mbz1

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Given the history and personalities of Lycaon (talk · contribs) and Mbz1 (talk · contribs), I've asked them both to refrain from commenting on one another's work.[25] Mbz1 has agreed.[26] Lycaon has not yet responded. Sometimes, it an effective remedy to ask individuals with a history of difficult interactions to avoid one another. Commons has applied this sort of remedy rarely, if at all, to my knowledge. But, if nothing is done, I fear that the conflict may worsen. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible approach. Thank you Walter. --Dschwen (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed and thanks. Lycaon is not good at replying to things though - I still await an answer to why he has differing standards for his own images to those of other people which is certainly a cause of some friction. --Herby talk thyme 07:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why I'm not allowed to comment on inferior images. I'm not the one who is always insulting and doing the name calling. Should I be hampered in my reviews for the bad behaviour of others? I've already stopped commenting on FP because of the double standards there. Am I now chased from QI too? Lycaon (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean "double standards" that Herby mentioned you apply to your own images and the images of others? Your reviews of my images are biased, and I could feel your anger with me personally in them. For example here you wrote: "Very poor quality for an easy shot. Moray eels rarely venture from their hideouts and are rather docile as they are often fed by divers. No mitigation really." I could not even understand what you meant. Was it an easy shot because "Moray eels rarely venture from their hideouts" or because they are getting fed by the divers? How do you know the place I took the image is frequent by the divers, who feed the eels? There was no any diver, but me, and I was probably the first diver that young moray eel seen in his entire life. Not to say that the quality of discussed image is not just good, but very good.
Let's not discuss who is wrong and who is right, but here's the deal: You asked me not to post to your talk page. You do not respond my questions posted directly to you about your reviews on my images (I could provide few differences by request) You did not respond my questions/comments on your nominations (I could provide few differences by request). I hope you and everybody will agree this is abnormal situation. In the situation like this it will be better for everybody involved, if we both are to stop reviewing images of each other. My QI nominations constitute maybe less than 1% of all nominations. Please do let others to review my images on all forums, and of course I will not review any of yours. Please agree with this and let us be done with that once and for all. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with the solution because it represents a loss of the normal users' rights, which maybe be considered unfair by some of the parts. As long as the QI assessments are made on the basis of strict technical criteria, nobody has the right to complain (only to constest). Reviewers are not blind or stupid, and a call to a Consensual Review is always possible. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah "As long as the QI assessments are made on the basis of strict technical criteria", and if they are not? But do you agree that I as a creator of an image that is being reviewed have the right to ask a question concerning review and get direct answer at the nomination itself, and/or on a reviewer talk page? I hope that you would agree that it is rather ridiculous, if for example Túrelio should have asked lycaon, where he saw halos in my image, because lycaon ignored all my own questions about it. So I'd say the solution should any one out of two: Either lycaon does not review my images at all, or he responds my questions about his reviews. The same of course will apply to me also. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • First of all nobody wants to ban Lycaon from QI like he insinuated. Secondly relying on Consensual Review to iron out the alleged bias in voting is putting unnecessary strain on the system. I'm not 100% convinced, that Lycaon's reviews are driven by personal dislike for Mila. Him ignoring her inquiries could also be explained by not wanting to bother with what he perceives as false allegations. Looking at the QI page a bit closer, it does not surprise me that he votes more often on Mila's pics than other peoples pictures. For once she nominates quite a few, and they tend to be of borderline quality, which automatically means more discussions. It seems to be a judgment call, or a matter of personal preference, how much the difficult conditions for some of her pictures should be counted as mitigating reasons. So, while I do not want to unjustly cut Lycaons right to participate in the project, it would be best if he voluntarily would refrain from voting on her images. There are plenty of other reviewers, so stepping back a bit could easily lead to other reviewers voicing criticism on Mila's pictures (which would only strengthen Lycaon's position). If however nobody else comes forward with similar criticism, then it might be best to accept that the pictures are indeed Quality images. --Dschwen (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1 is doing this systematically, see also here. As to possible bias, see also this vote. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Pieter Kuiper, I wonder if you would be kind enough to expand on the point you are making about bias and the relevance of the second diff to your point, please? I may lack the necessary background to understand your comment. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Lycaon has been a regular contributor to the quality reviews, often exercising criticism and reasoned judgment that others often agree with. Mbz1 starts complaining about bias, and wants this critical voice banned from her reviews. Clearly, such a ban would give her an advantage. But Mbz1 is not complaining about the first FP vote ever by Gilisa (talk · contribs). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to explain your comment. That is helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I took a closer look at the three QI nominations now in the Consensual Review section. Two of them have, in my opinion, serious quality issues and the third may be considered borderline. As we all know, 'enc value' or 'rarity' or 'difficulty' are not accepted criteria for evaluating pictures at QIC. Strict technical quality is, in all its components (lighting sharpness, composition, etc.). I do not want, and will not, try to interpret the personal motivations of the reviewers when declining a nomination. But it is beyond doubt that, at least in the case of these three pictures, there are strong reasons for opposing promotion. The bottom line is (again): should a user be restrained (voluntarily or not) from reviewing some other user's images just because he/she doesn't like the outcome or is convinced that the assessments are malicious ? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that my suggestion is far from ideal. If agreed to, Mbz1 will no longer benefit from the comments of one of our best critics and photographers, and one who shares her interest in marine organisms. I'm reminded that we learn more from our critics than our admirers. But, Mbz1 isn't finding Lycaon's comments helpful at this time. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure if a formal restriction is really necessary, or helpful, here. That said I'm not entirely convinced that Lycaon is truly acting fairly. Firstly, with respect to "double standards": This edit is complaining about part of the head being out of focus, whilst he nominates this image, which has a more obvious focus problem. Its easy to be blind to the flaws of your own image, but its unseemly to complain about double standards when you suffer from them yourself.
That leads on to a second point (and the only actionable one I'm suggesting) which if Lycaon acts on it will reduce potential for complaints: Please review responses on QI: If you nominate an image and its declined, try to respond to that (eg by fixing, withdrawing or disagreeing). If you decline an image for a fixable reason, check to see if its fixed and review your oppose.
With respect to interaction between Lycaon and Mbz1, a small relatively small fraction of QIC are by Mbz1. But a high proportion of Lycaon's declining comments relate to her images, which is disturbing on face value. There are also reasonable justifications (may be the subjects Lycaon is interested in or higher proportion of poor images), so I can't really conclude Lycaon is "out to get Mila".
As for Mbz1's conduct, that isn't perfect either. By preventing Lycaon from reviewing your images, you clearly benefit and images may get through QIC that should not have done so (and would not if Lycaon had reviewed). However, if he reviews one of your images and you disagree, send it to consensual review. That way the wider community can comment, either over-ruling his objection or endorsing it. If those images are consistently promoted, despite Lycaon's objection, that suggests he may be acting unfairly; if some (not all) fail then he probably is acting correctly.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You know, Nilfanion, talking about fairness? When I nominate an image that is not perfect, and I get negative critics, I don't insult, slander or badmouth the ones that gave those critics. I accept and get on with it. If everybody who doesn't like comments asks for a ban then what's the point of QI (or any of the other reviewing systems for that matter)? I'm really getting fed up with every time having to justify myself against the comments of a user with a long block record for antagonistic behaviour against other contributors. Lycaon (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not endorsing any sort of ban here, and I do agree with the thrust of your question. My suggestion to you is about you explicitly acknowledging flaws in your work: The two images I mentioned appear to show you following a double standard, if you had acknowledged the cormorant was out of focus (and therefore not QI) then there would be no perception of that.
That said, if you are preferentially paying attention to Mbz1's images that can lead to negative perceptions. As there's always plenty of images on QIC, you could easily review those by others and let others handle Mbz1's, and the system should produce the same end results? (With added bonus that there isn't even hint of unfairness).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
All the last comments concentrate on fairness of reviews, but the main point for me is unwillingness of lycaon to respond my questions about his reviews of my images. I personally would have never acted like that.IMO it is not decently. Either I respond the questions, or I do not review the images. If lycaon agrees to treat me as a person, which means responding my questions, I have no problems with him reviewing my images. On the other hand I honestly do not know, if I will be participating in the process much longer. I am tired of threats with "long block", of seriously discussing with kuiper what vote is biased, of lycaon, who is as always misrepresenting the facts, when he claims: "a long block record for antagonistic behaviour against other contributors" (with other "contributes" being kuiper and liftran, and lycaon himself, who BTW blocked me once himself for "attacking" him personally, when he still was an administrator), and so on. Yes, I did call lycaon "a dishonest coward". Maybe I should not have done it, but I could not find a better name to describe a man,who first stacks the votes, and then sends his absolutely innocent wife to publicly apologize for his own dishonesty. Anyway maybe the problem with the name Mbz1 will be gone :) --Mbz1 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1, you are creating and maintaining a hostile environment for Lycaon and that has to stop. Our talk_page_guidelines say, "Don't label or personally attack people or their edits." If you can't follow that straightforward guidance, then you should not be here. Please strike your personal attack on Lycaon above. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
While not disagreeing Lycaon has a hand in creating his own "hostile environment". The double standards referred to by Nilfanion annoy a number of people on Commons. The standards on QI are so variable that I now stay away - Lycaon's comments are part of that reason. --Herby talk thyme 15:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I have to reply here, as I consider QI to be my baby (I might not have pushed it out of a bodily orifice, but at the very least I adopted it and tried to help raise it with the QICbot). In my opinion a lot of friction on QIC is caused by a gross misinterpretation of what QI is supposed to be about. People see it as just another merit badge, or more explicitly: the silver medal they can pocket if the image is not good enough for FPC. This adds a personal component which is completely unnecessary. People should look at QI as a service for re-users. As a rough quality control that weeds out the average crap that gets uploaded to commons (yes, I said crap, just look at Special:NewFiles before you start an argument!). Most of the stuff that gets nominated, I'd say close to 100% is already magnitudes above the average. But we have a high bar. Unfortunately you can never make the criteria explicit enough to to reduce the margin of ambiguity (fuzz zone) to zero. And we shouldn't even try to do that. It would make the list of rules miles long and only encourage lawyering about it. What people need to do instead is just accepting it. Yes, the fuzz zone is pretty large, but if your image is really great it will get promoted. If it is within the fuzz zone, so what if it does not get promoted. Do not take it personally, just make better images. That will increase your chances of a promotion. Don't look at other peoples pictures, fingerpoint and say he got his image promoted but mine is better and got declined. So what! We know that QI is not perfect. It is for the same reason that I would like to slap (figuratively) people who gloat with a big fat QI counter on their userpage. Oooohh look how many prizes I won!. It sends the wrong message, it creates a wrong atmosphere of competition. Leave the competition to FPC, let's keep QI a service to our re-users rather than a medal collecting contest. --Dschwen (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong QI is useful (& I personally prefer it to the other "badges") if some standards (maybe being in focus!) are clearly adhered to. I also see it as a "re-user" service rather than anything else. It can and should be a "quality mark" - I've certainly replaced images on en wp based on being QI. However I really do think that some aspects are fundamental to being QI. I have rightly been admonished for a complete inability to hold the camera level! I happen to believe that images should be in focus too...:) (And yes there is a load of crap here which will never make qi). I still upload images I think are QI standard but I'll not put them in I'm afraid. --Herby talk thyme 16:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I endorse Dschwen's comments. I'm reminded of the story of the stranger on the subway platform going from person to person saying, "you can stay" or "you are out". Even though it was completely meaningless, the reporter said that he was hoping that when his turn came that he would be added to the "you can stay" category. It is almost amusing that people complain about the flaws in the process and the quality of the reviewers, but despite that, they are upset if their work is declined. But it is not amusing when people get upset and angry. It is not amusing when people are discouraged and stop contributing. If you get upset, please take a break or stop participating altogether.Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion archived. Dschwen and Herbythym support my request to Mbz1 and Lycaon. Nilfanion says send disputes "to consensual review", but that Lycaon "could easily review those by others and let others handle Mbz1's". Alvesgaspar is opposed as "it represents a loss of the normal users' rights". Pieter Kuiper says, "such a ban would give [Mbz1]] an advantage." Mbz1 has agreed to my request. Lycaon has not.

Dschwen says of QI, "Do not take [criticisms] personally, just make better images. That will increase your chances of a promotion." Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


lycaon and kuiper

There is a striking similarity between the two of them. As user User:Sarcastic ShockwaveLover wrote to lycaon: "it seems that anyone who disagrees with you, or rubs you the wrong way is put on to what seems to be a 'shit list', which is taken into account when you go to review pictures. Arrogance and self interest are not qualities that an Admin should have, especially one of your visibility and calibre." (lycaon deleted the message from his archive, but you still could read it , just look for the text I provided). kuiper maintains his personal 'shit list' of the editors he does not like. Only, if lycaon declines/opposes the nominations, kuiper nominates files to be deleted, as he is doing right now with rama's files (see all nominations on deletions at the end of the talk page). The point in both situation is not, if declined nomination, or the nomination on deletion has a merit, the point is in the reasons it is done with, and that reason is the revenge. This really ought to stop. I happened to be on both of those users 'shit list'. Only, if I know exactly how I got to kuiper's list, I still have no idea how I got to lycaon's one because as many of you remember more than once I begged him to explain to me what are his problems with me, but instead of talking to me he brought here his alleged wife to "kick me back" for him. So, wsiegmund, you are mistaking in you claim that it is me, who is "creating and maintaining a hostile environment for Lycaon". It is lycaon, who have used all means to drive me away. It is lycaon, who happily attacked me, when I, while running away from him, made another account to get a fresh start ( all that while he used his undeclared wife to oppose my nominations). The only thing I would like to happen now is that users, who have me on their 'shit lists', will leave my images and me alone. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Then stop nominating more patched turtles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what my very good, underwater image of a turtle (which, if promoted, has a good chance to get to the final round of POTY, exactly as this image File:Arothron hispidus is kissing my camera at Big Island of Hawaii.jpg, opposed by both lycaon and his alleged wife,did) has to do with deletion requests for rama's files you have filed and with your uploading of anti-Semitic hate by latuff to "please Drork" as you wrote once: "I just uploaded Latuff's cartoon that got the second prize in the Holocaust cartoon contest. I hope Drork will be pleased" for example. It is about time you will do what is good for the project versus trying to revenge the editors from your 'shit list'. BTW your response reminded me an old soviet's song: An American man said to a Russian man: "You have no freedom of speech", and the Russian responded: "But our ballet is the best in the world" :) You claim to be a scientist, kuiper. One would have thought the logic of your thinking should work better :) --Mbz1 (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not concerning my nomination, but just for the record here is lycaon's response to review of the image he opposed by other contributor Faulty reasoning. Images should have been nominated separately then and combined on site. This is an easy way to force tens of images of low res in at one go. Cheating in my book (Highlighted by me). Not only lycaon says to other reviewer that their reasoning of supporting of the image he opposed is faulty, but he also says to the photographer that he was "cheating"--Mbz1 (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to say Pieter that I find your POINT-y DRs of Rama's images to be frankly pathetic. Grow up. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Helloguys (talk · contribs)

Helloguys (talk · contribs) seems to be uploading lots of copyvios from the apple website (not the first one to do that, though - we should check the corresponding category for more apple images). Has been blocked on dewiki for doing exactly that. Robothic (talk · contribs) is a probable sockpuppet of the same user. Suggest indef and deletion of his images. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Images nuked, user warned. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That was exactly the template I was looking for ;-) --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

user:lycaon

I am not sure what is going on with that man, but he just removed my support vote from QI nomination of user:ComputerHotline that he, lycaon, opposed without any explanatiobs given in the edit summary. Now one have to wonder how many times he has done something like, and went unnoticed.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably just a mistake. Or a glitch in the database. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

kuiper, I did not know that for all your other qualities, you're also making an absurd assumptions. Well, now I do.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope sorry, that was my 0.01% of unconstructive contributions as opposed to 90% of slandering quarreling and insulting. I'll try to avoid that. Lycaon (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


