Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 27

Magideleon

Magideleon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has made some copyright violations, and claimed as his own some non original images. Allan Aguilar • talk • 03:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Inquiry about file deleted in Commons

Around March 14, 2012, I uploaded a biography in commons, with the file "Claudia_Lopez.PDF". Claudia is a model, actress and movie producer. Apparently, the upload went fine, but several days passed by and I never found the biography in Wikipedia.

Today, March 30, 2012, I tried to upload the file again, and I got a message saying that that the previous file Claudia_Lopez.PDF was deleted and that I cannot upload the same file again.

How can I find out why was the file deleted?

Please reply to <removed>

My user ID at Wikipedia is alberr16

Thank you for your attention

Albert Herrera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alherr16 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 30. Mär. 2012 (UTC)

→COM:HD#Re: Inquiry about file deleted in Commons

Do not crosspost without linking the sections, please. -- RE rillke questions? 15:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sesenio

Sesenio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Too many copyrights violations besides all the warnings. Allan Aguilar • talk • 03:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Still copyvios to be deleted. Yann (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Holdarien

Holdarien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

A lot of copyright violations besides warnigns on Commons and on Spanish Wikipedia. Allan Aguilar • talk • 04:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Still copyvios to be deleted. Yann (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fred the Oyster (again)

Fred the Oyster (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely for generally being rude to people, per Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni's_allegations_against_Beta_M#Fred_the_Oyster. Rd232 (talk · contribs) today reduced the block to a week, including time served, meaning he will be unblocked in three days. This followed a lack of consensus for anything at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni's_allegations_against_Beta_M#Proposal:_Reduce_Fred_the_Oyster's_block_from_indef_to_one_week, which Rd232 closed. I would just like to point out these things:

• 15:44 . . Rd232 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Fred the Oyster (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 01:19, 21 March 2012 (account creation blocked) ‎(Reducing block to 1 week)
• 17:38, 18 March 2012 Tiptoety (talk | contribs | block) blocked The Hedonist (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: Fred the Oyster) (unblock | change block)

The Hedonist was making edits for about an hour after Rd232 changed the block settings. This is of course not Fred's first sock of the past week, AN/U was protected due to his IP socking, as was his talk page. The talk page is now unprotected, and has been for several days, and Fred has had his talk page privs reenabled for the past several days. There has been no {{Unblock}} request, which is of course the usual way for people to say they would rather not be blocked. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Block. If we allow users to call other "kiddy fiddlers" or similar then it will hard to block ANYONE for being rude. And the reduction was disputed and had only been open for 2 days. So why could the unblock not wait?

And if I may remind you that Abigor was de-sysopped and blocked for socking then I think the case is clear. One week is not enough. --MGA73 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a note... Fred was not blocked for the "kiddy fiddler" comment (alone) but for more than one case of bad language towards other editors. I just used this one as an example. --MGA73 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I've restored the block and hereby request Fred the Oyster to demand unblock on his talk page. Perhaps it's right that there were some concessions via e-mail, but I think in similar controversal cases the discussion on block/unblock should be public. - A.Savin 18:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You have no right to do that. Fred may be to proud to do an unblock request, but I'm not, and I will "demand" (as you put it) that you return it back to a 1-week block immediately. Three admins now agree that an indef is not apprpriate and over-reaching. This is vigilante over-reactionaryism from an argument where everyone was heated. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm? "Three admins [...] agree" does not look like consensus in this case since there are also some more than three users with contrary opinion; and "to[o] proud to do an unblock request" is a somewhat strange argument for reverting a user block. - A.Savin 22:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

At the time the block was instituted unilaterally by Tiptoety, two Admins (99of9 and Dcoetzee) had already opposed an indef as too much. There was no concensus to do it in the first place. Rd232 also clearly opposes it, or else he would not have reduced it to one week. There was no concensus for an indef, and there remains to be one. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

But, at least, there was a discussion which lead to the block. Whereas the last unblock was without any proposal. Same btw for Mattbuck's 24h block by the same admin. That's what disturbing me. Rd232 should seriously consider, not to use anymore admin tools in discussions related to Beta_M case. Otherwise, it will look like abuse, which could result in a de-adminship request. - A.Savin 23:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"the last unblock was without any proposal" - what? You participated in the discussion about that proposal. And if you mean that unblock requests via email are suddenly not permitted, maybe you should let the world know. "Abuse" - ah, the comedy really begins now. Mattbuck can troll VP and tell everyone to fuck off without anyone breathing a word of disapproval; Saibo can disrupt attempts to enforce copyright and make false claims about office actions, without any consequence; Tiptoety can indef a productive user without consensus or even lengthy discussion; A.Savin can wheelwar against the implementation of a consensus to reduce a block; but hey, let's deal with that troublemaker Rd232. Rd232 (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Now don't overstate, I reverted you just one time and that is no wheel war. 00:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Look at the heading in the en.wp definition (Commons doesn't define the term): Reinstating a reverted action ("Wheel warring"). There was no consensus for the indef-block, yet you restored it. Rd232 (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Fry, you appear unaware of this. There are actually more than three of us. --99of9 (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently so. Admittedly, I've not read everything that's gone on since I first gave my objections on the 14th, I've been too busy. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary

• The initial discussion at AN/U was about Fred's use of the term "kiddy fiddler" in relation to Beta M, apparently as a synonym for "pedophile" (he rejected the assertion that he meant "child rapist"). These kinds of descriptions were used by various people, some of them leading to block requests - none of them received blocks.
• 1.5 hours after that AN/U discussion was launched, User:Tiptoety jumped in with an indef-block. Mattbuck had requested an indef-block, two users had explicitly opposed the proposal, others had commented without clearly taking a view, and no-one had explicitly supported it. The block rationale was sweeping, declaring not that this user was acting like many people in a particular heated context, but rather Unable to take part in a collaborative community environment without engaging in personal attacks, childish name calling, and continual disruption. Actions are counter to the collegial atmosphere of Commons (block log entry). True, there had been repeated problems in the past, by they hadn't been raised in that discussion, and I would argue Fred had been better behaved recently, and that his record is probably exaggerated. At any rate, there was no consensus for an indef-block - Tiptoety just imposed his judgement into a discussion which had not been going very long. No-one (apart from me) seems to have explicitly criticised this precipitate action, prior to this thread.
• The post-block disruption amounts to FOUR (count 'em, FOUR) IP-based edits to COM:AN/U, two of which are a simple attempt to vote in the Beta M discussion, and the other two are this and this. There's also one very angry comment just before that [1] which triggered the removal of talk access. (There's also - I didn't know this at the time I reduced the block - a sock, which during this block was however only used to make constructive edits, so it's not exactly disruption.)
• Number of people supporting straight reduction to 1 week (here): 9
  • Oppose: 5 (not counting Niabot's due the sarcastic rationale)
  • That gives 64% support for unblock (and the oppose rationales were fairly weak, and partly wanted acknowledgement of problems, which happened by email).
  • That's why I reduced the block to 1 week. I personally think 3 days would have been plenty, in the extraordinary heated circumstances of the Beta M affair, but I respected the backing for 99of9's proposal.
• Bottom line, everything that transpired was either due to the heated circumstances, or due to the fallout of a very bad block. I think the consequences of both should be as limited as possible. In words more measured than Fred's - it is extraordinary that some users were practically in despair over the loss of Beta M (a user whose views and past are by now well established), yet seem unconcerned to lose a skilled and productive contributor whose only sin at the outset of this incident was to use a slang term of ambiguous meaning, and was unlucky enough to have a block-happy admin wander past with seemingly zero respect for community discussion. Rd232 (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd say that it would be good to have both Beta_M and Fred the Oyster back on Commons. The difference is that Fred the Oyster has had some disruptive behaviour (I've not seen any of that from Beta_M's side) and opposes blocks by using sockpuppets, which suggests that he doesn't care about Commons policies. I would have supported lifting the block or reducing it to one week given Rd232's e-mail conversation with the user, but in the light of the sockpuppet, I'm no longer certain. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • "which suggests that he doesn't care about Commons policies" - no, it suggests that he cares about Commons more than about respecting bad enforcement of Commons policies. The sock was used entirely for productive purposes, which if it had been someone other than Fred no-one would dream of complaining about. Rd232 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
      • You are wrong here Rd232. Anyone who uses a sockpuppet to evade a block should have the sockpuppet blocked, and be blocked themselves until such time as they recognise that it is not on. It has nothing to do with Fred individually; in fact, COM:AN/B is just one venue on Commons where editors who are using sockpuppets to evade blocks and the like are brought to our attention, and which one sees they are blocked. russavia (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
        • You misunderstood - I meant if the actions had been taken by someone who was not socking, no-one would complain. The actions in themselves were fine, separated from who did them. And BTW, it was pointed out recently that there's actually no policy against socking! (Not that that excuses it.) Rd232 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
          • OK, I read your words as written quite differently. But if that is not what you meant, granted. As to socking; whilst there is no actual socking policy, it is plainly covered in Commons:BP#Use under Evasion of blocks. Also, it should be noted that Fred claims at User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster#User:The_Hedonist that he doesn't use open proxies and never has done. This, this, and this would on the surface disprove that notion. Those are the 3 IP's that we had to block as a result of socking -- their comments (especially edit summaries) make it clear this was FtO. russavia (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
            • How do you know they're open proxies? Fred says they're not. Rd232 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
            • True, the sock use relevant here is actually covered :) . But see Commons_talk:Blocking_policy#Socks.3F. Rd232 (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Rd232, Tiptoety has made it clear countless times that his use of the term "kiddy fiddler" was not the reason for the block. Rather, it things such as this, where Fred tell's other editors "If he can't then I suggest he shut the fuck up, grow up and figure out another way to protect a convicted paedophile." Acting in such a way towards other editors is long-term problematic behaviour from Fred, and in light of the nature of what was going on (being an emotive issue), Fred's interjections in telling others to shut the fuck up, is reprehensible, and I am miffed as to why you are turning a blind eye to this, and instead pushing the incorrect "meme" that it had to do with his using the term "kiddy fiddler". Please also refer to your talk page, where I have stated that if Fred has told you in private that this is a problem he acknowledges, then he is more than able to acknowledge this as part of an unblock request on his talk page, which can be attended to by an uninvolved admin (read: not yourself). As it stands at the moment, given his unrepentant attitude, and his using sockpuppets to evade the block (which he started using "The Hedonist" 10 minutes before you reduced his block), I would be very surprised if the community is going to be willing to unblock him at all; if there is consensus for an unblock (which your "figures" also misrepresent, as they fail to take in previous discussion from community members), I am thinking that a ban from community boards is going to have to put on Fred, so that he can continue to contribute. Being a valued contributor does not give one a free pass to engage in incivility against other editors, who are just as valued. russavia (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Tiptoety has made it clear countless times that his use of the term "kiddy fiddler" was not the reason for the block - and I have not made it clear that I understand that?? My point has precisely been that he unilaterally decided to drag up all of Fred's past and to block for it without reference to the "kiddy fiddler" remark which was the one that was actually under discussion. Rd232 (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• A long and persistent history of "fucking about"[2], "my arse"[3] and "bullshit and bollocks"[4] would be read by most people as unacceptable disruptive and personal harassment (these are the most obvious recent examples, I have not bothered to dig out the C-word). These are not signs of a "skilled and productive contributor", where by definition a requirement is to be able to work in a collegiate manner, not constantly aim to turn Wikimedia Commons into a hostile environment for everyone unlucky enough to be near him on one of his frequent bad days. A simple public acceptance that his behaviour has not been acceptable, and he is prepared to change in future, is what is needed, not just your sympathy expressed by private emails. --Fæ (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"a long and persistent history" of occasional swearwords, evidenced with diffs from 14 and 18 March 2012 (after the bad indef-block). Burn the witch! Burn her! Rd232 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"These are not signs of a "skilled and productive contributor" (sic) ?? And since when are a user's choice of words when they're frustrated and recently kicked in the nuts a sign of whether or not they're skilled and productive. No, their works and contributions are. What absolute nonsense. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Fry, are you suggesting that all of the other contributors to this site, who also get frustrated at times and don't resort to such behaviour (of which there is no mitigation), should not expect to hold FtO up to the same standard? You seem to be suggesting that FtO is above every other editor on this project. I am sure that others will also say so, but I am saying that he is not above any other editor on this project. He wasn't being harassed, which is a mitigating circumstance for lashing; he interjected into an issue which was already obviously an emotional one and resorted to telling other editors to shut the fuck up. In your mind, is this acceptable behaviour? russavia (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No Russavia, I'm saying it's a crock of shit (to take a page from Fred) to say that because somebody gets indef blocked when there was absolutely no consensus and objections from multiple admins for such an extreme punishment, and then gets mad because of that and uses some choice words, that somehow makes them not "skilled and productive". You don't judge someone's skills and productivity by their words in discussions and talk pages. You judge that by their contributions and works, of which Fred's are spectacular. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bolding is not a substitute for diffs: prove that you're not misquoting or omitting relevant context (as Fred says you are). Besides which, none of this can get away from the fact that if you wind back the clock to before Tiptoety's bad block, there was nothing recent there that would justify a block of any length, never mind indef. Rd232 (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, following Fred's violent reaction to his block, his socking, his attitude of "I can do whatever you want and you suckers can't stop me", and my own further research into his past behaviour, I have completely reversed my initial position. This is not the heat of the moment in a tense discussion - this is Fred's personality. I don't expect him to be polite, but I do expect him to be respectful to other editors, and if he is unblocked in 3 days he's just going to end up re-blocked in short order, which wastes our time and his. If he is to be invited back we need, at the very least, some assurance that he won't continue his flagrant disregard of policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

he's just going to end up re-blocked in short order - how on earth do you justify such a claim? Look at his block log, carefully. There are just two (TWO) separate blocks for incivility before the recent incident, the last in mid-January, total block length 4 days. And from there we stride to indef-block? Rd232 (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I did look at his block log. I also looked at his edit history on this noticeboard, where he was warned but not blocked on several occasions. When not officially warned, he's often still attacking/mocking somebody, or at least being very aggressive. By themselves, none of these would be remarkable, but they point to a pattern of disrespect of our contributors and our staff that has been going on for months. Here is a short list:

"So if you aren't going make pertinent comments may I politely suggest that you fuck off and go do something more useful, somewhere else." (officially warned for this comment by User:99of9)

"My, my, you do have the proverbial Jewish chip on your shoulder don't you?" (a comment which alarmed User:Jmabel)

Warning by User:Jameslwoodward: "I would appreciate it if Fry1989 and Fred the Oyster toned down their comments."

"We have enough dicks here already, so let's have more pussy, though bums and legs would be better!!" (warned by User:ragesoss, responded "You mean for the miserable buggers with no sense of humour? Why should their preferences be prioritised ahead of mischievous buggers like me?")

"It also looks like another example of Fastily's bull-headedness for no apparent reason. There's no logical reason that images should be deleted simply because the OTRS mob can't get their butts in gear." (warned by User:Túrelio, responded "Language? My you must have had a sheltered life.")

"Don't be a plonker. Unless you can prove this IP is a blocked or banned user then you are on a hiding to nothing. You certainly can't have them blocked for merely !voting against you. This isn't like running to Mummy you know."

"In all these posts you've not made anything that has the semblance of being productive yet you have no problem taking up everyone's time with your poor little hurt editor's persona. Presumably you have nothing else to do as you just keep popping back up like an ageing whack-a-mole. Give it a bloody rest, or are you attempting to go for the commons irritating editor 2011 award?"

And there are more. Whether or not he was in the right in these cases, that doesn't mean he can't communicate civilly about his concerns. I have hope for him since on many other occasions he showed admirable restraint, and we should encourage him to take up that habit again. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Fred can be a royal pain in the butt and a waste of our time and words (3,300 words here). I don't like the color in some his language. I think Dcoetzee's hope that he will consistently show admirable restraint is unrealistic. On the other hand, he does valuable work and, if you can take his remarks with good humor and a grain of salt, he is a useful goad to some of us when we start taking ourselves too seriously. While I would have picked different words, I might well have made several of the remarks above. I think we would miss him if he was banned or chose to leave.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

(i) most of those comments are not that bad. There has to be room for personality on Commons. (ii) most are from November (and I think generally he's been milder since then) (iii) all are from COM:AN or COM:AN/U. Now, my concern at this point is that Fred won't back down and apologise, in which case, he will stay blocked and we will lose a valuable contributor on SVG content in particular. Maybe an edit restriction would help? Since most of the problems arise when he has ventured into COM:AN or subpages, a topic ban from those pages (except where his actions are discussed by others) might work. I would also add an explicit restriction to using only one account, because although the contributions under that sock were constructive, it should not be done. If Fred publicly agrees to these restrictions, that's probably the closest we'll get to the sort of statement that some people want to hear. Rd232 (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I focused on older comments because his most recent comments were already discussed extensively above, and I'm trying to speak to a long-term pattern. I agree that some were quite mild - I focused mainly on comments he was warned for. He's also had some problems on his own talk page, which of course we can't ban him from. I think a limited-time topic ban might be useful, but he did raise several important issues on COM:AN and I'd like to see him return to it. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Users get slightly more leeway on their own talk pages - though opinion varies on how much more, it wouldn't cover all of the recent comments. But the recent comments were related to an exceptional circumstance (which led an admin to post "fuck the lot of you"... I keep coming back to that not to cudgel the poster of it but to prove how heated the circumstances were), and furthermore a bad indef-block in that exceptional circumstance. In a topic ban context, useful information for discussions a user is banned from can always be provided to another user, so that they can post it there if appropriate. Rd232 (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would favor a topic ban, provided we clearly advise Fred that he can contact any other active, uninvolved user to ask them to post on COM:AN for him in their own words (the point being that they would effectively translate the concern into civil language). Dcoetzee (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "uninvolved" is necessary as long as responsibility is clear. I've also removed from my proposal below the exception I mentioned above where his actions are discussed because (a) exactly those threads are more likely to cause problems and (b) it's difficult to word clearly. Simple is easier to understand and enforce. Rd232 (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit restrictions proposal

Unblock subject to the following edit restriction:

Fred the Oyster is banned from editing COM:AN and its subpages. Where necessary (including starting new threads), he can contact any other user to ask them to post for him (users doing so take responsibility for ensuring Fred's points are made in a civil manner). In addition, the operator of the Fred the Oyster account is restricted to using only that account.

If things go well in the presence of these restrictions (particularly judged in terms of civility in discussions outside COM:AN, eg on user talk pages and in deletion discussions), then Fred could ask for them to be lifted after, say, 3 months. Lifting would be subject to community discussion and consensus at AN/U. Rd232 (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Rd232 (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - A.Savin 12:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support With the caveat that this should be extended without the need for long debate and discussion, as appropriate, as a ban on any other named notice board, or discussion space (such as deletion requests) if anyone brings a reasonable complaint about inappropriate personal attacks to AN during the edit restriction. Related to the linked examples given above, this includes anything interpreted as defamation (such as homophobic or racial slurs), baiting contributors through the use of persistent blatant sarcasm, inflammatory language such as telling them to fuck off, or introducing unnecessary terms (not descriptive of a file under discussion) with the apparent intention to offend such as bollocks, pussy, dick, bugger or shit. I would prefer some assurance that Fred the Oyster has reviewed his use of alternative accounts with Rd232 or another named and trusted administrator so that they can monitor any sock puppet accounts which are in legitimate use or retired. Fæ (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It complicates things far too much to specify what would be unacceptable, or how much discussion of it would be appropriate. If problems arise elsewhere, an extension of the topic ban can be proposed and discussed like any other community discussion. As for accounts, Fred has declared his accounts on his user talk page (1 sock blocked, 1 account retired, in addition to Fred the Oyster). Rd232 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose What if the topic ban is not respected ? Should we discuss again ? However I'm not against, and I would support if we decide what to do if Fred break this restrictions. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC) see alternative --PierreSelim (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • My expectation is that any breach will result in an indefinite block until Fred the Oyster were prepared to openly ask for an unblock (rather than through private email negotiations), explain that he understood why his behaviour is a problem and make a commitment to stop his disruptive editing. --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Any breach of any topic ban should be met by appropriate sanction (typically short-term blocks), if necessary discussed by the community. The type and severity of the breach, a record of good behaviour or previous breaches can all be taken into account in the severity of the sanction. Severe or repeated breaches might lead to a community ban discussion. Rd232 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support. Measure seems reasonable, duration seems reasonable. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment As part of the problem is Fred's incivility towards other editors, it would be amiss not to address this. No-one is expecting an apology from Fred, but we do expect him to recognise that incivility is not on. If he isn't willing to recognise that editors are expected to be civil, then we need to make it part of this, because after all that is what is a major part of the overall problem. If we make it clear that Fred the Oyster is to remain civil in his interactions with other editors, then I would support. russavia (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it would suffice to tack on something like this: "Moreover, Fred the Oyster is admonished to be civil in all his interactions with other users." Dcoetzee (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I would reword the last sentence to Fred the Oyster is reminded to stay civil during his participation on Commons, and is restricted to using only that account. Failure to adhere to these restrictions and expected norms of behaviour on Commons may result in further blocks. This makes it clear that he is expected to stay civil, that he is expected to use only the single account, and that there may be consequences to prevent further disruption. Unfortunately, this is going to have to be spelled out. Also, just for transparency, I am going to drop a note on the talk pages of those who have commented above, just to alert them to the proposed alternative/amendement. russavia (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
      • No to the amendment. All of this discussion, plus the topic ban, constitutes a strong reminder of the value the community places on civility; and if problems arise in future in areas he's not topic-banned from, then that can be addressed by community discussion. Because of the subjectiveness of civility, community discussion is appropriate, and not a vague licence for individual admins to impose their own unspecified standards on an ad hoc basis. Rd232 (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - this fails to address Fred's main problem, which is civility towards other users. It would allow him to continue to be rude and aggressive towards others, so long as his "translator" makes nice for him. If someone were for instance to call another user "a retarded pig" (not saying Fred has done that) on a their own user talk page, this is to me as big a problem as them saying it here, and someone translating that as "I respectfully disagree" is unhelpful. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Contact could be email, and such abusive comments made onwiki would not been given a free pass because of the edit restriction any more than if made by another user. The point of the translation is not to translate nasty into nice, it is adding a buffer which would hopefully make Fred think carefully about how he says something, because the point won't immediately be injected in that form into a live AN/U discussion. Rd232 (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative restrictions proposal

I am suggesting an alternative unblock subject to the following edit restriction:

Fred the Oyster is banned from editing COM:AN and its subpages. Where necessary (including starting new threads), he can contact any other editor to ask them to post for him. Fred the Oyster is reminded to stay civil during his participation on Commons, and is restricted to using only that account. Failure to adhere to these restrictions and expected norms of behaviour on Commons may result in further blocks.

Adding the same caveat as Rd232 above: If things go well in the presence of these restrictions (particularly judged in terms of civility in discussions outside COM:AN, eg on user talk pages and in deletion discussions), then Fred could ask for them to be lifted after, say, 3 months. Lifting would be subject to community discussion and consensus at AN/U.

One will note also that I have removed the caveat placing responsibility for being civil onto the editor who may respond to such a request, and placed this back where it belongs; on the actual editor. I've also added notice that failure to adhere to these condition may result in a block. This proposal will likely address all concerns which have been expressed by editors previously. russavia (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Support russavia (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Though it misses the opportunity to spell out that "civil" includes any inappropriate use of bollocks, shit, bugger, arse etc. that we have become used to seeing from Fred the Oyster. As we don't have an agreed statement of what civil means, for convenience I would interpret that as being identical to en:Wikipedia:Civility. --Fæ (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - A.Savin 16:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - the main issue is civility IMO. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - whilst the wording itself is merely ambiguous, the comments here indicate that the ambiguity will be read as enabling admins to block for whatever they perceive as incivility. This would merely cause more problems. If civility issues arise, they should be handled through discussion, not unilateral admin action. Rd232 (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --PierreSelim (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose – Per Rd232. In addition, blocks shouldn't be a form of mind control. Blocks shouldn't be forced to force others to behave a certain way. Blocks aren't whips. Sysops aren't tamers. Fred should be free to be himself. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative alternative restrictions proposal

Adopting Fred's own version, which covers everything without introducing ambiguity about the meaning of breaching a "reminder":

Fred the Oyster is banned from editing COM:AN and its subpages. Where necessary (including starting new threads), he can contact any other editor to ask them to post for him. Fred the Oyster is restricted to using only that account. Failure to adhere to these restrictions and expected norms of behaviour on Commons may result in further blocks.
If things go well in the presence of these restrictions then Fred could ask for them to be lifted after 3 months. Lifting would be subject to community discussion and consensus at AN/U.