I am not 100% positive, but it looks like he deliberately changed the edit summary and replaced "File:Feu1.jpg" with the words "June 10, 2010" because, when I supported the image "File:Feu1.jpg" were in my summary, and I did not add those myself.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahum: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. (Hanlon's razor). This counts for both of you. Kameraad Pjotr 11:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep (looks like a "simple" error to me), and wild accusations and personal attacks (by anyone aimed at anyone) don't help either.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, thrice is enemy action.... -mattbuck (Talk) 12:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess I am missing something, but I cannot understand how it could be three at the same time, as well as I cannot understand what lycaon meant under " unconstructive contributions", and what he meant, when he said " I'll try to avoid that" (I mean, what if his trying will fail), and the last thing I cannot understand what an image taken and nominated by ComputerHeadline has to do with "enemy action" by lycaon and me. Just saying...--Mbz1 (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Has something happened three times? I see one diff at the top of this section. I'm confused. Wknight94 talk 14:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Mh, yeah, this might be a good example of how important it is to keep statements on pages like this as clear as possible. My interpretation here would be that mattbuck is merely pointing out, that a single action by Lycaon is still far from being an "enemy action". In other words: Move along, there is nothing to see here. --Dschwen (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, okay, hopefully that's it. If it's a well-known saying of some kind, please link to it somehow - I'm not the most worldly person around. Wknight94 talk 14:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, thank you, Daniel. It cleared things up a bit, except I still do not understand, if it was a ""simple" error" as Nilfanion said, or "0.01% of unconstructive contributions" as lycaon said or... Mbz1, stop your wild accusations, remember it is lycaon you're talking about Anyway let's do move along at least until yet another time...--Mbz1 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Right, judging from the last few sections on this page, we should see you back here in a few hours. See you then... Wknight94 talk 15:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Very funny, let's laugh together :) It is the only thing that is left after reading the thread. .--Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Hi. Pieter Kuiper wrote in the Edit Summary for this edit that "source does not matter" and removed my tag {{no source since|month=May|day=18|year=2010}} without good reason. In addition to the behavior noted in other sections above, this behavior shows further that Pieter Kuiper shows no regard for Commons policy. Commons policy Commons:Licensing#License_information states "the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: ... The Source of the material." I have therefore undone his edit. Please take appropriate action. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well source really isn't required. It comes from that author listed in the file page and that's enough to justify the current license. That's why the source parameter in that information template is optional. ZooFari 18:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Source is now required for the information template per policy COM:L#License_information.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete the file. Source does not matter for the copyright of this old painting. Nor would it add to the encyclopedic value of the image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
For this image a source is really not required. It's a 19th-century painting and the author has been dead for 70+ years and {{PD-Art}} applies, which means the photographer does not matter. In this case, it is optional (but recommended), but certainly not a reason for deletion. Kameraad Pjotr 18:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean source, not photographer? The author is important in this case, since it is supported by the PD-art license. Jeff, to put this in simple words, the source=Own work by Horace Vernet. A source does not have to be a link, as that would be ambiguous. ZooFari 18:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This file is allegedly a picture of a painting residing at Christie's in London, England, Great Britain, United Kingdom. COM:FOP#United_Kingdom specifically states "pictures of ... paintings ... cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place."   — Jeff G. ツ 18:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
That is for paintings that are still under copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
What about the photographer, does not that person have rights outside the applicability of the Bridgeman case (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999))?   — Jeff G. ツ 18:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
These sound like issues for CT:L, so let's close this up, okay? Wknight94 talk 20:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I copied it there.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, PD-art is applicable regardless. If you disagree, DR is the appropriate action, not {{Nsd}}. ZooFari 18:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
So nominated.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Pieter did nothing wrong here so nothing more to discuss. --MGA73 (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, a user keeps removing the copyright issue tag from File:Henney LED TV3991106635 18c9ef6d23 o.jpg. While the image may have the appropriate license on the Flikr source site, it is highly unlikely that the poster at flikr has the rights to release this advertisment image. Active Banana (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The license clearly says Some rights reserved and has an original size. Could someone please restore File:HenneyChoi4066693970_4e6ceda5f1_o.jpg Wetcloth20 (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I assume COM:FLICKRWASHING. --High Contrast (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No I don't think so because not only are all their photos of their original size, they all have the same license and that account is known for their reliable photos and also obviously belongs to the owner LG. Wetcloth20 (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The LGEPR Flickr account does look like it might be an official account of LG Electronics, in which case the license could be legit. Has anyone contacted them to confirm this? (Anyway, Prosfilaes is completely right below: if a speedy tagging is contested, the next step should be DR.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
To contest a speedy, you should take it to DR. If someone contests your speedy, you take it to DR. You don't edit-war by adding and removing the speedy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If the account is ok, would someone do a batch of the images? -- User:Docu at 17:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Unterkatanlage

Hallo zusammen. Ich habe (versucht !) eine neue Unterkat für die Kat.Knives by country angelegt (Knives of Indonesia). Irgendwas habe ich falsch gemacht und weis nicht was. Die Kat taucht an einer falschen Stelle auf der Seite Knives by country auf. Da ich ein völliger Computerdepp bin möchte ich jemanden um Hilfe bitten um die Unterkat richtig anzulegen, mir kurz zu erklären was ich falschgemacht habe und die Falschanlage zu Löschen. Falls ich Durcheinander gemacht habe bitte ich um Entschuldigung. Lieben Gruß an alle --MittlererWeg (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Spssps

Spssps (talk · contribs) (see User:Spssps/gallery) looks problematic. Maybe an organization from Greece, el:Ευγενίδειο Πλανητάριο and el:User:Sps, uploading here - although I have strong doubts that a company/organization will do so Sunday night. They uploaded a lot of movie posters in greek version and claimed themself beeing the source. Think we need to contact them. --Martin H. (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Bow900

Uploaded suspected copyright violation after final warning. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I just realized the user hasn't edited in a week. I think simply deleting the copyvio would be good enough. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done -mattbuck (Talk) 10:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Mapcelo (talk · contribs)

I've blocked this user for 3 months for uploading a single copyrighted image (his only upload) from Getty Images agency, as this image has been on Commons since March and has already found external re-users who are now exposed to litigation by Getty Images. --Túrelio (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Dhomzz17

Could someone else take a look at the contributions of User:Dhomzz17? I see no basis for the licenses he's claiming, but maybe I'm missing something. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone has now done this & proposed them all for deletion. -- Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Cd637

This user has had two "final" warnings for uploading copyrighted material, the last of which was on 20 June. He/she has since uploaded File:Disneyland Park Logo Color.jpg and File:Disneylandresortlogo.gif claiming that the files only consist of simple shapes and are therefore in public domain. Kuyabribri (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for three days. File:Disneyland Park Logo Color.jpg could be ok, feel free to list it under a Deletion request if you disagree. Bidgee (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

user: lycaon

Last time when lycaon removed my vote from QI nomination I asked "Now one have to wonder how many times he has done something like, and went unnoticed". Well, I have to repeat my question once again. Today lycaon crossed out a support vote by user:The High Fin Sperm Whale with the comment "Impossible date!", I agree the date is "impossible", but was it a good reason to cross out the vote. Of course it was not. One should have only looked at user:The High Fin Sperm Whale's contributions to see that the editor did support the nomination, and lycaon should have known better than just cross out the vote without even notifying the editor. My post here is only for the record. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please avoid jumping to this board every time a small incident occurs? Seriously, what are you expecting here? A block? Public criticism of his actions? I missed the "for the record" part; but still, the purpose of this board is not keeping a record of every event you consider is someone's wrongdoing.
Maybe it wasn't the best way to handle it, but it was not done in malice (he did not try to remove a vote without anyone noticing, it was stricken so that everyone could see it). And now it's fixed, so I really don't think we need to spend time on such a trivial dispute. –Tryphon☂ 05:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It would have been a small accident, if it were one time deal. It is not. It is a phenomenon and pattern of behavior that I call "lycaonism". My vote was simply removed, The High Fin Sperm Whale was crossed out. At least once he reposted VI nomination of his that was closed and so on. Of course no block should be posted, but a warning might be warranted and as I said for the record my post should be here. If it were for a different user I would not have posted here, but instead asked the user about his action on his talk page, but because I am not allowed to post at his talk page, I have decided to post here. I do not find your reaction at my post to be helpful, but I am not surprised. by it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I find this entire thread rather unhelpful, but I'm not surprised either. –Tryphon☂ 06:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh god not again... -mattbuck (Talk) 06:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
No worries, not again, but for the record just one more sample of "lycaonism" that came to mind removes the edit which simply added another image to the nomination. Why? I guess nobody cares, and this "lycaonism" is going to continue...--Mbz1 (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Could an administrator explain why it was good for lycaon to act as he did? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasted nobody's time. This board is for user problems, and lycaon has persistent problems, and the ones, who do not wish to see it, do too, but Malcolm, please do let it go. One administrator said I am wasting time, another former administrator advised to me to stop jumping on that board. I've got enough of commons administrators, so I am closing it, should have done it as soon as it was posted. After all it was posted only for the record.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Malcolm, they cannot. They only believe that what I reported was too minor to bring it to the board. And it would have been too minor, if it were a single incident. For example I brought only one example that came to mind [27], but nobody bothered to look at it, and to see why lycaon reverted the edit. That's why: lycaon posted comment like that:
" Comment Please separate nominations not to invalidate later vote count. Lycaon (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)"
The other editor separated the nominations and posted comment in response to lycaon's one:
 Comment It would have taken all of 5 seconds to do it yourself. 203.35.82.133 14:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

lycaon did not like it, so he simply reverted the edit. he thought it was IP, who did it, so it was OK. It was not OK to revert absolutely harmless edit by IP, but it was not IP, who did it. It was a respected editor, who forgot to login, and who complained about this and other cases like this at lycaon's talk page [28].

Anyway....--Mbz1 (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting history lesson, but what about Lycaon's next edit one minute later, when he cleaned up the mess? It's hard to take things seriously when the full picture is not presented. Wknight94 talk 14:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
What mess? You call a mess the comment by User talk:Sarcastic ShockwaveLover? Because only that "mess" was cleaned up in lycaon's edit you are referring to--Mbz1 (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Your concern is the throwaway "5 minute" comment from Sarcastic ShockwaveLover? Why don't you let Sarcastic ShockwaveLover worry about that? And if you and Schosha are wondering why this is being dismissed, it's because you needed to reach 16 months into the past to find an example of a slightly off-color edit by Lycaon. If someone wanted you held accountable for a trivial edit you made 16 months ago, we would all be ignoring that as well. Wknight94 talk 16:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Ha-ha-ha, I provided example from yesterday, and from a week ago, and, yes, from 16 months ago just to show the behavior pattern, and I could provide many more of the same, but I see no reason to do it. I am not wondering why the post was closed, I closed it myself, and now I am closing this one too.
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Repeating my question for a third time: Could an administrator explain why it was good for lycaon to act as he did? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Alves, how come you forgot that me is "her", not "him" ?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:178.176.146.22

It seems this user is bent on nominating all the contents of Category:Nude children on the basis of "pedophilia". I took a quick look and there's nothing there which I would judge to be of a sexual nature. As such I'd be tempted to just do a speedy close of it all, especially since a couple of them were up at DR not too long ago (e.g., Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stratz - Körper des Kindes 23.jpg). However, given the attention Wikipedia & Commons has gotten lately on the issue of "child porn", I'm leery of acting unilaterally. Any advice on what to do? Tabercil (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: the user changed IPs along the way - you'll need to look also at the contributions of User:178.176.134.183 Tabercil (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please block and roll back. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure a block is warranted here. Rollback or just plain close the DRs (if the person can't be bothered to string a sentence together for a DR then it should be speedykeep imo), but talking would be preferable here. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Will the user cease opening DRs to open a discussion? If not, then they need to be blocked.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Clearly the same as 178.176.165.136 (talk · contribs) a few days ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I hate to silence discussion, but there's nothing productive in these DRs. One mass DR could be done--I don't think that would be productive, but it would be more reasonable--or individual photos with good well-thought out reasons, but dozens of DRs with one word reasons is pointless. (If you really think one word is good enough, then put a speedy tag on it; if it's declined, you're going to have to give a real reason.) If anyone really objects, I invite them to open DRs with clear justification, especially about whether you're claiming that they should be deleted for legal reasons or scope reasons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeesh... by the looks the whole DR thing is malformed as none of the nominations are present on Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/01 - e.g., Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1987-0609-302, Köritz, Duschraum des Kindergartens.jpg. Though by the last few deletion, the user did expand their "rationale". For nomination of File:Kids skinny dipping in India.jpg they said "Naked young boys" and for File:Stratz - Körper des Kindes 32.jpg they said "Naked 17-year old girl." (the last photograph is over 100 years old BTW). Tabercil (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked anon edits from 178.176.0.0 - 178.177.255.255 for 2 weeks. Edits by User:178.176.134.183, User:178.176.146.22 and User:178.176.165.136 are unproductive, the deletion requests are incomplete technically and regards nomination reason. --Martin H. (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So all that's left is to close out those assorted nominations... Tabercil (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, cleaned up. Unless I'm mistaken, all the DRs started by the anon IPs have been closed as speedy keep, and the DR statement have been removed from the images. And thank honkin' ghod for copy'n'paste! Tabercil (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.
The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

User:Alvesgaspar

Alvesgaspar seems determined to have FPC's rules be exactly what he wqants - and will ignore any votes that go against him.

Already, he took it upon himself to implement a proposal several times as an immediate action]], when the votes said that it should be delayed until July 1st, if not next year. He's now insisting that although tthe votes for it being a test period were slightly in favour that, instead, this should be permanent. Indeed, he's attacking me for attempting to implement the consensus.

This has to stop. I already refuse to participate at Featured pictures as it stands; I'd like to be able to do so again sometime. However, Alvesgaspar has made it clear he's willing to edit war to get his preferred rules in, no matter what.

I would ask that he be banned from any edits to FP policy. He seems to think that only votes which he likes should be approved, that if he doesn't like the way a new vote is going, he can close it quickly a day after it opens, or ignore it completely. All the while attacking anyone who objects.

He repeatedly reopened votes which he didn't like the result of, even while closing ones he did. Nonetheless, he still didn't manage to win with the two votes linked - so evidently wants to just ignore them, while complaining about the will of the majority being defied by... the majority who voted on the matters. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


After he arbitrarily closed the votes - some of which had been open for only a couple days at the time - he immediately raced to implement, even while people were objecting. For instance

[29]

  •  Info - Results update as of 0000, 30 May. I intend to close this discussion tomorrow (after one week), as changes have been minimal -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment With a few newish options on the table, I'd prefer to leave it open longer (and close as options become clearly unwinnable), even though I share your view that opinions are not shifting significantly. --99of9 (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info - Results udpate as of 0800 31 May. Poll closed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Later, after I objected to him rushing this forwards:

I don't think I'll be bothering under the new rules. I said I thought they'd damage FPC, I see no need to participate in it while it's broken and systemically unfair (people who have their noms rejected get to nom again faster? What the hell?). Further, it's going to get a lot less cooperative, because anyone who nominates other Commons users' works is shooting themselves in the foot, unable to nominate their own.

I don't like what FPC's going to become, and, once these rules come in, I see no reason to continue contributing to it until it gets fixed again. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  •  Info -- No significant action in this section during the last days, besides the general statement by Adam Cuerden. I'm interpreting this silence as a tacit agreement and intend to implement the modified guidelines tommorrow morning (UTC time). Only the nominations made after the change will be affected by the new rules. If a user has two or more active nominations in the FPC page at the moment the changes are made, no further nominations are to be allowed at that time. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose at least three people(myself included) have question the closing in regards to the Number of active nominations and requested a separate discussion to determine the number since your planning to go ahead with this I'll put up a proposal to clarify the number. Gnangarra 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I do not honestly understand your objections. Yes, we all know that you don't agree with Option 4, but the fact is it was a very clear winner in the poll. I can't believe you are trying to start everything over again... Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not trying to start everything over again, I objected to original closurer based on the discussion having moved forward to a compromise on the particular point of how many active nominations all other points closed are undisputed even the basis of active nomination is undisputed. There are other editors who have opposed the closure of option 4 I just happen to be the first one to read your post saying interpreting this silence as a tacit agreement in fact there are responses and opposition so there is no tacit agreement. Gnangarra 01:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is typical of his behaviour throughout the process - ignore any objections to what he wanted, then complain, taking on the mantle of martyr, if people stop him because he was trying to ignore their objections. Seriously, if people think a proposal is a big mistake, and they see someone A. Asking about whether he should close things, being told no, then closing them anyway. B. Selectively closing votes, so that any that attempted to mitigate the problems by, say, asking for a test period, were ignored, but those he wanted were closed quickly, while they were passing - for the moment. C. Just as a new vote that was more acceptable to people came in, and had begun collecting support, he closed the vote - BUT ONLY AFTER HE AND HIS SUPPORTERS OPPOSED IT.