•  Support Rd232 (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose As per previous discussions, it does not explicitly address his incivility towards other editors, which was the reason for his initial ban. It should be noted the talk page section is titled "This is what I will agree to". The exclusion of civility from what he will agree to, implies, at least in my mind, that he will not agree to being civil. We should be reminding FtO he is not in the position to be demanding of the community what he will or will not agree to. russavia (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Fred will stick to the same standards of civility as he has in the past, which most of the time, outside of COM:AN/U, has been acceptable. Your proposal - an enormously and obviously unhelpful thing to do, especially considering I'd already criticised your idea before you made it - could almost be read as an attempt to torpedo this unblock discussion, by effectively demanding what you know Fred won't agree to - that he basically write out in neat letters I will be a good little boy and if I use any rude words any admin can block me. Rd232 (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Russavia. The one account thing is simply per out standard SOCK policy. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • standard SOCK policy - that would be COM:SOCK, would it? Rd232 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support – I support the use of "expected norms" over "civility". "Expected norms" means that Fred should be treated just like everyone else here and should be allowed to say the things that others may say. Fred is asking for equality and to be given the freedom to speak as others speak. Forcing "civility" on him would make Fred less equal and less free than others in discussions. Forcing "civility" into the agreement would mean that Fred may be re-blocked for saying things that others can easily get anyway with saying. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per bollocks, shit, bugger, arse rationale above; some seem to view such behaviour as acceptable or at least tolerable which gives a loophole to argue this is a "norm", I don't. --Fæ (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Wonderful. You're now explicitly arguing that instead of respecting the "expected norms of behaviour on Commons" as judged by community discussion where necessary, that we should apply your standards. What makes you so special? Rd232 (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Rd232, there is an argument against the word "civil" which has a pretty good definition as a firm policy on Wikipedia, whereas the word "norms" used here is not only weaker (as defined in any dictionary) but lacks any definition on any Wikimedia project. Consequently as a block restriction you could drive a double decker bus through it. As for me being special and wonderful, yes I am, thanks for noticing, though here I am merely expressing an opinion like any of the norms. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose --PierreSelim (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Fred the Oyster and remove all editing restrictions

This whole discussion about blocking, and imposing editing restrictions on Fred the Oyster is absurd. He is a useful contribute to Commons, and the reactions and comments above all disregard the fact that he has been trying to explain something he considers important. Rather than trying to understand and come to terms to what he was saying (when he was interrupted and gagged), this discussion has focused entirely on what punishments need to be inflicted so that he will not in the future disturb the sleep of other users. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I thought there was sufficient consensus for 99of9's 1-week block proposal here, taking into account the requests for statements by Fred, which he then made to me by email; (the 1 week block would have expired 5 days ago), but A.Savin disagreed and restored the indef-block. block log. Matters were complicated by the discovery of a new sock (albeit a non-disruptive sock). Hence the proposal for an edit restriction to ensure that Fred could be unblocked ASAP (and frankly to some extent the restriction might protect Fred from himself). Unfortunately, that hasn't been resolved yet; the thing just drags on and on. Rd232 (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does drag on. However I'm not sure why you are in a hurry. Fred the Oyster has not requested an unblock or attempted to explain that he now understands why his behaviour was unacceptable to the community. Instead he chooses to troll other editors from the safety of his user page and lay out demands, rather than recognizing the problem is his - User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster#This_is_what_I_will_agree_to. Presumably the private emails to you say the same sort of stuff, not that they should influence our open discussion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

i) Fred the Oyster has not requested an unblock - yes he has, in email discussion, and implicitly in responses to this unblock discussion. He hasn't used {{Unblock}} - is that the level of bureaucracy to which we have fallen? ii) or attempted to explain that he now understands why his behaviour was unacceptable to the community. - his edit restriction proposal included the sentence Failure to adhere to these restrictions and expected norms of behaviour on Commons may result in further blocks., clarifying that the caveats with regard to "civility" have been removed as they are covered by "expected norms of behaviour". That seems reasonably clear. Now, I'm really getting tired of this. How about someone who insists on holding the indef-block gun to Fred's head until he says what they want to hear write out a statement and just say "sign this or you'll stay blocked"? At least we'd be spared all this pussy-footing around. Rd232 (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to let Fred the Oyster explain himself here, assuming he wants to do that. Fred the Oyster should not be just the subject of the discussion, but a part of the discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(Rd232) Confidential emails should never be accepted as unblock requests unless there is some significant matter of privacy that might cause damage or distress (in which case an OTRS ticket would be appropriate), I'm not sure why you believe that personal emails, that should be kept confidential, are suitable to refer to as evidence. Why are we in a daft position of debating an "implicit" unblock request? Fred the Oyster should either make an open unblock request or give permission for you to repost his unblock request on-wiki rather than mysteriously alluding to off-the-record one to one conversations. If there is anyone guilty of pussy-footing, it is you by indulging Fred the Oyster in private negotiations on behalf of the rest of the community. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Confidential emails should never be accepted as unblock requests " - nonsense. Onwiki unblock requests are preferable, but email is not somehow excluded barring extraordinary circumstances, as you would have it. There is no such policy or practice. (I mean, you remember that email is designated as an alternative for when talkpage access is removed, and that this access was temporarily removed in this case?) Rd232 (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fred the Oyster was not blocked from writing on his own user page. Negotiating using private emails was not necessary and may have left the community concerned due to a lack of transparency. In the case of a user blocked from their own user page, I would expect an administrator acting as interlocutor to pass on a request as written by the requesting party rather than putting it in their own words, or say nothing if they believe there are reasons to keep a one to one correspondence confidential. Keeping the unblock request secret, especially in a controversial case, is an unusual action for an administrator to take. Emailing the blocking administrator is covered by the policy stated at Commons:BP#Instructions_for_administrators but this is not an invitation to keep an unblock request secret from the community when it should be available for open discussion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fred the Oyster was not blocked from writing on his own user page. - he was for a time block log. I don't know why the exact wording of the request is such of interest to you. If the position of admin means something, then it means that I should be able to act on an unblock request in light of relevant community discussion - which I did, but this was reversed. And frankly, I have to come back to the fact that this enormous extended time-sink of a mess all comes back to the fact that one single admin (Tiptoety) decided to take a dump on a community discussion and unilaterally impose an indefinite block. Secondarily, it continues because another admin (A.Savin) wheelwarred against my fixing of that mess based on the implementation of the 1-week block proposal of 99of9. And now it continues because some people will not be happy unless they get the right to indef-block Fred next time he says a rude word - a proposal which the community would never accept were it proposed whilst Fred is unblocked; but because of an unacceptable block, those people now have the ability to force the issue, and leave Fred blocked if it doesn't happen. Rd232 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Let me repeat: I think it important that Fred the Oyster should not be just the subject of the discussion, but a part of the discussion. It is inherently unfair to be discussing these things here without him present in this thread on this noticeboard, to defend himself and argue on his own behalf. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Please see Fred's block explanation: "Unable to take part in a collaborative community environment without engaging in personal attacks, childish name calling, and continual disruption."[5] Fred has commented in User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster#This_is_what_I_will_agree_to. Participants in this discussion may read his comments on this matter there. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I know that Walter, and I still think Fred should be present here to defend himself and argue on his own behalf. You have not actually given an argument why he should not be part of the discussion. For me the present process, with Fred bound and gagged, brings to mind the images of Bobby Seale in 1969. It was not a pretty sight. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I understand that you "think Fred should be present here to defend himself and argue on his own behalf". But if you read the block explanation, you will understand that Fred was blocked because he was "unable to take part in a collaborative community environment without engaging in personal attacks, childish name calling, and continual disruption." I see what I consider to be personal attacks in the section of his talk page that I cited just above. Please review en:WP:PA. This discussion would not benefit by allowing him to post those here, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• If the community won't agree to Fred's demands, then the sad part is that there will be no agreement to move forwards and the poor old community will just have to make do without him. It's tough, but if those are Fred's immovable demands, then we have to meet them before we can have him back. Tragic, but I think we'll cope. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know what "demands" you're talking about. He's rejecting the attempt to allow admins to apply their individual civility standards and block based on those standards; I reject that too, as repeatedly explained above. Rd232 (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

All blocked users have one option to get their block reduced or removed - appeal on their user talk page. I see no reason to act different in this case. An unblock request should be reviewed by multiple Admins and they should share their opinions on this request at the users talk page. --Denniss (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Procedurally, an {{Unblock}} request precedes community discussion like the one we're having here. It's redundant at this point, unless we're to endorse the sort of unilateral screw-discussion admin decision-making which created this mess in the first place (when Tiptoety jumped into a community discussion and imposed an indef-block). And the very fact that an admin reverted an attempt (by me) to implement the previous community discussion proposal means that more community discussion is required as an alternative to more wheel-warring. You're way behind the curve with these comments. Rd232 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked Fred, subject to the edit restriction he agreed to.

Reasons

1. The original indefinite block was a bad block. Every time I've pointed this out, it has not (AFAIR) been contradicted.
   1. The initial discussion at AN/U at which an indef block was proposed (and for which there was no consensus, in the short time the discussion continued) was about Fred's use of the term "kiddy fiddler" in relation to Beta M, apparently as a synonym for "pedophile" (he rejected the assertion that he meant "child rapist"). These kinds of descriptions were used by various people, some of them leading to block requests - none of them received blocks.
   2. The block rationale was sweeping, declaring not that this user was acting like many people in a particular heated context, but rather Unable to take part in a collaborative community environment without engaging in personal attacks, childish name calling, and continual disruption. Actions are counter to the collegial atmosphere of Commons (block log entry). True, there had been repeated problems in the past, by they hadn't been raised in that discussion, and I would argue Fred had been better behaved recently, and that his record is probably exaggerated. At any rate, there was no consensus for an indef-block - Tiptoety just imposed his judgement into a discussion which had not been going very long.
2. There were some post-block problems, but they were fairly mild, all things considered:
   1. Four IP-based edits to COM:AN/U, two of which are a simple attempt to vote in the Beta M discussion, and the other two are this and this. There's also one very angry comment just before that on his talk page [6] which triggered the removal of talk access.
   2. A sock puppet, which during this bad block was however only used to make constructive edits.
3. At Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni's_allegations_against_Beta_M#Proposal:_Reduce_Fred_the_Oyster.27s_block_from_indef_to_one_week) there were 9 people supporting a straight reduction to 1 week block (this was after the IP-based edits, but before the sock was discovered). Oppose: 5 (not counting Niabot's due the sarcastic rationale). That gives 64% support for unblock (and the oppose rationales were fairly weak, and partly wanted acknowledgement of problems, which happened by email).
   1. That's why I reduced the block to 1 week. I personally thought 3 days would have been plenty, in the extraordinary heated circumstances of the Beta M affair, but I respected the backing for 99of9's proposal.
   2. That implementation of the consensus was overturned, in a manner that meets the definition of wheel-warring.
4. Fred has now agreed to edit restrictions which include (in addition to a topic ban from COM:AN and subpages) the key sentence Failure to adhere to these restrictions and expected norms of behaviour on Commons may result in further blocks. This is a reasonable, implicit acknowledgement of what is blatantly obvious - that there have been disputes over civility; and it is obviously an explicit acknowledgement that not adhering to expected norms (which includes civility) may result in blocks.
5. Fred has also agreed in the edit restrictions to stick to one account. Additionally, he's told me by email (with permission to quote): "So basically, I am happy to be unblocked with the previously mentioned sanctions. Other than that I'll just walk away. I won't even bother socking as it'll just be too damn easy to spot that it's me."
6. Fred's being blocked (unjustifiably, remember - see point 1) has now led to an attempted en:joe job (someone impersonating him, pretending that he's socking). This would not have happened if the situation had been resolved sooner (or if the bad block had never happened in the first place).
7. This situation has ground to a stalemate; there has been lots of discussion, and more of it is not going to help. Arguing semantics about edit restrictions, or trying to create a civility policy on the hoof, all on the back of a situation that goes back to a bad block (see point 1), is extremely distasteful. Let's save some of the energy for other things. Even if problems arise again at some point, it'll be much better to address them outside the scope of this dreadful mess.

Finally, a reminder that we're attempting to keep a valuable contributor of Commons content, in a specific area requiring technical skills, namely SVG editing. As Fred pointed out to me by email (again, quoting with permission): "I got involved with answering [Illustration Workshop] requests, but more importantly I started doing the military decals, insignia and badges etc. There are literally 100s that need converting them to SVG and I was the only person doing them in bulk."