Evidently, he gets to both vote on things and decide when and how to close them, whereas if anyone else does anything, they're disrupting his preferred option, and may be attacked constantly - which he did. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please retract this section. It is inappropriate to spill this localized disagreement over to this venue. --Dschwen (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with Dschwen. This post does not belong to this board. At the same time I cannot stop wondering why User:Kameraad Pjotr, User:Wknight94 and User:Tryphon do not scream about "wasting time". I will try to archive it now. I hope nobody minds.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

User:IllaZilla

There's nothing really bad here. But the user doesn't understand the threshold of originality and insit on deleting this image. Could anybody talk to him and close the DR?Mizunoryu (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved I think. A regular deletion request have been opened and the user wasnt active with this the last days. So ✓ Done here. --Martin H. (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sevi18

Continuing to upload copyvio images despite final warning. 99.231.106.156 21:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The user is claiming that permission was granted in an email, and that flickr had correct license [30] so I think more discussion is in order with the user. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

malicious retaliatory vandalism by User:F l a n k e r, reported by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)

I put up an image by User:F l a n k e r for deletion, the discussion has turned quite heated, ugly and possessive, now User:F l a n k e r is posting malicious retaliatory vandalism on the replacement image. It needs to stop. I didn't vandalize his image by putting it up for deletion, there is no need for him to do it to the replacement image.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • It would be much simpler for someone to follow up on this if you would be specific about the images/pages in question. Also, you should probably let him know you've brought the matter here, since he is clearly a serious participant on Commons, not a fly-by-night account. - Jmabel ! talk 18:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry, the AFD is Commons:Deletion requests/File:CoA of the RSI.svg, from which the images are linked. Someone else will have to communicate with him, everything I say gets thrown back in my face, I'm done with that.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jirnov on Commons:Deletion requests/French diploma

User:Jirnov is discussing not only possible problems with files, but my personal data (my place of residence, my place of work [31], my education (speciality/language)[32]). He blames me without any evidence, that I'm Russian special service agent [33]. He address me as my best Russian friend[34] and my dear, professor[35] in sarcastic manner. I consider his action as personal attack to me. I ask administrators to remove discussion of my personal data, such incrimination and sarcastic addressing from Commons:Deletion requests/French diploma. He also blame me in vandalism, but I only remove his similar statement on my talk page and deleted similar e-mail from him (because I don't want to talk with anybody in such manner on my own talk page and via e-mail).

I suspect also, that User:Jirnov is same user as User:Stirlitz. The Stirlitz's personal page was deleted with statement "Page is out of project scope". I ask to check Jirnov's personal page according to same rule - I suspect that these two pages (deleted User:Stirlitz and current User:Jirnov) can be similar.

Also, I ask to draw attention on two sub categories in this category. I sugest, that User:Jirnov is using Wiki-Commons for self-PR in some cases, the respective article about him in Ru-Wikipedia (ru:Жирнов, Сергей Олегович) was deleted as page about unimpotant/unsignificant persone. The most of his files is very usefull for Wikipedia (without doubts), but utility of mentioned two sub categories is in doubt. Alex Spade (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I will let an administrator comment on the off-topic comments and civility issues at hand.
In terms of the ongoing deletion discussion, it seems that the deletion request page was refactored to the point that it's not even clear what files it's about (current version, compare with earlier version).
Even if there might be some merit in Jirnov's copyright related arguments, I don't think any of this serves his arguments.  Docu  at 11:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Andreri (talk · contribs)

This user has only contributed copyright violations, and doesn't seem to understand that these contributions are not welcome. Can someone leave him a final warning, and block if the copyvios return? –Tryphon☂ 08:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done and thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Димитар

Uploads many pictures of universities around the world without having permissions (obviously, mostly there are copyright claims on the websites he links). Can anyone stop him an explain what he's doing wrong? In Russian may be good. --Don-kun (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

All uploads deleted and final warning given. I can't speak Russian to explain further than that though. Wknight94 talk 12:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Letsshareit (talk · contribs)

The user first uploaded a bunch of porno movies and pictures that he, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Woman's shadow on bed.jpg & Commons:Deletion requests/File:Loving lovers.ogv, obviously grabbed from elsewhere. Then he uploaded a bunch of moaning sound recordings that he not created himself. Now he discovered National Socialism as a field for contributing. It is no question that

  • File:Great politician Adolf Hitler's speech 1933.ogg (a speech of a person who died 1945 - neither the speech is public domain and likely the recording isnt it too - additionally the file contains a narrator from a documentation that was obviously created post 1945 and finally the license is nonsense)
  • File:Deutschland über alles.ogg (from a copyright perspective 99% non-free as a footage of not public domain photos and including an unsourced sound recording - from a SCOPE perspective it is a glorification published by some nazi organization(?) in sweden(?))

will be deleted. Its a question what to do with this user. I suggest to block indefinite, nothing fruitful to expect from that person. --Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

For fairness I like to add, that the user tried to excuse on my talk and maybe not finds the way to this page. In absence of an explanation Im too focused on what I think explains the intention behind this uploads, other admins maybe see different things from the excuse. --Martin H. (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 Support /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I  Support an indefinite block for Letsshareit (talk · contribs). --High Contrast (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 Support--Pristurus (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I have committed an offense. Please I want you to permit me. However, it cannot be proven that I am reflecting. If everyone is very done my gratitude if it does very, it doesn't understand whether to transmit. While stopping uploading for a while and arranging a missing child's file, I want to consider many things. --Letsshareit (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Please write in the language which you are best at speaking. Your English is very hard to understand, and we have people here who can read most languages. --99of9 (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
음. 바벨탑의 붕괴 더라면 이런 어려움은 없었 을텐데. . 이제 좋은가?--Letsshareit (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Unless I am very mistaken, this is an utter irrelevancy, written in Korean. The list of languages given on this user's user page seems singularly unlikely, including that no language is listed as native, or even fluent. While I usually assume good faith, I would not in this case. Support indefinite block. - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
That phrase is identical to a google translation of the description in English. I cannot read arabic, but probably it is not a good translation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It was indeed identical, so I removed it as it's highly unlikely Google would translate proper names correctly.  Support indef block, this user's contributions seem to be unhelpful at best, and most of the time downright disruptive. –Tryphon☂ 07:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked, agreed. The user doesn't seem to be productive but also making me wonder if it is someone trying to prove a point. Bidgee (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


  • Additionally, it looks like they engaged in some socking and have since created a new account (no edits yet). The following accounts are most defiantly Confirmed and now blocked:
Tiptoety talk 17:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Unblocked pending further discussion. For what it is worth, they edited from the exact same IP and with the same exact useragent (essentially, the same computer) as the other listed accounts. Tiptoety talk 17:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Repetead copyvios issues

Hello, User:POMPIERS is repeatedly copying images from the web to commons. It is not the first time that I have to go through their contributions and post a lot of speedy requests for deletions. From the talks on their talk page they do not care/does not realize. Could you please act as appropriate to stop further damages? Thanks. Nakor (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I've dropped an "end copyvio" notice on the user talk page and will delete the current batch you tagged. Next upload will then be a blocking offence. Regards --Herby talk thyme 15:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I've cleaned out a few but some of the remaining ones are suspect in my opinion. --Herby talk thyme 15:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks and agreed some are still suspicious. Some of them they claimed to have authorization for so I asked for OTRS confirmation. Nakor (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Waterflame96

User:Waterflame96 has uploaded a series of TV screenshots. I marked one File:1sezon.jpg for speedy deletion recently, and left a copyvio notice on his talk page. I noticed today that he had more messages on his talk page today, including File:Yaprak Dokumu 1.jpg, which is an exact copy of 1sezon.jpg, IIRC. I left the copyvio notice on his page in Bulgarian this last time, since that's what he's writing image descriptions in, and hence the English may be a problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that all his uploads beginning in November last year are copyvios. For the first one back in November he still got a warning, but all the images the CategorizationBot mentioned where also copyvios, only without the note. If he set his language preference to bulgarian then he should see the messages in that language, otherwise they all have the language links at the beginning or end of the message. So not understanding is not a good excuse. Anyway as you have left him a message, lets see what happens. I have deleted the images again and if he uploads again and ignores your message then we can still enact consequences. -- Cecil (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
This user is actively clue-resistant. He just reuploaded four images that were deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've given them the opportunity to reflect a bit. Deleted and blocked. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ilove214 may be User:2ne14ever

Based on the English Wikipedia edits regarding the images posted here, I suspect that User:Ilove214 may be the return of blocked User:2ne14ever. I have initiated an investigation at [37] but I am not sure how to address that concern here. 209.86.226.51 20:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked. For future reference, COM:RFCU is where you can initiate sockpuppet reports. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Contribs of User:Stolz

Please have a look at his contributions. He seems to have multiple cameras/cell phones he's taking images with. Smells like copyvio. --Denniss (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Gone through his contribs: Pro CVIO: Apparently he owns at least 3 cameras and 2 mobile phones and likes to upload images sometimes scaled down, sometimes in full res. Contra CVIO: His source comments seem to be honest: At File:PavelMancivoda.jpg he said (according to google translate) it is made by him and friends. TinEye couldn't find any occurences in the web.
I would say: There isn't an evidence of copyright violation (maybe except the friends thing). You should simply ask him on his talk page if all pictures are made by himself. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"Ad acta" secret society spammer

User:Marc4god (contribs) appears to be inappropriately spamming for some secret society. Cheers, LobStoR (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Deleted the uploads and warned the user. Rocket000 (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Not very secret then, is it? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The first rule of Ad Acta is you don't spam about Ad Acta. The second rule of Ad Acta is you don't spam about Ad Acta. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Andrey Isakov

Is a man on a mission regarding the Kuril islands. These Islands are disputed between Japan and Russia. The map File:Russia_edcp_location_map.svg shows that. The map is part of the location map project, where all disputed areas are shown in that light-gray color and with dotted borders. I have reverted his change again. Please do something, we don't need this nationalism in wikipedia. Uwe Dedering (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

He has done it again: [38] without using the talk page, without comment. Uwe Dedering (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Why are you edit warring over a "disputed" template? It is no use denying that there is a dispute. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The en:Kuril Islands dispute won't be settled on Commons. I left a note on both user pages and protected the page for a day. That said, the {{Disputed diagram}} tag seems unhelpful to me because the area in dispute is shown on the map, as Uwe Dedering points out.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And again. On 17 July 2010 I made a proposal, to make clear, that Russia is in charge of all Kuril islands. [39]. User:Andrey Isakov repeated his opinion on 18 July 2010, adding a PA and did not mention my proposal. [40] On 26 July 2010 he again added the disputed template. Please make clear, that WP is obligated to neutrality and has to show disputed areas on maps. Make also clear that PA's like Some of your maps are provocative and misleading. are not allowed on WP. Uwe Dedering (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And now Wsiegmund protected the File, so i can't upload a requested improvement... I am really pissed off. Uwe Dedering (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It is unprotected now. I don't think {{Disputed diagram}} is helpful; its purpose is to invite discussion of a disputed diagram. In this case, the disputed region is shown on the map, and the dispute is the subject of articles on sister projects. However, I think the file description could be improved and a link to en:Kuril Islands dispute added.[41] Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Martin H. (talk · contribs)

Would someone remind him to avoid deleting categories without prior discussion. My final reminder at User_talk:Martin_H.#Reminder wasn't successful.  Docu  at 18:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is the place to this. A lot of month categories removed by the bot: User:BotMultichill accrding to Commons:Village pump#Births/deaths by month. Geagea (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
These are different and unrelated.  Docu  at 19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Before he goes completely out of bounds, can someone stop this and mass revert.  Docu  at 20:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, they were created without discussion also... improving Commons isn't simply create, create, create. It's just as necessary to clean up the unnecessary. Now obviously there's some disagreement about the value of these categories. I don't think we should do anything (delete or revert) until you guys work it out. It looks like he stopped for now. I suggest continuing on Commons:Village pump#More date categories. We really need to have a conversation on things like Category:Images of plants taken on June 21, which to me that is just ridiculous. Rocket000 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
He didn't really stop, he finish deleting them. Even the discussion about it refers to categories he already deleted.  Docu  at 04:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The category for Images of plants taken on June 21 still exists. Really, how much more discussion is needed to delete that? Jonathunder (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Go and comment: Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/07/Category:Images of plants taken on June 1. --Túrelio (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That plant category was not the issue here. As Docu said: I finished my work, it since moved to COM:UNDEL, months by country. --Martin H. (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say it was. I was directing further comments about the month categories to Commons:Village pump#More date categories, since I believe there are things to work out and it's not a user problem which is what this board is for (though Docu wasn't wrong to come since he was talking about user behaviour, I just think we'd do better discussing the categories). I simply mention the plant ones since that was also being discussed at the linked to page. Rocket000 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Yann

Can someone translate for him what I wrote:


Sollte dir entgangen sein, dass hier ein deutsches Werk im Straßenbild betroffen ist? Vielleicht möchtest du dich ein wenig fortbilden, denn das könnte dir wirklich nicht schaden. Ich staune immer wieder über den "Kenntnisstand" von Commons Admins.

Lies

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Gegenst.C3.A4nde

{{Panoramafreiheit}}

Ich kann nicht erkennen, dass du in irgendeiner Weise qualifiziert bist, diese Bilde3r zu beanstanden. Vielleicht möchtest du mir diese Qualifikation verraten? Solltest du des Deutschen nixcht mächtig sein, komm nicht auf die Idee mir auf Englisch zu antworten. Bitte einen deutschsprachigen Commonsadmin um Übersetzung. Danke --Historiograf (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dein Erstaunen ist provozierend, klingt anmaßend und beinhaltet implizit die Forderung, dass ein Benutzer mit erweiterten Rechten auch gleichzeitig Experte sein müsse. Dem ist nicht so. Die Nachweispflicht liegt beim Hochladenden, der Betrachter kann nicht unbedingt erkennen, dass die Tafel im öffentlichen Raum instaliert ist - durchaus kann er es aber hinterfragen. Die Lösung hast du gerade schon genannt: Entferne den Warnhinweis selber, platziere {{Panoramafreiheit}} unter dem Lizenzbaustein und weise in deiner Bearbeitungszusammenfassung darauf hin, dass diese Aufnahme durch Panoramafreiheit gedeckt ist. Und gut ist. --Martin H. (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Spam and copyvio ring

Concerned users:

  • ----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:KHCB1992 (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← KHCB1992 ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta
commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← KHCB1992 ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons
enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← KHCB1992 ← logs || link to en userpage || search en
  • ----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:PMOSICILY (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← PMOSICILY ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta
commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← PMOSICILY ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons
enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← PMOSICILY ← logs || link to en userpage || search en
  • ----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Hicri KEstek (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Hicri KEstek ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta
commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Hicri KEstek ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons
enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Hicri KEstek ← logs || link to en userpage || search en
  • ----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Hoteliere (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Hoteliere ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta
commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Hoteliere ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons
enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Hoteliere ← logs || link to en userpage || search en
  • ----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Maximp (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Maximp ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta
commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Maximp ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons
enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Maximp ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

Concerned images:

See WikiProject Spam item, or in a nutshell, [42]. Searching Tineye leads me to suspect these images are copyvios. (I've already nuked one text copyvio from [43].) MER-C 09:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

All gone now. Edits are too old to give any CU data sadly. Warnings on talk pages of those who have actually edited Commons. Thanks for the info. --Herby talk thyme 10:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

user:WikiSpliced

Hello,

Please give user:WikiSpliced a block for a short period (maybe 3 a 5 day's ?) so he can read COM:L and stops uploading copyvio material.

Best regards, Huib talk 13:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done and thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

user:Ivo minchev

Hello,

Please give user:Ivo minchev a block for a short period (maybe 3 a 5 day's ?) so he can read COM:L and stops uploading copyvio material.