I'm sure some people will not be happy with this; I say to you: if there are no further problems, everyone wins. If there are, it'll be a lot easier to deal with it properly, with appropriate community discussion and a real public weighing of the issues. Basically, the exact opposite of what happened in the original AN/U thread, without which we would not be here. Rd232 (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rd232, you have been quite a powerful advocate on behalf of Fred the Oyster, thanks for taking the time to talk on his behalf and dealing with the hassle of entering into a private dialogue not visible to rest of us norms. When it comes to any future discussion about removing the edit restriction, I would appreciate you taking more of a backseat and letting a consensus demonstrate itself without so much skilful lobbying or taking any administrative actions upon yourself. I recommend you consider openly recusing from that future discussion, should it ever occur, just so those few of us with remaining doubts can feel more comfortable with the end outcome. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Taxiarchos228

Taxiarchos228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User wrote here an old and here a new personal attack. I can't accept such a behavior. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

For those who don't want to have to look, both comments accuse people of revenge voting at FPC, first Alchemist, then Martin Kraft. I have to say, as personal attacks go, this is a refreshing change of pace from recent times. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that 4 u already personal attack? For me this is just comments out of a different view which professional people are able to ignore.--Sanandros (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's against AGF certainly, I wouldn't really consider it a personal attack, more an unfounded allegation. Still, it's not nice to have people chucking that around. I am curious to know, what makes Taxiarchos think that people want revenge on him? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look here too. He is in two wikipedias blocked, indefinite. Now you can ask why ... It is simple UNPOSSIBLE to discus with him. "All people, no the world like only a revenge to him." --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Alchemist should keep his feet firmly on the ground. In both cases I have shown the obvious coherence between a disagreement and the afterward voting at FPC. To show this coherence is no personal attack. Essentially Alchemist seems to be very vengeful because he can't ignore any situation where he thinks he had to moralize - even in cases he is not involved like in this one. This is a kind of stalking, isn't it? --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing in the links you posted on the diffs Alchemist posted that would give a "revenge" voting reason. Nor do I see any evidence they are "revenge" voting. They seem to have reasonable objections to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you don't see because your language skills in german are not so good. Fact is, that Alchemist and I had a difference of opinion in November 2011 as you can see here. Just two days later he voted with contra here and also at other candidatures of mine (I am just to lazy to search them out, but if it is important for you I will). Since November he stalks after my contributions like he did here. Actually he should be notifyed on this page. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Go find them, it's impossible to see a pattern in two votes. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to do more constructive and reasonable work than searching old contributions. The revenge character of Alchemist voting is ovious and if you don't think so it is no my problem. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're not willing to back up your side of the argument, I don't feel you have a leg to stand on. So here is what I say: stop calling people's votes "revenge" simply because you don't like the way they voted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I dislike contra-voting after a dissension and it is my freedom of opinion to say this. So what is the problem here? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a BIG problem with "opposes" to your photos. That's all. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you have a big problem with me. My pictures receive much more contras than I commented them. You are constructing a bugaboo. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You overestimate yourself. Sorry, you are one of the unimportant poeple for me. Still have a good time on Commons. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

An other contribution: from Taxiarchos228 to Benh. He also "voted only as a revange" ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So what? This is my opinion. You seem to be bored. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"You seem to be bored." sorry no. I only saw your new contribution to one of your images (the "new" link on the top) and I remember me to one of my votings in the past. That's all. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And I remember that you are voting contra not until since our dispute in November. Maybe I should make anyhow a compilation of this. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"We had a dispute in November?" Sorry, I can't remember me. I think simply NO. I'm always friendly to all and I help to rework images to better images. That is my main interest here on commons. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I my opinion the "revenge vote" claims by Wladyslaw are unfounded. Just because an image is opposed after a personal controversy is not evidence of a revenge vote. The logical consequence of that would be to engage in conflict with every single reviewer and then they would either have to abstain from voting (as they are involved) or support (because then you would not complain). In every single "revenge vote" case I have seen I can say, that personally, I would have opposed their nomination as they are simply not good enough for FP. I consider such bad faith claims of "revenge" uncollegial and poisonous for the atmosphere at FPC. The reasons for opposition I have seen have been based on actual weaknesses in the photographs and have not been personal. I my opinion, Wladyslaw, should stop the revenge vote claims immediately. Period. I hope Wladyslaw will take this advice as he is also a great photographer and a very productive asset to the project, which was clear to me when I nominated his first FP on Commons. Less than one in a thousand images on Commons gets FP status. --Slaunger (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Both of you should calm down a bit. Neither an accusation of an FPC participant to vote because of revenge, nor digging out old diffs from 2011-11 is really helpful. However, a personal attack has rather something to do with an offense, slander or similar things, which is not the case here. I suggest to close this topic and kindly to request Taxi not to comment FPC votes that way and Alchemist not to barge in conflicts he's currently not involved in. - A.Savin 20:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

@A.Savin: if I see the same uncollegial behavior again, than it is my interest and needs my participation. And I hope your too! Please do not close our eyes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to interfere! It's not just about this to examples, but about Wladyslaw's general behaviour, which obviously already caused his ban from german Wikipedia:

Unfortunately Wladyslaw seems not to be able to distinguish between appropriate comments on his work and personal attacks. Even critic on QIC-photos with obvious composition problems (like 1 and 2) seems to cause instant enmity.

Or how to explain, that just the same time, he reacted harshly to a contra on FPC, he also reseted my edit in an discussion about a map of tv-companies (a topic he never was involved in bevor) and then accused me here? That's what I call stalking and revenge! --Martin Kraft (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all on which basis leads a ban i other projects to a ban on Commons? Second of all it's not a nice behavior by both, also the "revenge vote comments" are not nice and i aplay to Taxi to stop that and c it as good critics. But I can't c an evidence that this is a personal attack 'cause the person doesn't get hurted or has any other "damage" out of that comments--Sanandros (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass englisch sprechende Personal hier ohnehin mit dem Fall überfordert ist wechsle ich ins Deutsche. Martin Kraft ist gut beraten, den Fall wahrheitsgetreu und chronologisch korrekt darzulegen. Zunächst einmal ist es ein gutes Recht, Beurteilungen bei Kandidaturen, dessen Sinn sich einem nicht erschließen zu hinterfragen. Besagtem Benutzer passte das offensichtlich nicht und fing hier eine Grundsatzdiskussion an zu führen, wo er seine Einschätzung näher brachte, dass meine Bildkandidaten bei QI einem kritikwürdigen Bilderspam gleichkämen. Diese Feststellung kann durchaus als persönlicher Angriffe angesehen werden. Gleichwohl habe ich mich nicht auf sein Niveau hinab begeben, wie man sehen kann fanden sich drei weitere Benutzer sogar von selbst bemüßigt, ihm ein paar Takte zu sagen und ihm klar zu machen, dass er offenbar das Prinzip der QI nicht ganz verstanden hat. Und nein: ich habe keinen der drei per Mail gebeten, Stellung zu beziehen. Das geschah aus deren freien Stücken.

Es ist richtig, dass ich mich in das Thema File:ARD_Karte.svg eingeschaltet habe obwohl ich davor nichts damit zu tun hatte. Dies aber aus dem Grund weil ich es unerträglich finde, wie man eine pupillenkreberregende Farbgebung für eine Karte, die in einer Enzyklopädie Verwendung finden sollte, einbaut. Eine Version, die der Benutzer früher selbst noch zurecht kritisierte dann aber wohl aus taktischen Spielchen heraus wieder einsetzt weil er seine (wiederum sehr werbend wirkende) Karte nicht durchsetzen konnte. Eine sachliche Wertung dazu wird mir wohl nicht deswegen verwehrt bleiben weil sich der Benutzer auf meiner Disku ausgeheult hat, oder?

Dass er auf der Bildkandidatur bei FP aufschlug, um mein Bild negativ zu bewerten passt in das Gesamtbild dieses Benutzers, der sich hier alle Vorgänge offenbar so zu Herzen nahm, dass er sein ganzes Wochenende durch mich versaut sah. So wie er legitimer Weise gegen das Bild abstimmen kann und darf, darf ich wohl darauf hinweisen in welchem Zusammenhang dies geschah. Es ist nicht viel mehr als eine Tatsachenbeschreibung mit einer persönlichen Bewertung (Rache-Kontra). Der Popanz, den hier Alchemist zu zeichnen versucht fällt viel mehr auf ihn selbst zurück. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The "damage" is, that this behaviour messes up any constructive discussion and wasts other peoples time and energy. IMO forcing others into Edit-Wars (that absorb several Admins) or publicly impeaching them here (without a reason) is a true negative example of what the Wikiquette tries to prohibit.

@Sanandros: I am not asking you to ban Wladyslaw, but somehow he needs to be taught, how to take critisim without reacting that offensive and vengeful! -- Martin Kraft (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

PS: Just to put the chronology straight:

• 08:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC) - My vote on Wladyslaws FPC Commons:Kandidaten_für_exzellente_Bilder#File:Goetheanum_im_Winter_von_Osten4.jpg

• 10:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC) - Wladyslaw first ever post in File:ARD_Karte.svg using offensive vocabulary ("Arrgoganz-Geblöcke").

• 10:15, 25. Mär. 2012 (UTC) - Wladyslaw first reset of File:ARD_Karte.svg

• 10:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC) - Wladyslaw 'response' on FPC Commons:Kandidaten_für_exzellente_Bilder#File:Goetheanum_im_Winter_von_Osten4.jpg

• 10:53, 25. Mär. 2012 (UTC) - My revert of File:ARD_Karte.svg to the pre-conflict version (which is neither my work nor my favourite) with the comment, that this version should stay untouched, till the enclosed discussion comes to a decision which new version to use.

• 10:53, 25. Mär. 2012 (UTC): Wladyslaw second revert of File:ARD_Karte.svg

• ...

@Wladyslaw: Could you please explain to us, how it happens, that you popped up in a discussion/file (you never had contact with bevor), right the same time, you obviously felt attacked on FPC? How exactly did you did you get there, if not by stalking me for revenge reasons?? -- Martin Kraft (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

@Martin: Ok when it not a ban then in can accept that.--Sanandros (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I am a bit tired of this.... Is it a way to avoid this ?--Jebulon (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I warned Wladyslaw/Taxiarchos228 against personal attacks on COM:QIC just now.[7] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the comment by Slaunger above. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

How many "warnings" still need Mr. Wladyslaw? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Why Jebulon will not be "warned" for this personal attack? And this he did not for the first time. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Taxiarchos228&diff=prev&oldid=69262768

I can not take with a pinch of salt after your obvious

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=69262295

unobjective and wrong evaluation. Beside: it think you are not the right person to judge about circumstance when you fad away Jebulons provocations.

-- This e-mail was sent by Taxiarchos228 to Mattbuck by the "E-mail user" function at Wikimedia Commons.

And thus he uses a response to a warning not to claim people vote against him out of spite to say I voted against him out of spite. I have blocked him for 3 days. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:The undertow

Yesterday, regarding my closure of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:OC.jpg, User:The undertow sent me e-mail via Special:EmailUser asking me "[content removed]"

I was shocked and intimidated by this, especially considering that my actions (including the anonymous re-upload) were taken primarily to protect the safety of User:The undertow. I would not like to end up defending a lawsuit over an orphaned image that is of little to no value to the project - I'm pretty sure it was going to be re-deleted anyway. But I also wouldn't want to set a precedent that we can be bullied and threatened into deleting images. I'm not advocating a block as I'd like him to be able to continue to participate in the new deletion discussion, but I wanted to make sure this information was public in case the user has been contacting others, or it otherwise speaks to a pattern of behavior. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Though I wasn't involved in the deletion discussion and would have probably favored the deletion of the image (as it has little value, IMO), such a behaviour isn't acceptable. Taken together with the conclusions from Geoswan's analysis in the DR's epilog, I would favor a block of The undertow for as long as he maintains his legal threat and hasn't apologized for the above cited personal attacks against Dcoetzee. --Túrelio (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Warned. I won't block yet because Dcoetzee asked not to, but from what I understand of the DR, this is not the first legal threat The Undertow has made. I have stated that any further attacks will lead to a block and removal of email rights. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As many of you know, WP:EN policy is to immediately block indefinitely any user who makes legal threats. Perhaps it is time to adopt a similar policy here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

 Support -mattbuck (Talk) 11:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Commons should not block users with legitimate copyright claims that mention the possibility of taking legal action. But this is something else. Plain intimidation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

→ Commons talk:Blocking policy#Legal threats —LX (talk, contribs) 12:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Without reading the background the tone of the mails to Dcoetzee is plain wrong. I think they should be forwarded to the Foundation's legal team and would be happy with a block on The undertow. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper, if this person had a legitimate legal claim regarding the copyright, he wouldn't have lowered himself to the actions of a child and started usuing personal attacks. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Was I so unclear? This user was intimidating, for example with his "I-know-where-you-work" threats. He should be blocked for the abuse of the Commons e-mail gateway. It is much worse than the usual blocks for perceived incivility or even harassment on this site. I just opposed the adoption of the enwp policy that seems to ban any mention of legal steps. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Was Jameslwoodward unclear? He said "block indefinitely any user who makes legal threats". Threats being the key word. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Russavia blocked him, I have modified the block to remove email rights. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not surprised, I would have too. this comment was practically a "please do and thank you". Fry1989 ^eh? 19:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for an indefinite period for blatant abuse of the email system, engaging in outright incivility and for making legal threats against other editors. As Dcoetzee wishes for the editor to participate in a new DR, I have made it clear to the editor that they will be unblocked to allow for this participation if they withdraw the legal threat, agree not to abuse the email system, and to remain civil towards others.