Best regards, Huib talk 14:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done and feel free to post here anytime...;) --Herby talk thyme 14:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking of it, but I'm not sure if Commons still needs me because I'm just semi active. Huib talk 15:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Huh - Commons always needs people who actually do something rather than polish their trophies :) --Herby talk thyme 15:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Elandry28

This user has spent some time uploading Disney logos. He's discovered that having no source is a good way to get the files deleted; so now he makes sure to fill in the information block completely, like on File:Disney CH.png: {{Information|Description=sfdfsf|Source=sfsfs|Date=sfsff|Author=sfsff|Permission=sfsfsf|other_versions=sfsffs}}. He's also reuploaded File:Playhousedisney.jpg, which was already uploaded and deleted once.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning, but now I noticed his last upload was almost two days ago. Ya know what we need? We need a bot that will report the contributions of people who have a final warning. I don't know of any way to do that now - you can't watchlist a user and his future uploads. Wknight94 talk 18:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
You could use the Firefox plugin Alertbox for that. Amada44  talk to me 18:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, that looks interesting. I'll try that - but then it will only work for me. It would still be good to have a bot on the server side monitoring users we expect will repeat prior bad acts. Then everyone would be able to see its monitoring. Wknight94 talk 19:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
of course ;-) but until we have that bot,.... ;-) Amada44  talk to me 19:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Andre86

I've noticed that Andre86 continues to mark any photo taken prior to 1940 as {{Pd-old}}, which is not correct unless the author died that year. I see this user has plenty of warnings on his talk page and has failed to respond. What can we do? Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should try to find an admin who can write Italian fluently; maybe Andre86 doesn't understand English well enough to realize what's going on? Powers (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Saibo

I have been experiencing some problems with this user, who overreacts to everything I do. You only need to look at their talk page where we have been conversing under the heading 'Photographs'. They seem to think I am attacking Wikimedia Commons when in reality I am a concerned parent, trying to make the point that there is too much pornographic material defended as 'educational'. I am new to all of this here, and finding my way around, but have come across a lot of instant hostility. Some other users have accused me of being a prude, without using that word, but I would say nobody appears to want to listen. If you could have a word with that user and ask them not to speak to people the way they have to me so far it would be most appreciated. The Cleaner (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me no notice of mentioning me here. ;)
You're "a concerned parent" and I am a concerned Wikipedian. Oh, and by the way: You've done well in finding this place despite you are "new to all of this here". ;) Cheers and happy socking! --Saibo (Δ) 22:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
If the opacity of our dispute resolution processes is to be used as a determinant of sock-puppetry, we've got serious problems. Powers (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, The Cleaner appears to be a relatively new contributor (less than 50 edits over the course of several months). And FWIW, I think both of you are taking an inappropriate tone with one another, and beyond that remark I'm not wading further into this. - Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether "The Cleaner" is a socket or not is up to CUs!
Back to topic: I'm a concerned high school teacher and an admin with several thousand edits! And I share "The Cleaners" point that there is too much pornographic material defended as 'educational'!
There's a big difference between "Censorship" and legal requirements. The WMF servers are placed in Florida that's why american law applies which states that no pornographic files may be allocated to underaged people! axpdeHello! 09:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain to me what is meant by 'socking' and 'sock-puppetry'? I found this page through the 'Village Pump' link underneath the Wikimedia Commons logo. I'd just like to add, look at how Saibo first spoke to me to gauge why my reaction needed to be defensive. The Cleaner (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny that, users that come in offering their own photographs, or their skills as graphic artists, tend not to have problems. Users that come in as "cleaners" and complain that we're doing things all wrong and we need to change things, those users tend get a lot more negative response, from any group.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@Powers: Could you please rephrase your comment if it was a comment towards me (guess based on the indention) - I do not understand it. Thank you. --Saibo (Δ) 21:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You seemed to be implying that a true newbie could not possibly have found the proper place for dispute resolution, and thus the account must be a sockpuppet of an experienced user. I commented that we have a serious problem if we have hidden this page so well that a newbie cannot find it. Powers (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, your first ten words did it. I took it just as another sign since I would say that the possibility a newbie finds this page is lower than the possibility an experienced user finds this page. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@Axpde: "Back to topic" - No, your opinion on censorship is off topic here.
Ignoring that it is fairly irrelevant to me if he is a sock or not: How should I do a CU if I do not know what his real user account might be? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  1. If censorship wasn't your topic, please explain why you wrote "I am a concerned Wikipedian" as a riposte to User:The Cleaners concerns being "a concerned parent".
  2. Please read carefully: "... is up to CUs!" CUs is the usual abbreviation of Checkusers, i.e. the people allowed to do a CU. They might find possible socketpuppets even if only one name is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axpde (talk • contribs) 2010-07-30T07:19:01 (UTC)
  1. Censorship or not is offtopic here. It's just about "problems with me". And: yes, my "concerned Wikipedian" was an OT response to Cleaner's OT "concerned parent". Enough OT, isn't it?
  2. I am not responsible for ambiguities in your text. I've thought it should be the plural of Checkuser (the process). --Saibo (Δ) 15:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks for you comment. I would be glad if he could just go there where he came from in April and stop bugging me so I can continue to work - a thing he doesn't do here at all. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

this last statement by Saibo is on level yellow or orange
Please consider Jmabel's comment and temper your tone.
This is a wiki, everyone is allowed to start whenever he wants and whereever he wants ... as long as all follow the Commons:Talk page guidelines, see also w:Wikipedia:Wikiquette and "Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement" as shown on the right side! axpdeHello! 07:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a mother of two. The Cleaner (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's really not at all relevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is because Saibo has referred to me as 'he'. Saibo can have his (or her) wish, and force me out. I will not however be leaving the internet as they have suggested I do, all for disagreeing on principles. I do hope I have helped to highlight some issues with your educational policy on this website, and something positive can come out of all this. The Cleaner (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstood. I did not mean that you are a male person. It's meant in the gender-neutral meaning (see de:generisches Maskulinum). --Saibo (Δ) 15:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing positive is going to come out of this. As I said, people doing the work don't take kindly to random people wandering in and telling them what they should be doing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I somewhat disagree with Prosfilaes - anyone is welcome to contribute. There are also major contributors on the other side of the argument who had very few edits before the whole Sexual content issue flared up. We as the existing community insiders have a responsibility NOT to overreact to newbies just because they don't know the protocols here. Saibo, becoming incivil was a mistake. My suggestion to The Cleaner is to send your ideas towards m:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content. That study is just as interested in the opinions of readers as it is of editors. The magnitude of the change you are asking for is at the fairly major policy level, so that is probably the best place to discuss it. Day to day operations here work under the existing policy. --99of9 (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding my "mistake": We reap what we sow.
Anyway, is this "user problem" done now? By the way: it's pretty interesting what reactions a deletion war sock can achieve here against a kind, helpful and contributing user. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
So your incivility is a form of justice now? I suggest you refrain from dispensing that kind of justice. The sockpuppet theory might be interesting, if there were actually any evidence that she is a sockpuppet. Unless there is, a better term would be newcomer. --99of9 (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

←Regarding the accusations of socking, if there is actual evidence I would be interested to see it. If you do have evidence (via diffs and behavioral patterns), I ask that you file a request for CheckUser. Tiptoety talk 07:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do so if you like to - I do not need a CU. And, as I said above, "I do not know what his real user account might be". This "user problem" is done for me now. See you all in productive places in Commons next time. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I still do not understand what is meant by sock, could someone please explain? Thank you 990f9 for your suggestion. My opinion is that Saibo has considered my actions towards some of the photographs on this website as a personal attack when it clearly is not. If this is how all independent newcomers are treated after putting their opinions as outsiders forward then something needs to be looked at. The Cleaner (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Imagine you're a member of a community you care about, and that you invest a lot of your free time in this community, working within its policies and towards a common goal. Now someone joins your community, declares (on their very first day) that you've been gathering a huge amount of filth and that they're going to do their best to have it deleted, and goes on opening a dozen deletion requests (still on their first day) with no attempt at all to discuss their point of view with the rest of the community first. How would you react to that? It's not a personal attack, but it's an attack against the entire project. I'm not saying newcomers cannot have divergent ideas; but there's a difference between coming here and starting a constructive discussion, and coming here with a I'm right, you're all wrong attitude. If you're willing to try the former, join the discussion at Commons talk:Sexual content.
So maybe you should consider how rude and ignorant your approach was before complaining that other contributors are being uncivil. –Tryphon☂ 20:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
You can find information about sock puppetry here, but as long as you are in fact new here, and this is your only registered account, then you don't have to worry about this. --99of9 (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you 99of9. Excuse me Tryphon but I think it's a bit rich to call me ignorant. I'm new to all of this and haven't accused every photograph here as being 'filth', but I've just tried to point out that some of them aren't educational, several are moreorless identical and this website needs to consider what is being shown here. Call me rude if you like, in fact delete me from here if you disagree, but sometimes things can get out of control by stealth and you need an outsider to help you out, whether you want their opinion or not. The Cleaner (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, it's a bit rich? You're new, so of course you're ignorant, how could you not be? It takes time to get to know how things are done around here, and maybe see past the first impression. Again, I'm not blaming you for expressing your opinion, I'm just pointing out that passing such a harsh judgement so quickly, and then moving on to your "mission" with no discussion at all with the community is rather rude, and that being surprised by (and complaining about) how members of said community reacted to your attitude is quite ignorant of what collaborative work means. But we're really digressing. As I said, if you're concerned about the sexual content on Commons, rather than single-handedly trying to get all of it deleted, you should join the discussion at Commons talk:Sexual content, where you can express your valuable opinion. Oh and no, I don't want to delete you from this project. –Tryphon☂ 18:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It would really help if you would stop giving your opinion as if it were fact, and stop treating yourself as if you were above the community, here "to help [us] out, whether [we] want [your] opinion or not." The definition and extents of educational is debatable, and what is being shown here has been thought out extensively, and the consensus is that Commons is not censored.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Once again: There is a big difference between "Censorship" and complying with legal instructions! axpdeHello! 19:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Please take your unique belief that we are violating the law in some way to some more appropriate forum, hopefully with details about where exactly in the Florida Statues this law supposedly resides and what exactly it says.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Only if you stop canting about "Censorship"! axpdeHello! 07:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just in case someone is sincerely unaware of the meaning of sockpuppet: the English-language Wikipedia article on the topic. - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be far nicer if people refrained from telling me to go away because they disagree with me. Perhaps I shouldn't have made such a bold opening statement, it seems to have been turned into a mission by some people. The idea that I have walked in and told you all you're getting it all wrong is also untrue. I just wanted to make a point that there are some photographs here that perhaps shouldn't be. Finally, having now had the idea of 'sock puppets' explained to me, I find it quite insulting that some of you considered me to be a fake when the only problem is I have said something you don't like. I'm sure if we were all sat round a table discussing this in person there'd be a lot more politeness going on. I'm more than happy to apologise for not following the correct procedures as has been mentioned here if I receive an apology from Saibo and others who have labelled me a fake. The Cleaner (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Rafapumpkins

I left a copyvio note on his talk page last night, but that hasn't stemmed the stream of album covers and promo pics. Given that he's leaving various domain names in the source that could be the sources of the scans, while putting his own name in Author, I'm not sure he even intends to claim that he took the pictures that aren't immediately identifiable as copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like he speaks Portuguese, so if somebody here knows that language, it might help.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I've tidied the latest ones up and dropped an endcopyvio note (it does have pt I think). Hopefully they will think about it a bit. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
They are all gone now. Wknight94 talk 16:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Midnight68

Currently i created a deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68, but how do we handle further uploads from this user? All he did so far:

  • Uploading Lolicon images (see deletion request)
  • Using his global account to spam them in different articles in different languages [44], [45], ...
  • Creating userpages and userboxes containing galleries of this images [46], [47], ...
  • Asking other users to use his images on their discussion pages [48]

I doubt that this images are legal. Since he isn't a well known artist, some of this pictures are clearly fakes (old movie, dōjinshi with ISBN O_o, ...). What to do? Don't think he will stop uploading, since some of his images already got deleted in the past. --Niabot (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Legendxo

Could someone take a look at the contribs of this user (there are not too many). I think all of the images are copyvios. I put one image up for deletion but not sure if I did it right or if it is the most effective way to take care of the problem. Thanks, - Josette (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I deleted them all as blatant copyvio. If the user resumes uploading such things, a block will be necessary. Wknight94 talk 15:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast ;). Thank you. - Josette (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, they didn't take much thought. They were all obvious copyvios that should have been deleted shortly after upload. Wknight94 talk 16:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Also on en.wp some images should have {{subst:npd}}. --Martin H. (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC) - or copyvio for wrong author information (compare text and watermark - wrong author=cant have permission). --Martin H. (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Good catch. All uploads there (and the one he uploaded there that was transferred here) have been deleted as well. Wknight94 talk 18:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Rama

This admin closed a "deletion debate" saying "speedy keep" without giving the editing community any opportunity to provide input and without any attempt to determine what editor consensus was. No explanation was provided for why the wishes of the image creator, which were expressed in writing and noted by the nominator for deletion, should be summarily ignored (until challenged, at which time this admin contended that the image creator deserved no "sympathy", a fair enough argument, but one that could have been made as a participant in the deletion debate). Relevant facts here are that the Encyclopedia Britannica has apparently held an internal discussion on whether to delete use of the image on its article mainspace and Britannica's decision was to DELETE. When challenged on the decision, this admin declined to quote from or link to any Wikipedia or Wikimedia policies, preferring to insist that my challenge was not being made in good faith ("demanding discussion for the sake of discussion"). This admin argued that discussion on Wikipedia at least partially precluded the need for discussion on the Commons, a view that does not seem to appreciate the fact that the high resolution image that is most at issue is hosted on the Commons. While acknowledging that the conclusion of delete debate would likely be to keep even the high resolution image in this case (given the predispositions of the Wiki editing community), the community should still have at least opportunity to come to that conclusion.Bdell555 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Rama was quite right to close it. They were bogus and disruptive actions undermining the official policy of Wikimedia Foundation. SV1XV (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Bogus and disruptive? What happened to w:WP:GOODFAITH? I took up the matter here because the admin in question suggested I do so in order to be "humiliated". I should think we should be able to discuss this from a perspective of mutual respect.Bdell555 (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
There's no point in going through the exercise of a deletion discussion when everyone knows what the result will be. Rama's actions were correct, although I'm a little concerned about the language you quote. What were your reasons for nominating the image for deletion, anyway? Powers (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Rama was absolutely right closing DR with such rationale on sight. Saved some time for other users, otherwise wasted on the discussion with foregone conclusion. Trycatch (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I was not the party who nominated for deletion, and for what it is worth I do not support deletion of a 200 px image. I provide some reasons for why images in excess of that resolution should be considered for deletion here, but just how persuasive those reasons are are secondary to the larger problem which is the lack of respect being afforded to the nominator for deletion (where is the link to policy? where is the answer to the observation that the image creator objects to its use? where is the harm in allowing a delete discussion to run for 72 hours? why the highhandedness?) and parties attempting to hold admins accountable. If "everyone" knew what the result would be then how did Britannica come to a DELETE decision?Bdell555 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Britannica has different rules than we do. One of theirs is apparently "Don't piss off the FBI". Powers (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
You may be cynical about Britannica's editorial board but I'm inclined to be as much, if not more, cynical about the Wiki community, such that the rule around here is DO "piss off the FBI". As Exhibit A I'd cite the proposal to make this a featured image. Evidently I am the only editor to see such a move as immature and of dubious consistency with the project's mission of non-activist neutrality.Bdell555 (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I can hardly understand what are you want. You want to delete (downscale to 200px, whatever) this file? It's impossible on the cited grounds. There is strong consensus against actions like this, whether you like it or not. Result of the DR is known in advance. You want to discuss this problem? There are plenty of places where you could do this -- COM:VP, for example, nobody stops you. You want to discuss this on a DR? It's not a good place. DR is a technical procedure to determine if a file should be deleted or not. If the result is known in advance, there is no reason to keep DR open, wasting other users time. Trycatch (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
What this is about is acknowledging that that a decentralized, reversible, transparent process that is used successfully for other article-related decisions could be shown some respect when it comes to keep/delete decisions. It ultimately wastes more time to shut down DRs summarily than it does to recognize that this project can, and should be, a project that "anyone can edit" since editors get into "meta" arguments about whether they should have had an opportunity to comment on the keep/delete decision. This means allowing a DR to run for at least a few hours when analogous projects like Britannica have decided to take the opposite stance that the debate closing admin is taking.Bdell555 (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
You could propose some policy change, but for now the decision was done in full accordance with COM:DR: "Once an administrator has sufficient information to come to a decision, the deletion request will be closed and the file either deleted or flagged as kept. In clear cases this might happen within a few hours, but more complicated cases can remain open for weeks or even months." Btw, Encyclopedia Britannica still hosts the FBI seal in resolution 1595x1600 -- [49], i.e. EB decision wasn't opposite, actually it was the same. Trycatch (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The seal is PD and Rama was correct in speedily closing this. We are not concerned here at Commons about non-copyright restrictions but potential reusers have to take care of that. Regarding the case with FBI I suggest to read this NYT article. The letter by the FBI can be found here and the response of Wikimedia's general counsel, Mike Godwin, here. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the link to policy and note that the statement "Some non-copyright restrictions... might make it illegal to host certain images on Commons. Such images are of course not allowed, whether they have a free license or not." suggests that just because an image is PD, that does not mean all prospect of deletion and, by extension, a deletion discussion, is precluded.Bdell555 (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that's about stuff it's illegal to host in Florida - child pornography for instance. I concur that the closure was in order - unless something is actually illegal (if something is illegal, that requires office action usually) we should keep it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly and from Mike Godwin's response we know the opinion of the WMF in this case, i.e. that it is legal to keep that image on Commons and to use it in various Wikimedia projects. And as you can see from the end of Mike Godwin's letter, the WMF is even willing to go for this into court. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a file that's in massive use, that our legal counsel has said that he is happy to take it court. It would be against policy to delete it, and that's what supposedly drives DRs on Commons, not consensus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you look at the lenght of the letter from Mike and the comment from Rama you will notice a big difference. Either Mike uses to many words or Rama to few. In a special case like this I think it would have been a good idea if Rama had linked to the letter from Mike and perhaps have given a small resume. So instead of "wasting time" on the DR we can "waste it" here :-) But except for reminding all admins to give good arguments when they close a DR I really do not think, that we need to take any actions against any users. --MGA73 (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
In general Rama often keep silence, when he needs to say something. I still cannot understand why he blocked me with no notification on my talk page about the block. There was no block template, no message, absolutely nothing! I asked him for the block notification at my talk page and via email. No response followed. The block itself was more than unfair, the block with no notification even more so. I cannot care less, if rama does not wish to talk to me, but if he blocks me, he should post message about this to my talk page. Rama has to change.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent comment by Michael. If an admin can spare the words to tell an editor that "you are a walking waste of time" not once but twice (as occurred here) an admin can spare some words for a bit of supporting argument.Bdell555 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently some people feel a need to have here the argument Rama tried to spare us. Perhaps he should have been more verbose, but I believe his action was essentially correct. - Jmabel ! talk 05:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Catalaalatac