As to a legal threat policy, this is something that can be discussed amongst the community and this block should not be seen as one which was done only for the legal threat, but a combination of all factors. I have also removed the text of the email from the above, as it is copyrighted. russavia (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any point in removing the text of the email; it's marginally copyrightable, and it's so far into the realm of fair use it's not even funny. We shouldn't handicap our administrative abilities by pedantic application of rules not made for the situation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree - I already selectively quoted the mail for copyright reasons. Fair use of text has always been permitted on all WMF projects, such as short quotations. I would suggest restoring it, because it may be relevant for later discussion. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've only removed the text of the email due to it essentially being copyrighted; no other reason. It's usually best to paraphrase such things, if at all...no-one doubts the threat was made. Dcoetzee, can you please forward the email over my way, and I'll pass it onto stewards at Meta, and they can look at it too, to see if any action needs to be taken their end. russavia (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought that paraphrasing is the wrong things to do; the more you quote, the less they can claim they were misquoted, and the hard it is for you to accidentally misquote them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• The undertow also sent me a an email that contained threats -- in addition to threats of legal action, he wrote: "I'll feed you to Wikipedia Review. You won't last a day."

Oddly, in his email, he wrote something strange about {{w:WP:Ignore all rules}}. He called it "rule # 1". He seemed to be implying that Jimbo Wales was entitled to apply "ignore all rules" -- on a whim. He then went on to claim he was as entitled to ignore all rules as Mr. Wales.

His email seemed to be written in stages, where the first stage was nominally written as good faith advice, the second stage was mainly comments on flaws in my character, judgment, ulterior motives. The third stage contained the legal threats. In the nominally friendly first part of his message he wrote about the two sockuppets he operated that were both stripped of administrator status: "I lost my bit the first time because I took on a faction that was much more powerful than I. I lost my bit the second time because I was put into a corner, and refused to back down."

The way I read this comment Chip doesn't understand that bring caught using sockpuppetry was sufficient justification for de-sys-opping all by itself. It seemed to me that Chip may have been asserting that "ignore all rules" justified his employment of sockpuppetry in order to be entrusted with administrator authority again, when there was no way his main wiki-ID would be trusted again. Geo Swan (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Tigreso

Tigreso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Nothing but copyvios besides warnings. Allan Aguilar • talk • 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No improvement whatsoever since last block. 6 months this time, may be he'll read his talk page this time. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Miguel raul

Miguel raul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) uploading stuff from google.com which apparently is not free--Trex2001 (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Alvaro Soria

Alvaro Soria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user is only uploading logos/trademarks/photographs which appear to be copyrighted. I request the admins to check his "own work" claims, and if it is found that (s)he is deliberately committed to copyvios,this user should be blocked.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

 Done Blocked. All files deleted, except for a few logos, which might be PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanx.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

User:Bingread and File:Coat of arms of Kazakhstan.svg

Bingread is showing extreme ownership of the svg file of the Kazakh national emblem. He has reverted it 7 times to his prefered version, despite disagreement from 2 other users as to it's appearance. I tried very hard to make it match the sources available, meanwhile he did not post any sources, only to yell at me and tell me] to learn how to read Russian and Kazakh. Once he finally did post a source, I revisited my alterations to again make it match his new source, he again reverted, only to tell me in Russian to leave it alone. I reverted him one last time asking him to stop both on the file revision box and his talk page, and he replied by telling me to "go to hell and hands off this page!" (sic) and told me to "get lost troll" (sic).

I have tried hard to mediate this issue and make the emblem look it's best according to the verious sources available out there. Bingread has only replied by being rude, calling me names, commanding me away from the file, and showing extreme ownership over it. I therefore am asking for some mediation, and for Bingread to take some time to cool down, as he's far too heated right now over this. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

His latest retort is ""Fry1989" ...we'll see how brave you are". I don't know if that's how Bingread views the matter, but I don't want to be "brave". I simply want to get the emblem to look like it's sources. I took the colours and alterations I made from Bingread's choice of source, and that doesn't do it for him. His extreme ownership of th efile is a detriment to Commons, and I believe it needs to be addressed. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Under such circumstances I would normally suggest uploading under another name and using User:CommonsDelinker/commands to replace all existing uses of the image by your version, which would give local projects their option of which version to use - but I fear this may further inflame the situation. Instead, I suggest uploading your version under a new name and just replacing a handful of uses on your home wiki, leaving notes on talk pages, and seeing if anybody is concerned by this. I agree that the user's behaviour is a problem and deserves a warning. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't replace it at my home wiki at this time (I'd rather not go into that, but I can if you wish), and even if I uploaded it seperately, I don't believe that would solve the problem, as I have no doubt he would not allow it to be replaced on any global usages. This is Bingread's choice of source. I did my best to make the file match, including taking the colours directly from his source. However, he is insistant that his version is better, and more-over that he owns the file and can command others to leave it alone, even though he isn't the original uploader. Because of his choice of language and attacks and behaviour of extreme ownership, I have to ask that he be blocked for 3 days. I don't believe that's unreasonable. My only other solution would be for the file to be reverted to my version and protected so that Bingread will be forced to discuss on the file page why his is best, despite it not matching his source. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried one last time, making the file match Bingread's source 100% indentically. He replied with yet another personal attack: "Contacting with your psychiatrist, obviously you have some mental problems". I'm sorry, but that is absolutely un-called for, and I must ask for the file to be protected, and Bingread blocked for 3 days. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked for 3 days. I would protect the image, but given I don't have the slightest clue which image is right (I personally favour the Bingread version on the grounds that it's prettier) I feel it would be better to let someone who does know revert first. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That said, it takes two to edit war. The revert war really should have been stopped earlier, and the Bingread version just let lie while it was discussed elsewhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Takes two to edit war? Perhaps, but I have remained absolutely civil in this and these attacks are completely unwarranted. That said, I am now calling for a vote on the file talk page on which one to use. All viewing this discussion please give their vote. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I support the block, based on the personal attacks. Both parties are warned for edit warring. Fry, you continued the war after reporting here. That is not acceptable, next time you do that you will be blocked. I have "voted" in your poll. That is an improvement on continuing to war. However per commenters above, if the poll results in significant disagreement, both files will be hosted. Given that his was there first, it will occupy the original filename (or we can go back to the very first upload if you want to host three versions). --99of9 (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Better late then never, atleast I'm trying to do this collegially, rather then lowering myself to personal insults and yelling. Also the reason I continued after reporting here is because there was a minor difference between the version I originally had and his source. I figured I'd give it one last attempt and add the missing strokes to it to make it completely identical to the source, I didn't have those strokes originally because I found them unneccesary. But after Bingread rejected that last attempt at matching it to his source, it became clear he doesn't care one way or the other, and just wants his way. That's why I'm calling a vote. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Maps, coats-of-arms, flags, national anthems and probably other things as well, are all things that Commons should **NOT** be deciding on. We have no problem hosting all reasonable variants. The real problem comes down to file-name-squatting, people want their version to have 'the' name. The solution is quite simple (although not satisfactory to all parties ;-). If a new variation of any file is uploaded over an existing one, and there is a dispute about which one to keep, then split the file and give the new one a new name - PERIOD. That's it, that's all that Commons should be doing. Other projects can use whatever image they decide, but they should fight it out on their relevant page, we have neither the need, time, resources nor expertise to sort these things out. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that Zscout (an admin) has found official prescribed colours by the Kazakh government, the file is being edited to match that. If we didn't have an official source, then perhaps splitting it up to two files would be better, but not now. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No you are wrong. That is just perpetuating the problem, I don't see that anything is being resolved. ZScout and other admins should not be getting involved apart from protecting the page and stopping the nonsense.

Clearly from the start there is dispute, but this is not a court of law, you are not going to prove which version is 'correct'. The original upload in 2008 is the original image by this name, the subsequent 2010 upload by Bingread is not a revision of the first and is from a different source and should have been uploaded as a different file, especially once his upload was contested and reverted. Again in 23 March 2012, Fry1989 uploaded another version with a different source, it should be a seperate version. Subsequent revisions should be split with the appropriate original of the same source.

Quite simply the edit warring of Bingread and Fry1989 should have brought about an immediate warning, and block if they persist, but the simplist action is to revert the image to the original and protect it.

This is not a game where we have winners and losers, currently we are all losing.

• Would an admin please revert the page to the original and protect it --Tony Wills (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody should do that. There are 3 of us on the file page working on it. If the Government says it has to be a certain colour, we have to follow that, and Zscout will tell you the same thing. If I or Bingread want a different colour, we're the ones who have to upload a separate version. If the Government of Kenya, for example, says that a part of the Kenyan coat of arms is red, and gives a very precise and exact shade of red to be used, like say "Pantone 205", then we're supposed to depict it as they say. Neither my version or Bingread's followed the official colours set out by the Kazakh Government, because neither of us were aware of that. But since Zscout has found those, they have to be applied. This isn't about winning or loosing, this is about accuracy according to the Government that the symbol represents. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No it is not about accuracy. It is not about a government's laws. It is about Commons. Ok, looking at the latest revisions I see that it is now essentially an optimised version of the 2010 Bingread upload, with revised colours. If that is acceptable to all parties then fine. If not, then the action to take is to seperate the versions. Not to edit war, not to litigate which version is 'correct'. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is absolutely 100% about accuracy. The Government of South Africa has a coporate identity guide setting out very strict provisions of what colours the national emblem should be. Our job here as an online encyclopaedia, is to depict things how they really are. If I took the SA coat of arms, and made a part of it purple that the SA Government said has to be yellow, we would be inaccurately displying the national emblem, and that would be a disservice to everyone who comes to Wikimedia for information, because we would be telling them it's something that it's not. The Government of Kazakhstan says it has to be these colours, and our having to use those colours as prescribed is not in dispute by anybody, except for you. If you want to join in on the file talk page and state why you feel we don't have to listen to the Kazakh Government, that is your choice, but right now, those of us actually working on fixing this dispute, are gonna do what is prescribed. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong project, this is not an encyclopaedia. This is a media library. You are also mis-representing the dispute that this notice board is discussing; the reversion war that you were involved in was not initially just about shades of colour. Bingread has been blocked not because he is wrong, but because of his uncivil behaviour (hopefully he has learnt there are better ways of resolving a dispute, and hopefully he has not been discouraged from continued involvement by this lesson). I will continue discussion about the image on that image talk page. --Tony Wills (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to explain it to you again, because you're wrong, and there's alot of decisions by the community to show you're wrong. This dispute started out over the colour. Bingread posted his source, and I tried to make it match that source in colour. Not only did Bingread reject his own source by trying to force a version using different colours from it, he dragged this dispute to the ground with his uncivil tongue. That is why he was blocked, but that does not change the fact that we now have official colours from the Kazakh Government on what they want their emblem to be, and that's how it's gonna be. We did this with Kenya's coat of arms, we do it all the time with flags when we have an official construction sheet, and it's going to be done here. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Even though on the surface it would seem that I was pulled in and help solve a situation. I specialize in heraldry and other symbolics, such as flags, and historically users in those areas focused more on accuracy and consensus building. In this specific case, both users were reverting each other and from the resources I have, and from looking at both files, both had things that needed to be fixed. Ok, so it is the Commons and we are supposed to have media regardless. We already have variant versions of the coat of arms of this country on the servers, so the local projects can pick. Yet, there has been many times in the past where accuracy is not only asked for on here but also from the local projects. This still happens today and this specific case, it was users from local projects that wanted to fix a global image. I just think we do things on the Commons differently; we share the same goal in having free media for these symbols but since there is only just one, we try and make sure we have the best images in the best quality possible that are sourced from the best available. That is just how we did things in the past and how we will continue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I should have looked before commenting, I see your involvement wasn't until after Bingread was blocked, and all your input was quite proper and helpful. Sorry for casting aspersions. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You're fine; I just had nothing to do with the block itself and I am communication with both users (Fry on here and Bingread via email) so a solution is being worked out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Great. If User:Bingread understands the reason for the block and undertakes to moderate his response, I think he should be immediately unblocked so that he can participate in an effort to get the best result all around (a block is to prevent harm, not a punishment). --Tony Wills (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not addressed the block with him (and not sure if any other admin has) but if there is any unblock that needs to be done, I believe another admin could do it if the consensus here is to unblock. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