Hi, after three warnings about copyvio, this user ignores all warnings in his talk pages and keep uploading copyvios, ¿can someone block & maybe nuke him? --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 05:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Stanovc, serial copvios

Stanovc (talk · contribs) appears to be another serial copyvio uploader. He began in May 2009, had several warnings during mid-2009, but continued uploading until now. I just tagged a few. There are several dozens of images, and they are probably all bad. Jazhinca (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock of the same user. Both accounts' contributions need nuked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed that Stanovc (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) = Vranjevc (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) = Cindy Holland (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) (all blocked & uploads deleted).
Jazhinca (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) is Stale, but I have gone ahead & deleted their uploads anyways based on behavioral evidence. Tiptoety talk 21:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


User page

This User page - User:Gylliayn its correct? Thanks. André Koehne TALK TO ME 07:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks (promotional and deleted). --Herby talk thyme 08:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper

He's done it again. Knowing full well that I know the policies and procedures of Commons, being fully aware that I wouldn't upload something to a project unless I was absolutely sure that we had a right to it, Pieter creates a deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maker faire 2009 palo alto motherboard skull 100.jpg. Pieter's singular motivation is to discredit other contributors who have previously pointed out his deficiencies, by creating these. Pieter's work on Commons has single-handedly created more tension and ill-will in the community. He trolls by creating frivolous deletion requests. He needs to be banned for good. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 16:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

He's simply going alphabetically now, and reached B's apparently. It doesn't seem so unbelievable to me that an admin would forget about COM:DW or COM:FOP (we've seen this before many times), especially when the artist's name is not credited. –Tryphon☂ 17:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
That's entirely untrue. It's the only deletion request he's opened recently. Any action of Pieter's on any of my images has always, and continues to constitute harassment. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Bastique, this was something he announced he was doing during his last block - see COM:AN/B#Pieter Kuiper blocked for a week and User talk:Pieter Kuiper#Proposal. I think most were okay with it - although his proposal didn't include a new little wall of shame.... Wknight94 talk 17:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
How about you assume some good faith, as you apparently expect others to do when evaluating your uploads? –Tryphon☂ 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC
Wknight94, let me explain in more detail; Pieter is not to interact with me in this capacity. He already knows this. It's a shining example of the bad faith he continues to present on the Commons. If there's an issue with one of my photographs, then he should ask someone who isn't him to contact me about it.
I don't like him. He has single-handedly turned the Commons environment into a war zone. If he is, in fact, working on the "Bs" then he needs to skip past my name and move on to the next.
Tryphon, he has a long way to go to earn back that good faith. People who attack me from external websites don't deserve my good faith. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't know about your history with him. All I'm saying is that he said he would go through admins' contributions alphabetically, and so it seems reasonable to assume that this nomination is part of this process, and not personal at all. And if I had come along such a picture, I would probably had tagged it with {{Npd}}, as the artist's name is not credited and nowhere is it even mentioned that you obtained permission. I don't think the uploader's name or reputation should come into consideration when tagging problematic images; every contributor is equal, and experienced contributors like yourself should know about OTRS, and know why it is important to keep track of these permissions. –Tryphon☂ 17:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm probably not the only administrator who has a history with him, but probably alphabetically the first. I doubt other administrators with a history with him are going to be happy about his posting deletion requests on their user talk page. I also find this an incredibly poor use of any contributor's time, and smacks of maliciousness. "Well, how about I, Pieter Kuiper, (who has a negative history with a great deal of contributors on Commons) confine my investigations and deletion requests to administrators. Surely there won't be any repercussions from that?" Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
He is a PITA, he also does good work, he said he would work thro admin uploads and he is. Unwise speedy closure of DR in my opinion and I am NO fan of his. Busy - will return to this later. --Herby talk thyme 17:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Say what you want about Pieter Kuiper, but you can't deny he knows a great deal about copyrights, and is most of the time right when tagging problematic images. Targeting admins specifically makes sense, because they are the ones who have to close DRs, and any problems in their contributions indicate that they somehow overlooked an aspect of the copyright laws (local specificity, FOP, derivative works, etc.), which in turn will lead them to make mistakes when handling DRs. So as long as everyone can remember that DRs are about the nominated images, and not about the contributor, this sort of review is beneficial for the project (and anyone should be allowed to "waste their time" on this). –Tryphon☂ 17:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment If Bastique never makes mistakes he is the only user on Commons who can say that :-) I noticed that Bastique just wrote a message on the file page that he got a permission for "the artwork". I trust that Bastique did get a permission even if it is not in OTRS. We can not blame Pieter for nominating files like that for deletion unless it is a revenge. There is no links or anything that shows it is a sort of revenge so it is hard to tell. I therefore suggest that we stop this here since we all have better things to do than to argue about Pieter. If Pieter leaves Bastique alone now I hope that Bastique will let the thing go this time :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Without comment on behaviour or motive, I don't believe this to have been an unreasonable request. That a bureaucrat and, worse, OTRS volunteer believes "Received permission from artist, onsite" to be sufficient is very troubling, frankly. Эlcobbola talk 17:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    I will let things go, MGA73, without comments like this one that are ignorant of what constitutes permission. Commons doesn't demand consistent permission from every item we upload. We protect ourselves from unreasonable copyfraud, but beyond that, we trust our contributors to have done due diligence to ensure that they have permission to upload. Sometimes we have takedown requests, when either someone was unaware of what free permission constituted. "Received permission from artist, onsite" is, in fact, reasonable if the uploader is a trusted member of the community. Avoid Copyright Paranoia is a deep and historical guideline that some factions on this project have decided to fruitfully ignore, much to the detriment of the freedom of this project. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    Further on this, if a contributor has permission from his spouse to upload an image from them, we don't demand that their spouse send an email to OTRS to ensure that we have a fixed record of that permission. We don't delete self-photographs obviously taken by friends, because the friend has provided an implicit permission to upload said photograph. We allow some degree of leeway for contributors who have demonstrated a knowledge of copyright and licensing time and time again. We don't tie up the community to get handwritten notes in exact language. And we don't allow ourselves to be "troubled" when a "bureaucrat and OTRS volunteer" provides explanations. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    Shouldn't trusted contributors lead by example? Why should newbies go through a (relatively) complex OTRS process, when more experienced users don't even bother?
    And if we had a proper ticket, we would still be wondering who the artist is; if they gave you permission for a cc-by-2.5 license, surely they meant to have their name credited. –Tryphon☂ 18:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    They gave permission for me to upload it under a free license. The license was mine to choose. I would not, in fact, have uploaded it without the artist's permission. It's been over a year, and I don't have any further information. I'll make an effort to find the artist's name and credit him, and even contact him. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 18:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

They're not even that high quality images; and I don't care that much about them, but the fact that it was Pieter nominated them made it an issue. I've now apologized to Pieter for overreacting to him. Let's all let this go. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 18:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Look, I don't care. I will "unwise speedy close" any DR's of my images that are done by Pieter Kuiper. I have a right to be protected from harassment, and Pieter has demonstrated such a volume of bad faith toward me that I am entitled to protect myself from him. It would be wise for him to very carefully ignore the contributions of other admins who are likely to give a similar reaction. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Towards the end of the previous incident, I had started to seriously pity Pieter Kuiper and wished that people stop commenting about him. I think of him as somehow sick, or possessed by something that evidently makes him suffer and alienates him a good part of the Commons community (besides constituting a glorious pain in the arse for the others). The avalanche of hostile comments, if explainable and maybe justified, had a sour taste.
Now, after very numerous incidents, after he managed to sort of pull a parole yet again, Peter has set up an "Admins being lax on uploads by admins" section on his user page; that, I think, is sufficient to warrant putting an end to his sufferings. Just like you would shoot a horse with a broken leg, we should ban Peter. It's for his own good. Rama (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm rather inclined to agree - that is just vindictiveness. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
There are only two choices: 1.) ban him or 2.) return here for the next episode in a few weeks. It seems more people prefer choice 2 to choice 1, but it will swing the other way over time. Wknight94 talk 01:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are we here again? User:Pieter_Kuiper#Admins_being_lax_on_uploads_by_admins needs to go. It's unacceptable. I've removed it. If it gets put back I'll protect the page. Enough. The conditions of return did not allow this. ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Blocked for one month. This is clearly getting ridiculous. However, I really don't like the idea of indefinite blocking if it can be avoided. I think that, if this doesn't work, though, it's time to go with either a year or indefinite. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this block. Now Pieter Kuiper couldn't even express his concerns, if he disagree with some admin decision and has a dissenting opinion? And it wasn't just gibberish, concerns raised by Pieter Kuiper on the "wall of shame" were (in my opinion) legitimate at least in this and this cases. Trycatch (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    If you have concerns with a file, you can fill a DR. That has already been done. As you put it very well, the gallery on Kuiper's page is a "wall of shame". Here, Kuiper is not asking questions:
    • he wants images deleted, he takes no notice of others' opinion;
    • he is singling out individuals and putting them to shame.
    • he is harbouring defiance towards the entire administrative corps
    • more important, he is clearly of bad faith: while he is so stubornly pushing for deletion of file with which no particular problem has been found, he votes to keep files for which no author known [50] (not anonymous, but unknown); he votes to keep images for which no date of publication is known [51]; and he militates to, I quote, "Commons should further relax its extreme free-content rules for hosting images. For example, there should not be a problem with images that are free for educational use or that were released for use on wikipedia" [52]. You can find many other instances in which Kuiper pushes for very lax rules on Commons (unacceptably so in my opinion). This clearly indicates that over-cautious deletion requests and futher bickering by Pieter Kuiper are not legitimate concerns from him, but merely POINT.
    Rama (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to note a couple of the Wall of Shame entries:

  1. File:Croton_Dam_Muskegon_River_Dscn1100_cropped.jpg: Community discussion decided that it was almost certainly not copyrightable, as it was simply basic geometric shapes, text, and other very simple designs. In the week the nomination was open, Pieter never provided any argument or evidence against this view, and noone else voted delete but him. However, he used it to attack the closer, and when the closer objected, he restored it, with a particularly passive-aggressive singling out.
  2. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Suzanne_Lachelier_2382.jpg - Stayed open for a week, author pointed out that she reviewed many photographs, and then drew it based on that, using no copyrightable elements of any photo. Pieter never argued against the author's statement in the DR.

I shan't go too deeply into the other two: One is the subject of this complaint, making the Wall of Shame appear to be a reaction against it, the other is a nomination extensively discussed a few blocks of Pieter previously.

If Pieter has new evidence, or feels that the arguments against his views were wrong, he should have said so at the time. To pull out administrators for shaming for closing nominations where his statements had been discussed and shown to be inaccurate is bad; to do so right after this, this and this promise by him shows an amount of cluelessness and willful disruptiveness that he cannot be allowed to continue editing for now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sadly events prevented me from coming back to this. I realise it is probably all over but I feel I should express my opinion. Kuiper's behaviour has often been very bad indeed. However in this case he was not in current dispute with Bastique and so it does not follow his usual pattern in this case.
I consider Bastique's speedy closure of the DR completely wrong for a number of reasons. I think it should be policy that no admin can close a DR on their own files for a start. The example set to other volunteers is truly poor I'm afraid. Whether you are an ordinary admin, a steward or an employee of the Foundation I have always considered that rights bring responsibilities particularly to set a good example - this closure is not a good example by any standard.
Coming on top of the example recently set by Wales on this project I do wonder why we continue to work away for the benefit of the foundation. I shall reflect on my position in this but at the time of writing it troubles me greatly. --Herby talk thyme 08:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I have some sympathy for that view, but realise the thing that got him blocked was primarily the Wall of Shame attempt. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Presumably following that well known wikipedian principle of "two wrongs do make a right and even more wrongs are better".
Sadly the completely inappropriate speedy closure has the effect of reflecting badly on all Commons admins and that is something I really do object to. I've tried to work hard here to be fair to all - this makes the work pointless. --Herby talk thyme 10:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that's selling yourself and others a bit short, Herby. No good work is ever pointless. Powers (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is Pieter was actually raising valid reasons for these deletion requests (at least the ones I just looked at). Take Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maker faire 2009 palo alto motherboard skull 100.jpg for example, it was a copyvio. The author wasn't credited as required by the license. I agree with Herby, the self-closure wasn't cool. (What's the rush? Admins know who you are and would wait plenty of time for you to clear up the licensing issue, and if there is none, it won't get deleted. Just ignore them if you don't think there's an issue.) Maybe he is targeting Bastique's uploads and maybe he isn't but as long as they're valid reasons for the DRs, so what? When I find bad uploads I usually check the uploader's other contribs too. A licensing problem is a problem and should to be dealt with not ignored, right? I'm not defending Pieter's methods or saying he's always right (he's not), but I think some people need to learn how to handle a wider range of personality types. You can turn nearly everything into harassment or attacks if that's what you're into. It's perspective and remembering not to take things so seriously and personal. Rocket000 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

And he is just going through the alphabet. He found something at Amada44 (any fr:WP admin who can check the original description?). Its a little strange to focus only on admins but I still think that he is doing lots of good work and I would strongly support his unblock. As mostly his nominations do have a good reason. Also whats wrong with a hall of shame? THIS is what we call freedom of speech in a democracy. I don't think that everything that Pieter does is productive and I think that it would be really great if he could learn to be more empathetic. Amada44  talk to me 10:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I won't be the one to unblock him, but it does seem a bit of an overreaction to me as well. It's obvious he's outspoken and a bit vindictive, but I don't think we're at the point of exhausted community patience (as they say on en.wikipedia). Powers (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I am an fr: admin. The original description is:
Apiculture- création Achilléa d'après peinture rupestre de la Cueva de Arana- libre disposition suivant GNU Public Licence
("Apiculture, creation by Achilléa after rock art in Cueva de Arana, freely available under the GNU Public Licence")
Rama (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets end it here

A wall of shame should not be needed but when admins speedy close "own images" and block Pieter for nominating files for deletion I thing Commons have a problem. Admins should never close DR's for own files unless they agree that it IS a copyvio and file should be deleted. We have hundreds of admins so it should be possible to find an other admin that could close a DR as keep.

Pieter makes admins look like crying fools. We are playing with the Streisand effect and we can not win that fight. We (admins) can not cry every time some user nominate one of our files for deletion or points out that we make mistakes. Admins set the standard and I for one do not think that the standard is worth following. If we do not like Pieter and wants to block him we should start a vote getting him banned instead of fighting over and over and finding any excuse to block him. Either it is acceptable to hunt copyvios and we should stop crying or we should say no once and for all and block him for creating a bad "climate" om Commons. So I suggest we start the ban-discussion now to end this joke once and for all. What do you think: Is it time to ban Pieter forever? --MGA73 (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 Support Ban. Wknight94 talk 19:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 Support Ban. Each of pieter attacks will invariantly lead to the same result in the end. Esby (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 Support 6 month ban for cooling off and discussion. Forever seems a bit long. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose Ban. I think it is okay to hunt for copyvios. Amada44  talk to me 21:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 Support Ban. Quo usque tandem ?
Amada44, it is OK to hunt for copyvios; it is no OK to harass people, attempt to put them to shame, troll on notoriously controversial conflicts (Isreal/Palestine), extract revenge, and posture as the white knight of copyright purity while militating for fair use on Commons and having logged a long series of cavalier and careless opinions on DRs. One of these can be understood as the excesses of a passionate mind gone too far (save for the last); this long series of all-azimut disturbances cannot.
To all: Kuiper has alienated too much of the community to be taken seriously in the future. What good is there in this user account anymore? If he genuially wishes to contribute constructively, let him do that from a fresh account. Rama (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
no, no, no, and no again. No, its not okay to harass people! I strongly oppose harassing in any form.
BUT: looking at the reason he got blocked now, I just don't think it was justified. And if you see this as the the straw that breaks the camel's back I don't think it was a straw so I don't see the back of the camel broken. I don't support Pieters attitude and I understand that some people are fed up. Amada44  talk to me 22:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The "wall of shame" on his user page is largely enough to break the back of Kuiper's exausted and crumbling rhetorical camel. Rama (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Well you see, here I have a different opinion. I see this as freedom of speech. Amada44  talk to me 23:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
You should not. Commons is not a democracy. Ultimately, user pages are priviledges, not rights. Rama (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose I rather ban people that have such a low tolerance that they can't handle working with people they don't like and are so sensitive they interpret deletion requests as harassment and flip out over things like Kuiper's "wall of shame", which was simply documenting what he saw as a problem. It's ok for you to tell people how to act but when they question your behavior you block them... Rocket000 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 Support To paraphrase Mae West: It's not what he hunts it's the way that he hunts it. It's not what he writes, it's the way that he writes it, and the way that he acts when he hunts it and writes it. There is no evidence to show that he will ever stop being uncivil to scores of users that do not agree with him. Ergo: Exit Dr. Kuiper for being incorrigibly uncivil, not for anything else. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose Blocking a user merely for expression of his opinion on his own user page, even if the form was reasonable polite and correct, even if the opinion was substantially valid. I feel this is plain wrong. As to "careless opinions on DRs" and so on, Pieter doing a lot of _good_ work on DRs, and I've seen no more careless opinions/actions by Pieter Kuiper than, for example, careless opinions/actions by Rama or other admins. Nobody is perfect, but usually Pieter's position is pretty solid. Trycatch (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It is not reasonably polite to set up a personal pilori. As for the cavalier opinions, you obviously have not searched a lot, I've quoted one right above: "Commons should further relax its extreme free-content rules for hosting images. For example, there should not be a problem with images that are free for educational use or that were released for use on wikipedia" [53]. It's the very foundations of Commons as a repository of Free images that Kuiper is attacking. Rama (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Other examples:
  • Where Kuiper "assumes" a convenient place of first publication [54] [55] [56] [Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gandhi and Mountbatten drinking tea.jpg]
  • Where we learn that if you don't know the author of a work, it makes it anonymous (in other terms, if you're ignorant enough, everything legally becomes Public Domain): [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
Kuiper is entitled to his own opinion and judgement; but openly militating for fair use on Commons while advancing such cavalier attitude, and also playing holier than thou towards admins (with no small amounts of anti-admin populism in the bargain), that's plain bad faith and POINT. I have respect for people who harbour honest exotic opinions, but less for tartuffes. Rama (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you are simultaneously attacking Pieter's liberal and conservative opinions. Liberal -- because liberal opinions are careless. Conservative -- because he had already expressed liberal opinions, so he contradicts himself, his own personal views, so probably conservative opinions were expressed in bad faith. It's a bad logic, almost anybody could fit to this pattern.
Argument about fair use is largely irrelevant, that was a general opinion unrelated to some DR or specific situation. COM:SCOPE is not an ideal, nor it is some sacred book, it is a valid target to attack and subject to change in the future. As to anonymous/unknown (as well as first publication) thing, it is a hard problem, you (almost) never could be sure that some work is really anonymous, or was really first published in the country you want. If your are more conservative than PK in the treatment of this sort of things (I am sure you will be happy to see this PK's nom), it doesn't mean his opinion is careless. At the same time I don't say that PK never expressed careless opinions. Of course, he did. As you, as me, as the most of DR community (including admins active on DR) with a very few exceptions. But _generally_ his opinions are quite solid. Trycatch (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 Support - I'd rather not have an indefinite ban, but every time I see the name Kuiper I inwardly groan, because I know it's another mess of politics and incivility which will likely lead to accusations of genocide, terrorism and generally someone being the antichrist. The best users are those you never see - they work in the background, do what the enjoy and don't ruin it for others. I've been brought up here before, and I don't think that makes me a bad person. But when the same person's name is brought up again and again and again and again, over the same damn things, there needs to be action taken. Pieter may do good work, but the way he does it breeds hatred from others, and that festers and poisons the community as a whole. Much like other users we've banned, I think they do good work, but the good work cannot outweigh the mass of bad faith that surrounds it, and that keeps us fighting here. We need to end the cycle. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 Support Kuiper likes to tr enforcing his own opinion on other people, and arguments with him are impossible to suffer. Kooritza (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 Neutral for now. If this had been a case seeking revenge as has happened so often I would have found this clearer but I think this block is quite wrong. What I am certain of is that policy must be changed so that no user may close a DR that involves their media. --Herby talk thyme 08:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I have given this quite a bit of thought now. All too often this user has behaved vindictively and Commons patience is about exhausted - maybe more than "about". However admin uploads are not immune from copyright nor from scrutiny and must not be. If PK continues to work as he is suggesting I feel the work is of value. We are all equal here although some admins don't see it like that and so some users do not see it like that as a result of the incorrect actions of admins such as in this case. I actually think PK probably could have been blocked indefinitely for some of his past actions but not in this case so I now feel I must  Oppose this. --Herby talk thyme 14:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I totally understand why Bastique did it, and sympathize. And yet I nevertheless agree, no closing one's own DR. There are enough admins that there is no need for that. Reserve other comment. ++Lar: t/c 13:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose - Pieter Kuiper is more active on copyright issues than 95% of all admins. Admins closing perfectly valid DR's of their own files because "they don't like it" are the problem, not Pieter Kuiper. And it seems unfair that a user - you know who - can perfectly call another user a paedophile advocate and get a block of a week, but when Kuiper creates perfectly valid DR's, he's threatened with a infinite ban and Bastique is shouting that this poisons the community. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others... Kameraad Pjotr 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, we should ban Ottava for good. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 Support Ban of Ottava Rima. Wknight94 talk 11:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Huh? NW (Talk) 14:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Ottava called an admin for a paedophile and made a lot of other noise but was unblocked shortly after the block. Personally I would rather block and ban users for that sort of behavior than for cleaning up the mess made by admins. But I think it is a bad idea to vote for or agains the block/ban of Ottawa in this discuttion. The votes "makes a mess" here. --MGA73 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If you guys think you have grounds for a block against Ottava you should start a separate section to discuss that. Too bad that interjecting nonsense whining about Ottava in a discussion that has nothing to do with him is not grounds for a block. (But administrators apparently don't need to worry about getting blocks, no matter how mean spirited they act.) As for Pieter Kuiper, I vote  Oppose. The circumstances do not seem sufficiently clear to justify a ban. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose per Herby. Pieter may yet exhaust the community's patience but I don't think we're at that point now, and the proximate cause of this particular blocking is not justified. But I would consider him to be on notice that antagonism is not acceptable, and that advocacy for a looser copyright standard should be undertaken with respect rather than aggression. Powers (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose Peter had some points at the start of his action. But now it seems more like he finds himselves hooked to commons and wants to force us to free him from that by a block. Don't block him. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose Bastique uploaded an image in violation of its license. Pieter pointed that out. Blocking him sends a clear message that you don't nominate an admin's images for DR, and that's just wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • And Bastique is, in fact, getting away with stuff because he is an admin. File:SS Lurline diagram 11.png is outrageous; more than two months ago, he uploaded an image without source, date or author, listing them as "to be added" and hasn't bothered fixing it. Can we really block someone for calling this behavior out?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    Not two months; one year and two months. And it's not the only one, but I didn't want to tag the others and "come across like a wanker"; I'm hoping Bastique will fix all of them at the same time. –Tryphon☂ 17:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose ban independently of my own opinion about Pieter Kuiper. I think deletion request was closed incorrectly because of clear conflict of interests. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Re-reading this thread it would seem that Eugene & I are not the only ones with real concerns over this DR closure by Bastique in respect of one of his images. While understanding the frustration he may have felt it is plain wrong. I'll be off line shortly however when I next come back on I plan to re-open the DR and allow it to run its proper course - it would obviously be preferable if Cary were to do that himself. I trust folk will realise that if edit warring has a place it is not here on Commons please. I will also knock up a one line amendment to DR policy preventing admins from closing DRs involving their own media as soon as I can for the community to vote on. --Herby talk thyme 16:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Strong support for both those actions (reopen and policy clarification), thank you Herby! ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Very strong support from me, as well. That Bastique's conduct has not been "formally" admonished borders on embarrassing. Эlcobbola talk 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the point in reopening it; the issues that caused it to be opened in the first place have been solved. If you disagree, then go ahead, but I see no need as a policy decision.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I do have some comments to make about that image that haven't been addressed yet. I'm not saying reoopen it for that reason, but where would be a good place for me to comment about that image (clearly not here)? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose as this would send out the wrong message, i.e. you'll get banned if you file DRs for files uploaded by admins. In this I agree with Herby and others. I am not very optimistic about the future development, though. Rama's analysis has been confirmed by Pieter's statement below. As much as I can understand that people get upset when old, most likely PD photographs get deleted, I cannot follow how this can be a motivation to follow en:WP:POINT for quite some time now. This is poisonous for the community and I think that if Pieter does not find an approach to work positively for and with the community, he will sooner or later end up here again, getting finally banned. However, even if this appears to be inevitable we shall not ban him now for the completely wrong reasons. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose, per Rocket000 and others. Some admins need to try harder not taking DRs personally. If the DR process is acceptable for the rest of us, why do experienced users have such a hard time dealing with it? If anything, we should try and be more gentle with newbies, but admins should know better. –Tryphon☂ 17:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Comment If Bastique has done something wrong, it does not mean that kuiper done everything right. Here's a quote from kuiper's talk page that was written in Dutch:

"I see this differently: Commons is a swamp, and frogs-with-the-long-toes croaking in chorus".