He only has one more day to his block, and 3 days is not unreasonable considering the repeated personal attacks against me. It could have been a week!. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

 Comment It is admirable that those interested in these areas try to produce the best image possible. But I see regular disputes of this nature, where whatever processes that are normally used to resolve differences, break down. If we convert Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files into policy we could perhaps nip this sort of dispute in the bud rather than having to wait for 20 reverts over three days to result in raised tempers and the inevitable block. For PD etc images, where we don't need to maintain a link between the particular image and its source (for licensing validity) the policy could be relaxed, but as soon as a reversion dispute occurs an automatic call for an image {{Split}} could be invoked. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Typically, a split will occur so a discussion can take place (and that is what I have encouraged for in this case and it did happen). The split images will then be put up to a vote (now we are on round two just over minor details with regards to this image). There are times where COM:OVERWRITE should be invoked and people should try and discuss before uploading (especially on a highly visible such as a flag or emblem of a nation-state) but it usually does not work half of the time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

New problems

Bingread unfortunately hasn't learned from his 3 day block, and again is edit warring on File:Coat of arms of Kazakhstan.svg. Today he uploaded a new version. I have absolutely no problem with it now that the colours and other details are corrected, I simply took the latest change (his) and made the display margins fit closer to the leading edges of the file. I didn't change the file itself in any manner. He has reverted that twice. It truly is "my way or the highway" with this person, not a very condusive attitude for Commons. Can someone please explain to Bingread, as he so elloquently stated on my page, that he does not own this file, or any other part of Wikimedia. Please also notice the patently false accusations on my talk page of making personal attacks and "new threats" against him. Since I never attacked him or threatened him in the first place, this is yet another form of attack against me, accusing me of things I have never said. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I blocked Bingread for 2 weeks. Hopefully he will understand this time. Yann (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Latest Attacks

Really hate to bring this up, but Bingread just doesn't know how to cool it. He was blocked by Admin:Yann for the above false accusations and continuing edit waring without explanations. Apparently after he was blocked, he sent Yann a rather nasty email. I respect Yann's decision to not act upon that other than to remove email access. However, now using his IP, Bingread removed his block notice, and then added a a comment directed to Admin:Zscout370, saying I'm "to blame for his block", that I'm a "freak", an "ordinary troll", with "only one desire to cause harm", and called me an "asshole". Fry1989 ^eh? 20:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access has been revoked. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ORIGINAL21 consistent copyright violations

• 23 January 2012, I cautioned this editor that national sides of Euro coins are almost always copyrighted and inappropriate for Commons. See User_talk:ORIGINAL21#Recent_uploads_of_Euro_coins.
• 23 February 2012, I had to caution him again, after finding a whole bunch of new violations he had uploaded. See User_talk:ORIGINAL21#All_recent_uploads_tagged_for_deletion...again.
• 28 February 2012, User:Stefan4 started a deletion request for another coin image that ORIGINAL21 had uploaded. ORIGINAL21's response to the DR was "this must stop now, france coins are copyright-free as all the images from this website", referencing a blog from which he is getting these images. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:France 2012 commemorative2 euro coin.jpg.
• 1 March 2012, more coin images of his ended up on DR for copyright violation reasons. All six in the DR were deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Commemorative 2 euro coins (France).
• 2 March 2012, more coin images of his again ended up on DR for copyright violation reasons. All three in the DR were deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (Malta).

Today, 4 April 2012, I found a bunch more of recent uploads of his that violate copyright of national sides of Euro coins (most are protected) which he claimed as his own work (again). I've placed warning notices on his talk page again, but I know its of no use. He will continue to upload copyright violations, despite repeated warnings, deletion requests, and direct attempts at communication. I believe this editor needs to be blocked until such time as he agrees to stop violating copyright, or in the least not upload images he has ANY question about without consulting with someone who has a clue about copyright (which he lacks apparently). Help, please. I've notified him of this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Are ORIGINAL21 and ArgGeo the same person? The pages en:User:ArgGeo and User:ORIGINAL21 state that both of them are from Greece. Now take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:France 2012 commemorative2 euro coin.jpg: an image was uploaded to English Wikipedia by en:User:ArgGeo. Once deleted, I noticed that the link at the English discussion page wasn't red: the same image was also on Commons, uploaded by ORIGINAL21. Compare: [8][9] --Stefan4 (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • • It's possible they are the same person, but possibly not relevant; I'm not aware that ArgGeo has done anything inappropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Kooler (talk · contribs)

Kooler (talk · contribs) is currently uploading a string of porn pics. Several of them are copyvios per TinEye; I deleted them. I frankly suspect the rest of being copyvios, too, but it's not easy to prove. Thoughts? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Towards wiki-stalking/harassment

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After having discussed this with User:Multichill, and with his broad agreeance, I have reinstated file mover rights to User:とある白い猫 (otherwise known as White Cat). White Cat is reminded to take care using this right, and if objections are raised, to be responsive and enter into discussion with those raising concerns, and this is now happening. There is no reason to believe that White Cat was not acting in good faith when he renamed files based upon his understanding of Commons:FM#Which_files_should_be_renamed.3F. He can not, and should not, be held responsible for not knowing the background of #6. This needs to be clarified/rectified within the policy itself so that future misunderstandings by White Cat, and also other editors, do not occur. User:Pieter Kuiper for his part, is reminded to act civilly with other editors; if he is familiar with policies and the like, please take the time to explain why you believe something is wrong. User:とある白い猫 has noted that he would like to be referred to as either とある白い猫 or Cool Cat or White Cat; not kitten, tiger, pussy, or #€%&€##€; deviation from this will only be seen as trolling/harassment in future. Also note, when discussions are closed, they are usually done so for a reason; more often than not to reduce the drama and this is usually made clear. Please do not continue to edit on an issue when it's been closed off. Be nice, be cool, let's all get along, but be aware that blocks and/or revocation of any rights may occur in future if issues re-arise. No more drama!. When you are all ready, we're celebrating no drama in our life! russavia (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

---

• Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs)

This user has issued these posts to me today based on my renames. His entire contribution has been focusing on my contribution since.

He has also nominated three four five a lot of images I uploaded. Any user can question the copyright status of another or even nominate them for deletion however one does not do so right after issuing such a notification.

Is it normal for a user to go through the entire contribution of another user the second he or she is in a strong disagreement? It only serves to agonize others. I am particularly sensitive to this kind of treatment due to my past experience with a certain now globally locked user whom made it his vocation to monitor every edit I make for 5 years.

I'd like to note the main concern I have here is his tone. It is my belief that this kind of behavior should be discouraged as it only serves to create a hostile environment. Users should not seek out all of each others dirty laundry on first sign of conflict.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, when it's Pieter Kuiper. He does this routinely. And no, nothing will be done about it, just as it hasn't the past 50 times he's been reported here for the exact same thing. No consensus to, too many people support him. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of Mattbuck's understandable pessimism, thank you for correctly complaining on this noticeboard. The relevant policy that Pieter Kuiper has a long history of breaking is COM:BP which states that harassment is not acceptable - "Accounts and IP addresses which are used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked". The comment you received here is typical of his abusive behaviour and what appears to me to be a sustained pattern of disruptive and disturbing hounding of others. I hope that an administrator will be prepared to ensure Pieter Kuiper will improve his appalling behaviour by enforcing the blocking policy as a perfectly good representation of what was once consensus and a vision for how Commons ought to remain a welcoming environment for all contributors rather than a constant war zone. --Fæ (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope that is the case. I am currently writing my rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ethiopia African potrayal of Jesus.JPG explaining US-Copyright law and how Ethiopian copyright law is non binding inside the US. What is hilarious to me is I was the person that created Commons:L#Ethiopia section this week as well as prior to that all works from Ethiopia was considered in the public domain per US Copyright law. The user is currently nominating practically each and every image he can find that I have moved from en.wikipedia to commons based on policies back in 2008 which were more relaxed. Certainly a review in the normal course of time would be warmly welcome but that is not what is happening here. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

“

Stop feeling sorry for yourself. You only have yourself to blame for being so pushy. And I had more disputes with Saibo than with you. As for the issue: yes, Commons should change policy. Give it some time. There is no immediate hurry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

”

Also I'd like to use the quote of this users own post above from this very page and like to ask him why he is so pushy and why he is in such a hurry to review my entire contribution to commons. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You disregarded renaming policy. So I had a look at you uploads, if those were according to policy. And indeed, there were problems. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, it was vital for you to put File:Electric razor transparant.png (uploaded 5 June 2006) for deletion (this file was based as a derivative work of File:Electric razor.jpg which was deleted in 2 July 2007 - 4 years ago) based on my allegedly inappropriate file renames. On the bright side this is one less image with a copyright problem for me to worry about. I just hope Shave the Wales will not suffer over this. :) -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User has shifted focus on nominating images on my user page for deletion. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm really getting tired of seeing Pieter Kuiper's name on this board. I've seen it atleast 10 times in the last year or so, and that's just with glancing by, not actually looking for Kuiper reports. Clearly there is a problem, and the Community's patience is not infinite. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I am tired of them too. Pieter Kuiper identifies uploaders' copyright violations, and then the uploaders complain about him here. --JN466 13:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Really? Who is complaining about his nominations? I see no evidence about any complaint about his uploads in the entire thread. In fact the very first post acknowledges that any user can nominate images with copyright problems for deletion. The complaint here is something else. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 17:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is we don't want to prevent users making valid attempts to clean up copyright problems, and a common way for copyright problems to be found is for user X to come across a problem with user Y, and then to check user Y's contributions. That's a normal process, and if the DRs that result are reasonable, it's something we have to accept, even if it may feel unpleasant. If the DRs are not reasonable, then we have a problem, but that needs to be shown. As to tone: we can always ask people to try and be nicer or more helpful, but with Commons' multilingual (first language not English) and multicultural environment, you have to make allowances. Rd232 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well said, Rd232. I completely agree. While Pieter can be very irritating at times, there is nothing wrong with going through a user's contributions and tagging those that appear to have a problem, provided of course that you legitimately believe that there is a problem. I do it several times a week.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If you do it with persistently abusive comments whilst making fun of their foreign name, then it becomes a problem, particularly when you have a long history of user after user complaining on this noticeboard that you are making Commons a hostile environment for them. --Fæ (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• While we don't want to prevent users making valid attempts to clean up copyright problems, this task is not suitable for everyone. People actively going through someone elses contributions should give great care not to antagonize the other party and if necessary explain copyright and commons policy. It is just as important for us to educate newer users as it is to keep commons free of copyrighted content. I would argue the latter is more important as it helps reduce or possibly even share the commons workload by gaining new contributors.
• Also the problem and complain here is not because he is going through my contribution. Problem is he is doing so right after the first disagreement. In his own words: What is the hurry? You sort out one disagreement then deal with other problems. You do not pile problems in front of people and more importantly you do not threaten people. If a users conduct is really problematic, you take it to this very noticeboard and not take the matters to your own hands. This way a fair treatment is more likely as users conduct is reviewed by multiple people.
• All but one of his nominations addressed the wrong person. All of his nominations (except razor one, which was a derivative of someone else's work) was for content I moved from other wikis to commons more than half a decade ago when policy on commons was more relaxed and OTRS did not exist. The original uploaders were never contacted.
• Someone using English as a second language does not give them a free pass away from being polite or civil. I do not believe the consistent behavioral problems surrounding this user can be attributed to his English skills. To get examples you do not need to go far. Check comments posted by this user on this very page (including other threads), his talk page and village pump. I can pile up so many examples with trivial ease and have already quoted one and someone else linked to his reply to my notification of him of this thread. While we can remind people to be polite and civil, we do require it. You ask people to do what is optional. Users should NOT "be very irritating at times" and instead make an effort to avoid being just that. Furthermore this remark of his on villge pump is plainly racist and completely undermines the multi-cultural nature of the Commons project as a whole. Clearly this user is not JUST reviewing copyright problems.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 08:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat (User:White Cat) must stop accusing me of racism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

How would you classify the linked remark then? Seeing non-European languages here is a casual occurrence and should not be a problem for anyone. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 08:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You state clearly enough on your user page that you are gaijin, so it's clear that Kuiper's comment is not directed at your race, but rather your choice of using Japanese script in your username. You were at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Non_Latin_Alphabet_Usernames where there were discussions of why such usernames are frustrating and and advocating that at least users voluntarily add a transliteration to the signature; I see that you haven't bothered doing so. (Again, the issue has nothing to do with non-European languages; it has to do with non-European scripts which tend to be just visual babble to most of our users.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I do take great offense when people act in an offensive manner to other cultures, even ones that are not necessarily my own. I would also take offense when people classify the racial/ethnic profile of users based on their userpage. Also please take special care in using the term "gaijin" in the future bearing its etymology and history in mind as it can be seen as derogatory due to its xenophobic use to discriminate.