In other words he believes he's 100% right in everything, and all around are wrong. I do not say that what Bastique has done, when they closed DR for their own image, was the right thing to do. It was not, and I do not believe admins should be threaten any differently than everybody else is, but IMO kuiped should apologize for the "hall of shame" (that of course was a violation of WP:POINT), and to promise never ever again to do anything with a purpose of revenge, which means that, if kuiper had any problems with any user (online and/or offline), he should avoid this user's images in the entire main space. There is plenty of work to do here without doing something that could be treated as harassment and as a revenge. If kuiper cannot make such a promise rather sooner than later he will be brought back to this board. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I'm of two minds here. One side is that it's process wonkery to say "Pieter's bannable, but not because of this, so we should wait till another incident comes along". Either he's problematic enough to need removal, or he isn't. But the other side is that it definitely sends a chilling message if common perception is that this is solely due to the DR. And no amount of explaining that it's not solely due to that will suffice for some, perception is what it is. So it's not clear to me. Certainly leaving the block to run its time out (absent some clear statement from Pieter that he's really going to change) and then waiting for another incident seems an acceptable compromise. So I'm inclined to side with the opposers, as those reasons now seem stronger to me... and long term community health is very important, I prefer not to have chilling effects... but I'm going to continue to abstain I think. ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In terms of long-term community health, if Pieter wants to do this sort of work, why not explore other restrictions, such as requiring that he not only do this in some non-targeted way (e.g. alphabetical) but also alternates between admins and non-admins so not so much focus is put on the "this is all about admins" meme? Also, you could add in a restriction requiring Pieter to leave a notice on a user's talk page and waiting for a response before nominating an image (modified suitably for users that are not very active or don't have a notice on their user page asking to be contacted in other ways)? If that reduces the tension, Pieter might actually learn that restraining himself has benefits. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, doing things in alphabetical order was the last compromise that was worked out. I do like the notice first approach. Or the opt out approach (someone else can nominate them or something, no admin should be immune if the images have issues). ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we could compile a list of editors (by an editor request, no questions ask), whose images kuiper is not allowed to touch (including DR request, changing category, voting on FPC, and/or QI, and/or VI) under any circumstances. The list could be placed to kuiper's user space and protected. Then, if kuiper violates this ban, he should be blocked indefinitely. The rules I am proposing will be easy to follow, and if kuiper is here with a sole purpose to volunteer on Commons, he should not have any problems with complying with them. Such way we will avoid long, time-wasting discussions at this and other boards any time kuiper harassed somebody.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could make a list of users who are not allowed to complain about Pieter Kuiper and report him to this board. This way, we will avoid long, time-wasting discussions at this and other boards. Sounds fair? –Tryphon☂ 19:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it does not. Harassment by kuiper ought to stop, or you could find any other name to describe what kuiper has done with rama's images after rama blocked him? Rama said kuiper is sick, and I believe he was right. Because only a sick one could have spend a few hours going over hundreds of images I uploaded to nominate few for deletion only because I voted to keep one of the other editor images kuiper wanted to delete. Just think about this, a scientist, a "solid state physicist", as he described himself, spending hour after hour of his own time with a sole purpose to retaliate. About filing reports to administrators boards , kuiper filed 90% more reports about me than I did about him, so stop your insinuations, Tryphon. Once I've given you an "unfair administrator" barnstar. Only now I realized how right I was.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
My point was, your proposition is as ridiculously unfair as mine. –Tryphon☂ 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, the thing is that I do not believe my proposition was neither unfair nor ridiculous. For example, if somebody would have told me that they believe my votes on their FPC nominations are unfair, and made out of the wish to take a revenge, I would have never ever again voted on this editor nomination. Would you, Tryphon? It is the same as with an involved admin, who should never block a user, he involved with, himself. It is simply the right, and the decent thing to do. But, if somebody, as kuiper, cannot understand it, the list could provide some help.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Not really the place to have this conversation, so let's take it to your talk page, shall we? –Tryphon☂ 08:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
If I'm going to support the ban, I'd like to see the whole case laid out. Right now, this page lists a perfectly reasonable DR and a complaint on his user page about admins getting preferential treatment. The second I regard as immature, but not actionable. I remember him from the Israeli FoP arguments, which seems to show him as overbearing but technically correct, IMO. If you want to ban him, I want to see a case made.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Pieter is certainly not my single favorite contributor here, but he is certainly more of a positive than a negative. Would he do well to be less abrasive and more accepting of consensus? Yes. Has he acted in bad faith? Probably not. Does he occasionally pick a "target" out of pique? Probably, but that doesn't seem sufficient to ban someone with obvious and useful expertise. - 18:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2010 July 25 (UTC)
    Oh yes he has acted in bad faith, and unashamedly so. He even admits as much in his explainations below. Rama (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    It is not bad faith to help enforce the rules that are even if you don't believe in them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    Hang on a minute: he's spent years advising people to be uncautious about copyright; he actively militates against the rules he postures as enforcing; he does that selectively with people against whom he holds grudges; he's in fact not doing that properly as a large proportion of his DRs are frivolous; even making abstraction of his long history of provocations, how could suspect him of good faith? It's "assume good faith", not "be stupid". Rama (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ban of course. The best way to avoid wasting community time on Kuiper-discussions is to stop discussing. Some contributers urgently need to learn to stay cool when their uploads are challenged. Nillerdk (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose how about ban discussion about this? Let's be mature and let him dig out what he needs to dig out. As long as you don't have a copyvio upload, you'll survive. If you do, then let him clean up your gallery or follow the DR. If you feel harassed, oh well. It is no different from how newbies feel, and there's no reason for it to be different for admins. ZooFari 00:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Once I left a message at kuiper's talk page. When he responded, he added to his response anti-Semitic cartoon that he knew I cannot look at. I asked him to either remove my message or remove the cartoon. Was it so much to ask for? If I was asked to remove somebody's else message from my talk page, I would have done it, no questions asked even for my worst enemy. He did not remove neither my message, nor the cartoon. Instead he made the cartoon 2 times bigger. It was unbearable to me to see my signature next to that Holocaust denial garbage. I asked him to remove it few more times with the same result. Then I called to the office. I hardly could speak because I was crying. The hateful cartoon was replaced with the link to it at kuiper's talk page. So, kuiper decided to retaliate to me by nominating that very garbage for FPC. He was blocked for doing this for a week by Adambro. Few days ago Julian removed something from kuiper's user page, and look. Do you really believe I should assume good faith behind kuiper's actions? Sorry... --Mbz1 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
No one's telling you to assume anything. You're free to think and assume whatever the hell you want. (I don't know why everyone thinks "assuming good faith" is such a great thing. Why assume anything about the user's motives? Look at the action and take it for what it is. No need to get personal. This should be policy instead.). The key is to learn how to get along with and have some tolerance for people that are different than you (yes, it's not easy at first, but trust me, it gets easier and makes life so much more enjoyable when you don't always have others bringing you down). Sometimes you can solve your issues with others by changing the situation. Sometimes you can even solve your issues with others by changing them. But the thing that prevents most issues is changing yourself. There are some people that always seem to be chasing drama or crying about something and there are those that never seem to make enemies and have no problem working alongside individuals like Kuiper, regardless of their opinion of them. The fact that not everyone feels or reacts to things the same way shows that there's more to it than just some bad people causing problems. You can't let things get to you, otherwise they already won. Rocket000 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. As the initial cause for this request has more or less dissolved (and even led to a proposed DR policy amendment[62]), there is no real justification for a ban. I'm well aware that Pieters behaviour isn't easy, I've scolded him myself for an ad-personam attack/argument some time ago. However, over time I've realized for myself that his voice of dissent at his main area of work, deletion requests, is actually of benefit for the project. It might be out-of-topic here, but there are a few other users who are far less productive than Pieter and exhibit far more ad-personam aggression, but who miraculously are never threatened with a block or ban, not even questioned. --Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Not the right place and time for that, IMHO. (None active or mentioned in this thread.) --Túrelio (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Well if Kuiper is being brought here time after time, but there is someone else more worthy of being brought here, by all means, let's make that happen. We shouldn't be singling one person out while another goes free for doing worse. Wknight94 talk 16:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll do that when I feel it's the right moment. I realize now, it was a mistake mentioning this in my initial comment as this wasn't needed at all for my oppose-vote. --Túrelio (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Túrelio, if you have written your own version of "I've Got a Little List", start a new thread and sing it for us. (Thomas Allen does a nice performance of the Gilbert and Sullivan song, that he has updated, here [63].) -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Turelio, not to pick on you, but it reminds me of other comments here - that admins are picking on newbies (as at least two people mentioned above), and "rules are applied with ruthless zeal on hapless pensioners" (as Kuiper says below), etc. Where? Who? Let's talk about that too then. Bad behavior from some people should not be used to excuse bad behavior from other people. If his motivation is that he felt wronged by someone, or he feels someone wronged someone else, then he should bring that up - not distract from it by going just as bad in the other direction. Wknight94 talk 16:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Herby's reasoning is sound, but I will be inclined to support a long block if one more instance of using Commons processes to retaliate against another editor is substantiated. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I support the ban. This isn't specific to that one problem but a statement from a more general view. That person should be banned from commons. Actually, that person should be removed from all WMF projects.
    I didn't know that person prior to stumbling on that section, so I checked things around a bit... one look at his block log and all what I see is "Disruption", "Intimidating behaviour", "harassment of multiple users" and so on. Also [64] and what various other contributors said about him. So, it's pretty clear : that person is harrassing other editors, has been almost ever since he arrived on commons, and has become better and better at gaming the system by staying close to the limit (which is how he manages to have people to block/unblock war over him, to it utmost rejoicment I'm sure).
    This is the kind of person that greatly undermine a community. DarkoNeko 19:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
"Some think he is harrasing other users so it is probably so..."? Is that your argument?
Yes, it is true that the admins that blocked him think he is harrassing other editor but there is other users that do not feel the same - as you can see his block has been undone quite a few times. If I block you using "harrassing" as a part of the description then your block log will contain "harrassing" forever - even if it is undone later. If other users look in the block log would it be fair to conclude that because I blocked you for "harrassing" then you were in fact a harrassing user? And blocking and unblocking a user many times does not have to mean that a user is close to the limit - it could also just mean that admins do not agree.
So perhaps you could concider this question: "If Pieter is having a dispute with another user is it harrassing to nominate a file for deletion? And if yes is it bad enough for a ban?" If you have conciderd it and think yes then ok.
Last thing. What we are trying to find out here is how many users that think what - not now many times they say it. Some users are very active in the discussion related to Pieter so the number of messages/comments does not have to reflect the general opinion. --MGA73 (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not "some think", but rather "some says (...) and provide links to support their claims". grmbl, seeing your reaction makes me think I made a mistake by only emphasising the block log ; it's of course not the only thing I based my opinion on. DarkoNeko 08:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Not because of kuiper's block record (mine own is not any better I am afraid), but because he does not want to recognize that his tactic is dead wrong, he's never apologized for his actions, and has never promised to stop them, just the opposite. And for those of you, who are looking for "examples" see user:Rama's talk page, and please, do not tell me that what kuiper was doing there was good for Commons. Nothing, and I mean nothing, that is done out of revenge is good for Commons ( I hope nobody here doubts what he's done to Rama was done to retaliate for his block, and there are way too many examples like those to just ignore them.) --Mbz1 (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose; pointing out copyright violations is not against policy, but he could be less acidic. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nonsense. --JN466 22:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?

Opinion is running about 2:1 against the ban. Most of the opposes cite the specific circumstances that led to this particular block as the reason to oppose, so it's clear Pieter, if unblocked, will be on a very short leash. It is my opinion that he should be unblocked at this time, but as someone who voted above and as a very new administrator, I don't feel comfortable doing it myself. Powers (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The result may be a bit unclear. The votes was if Pieter should be banned. Some users may feel that Pieter should not be banned but that a short block is still ok. So perhaps the solution to this is to make a new discussion with a few more options perhaps 1) Pieter should be banned 2) Pieter should be told not to start DR's as a part of a dispute and if he does a short block is ok 3) Pieter can start all the DR's he want as long as they are not obviously wrong. --MGA73 (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been toying with the idea of unblocking PK myself and was verging towards doing it. However with some calm reflection I have real concerns.

  1. Mbz1 makes the point (regarding Cary's apology) that there has never been anything like an apology from Kuiper despite instances of very bad behaviour.
  2. PK claims credit for making a change in DR policy. Hardly the case I would suggest. The community noted that the policy was imperfect possibly and is voting on it. To say it even had PK's "help" might well be something of an exaggeration.
  3. The fact that he continues to behave aggressively towards Cary in his recent "defense" post suggests that he still has not learned any real lessons about collaborative working which is a fundamental problem with PK.

As a result of these concerns I've decided that I will not unblock PK and I suggest that anyone else tempted to do so thinks hard about it first. Commons is a collaborative project, Kuiper needs to show an understanding of that which has not been the case so far sadly. --Herby talk thyme 08:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

yes, this aggressive comment to an apology is highly ignorant. It also contains allegations which have nothing to do with the topic, throwing more oil on the (his own) fire. Somehow it tilted my perception of the block. I now think, that we should not free him from this block. I don't know if it will helpful in any way for Pieter!? But a apology from him would be something really helpful not only for the community but also for him. Amada44  talk to me 09:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"I was wrong" speech from Bastique

I was wrong. Anyone who knows my history with Pieter, or anyone who has been a target of Pieter's will sympathize with my reaction, but ultimately my reaction (closing the DR early, opening this discussion) to his nomination of my image was immediate, gut level, and wrong. To top it off, even after I knew I was wrong, I apologized for my reaction, but refused to reopen the DR, because I didn't want to give Pieter the satisfaction of "winning". My pride got in the way.

I'm more than happy to reopen the DR (and looking apparently while Herbythyme indicated he wanted to wait for me, it appears he changed his mind and reopened it himself), although at this point, it should have be moot. I don't really care about the images, I have no vested interest in the images, which are in fact poorer quality than we could of the subject. Anyone who thinks that I can't admit when I'm wrong hasn't bothered to even do a cursory search of my history with the projects.

The underlying issue here, being my overreaction to Pieter Kuiper--and the reasons behind it. Pieter Kuiper targets contributors, and like a pit bull in a dogfight, won't let go of them. This is the kind of poisonous behavior that drives contributors off the project, over and over again. Furthermore, nobody has any right to harass anyone on this project, whether they be an anonymous IP, a regular user, or an administrator. Administrators are no "better" than any other contributor, but they by no means should be particularly the subject, as a class, of targeted malicious behavior. Regular users, are, themselves in a position of authority, especially for newcomers from other projects.

Another point that keeps being brought up: "Pieter does so much hard work, we can look the other way." No, if Pieter drives off one good contributor, then his hard work is canceled out by the loss of that other person. If he drives off two good contributors, then he's a net liability to this project. This liability adds up.

This project gets images from all over the world. We're very likely going to have over ten million files before this time next year, quite possibly before the end of this one. Commons absolutely needs to establish an environment of collegiality among its contributors. I am in a position to set an example; by apologizing when I'm wrong. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 18:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And with this message Bastique demonstrated yet another time what is the difference between a normal person and kuiper. A normal person will apologize, when they feel they have done something wrong, kuiper never will.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
First, thank you Bastique for your apologize. Second, I think that Mbz1 demonstrates what Pieter is up against. 2 users have a dispute and Pieter is the one getting blocked. Bastique then says: Yes I was wrong (and perhaps even Pieter was right?) but Pieter is still blocked. Pieter has pissed off so many users that it is easy to spot his mistakes - even if he might not have made any? --MGA73 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. Peter has already started twisting the truth: 'Bastique admits ... that he was out for revenge'. That's an outright lie; any reasonable person who read my speech above knows that I wasn't "out for revenge" I don't think language is an issue here, Pieter is imputing a motive on me that doesn't exist; and he does this time and time again with me, with others. My only motivation is for the Commons project to grow and prosper. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 22:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
MGA73, I cannot understand what you meant. First you said: " 2 users have a dispute and Pieter is the one getting blocked." Did you mean that evil mbz1 and kuiper? Then you said: "Pieter has pissed off so many users that it is easy to spot his mistakes". So were there "2 users" or "so many"? Please clarify--Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
@Mbz1 I mean that it was the dispute between Pieter and Bastique that got Pieter blocked this time . My comment about the spotting his mistakes was a response to your comment where you used Bastiques excuse to "hit" Pieter. I think we should blame Pieter for his mistakes and not the ones other users make. --MGA73 (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The remarkable part about this is that it has long become a spiral of negativity. Take for example Darkoneko's comment above, where he mentions taking his information mainly from block messages and what other people said about PK. Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate Cary's honest and brutal reflection and apology, that takes a lot of guts and ultimately is a very good thing for the community. And I completely understand how PK can get on one's nerves. I'm not going to repeat my comments on how we should not let it get to us, but harvest just the grains of truth from his actions (yes, easier said than done). But like MGA I am seeing a slanted playingfield here. Calling for an indef ban just does not seem right to me at this point (and all those things aside, it does not seem like a smart move either from a transparency/communications point of view). --Dschwen (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Dschwen, I agree with some of your points, but you missed on one very important point from Bastique's apology:
If he drives off two good contributors, then he's a net liability to this project. This liability adds up....
and it just have added up, although I have not voted to support the ban either --Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Batique wrote: Pieter Kuiper targets contributors, and like a pit bull in a dogfight, won't let go of them. This is the kind of poisonous behavior that drives contributors off the project, over and over again. Furthermore, nobody has any right to harass anyone on this project, whether they be an anonymous IP, a regular user, or an administrator.

This is essentially correct. I experienced this personally when I opposed Pieter Kuiper a while back on the issue of pornographic images, and soon found that he had combed through my uploads to find problems. The one problem he found [65], was of no particular concern, and finding images that have copyright problems, and removing them from Commons, is good. But the use of retaliatory auditing against users who get in the way of one's personal editing goals is not good. In fact it is rather reminiscent of politicians, with reputations for viciousness (such as Richard Nixon), using IRS audits as retaliatory weapons against political opponents. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What Bastique wrote above about his own actions is admirable and everything he wrote about Kuiper, furthermore, is exactly how I feel. I have considered quitting at least 10 times rather than having to deal, as an unavoidable part of WP work, with the cruel sarcastic ridicule and scurrilous personal insults Kuiper levels at anyone who dares disagree with him about anything. I have made a few mistakes here and on English WP and on Swedish WP and have corrected them and apologized as well as I could. Kuiper, who always is unforgiving, has kept track of every one of them and used them against me on all three projects in totally unrelated discussions, sometimes very effectively. In my opinion, the man is very very nasty, that's all. Don't most users know what it is to be uncivil? Don't most users know that it is not allowed on WP to be habitually, incorrigibly uncivil? Whatever consensus is, let's hope what is done here does not encourage Kuiper to keep behaving like that forever (as I firmly believe he will if allowed). That would do very serious damage indeed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You should only be "spanked" for mistakes once or if you say "I never make mistakes". If you have recent examples from Commons I think it would be nice to see here. I would prefer that we block and ban Pieter for behaviour like that and not because he finds (possible) copyvios or points out mistakes (the first time). --MGA73 (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate Cary's words. We all make mistakes, accepting and apologizing is not as common as making mistakes in my experience so thanks. Also notable is Mbz1 comment - I certainly never recall anything approaching an apology from Kuiper. --Herby talk thyme 08:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't know the history you Commons admins have, and obviously there are some personal feelings involved, but you need to make this into a credible legal process and not a popularity contest. There must be a dozen blocks and unblocks in this person's log with various admins weighing in on either side. His greatest named crime here seems to be violating COM:POINT by proposing a few admins' uploads for deletion, but at least the first file on his homepage list of proposed deletions,[66] containing a full page of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, seems damn odd for a site that says it doesn't host Fair Use material. There are a few diffs scattered around in the conversation here, but by and large they look like a whole lot of nothing - what you call attacks and harassment sure don't look like it on a diff by diff basis. My feeling is that if you're going to ban someone, and especially if you're going to ban him indefinitely, you better as hell have a table of diffs that disinterested parties can look over and say that this one and that one are problematic edits. I can't accept the idea that his edits can just cumulatively become harassment by sheer volume, because Wikimedia sites generally should encourage active contributors, and it's inevitable that the more controversies someone butts into, the more feathers will be ruffled. I don't mean to say that you couldn't make a case against him - I haven't read the voluminous archives in full - but I think it's your responsibility to do it right here and right now in a way that is plain to an impartial observer, in order to support the legitimacy of your judicial process. Wnt (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The fresh viewpoint is appreciated. My ban vote is based on a simple fact - we will be back here talking about Pieter Kuiper. Again and again and again. He is going to be blocked for the same reasons. Again and again and again. As far as I can tell, he doesn't care a wit about how he comes or about maintaining a civil atmosphere, etc. The choices seem to be ban him now, or ban him later. Hopefully I am wrong on all counts and he is quietly vowing to change his approach. Otherwise, I'll see you in a few weeks... Wknight94 talk 02:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but to me your complaint that you'll be back here talking doesn't sound like a proper argument. You don't hear a judge saying to someone that because the police drag him into court every week, he might as well convict regardless of the evidence to avoid further annoyance! If there's something to this complaint (or some other) it should be possible to make a clear case based on those facts and close this case the right way. If you feel like you should be able to block him but can't because you're missing a policy like COM:POINT or COM:HOUND then you ought to work on getting one ratified, if it seems wise, then tend to the individual case. Wnt (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want to use legal terminology, then Adam Cuerden already "convicted" him with a block in this case. To me, the sentence should be a ban because he is such a repeat offender and is nearly 100% likely to recidivate. A judge will impose harsher sentences on repeat offenders. I'm not so worried about which policies are ratified and which are used to block, etc. If someone is constant irritant to the community, they need to be banned, paperwork notwithstanding. Those are my opinions. Wknight94 talk 19:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I haven't followed the whole case, but I see a set of five deletions that you filed against Kuiper (starting at [67]) which were all (5/5) kept or withdrawn, which he called "revenge nominations" based on some argument the two of you had gotten into which I think I started. ;) Now by contrast I see 4/6 of Kuiper's criminal deletions ([68]) were actually deleted. So at least in the context of this one pair of incidents, I find his behavior more reasonable than yours. Wnt (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Wnt, my recollection is that this sort of wikilawyering is not particularly appreciated even on WP:AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes Wnt, can you please stick to vague and unsubstantiated accusations? –Tryphon☂ 15:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Tryphon, wikilawyering is disruptive. But in this case it is also pointless because the vote was against banning. But if, as you have said, you have a little list of Commons users you think will not be missed, please do share that with us. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
You have me confused with someone else, I never said other contributors should be banned. –Tryphon☂ 16:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Tryphon, that is my mistake. That was actually Túrelio. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
His greatest crime was violating some poorly written essay that was hastily imported from en.wiki!? If you want to say that he shouldn't make points disruptively, than say it. Your opinion is valid; no need to appeal to authority. 'Edit: Please ignore me. I shouldn't have skimmed your comment and overreacted when I saw yet another policy was imported from en.wp. You were just using it as commonly understood way of describing what you meant. Thank you for sharing your view." Rocket000 (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kindle 2 - Front.jpg Rocket000 (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
One thing I find interesting about that is that ShakataGaNai closed a DR Kuiper opened on ShakataGaNai's upload.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting apology speech, but I don't really read anything about regrets about the use of admin tools in a personal dispute.  Docu  at 05:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Motion to unblock

What kuiper has done to me, to Rama and others is wrong. In my case he absolutely needlessly and cruelly hurt me, no matter what Rocket000 says. Some time ago I read a Russian poem. It ended like that: "Life, please do with me as you wish, but never make me so full that it would prevent me from understanding hungry ones." You cannot understand me, Rocket000, and I am not going to discuss it anymore, too painful for me. Sorry for this deviation, let's move back to the topic. Although kuiper does not seem to understand that what he was doing out of the wish to retaliate was dead wrong I believe keeping him blocked will not solve this problem. Maybe, the unblock will be a better lesson for him. At least I hope so.So, let's try. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I have just read a message from Adam at my talk page, and got really upset . I mean, I know my English is far from being perfect, but still to mistake my call to unblock kuiper now with the call to indef him... OMG . So, here's my clarification. Yes, I did ask to unblock kuiper now. Why? There are few reasons. The most important reason is to play it fair. Last time kuiper said he was going to go through a list of administrators and nominate one image per day to be deleted, if there is a copy violation in his opinion, so he did. I do not believe he violated that "editing restriction" he himself imposed on him, did he? Then there was of course "the wall of shame" - a very bad gesture.Also he does not seem to understand that in general his approach to go after editors he disagrees with is as bad as it gets. He likes to do something to hurt people, and I would never either accept nor understand that kind of behavior. That's why I supported indefinite block for kuiper (see above). Yet, I know that kuiper was blocked few times in the past, and his behavior has hardly changed. So I thought that maybe now, if he sees that we (the community) are nice to him, he would change his behavior for the better too. That's why I wrote the motion to unblock him.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I never said anything about him not hurting you, or me understanding you. I was telling you basically it's not just him, because some people take things too seriously and personally and dramatically. They let stuff get to them (and if you feel it's out of your control, that's part of the problem). Do me a favor and the next time I write you a supportive (or what I meant to be supportive) message, please take my words as they are and don't think I'm saying or implying anything other than what I say (ironically this is exactly the thing I was talking about). I do the same for you. Rocket000 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for good reasons given above (incorrigilbly uncivil). Unblocking would be a clear message that such behavior is OK. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose: We only have a certain number of tools at our disposal to try and prevent problems, and if we ruin the credibility of the basic tools, we'll end up with no choice but to eventually go with the high-level tools, such as indef blocks. The problems with Kuiper continue to recur, but this is actually only the second block he's had which he didn't find someone to lift for him within a day or two. As said block reversals usually cited his productive behaviour, and ignored the issues that caused the block, we've sent a strong message that he's immune from any punishment for his actions. Indeed, in several cases, he violated restrictions placed on him, was blocked for it, then was unblocked, citing, once again, his useful contributions, and ignoring the actual issues. It's only gotten worse since then, so I'm pretty sure we've sent exactly the wrong message. If we lose Pieter to this in the end, frankly, I blame the people who unblocked him. For several months, his friends made it clear they would let no punishment of him stick, and that he needn't even respond to the allegations in any way.

In my experience, blocked users can be fairly easily reformed - I've dealt with several users who were indeffed, and then, a few months later, asked to be unblocked, showing a clear understanding of what they did wrong. After discussing it with the original blocker, and getting an agreement to unblock, I unblocked them - and all of them are now productive Wikimedians, and no problems have recurred. However, anyone who gets thrown endless second chances - for example, Dana Ullman, who edited on en-wiki for a while, or Pieter here - who got these second chances without ever showing any understanding or acceptance of the problems being caused - I've never seen anything happen to them but an eventual, much delayed indef. Now, of course, there's probably counterexamples to this, and we'd need a proper survey to prove that it's more than just my experience, but, without better evidence, all I can say is what I've found successful and what I've found ultimately counterproductive.

I've seen a fair amount of arguing against an indefinite block, but I don't see that many people specifically commenting on the one-month block as being a problem. It's my hope that a longish block, or possibly a couple, will be what's needed for Pieter to, well, calm down a bit and be more polite. If you'll forgive a somewhat subtle point, I don't think anyone wants him to be indef-banned; it's more that some people feel he may need indef banned, to prevent us losing or harming the productivity of other contributors. Let's leave him blocked for the amount of time remaining. The Wall of Shame was clearly him testing the waters to see what he could get away with. If we unblock him now, we'll demonstrate that, yes, he can get away with that, and we'll let him get away with things forever. Of course, we won't; but it'll cause immense frustration until we do, and then, all of a sudden, the mood will finally turn, and he'll be indef blocked and surprised, because we let him out of punishments every other time. Noone wants to indef Pieter if the problems can be solved. Let's try and solve the problems, which means we have to actually let the attempts to solve them with the limited tools we have be tried, and need to send a clear message that, no, he does not have infinite second chances. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Wknight94 talk 03:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support. I am sorry. Please read [69]. Elcobbola has a reputation as a very capable image reviewer at en:WP, and I would trust their judgment. Commons admins really, I mean really, have to stop reacting like enraged bulls when a DR is initiated on one of their uploads. --JN466 11:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

We need a decision, NOW

I'm discontent how this process is continued at User talk:Pieter Kuiper#Unblock. We have there a discussion going on in circles between Pieter Kuiper and other users including some admins he has been in conflict with. If the block was intended to separate the project and Pieter Kuiper for a limited time period, then it is not helpful to continue a heated debate on his talk page. Hence, I suggest either to unblock him now or to respond to his {{Unblock}} request on his talk page and shutting down the discussion for the rest of the blocking period. I do not want to do this myself as, if I may admit this, I was not happy with the rationale of the block at the beginning (while the wall of shame had to go, I dislike user's being blocked for voicing criticism of administrative actions as this is a message I do not support). However, I am meanwhile well aware of Pieter Kuiper's behavioral patterns and each comment I read by him now just let me feel more uncomfortable with the idea of unblocking him. Had I read at least one reconciliatory comment by him, I would have been very much tempted to unblock him. In summary, I would very much like to see an admin who has not been in conflict with Pieter Kuiper in the past to decide this now and I ask all other admins and users not to continue the debate on Pieter Kuiper's talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There is insufficient reason to undo the block decision, there is insufficent reason to make it a permanent block, Pieter can well use a cooling down period to reflect on his attitude. A wikibreak - even unvoluntary, can be very healthy. I propose to keep the block for the given period, but I don't yet know how to do that. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Havang(nl). --AFBorchert (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As Pieter Kuiper's access to his talk page has now been blocked (I support this), he created sv:Användare:Pieter Kuiper/Commons (mainly targeted at uploads of Havang(nl)) and refered to it at Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Korruptionen på Commons (the Swedish equivalent of the village pump). He explains there much of his motivation of his vendetta against Commons admins. As far as I understand his text, he found out that pictures which are in use on sv-wp where deleted at Commons due to strict interpretation of our policies but he suspects double standards with the uploads of admins. He particularly attacks contributors from Israel and Bastique. So far, there was just one response by someone else who asked him to calm down. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said previously in this discussion, in my view Pieter Kuiper's auditing the files of particularly those editors he seems to consider his enemies seems similar in spirit to Richard Nixon using IRS audits as a weapon against those who were on his enemies list: This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration; stated a bit more bluntly—how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies. There is nothing wrong with auditing Commons files for problems, but the selective targeting of those on his personal enemies list is ugly and mean spirited. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

{{user talk:Pieter Kuiper}}

Pieter Kuiper again

If anyone doubts he's using copyvio searches in order to harass, have a look at this: [70]

An admin denies his unblock request, so he immediately goes after the admin's uploads. He's not even trying to conceal it anymore.

What should we do? For now, I've blocked his ability to edit his talk page until the end of his current block (which expires in about 2 and a half weeks), but I haven't done anything else. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

86! SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we do a follow up to the vote to ban him above. We ask the community if we s:hould block or tell the the admins to stop complainting that he looks for copyvios. See above #Consensus? --MGA73 (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Right. So his unblock is denied, and this is suitable cause for him to immediately begin attacking the admin in question? He's not even trying to conceal it anymore. One must seriously question the judgement of someone who doesn't see that clear cause and effect of that diff - barely any time seperating the unblock being refused and his attacking the admin in question - as a problem. I'm sure we could do such a vote as you propose - if we wanted to lose half of the most productive users on the project if it went the way you wish. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking for copyvios is no problem. However, looking for copyvios by a specific user in direct reaction to a specific user doing something he does not like is problematic (The previous block was on those grounds, and a consensus did support that one). See w:WP:HOUNDING for enwp discussion of what appears to be going on, I'd certainly call this a fair summary of Pieter's activity.
The cannot-edit-talk-page block is to an extent justified (if heavy handed) by the latest action - if the purpose of the block is to stop disruption then its not working if he continues with the behaviour on his talk page.
However, an email block is not sensible. If Pieter wants to try and engage the complaints here about his behaviour, he could forward his detective work to another user, such as an admin he does trust (if any), who could then act on it accordingly.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. E-mail restored. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) So you are afraid that Community will not agree with you and therefore you prefere to eliminate democracy. Nice... :-D I still think we should let Community decide. Either result will be block him or let im do the cleanup. No matter what we will get a result and a end to this discussion. --MGA73 (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Open the poll, if you want. It's incredibly misguided, unjust in that it puts Pieter above policies that everyone else is held to, and shows severe lack of judgement on your part that you're even proposing the idea, but feel free. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Um... Commons is not a Democracy (anymore than WP is cf WP:DEMOCRACY, we don't (and shouldn't) have majority rule. A community-sanctioned ban is what we may end up having to impose, but that's result of a consensus decision by the community not by a simple vote on the matter. There is a distinction there please don't lose sight of that...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Stop letting admins post copyvios? Remind admins that they, like everyone else, can't take copyvios personally? In some ways, the fact that pointing out copyvios gets as much of a rise from admins as it does is as concerning as what Pieter does.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Pieter has copied across the issue to Användare:Pieter_Kuiper/Commons sv.wiki (his home one); also started this: sv:Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Korruptionen på Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

  •  Comment I got the advice to wait with comments etc. until tomorrow. That is probably a good idea. But before I go to bed I would like to point out that I do know that Commons is not a "real democracy". But we have to try to act with concensus. And if we can not solve a problem or find out what concensus really is then a vote is a possible way to find out. --MGA73 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with the statements by Nilfanion and I support the action of Adam. Enough is enough already. TheDJ (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In spite of being one of kuiper's victims, I tried to bring him back, but I have to admit I failed in doing so, and I support Adam's action.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, you got me convinced. Support Adam as well. --Dschwen (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Adam Cuerden. Want to see something sad? Scan this entire page - it's 70-80% Pieter Kuiper-related. He is going to need his own COM:AN page soon. COM:AN/PK. Wknight94 talk 00:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I endorse a long block per my earlier comment on this matter.[71] Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I support the block - as I noted earlier, his name only ever comes up in a negative way. Yes, he may be a useful contributor, but he's also rather a troll and refuses to listen to other people. He's also vindictive - note his "wall of shame", using DRs as retaliation and exporting his fight to sv.wp. If we don't block him then we'll be back here in a week with a topic "Pieter Kuiper yet again". This has to stop. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I support Adam Cuerden's extended block including the access to his talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • We do nothing. Adam has blocked Pieter for his actions and we do not "punish" users for the same mistake/offence twice. So we let the block end and after that Pieter is a free man. If you think that is to little then hope that no trigger happy admins blocks Pieter to soon after block ends before we have concensus for a permanent solution or this will go on forever.
However I think it was a big mistake that Adam blocked because he is not an neutral or uninvolved admin. I thought it was clear to every admins that we do not block users we have a dispute with. Perhaps we should start a debate like Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_22#Amendment_to_DR_closure_policy to make sure that all admins know that the proper thing to do when you are not neutral is to report problems on AN and stay away from block button. --MGA73 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
No, Kuiper's entire dispute is against admins in general, so how could any admin be considered neutral? Wknight94 talk 18:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
HOW am I not neutral? Outside of looking into problems he caused, and explaining reasons for blocks to him, I have had no interaction with him. It's true Pieter immediately picks a fight with anyone dealing with him - see link at the start - but...
Further, this is not a discussion dealing with the same incident he was originally blocked for. This is about Pieter's NEW action YESTERDAY. The old block hasn't been extended at all; I simply removed the right to use his talk page as he was using it to attack. However, we need to decide if the two and a half weeks remaining on the old block are endoough, now that he's lost talk page access, or whether anything else needs to be done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Same for me, I do not have a dispute with Kuiper; he's taken to targetting me in retaliation to a block that I inflected to him for one of his provocations. Since then, I have been branded as "biased" and "involved". We can't have policing on a Wikimedia project if a decision to block somebody automatically makes you biased and involved, or if we allow the offending user to create a pseudo-dispute himself to disqualify all the people who attempt to enforce policies. And that is especially true when the offending user has an axe to grind with the entire administrative corps out of principle. Rama (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No reason to unblock early. As for the talk page while I would not have turned it off, I would not overturn Adam either. Email should be left on. ++Lar: t/c 10:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_14&oldid=264579097"