Please do not bring your irrelevant (perhaps controversial) claims attempting to regulate people's signatures to this user problem claim on Pieter Kuiper's conduct.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 09:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, you picked a username that would be needlessly complicated for most other users, not because it was your native tongue, but because it was cool. When someone called you on that, you can claim that you have the right to use that username, but instead you choose to cry racism, even though it had nothing to do with your race or anyone else's.

There's no reason for other cultures to take offense at what Kuiper said; in fact, IIRC, you would not be allowed to use a name with Han ideographs in Japan. It's always a risky thing to take offense, especially great offense, when people act in a way you consider offensive to other cultures; a lot of people have taken offense at things the culture in question in culture, such as people taking offense at the FSU Seminoles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm? In Japan most people have names consisting of only Chinese characters (what you called "Han ideographs"). Foreigners are not required to change their names (since a few years not even required for if you wish to change citizenship), but the option to use those characters still exists for those foreigners who wish to change their name into something more Japanese. To Aru Shiroi Neko would definitely be able to change to a Japanese name, were he to move to Japan (not sure where he currently lives – maybe he already lives there). --Stefan4 (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

“

Requests for name changes like these from User:White Cat or User:Cool Cat should not be done. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

”

Also I'd like to ask for someone to explain me how is it that this user is not targeting me site-wide given the above remark. It is also curious his post to that page came almost at the same time as Prosfilaes mentioned it here. Coincidences are interesting.

This section header was intentionally chosen as "Towards wiki-stalking/harassment" because I was uncertain if I was overreacting. I am however observing a pattern that leads to wiki-stalking/harassment even if it does not perhaps currently qualify.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 09:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Deliberately referring to users by nicknames that they have not agreed to or used themselves is foolish and easily read as intended to be offensive. Though とある白い猫 has mentioned an interpretation of their username on their user page, this not identical to the name that Pieter Kuiper has apparently made up one day. If alternative names are to be used, they must be agreed with the user or claims of deliberately causing offence must be taken seriously. I note that Pieter Kuiper has appears to have done nothing in response to these complaints but inflame and encourage drama rather than making any attempt to reconcile with とある白い猫 in the collegiate manner we would hope for on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Kuiper took a real issue and handled it in a rude and insulting manner.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is user "Pieter Kuiper" treated differently as other users? Anybody else can get problems here for not having such a long list of harassment/bad behaviour. --178.2.60.90 16:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

He's not; Pieter Kuiper is sui generis. Commons has a long history of tolerating bad behavior from contributors, and Pieter Kuiper has always stayed close enough to the lines that Commons has tolerated him. In particular, nominating files for deletion when they don't have proper licenses is a good thing, which means it's hard to object with Kuiper does it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? How far back does this history go because I lived it and do not remember tolerating bad behavior from contributors. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 17:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How long did it take for User:Ottava Rima to get blocked here? We have a lot of users who have gotten the boot from en.WP, like Ottava and Fred the Oyster, who either have not been permanently blocked or took a long time getting there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit confusing. There are complaints about tone and attitude, but aside from a fairly ludicrous complaint of a racist comment, it's not really substantiated as a problem. Nor has it been demonstrated that there are real problems with the DRs. The original poster said You do not pile problems in front of people and more importantly you do not threaten people. - implying threats, which are not evidenced. About the only conclusion I can get out of this so far is that the original poster might get more sympathy from non-Japanese speakers if he respected Commons:Signatures#Signatures_supporting_multilingualism, possibly by somehow linking to User:とある白い猫/In many languages... (not being able to easily put a name to a user is a real disincentive to engage). Beyond that, I suggest (i) providing more evidence of problems and (ii) suggesting some actions that can be taken. Rd232 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is substantial if you dismiss the irrelevant remarks from Prosfilaes regarding my signature. If my signature is that much of a problem, start a separate discussion.

My questions to you are: Is civility optional? Do we expect users to be polite? Is it OK to make intentional effort to cause other users stress? Pieter Kuiper is neither civil nor is he polite. Pieter Kuiper also makes an effort to cause others stress and does not attempt to resolve problems through consolidation. There is clear consensus that Pieter Kuiper "can be irritating at times".

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Civility and politeness are too a large extent subjective; and most people "can be irritating at times". For the rest, provide some diffs. As for the signature: it might be considered polite to follow the recommendation and make it easier for non-Japanese users to interact with you. That you apparently don't agree just goes to show how these things are subjective. Rd232 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How would you react if I replied to you with "Stop feeling sorry for yourself. You only have yourself to blame for being so pushy?" Indeed politeness is subjective but that doesn't mean people should act like complete dicks. It seems to me you are advocating the behavior of Pieter Kuiper and it seems like the only problem in this entire thread as far as you are concerned is my signature. I am actually going to propose the removal of this Commons:Signatures clause as it is clearly open to abuse. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

One statement, from 2 weeks ago, not directed at you (at me, in fact). And whilst not particularly helpful or nice, not sanctionable. Rd232 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What is sanctionable? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Difficult to say in the abstract (context matters). The Fred the Oyster discussion on this page may be a useful reference for things people get upset about. Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"It seems to me you are advocating the behavior of Pieter Kuiper" - I asked you to provide evidence, and to suggest actions. You've failed to do either, but implicitly called Kuiper a dick, and implicitly accused me of abusing policy. In addition, you're being over-defensive about an issue you can easily deal with. It's ironic that you have problems with Kuiper's collegiality, but won't do a simple thing to support it yourself. Rd232 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Rd232) Presumably you consider it acceptable for Commons that contributors call each other's statements "bollocks" as Pieter Kuiper did in his edit comment on this page yesterday in direct reply to とある白い猫 (diff) in an apparent trolling attempt? How can my opinion that Pieter Kuiper's deliberate intention is to create a hostile environment and create drama be called subjective with this sort of evidence available? --Fæ (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence "available" is meaningless; a diff in the hand is worth a hundred in the bush. I've asked for diffs; that's just one, but it's a start. No, in general "bollocks" (in an edit summary especially) is not acceptable, but I would make an allowance for that particular example because it was a reaction to an unwarranted accusation of racism, which is liable to make most non-racists quite angry. Rd232 (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You consider calling a statement "bollocks" to be beyond the pale and yet calling a statement racist is not? Calling a statement "bollocks" or "bullshit" to me is just a short colorful way of assertively disagreeing with something. I don't see that Kuiper has any intention to create drama.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not said anything about とある白い猫's behaviour. The long term pattern attracting multiple complaints from multiple users on AN boards is Pieter Kuiper's. My response to complaints is to look at the complaint, not find a reason to boomerang on the complainant and dismiss it. If you believe that とある白い猫 has a long term problematic pattern of disruptive behaviour this would be useful to take into account but probably a reason to create a new thread. In practice I understand that this will be another cross on Pieter Kuiper's card without action, however I do believe we should encourage future complainants who genuinely feel that his behaviour is hampering their ability to make positive contributions to Commons. It is nice to see everyone here so forgiving of disruptive behaviour, however if Pieter Kuiper's name keeps on appearing here month after month, at some point a careful administrator will count these up, draw the line and judge the record as evidence for firm action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

if Pieter Kuiper's name keeps on appearing here month after month, at some point a careful administrator will count these up, draw the line and judge the record as evidence for firm action. - if an admin literally does that, they'll get their arse handed to them on a plate. Merely having a name pop up repeatedly is not evidence. For this incident, I keep asking for evidence, and what little there has been so far has been irrelevant or minor. If there really isn't any more, then that's quite a lot of discussion about very little. Rd232 (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct, it's written down but not literal, just as your threat to hand another admin their arse on a plate was not literal. I hope. --Fæ (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between a threat and a statement? Clue: if you forget your umbrella and it rains, you'll probably get wet is not a threat. Rd232 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you could argue that "I know where your children are right now" is a statement, but the police probably would not interpret it that way. Thanks for the education, but I quite like my OED. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Closer towards wiki-stalking/harassment

This person has shifted attention to interfere with activity he is not an involved party. This is clear harassment. I am growing very tired of this and am seriously considering retiring - for a few years at least. I have went on my 2 year break prior to this due to another stalker whom is indef blocked on all wikis for this behavior. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 08:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Propose block

This is the final straw for me. Not enough to butt into a conversation onto White Cat's talk page when there is still a thread at AN/U where White Cat made it clear that he felt harassed; not enough that he then starts an unnecessary thread at AN/U proposing the revocation of White Cat's filemover privileges for what is clearly a reasonable and good-faith interpretation of the relevant policy; no, when that thread is closed, he comes back with an evidenceless claim that But the evidence shows that とある白い猫 is quite unwilling to change his behaviour. This is clearly "disrupt[ing Commons'] collegial atmosphere", as COM:BLOCK has it. I propose blocking Pieter Kuiper for 3 days to send a clear message that this is not acceptable. Rd232 (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Another example of Rd232's heavy hand. I had objected to file move by White Cat, then HE took it here, made false accusations of racism, and kept on moving files against policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That's misleading at best. Yes, there was this discussion where you bluntly (you're one to complain of a "heavy hand"!) claimed moves were not allowed under Commons:File renaming #3; the AN/U discussion was largely about your nominating files for deletion; and the present file move dispute was about Commons:File renaming #6. Rd232 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So you want to block me because I nominated copyright violations for deletion? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No. If you've forgotten what I said in the original discussion, it's not far up the page. Rd232 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose I am not PK's biggest fan but this is simply an outbreak of disagreement between two users. The renaming is an issue and should be reviewed but blocks of either party are entirely inappropriate. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• You realise the file moving dispute was not with PK? He inserted himself into a discussion between White Cat and another user that wasn't to do with him and was going fine, and then came to AN/U to demand White Cat's filemover bit at a time when an admin (me) was already involved in that discussion. Rd232 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• In that case you are "involved" and I suggest you may not be the person to deal with this. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Um, if you look at the relevant talk page, I don't consider myself "involved" on that issue - I'm acting as a mediator. But it's moot as I've had enough dealing with PK that I wouldn't block him. That would be why I'm proposing a block (something people should do more often, perhaps). Rd232 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• What happened is...
  1. 17:35, 3 April 2012 - I made a few (about 20) file renames of Hungarian army rank insignia in an attempt to harmonize their filenames (per COM:FR #6) as I have been renaming other such insignia for some time now.
  2. 19:01, 3 April 2012 - The uploader came and objected on my talk page and I started a discussion with the uploader.
  3. 06:13, 4 April 2012 - I was trying to explain the uploader why I think the rename is necessary. Overall the discussion was pleasantly on going even though no conclusions were made.
  4. 07:09, 4 April 2012 - Before a consensus or compromise could be reached, Pieter Kuiper submitted his conclusion and demanded that I moved the file back to where it was.
  5. 15:28, 4 April 2012 - I have ignored his comment completely so he escalated into seeking to remove my file mover rights (as visible on this page).
• His presence in the discussion between me and Madboy74 is disruptive.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is perfectly clear that White Cat considers his irregular moves "necessary", and that he was not going to budge. See also his edit warring about the Norwegian case. He should not be permitted to move files. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion between Madboy74 and White Cat was going fine (considering language issues); there was no call for you to butt in. Still less for you to declare that he was not going to budge (are you a mind reader now?). I have asked that no more moves be done in either direction until there is a consensus, which hopefully will be resolved in the current COM:VP thread (and if not, we'll figure something else out - it may be slower than we'd like, but we'll get to a conclusion eventually). Finally, I must ask you to stop claiming that White Cat's actions were against policy. Whether it has consensus or not, it was well within a reasonable interpretation of File renaming policy. We can change policy or clarify it, but on the face of it, as written, it was reasonable. Rd232 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Support This proposal is not just about hounding with regard to file renaming. 3 days seems trivial and arbitrary, there is no reason to think that Peter Kuiper would be prepared to change his long term disruptive behaviour against any user he decides to pick on that week. I recommend an indef block until Peter Kuiper is prepared to convince an admin that he understands why his behaviour is not acceptable and what changes he needs to make in order to stop turning Commons into a hostile battleground for our valued contributors. I am glad to see that Rd232 is the one to draw the line and judge the record as evidence for firm action. --Fæ (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think an indef-block can realistically work in that way. I think a short block can make a point, and then block length can escalate if problems continue, and if that doesn't work, then indef. Rd232 (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Further, PK persists in making an issue of White Cat's Japanese username, despite knowing that a previous instance of this ([10]) was considered by White Cat to be racist in the original discussion in this thread. PK has done this twice this evening at File talk:Army-NOR-OR-01b.svg despite the fact that he's been involved in conversations (like this one) where the English version of White Cat's username has been regularly used. Whilst the original incident may not have been intended to be disparaging or hurtful, the uses this evening are clearly intended to be disparaging and/or hurtful. The second usage (%E3%81%A8%E3%81%82%E3%82%8B%E7%99%BD%E3%81%84%E7%8C%AB) is particularly clear; this is unicode for White Cat's Japanese username, and would have come from White Cat's user or user talk page URL - both of which include the English name. This must stop, and on the basis of this behaviour, I would ask that the proposed block be implemented immediately. Rd232 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To be fair "%E3%81%A8%E3%81%82%E3%82%8B%E7%99%BD%E3%81%84%E7%8C%AB" means "とある白い猫". It is just HTML encoded. I however still find the scrambled characters offensive. Also, his involvement with File:Army-NOR-OR-01b.svg is entirely unhelpful. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
    • To use changes that are likely to be interpreted as racist, to troll another contributor is blatantly hostile and unacceptable in any community. I repeat my call for an indefinite block until Peter Kuiper explains himself and makes a commitment that the community finds credible, permanently to change his long, long term disruptive and uncivil behaviour. He has an extensive track record of putting others in his sights and hounding them until they want to stop contributing to Commons, our community has sat back and let this unacceptable trolling go on far too long with endless equivocations of "if you did everything right this man would not be attacking you". Sorry, this has just encouraged a thoroughly unpleasant and obsessive troll to use Commons for sadistic sport for a ridiculously long time. The fact that he has some nice uploads, in no way is an excuse for tolerating this disruption. --Fæ (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• There is certainly no basis for a "conclusion" at that point in the conversation, and it seemed previously to be quite cordial, two people stating their concerns amicably (a minor bit of drama at the start, but that's hardly unusual). I don't have a problem with people "butting in" generally, so long as they are being helpful, but this act is not helpful at all, it is merely provocative. I  Support a temporary block, and frankly a not-so-temporary one, based on the fact that the same accusations against Pieter come up again and again, and there has been zero change in his attitude. He does good work, but that should not make us shy away from blocks where the behaviour warrants it. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Spirit of Commons:File renaming

A while ago file renaming was introduced. This is a very intrusive action: All wiki's using the file have to be updated and external usage breaks. We made Commons:File renaming because we only wanted people to rename files when it's really needed and to not have renames because it looks better. とある白い猫 is on or over the border of the guidelines and clearly not handling in the spirit of this page. Take for example File:Army-NOR-OR-01b.svg. This guideline was cited: "Harmonize file names of a set of images (so that only one part of all names differs) to ease their usage in templates (e.g. diagram symbols, scans of pages of a book, maps)", but that is just not true. No templates rely on the name of the file here. This rule was made for Commons:Icons for railway descriptions because the template uses the code which is embedded in the filename. This was pointed out by me and others on irc and here on Commons, but とある白い猫 just shrugged this off. In the list of renames I see good ones, but also a lot of questionable ones. At the moment とある白い猫 is not handling in the spirit of Commons:File renaming and is doing more harm than good. I've removed his move permission. Multichill (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Spirit of Commons:File renaming - the spirit of policy is important, but so is the letter. The policy doesn't specify that template harmonisation has to be for templates on Commons. Maybe that's obvious to you, but given that Commons exists to serve other projects, it isn't to me.
• This is a very intrusive action: All wiki's using the file have to be updated and external usage breaks. - does it now? I didn't realise file redirects had been abolished.
• This was pointed out by me and others on irc - you're citing IRC? I swear I told you by pigeon post not to do that.
• a lot of questionable ones - could be - who knows. Would you deign to tell us which ones, so we can discuss it? Rd232 (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If a file is moved twice (e.g. due to spelling errors) the usages are broken and CommonsDelinker isn't perfect. If とある白い猫 wants to help, he/she can look at the logs and replace the usages where CommonsDelinker failed manually. I swear I told you by pigeon post not to do that. is simply an offence against Marteen, Rd. He is one of the most trusted community members. -- RE rillke questions? 10:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I take it Marteen is Multichill? I didn't know. I know he is one of the most trusted community members, but that doesn't give him the right to jump into a situation under discussion and act without adequate explanation. The "pigeon post" remark was intended to be disparaging of IRC, which may have its uses but I firmly believe that if we're sanctioning people, it should be done, as far as possible, based on on-wiki discussion. Give a warning or advice by IRC - fine; but know that if it isn't followed, it's as if you didn't say anything. If you want to be able to rely on it later, say it on-wiki (in addition, or instead). Rd232 (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

PS I've created Help:File redirect to clarify how file redirects work (or don't...) and filed a bug for what I presume Multichill meant by "external usage breaks". Rd232 (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been handling file renames from the start in good faith. I have not been made aware of any problems by anyone aside from the hostile actions by Pieter Kuiper which were promptly disregarded as he was unable to provide a convincing argument and he has been quite dickish about it.

I find the removal of my access to be unfair as I have not had any real warnings and have so far been only harassed/stalked over my renames. I feel particularly distressed with the presence of the thread a few sections below where the removal of my access was declined. It seems to me Pieter Kuiper gets his way no matter what.

I'd be more than happy to go through logs to correct any problems. I am not aware of anything currently broken. I have made an effort to check file usage to correct possible problems.

As for local template use, I am working on English Wikipedia currently using the rank insignia images in templates. Once complete, I will copy this template to commons as well. I can copy it right away but I do not want to rush things. I also do not feel the template has been optimized fully as that would only happen if all filenames are harmonized like flag and/or coat of arms images. I do want to point out that I have not renamed any non-svg rank insignia files since I seek to svgify all jpg/png/gif files.

I also intend to incorporate rank insignia to all biographic articles on military individuals, particularly on the info boxes on multiple language editions of wikipedia.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 11:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I find this action rather inappropriate given the ongoing conversation about it above. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

sorry - what does "this action" refer to? Rd232 (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of とある白い猫's rights. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. The indenting confused me. Rd232 (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Just if you intend to give the rights back, you should also consider the "unjustified" removal of right on User:Americophile. There was also neither a warning nor File-moves against the policy. -- RE rillke questions? 14:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to bring up another case, you need to provide the background. I don't know anything about it, but the user rights log, for instance, says "Renamed files without following the policy (Commons:File naming)". Rd232 (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Logs can say a lot and only reflect the opinion of the one who performed the action. BTW: On top of the page there is a nice text-box. It's easy to use and when entering Americophile, the first entry is Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 32#Removal filemover right of Americophile. You are additionally free to check the performed file-moves, which are tracked themselves in a log instead of relaying on the rights log. -- RE rillke questions? 14:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Aguirrediego (talk · contribs) likely a sock of blocked Diegonahuelaguirre (talk · contribs)

Considering the uploads Aguirrediego (talk · contribs), this account which was opened a few hours ago, is likely a block-evading sock-puppet of Diegonahuelaguirre (talk · contribs), who was blocked yesterday for uploading the same type of out-of-scope copyvios. Recommend perm-block of new account. --Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Warned. All files deleted. Block pending other opinions, or check user confirmation. Yann (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. --Martin H. (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Maintaining a DR in original for record purpose (Deletion requests/File:IconEliminate.gif)

User:M0tty deleted the file. This was restored by Sreejith K following an undeletion request. Therefore, for record purpose, the original decision of the DR, "Deleted" need to be in place and not 'kept' with the edit summary 'You meant "Kept" M0tty, didn't you?' as done by User:Blackcat. The restoration of this DR to this point will have no bearing on the present status of the file. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC).

 Done by User:Blackcat.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC).

User:Cirt disruption of dispute resolution

Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly disrupted a thread at COM:AN, namely Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FPolandball. It has reached a point where a block is (apparently) required in order to prevent further disruption, both of that thread, and of future threads (if Cirt does not learn that this behaviour is unacceptable, he will presumably repeat it).

1. Begins by accusing me of deliberately abusing the rollback tool ("decided to inappropriately use the ROLLBACK tool"). If he'd bothered to check the relevant user's user talk page, he'd have seen that I immediately apologised for the error (I clicked in the wrong place - I was using my laptop in an awkward position, if you must know...). But this was irrelevant to the thread anyway; none of the accusations of misconduct on my part were relevant to that thread - they belonged on my talk page in the first place, and COM:AN/U if that did not satisfy. Introducing these issues there was disruptive.
2. When my apology to the user I accidentally rollbacked was pointed out (here), Cirt responded by describing it as a so-called "apology". He also claimed that I disrupted a closed deletion request (in fact, I re-opened an improperly closed deletion request, as had already been explained).
3. Furthermore, he placed that comment in the wrong subsection (that section was explicitly an attempt to refocus on the policy issues; these were completely ignored). This appears to have been deliberate, since it relates to the rollback exchange in the first subsection.
4. Again attempts to disrupt discussion with a 3-point volley. The first point echoes another user, without acknowledging the detailed reply I'd given to that user, rebutting the point made. (The rebuttal was the comment immediately above the volley.) The second point is Dragging on this issue further in attempts to suppress the information is certainly getting disruptive. This comment speaks for itself; besides the bad faith accusation, it demonstrates that the motivation for the disruption is the concern that a DR allowed to proceed might lead to a deletion. The third point is This certainly seems more like w:WP:FORUMSHOPPING because of an outcome in a deletion request due to w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This ignores the points I had already made about having stated in the first DR that the problem was wider than one file, and that that was why I raised a mass DR. It is also nonsensical, since there was no other forum at which I had raised the matter. Since both of these points had already been made clear, the sheer hypocrisy of making this claim in the light of Cirt's recent desperate attempts to get someone into a trouble over a minor bit of trolling (see point 3 here) made me comment on that.
5. Having done so much to make the thread ineffectual, Cirt asks for the thread [12] to be closed without resolution: Suggest an admin close and archive this thread as ineffectual. The original user that started the thread itself seems to wish to repeatedly respond via ad hominem. Again, Cirt sees fit to play the mind reader, and does not bother to specify what these ad hominem's are supposed to be. He also sees fit to spread these accusations of "ad hominem" here, on the talk page of Beria, the person whose actions I criticised in detail in the comment he was replying to. This action is an implicit acknowledgement that mention of "ad hominem" is a deliberate attempt to avoid engaging with the substance, since the only thing that can reasonably be called "ad hominem" is my remarks on Cirt's behaviour - point 3 here, and note that it's all backed up with diffs. The only reason to tell Beria about my comment is because it contains substantial comments about her action that she might wish to respond to.

Summary: Cirt made repeated accusations of bad faith, and repeated attempts to disrupt a COM:AN thread. This is not acceptable. If he does not look at the behaviour I've laid out here and realise this, then a block is required. Rd232 (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

So I finally read that thread. It's very typical Wikimedian behavior to focus on minute details rather than overall larger questions -- focusing on the rollback / reopening rather than the overall DR validity. I'll respond in order of your points.

1. People love to tout "rollback abuse" (whatever that means). It was probably poor form to assume, but I won't blame that entirely on Cirt as he probably learned that in Wikipedia's culture.
2. Agreed that calling it a "so-called 'apology'" was poor form, but not egregious.
3. Meh, nothing to say to that.
4. It was quite bold of Cirt to make accusations of forum shopping given his recent behavior. Quite glib, in fact.
5. I don't see much in the way of ad hominem by Rd. It would be nice if Cirt could "put up or shut up," so to speak.

All that having been said, sometimes it's just easier to ignore people around the wiki. I don't think right now it's enough to block Cirt, but if this behavior manifests similarly in other instances it could result in a block. Killiondude (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Comment - I thank Killiondude (talk · contribs) for the analysis. I can see that things are certainly going the way of getting heated over recent discussions, and I'm going to go ahead and take a break from further involvement in related issues for a while, and focus on contributions in other unrelated areas. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki95pedia

Wiki95pedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Another copyvio after block. Allan Aguilar • talk • 01:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done one month block. --PierreSelim (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Shubham182 ‎

Shubham182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user seems to be an ardent fan of the Kashmiri painter Dina Nath Walli. He has posted his paintings, pics, etc from the internet in clear copyright violation. I suggest a ban on him and deletion of all his uploads except his own photo. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC).

 Not done, sorry before blocking a user for uploading unfree files he must get a clear warning. I've warned him. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably you've done the right thing. My only view was keeping in line with the fact that this user is consistently only uploading from the internet with no regard for copyvio. Regards,Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC).

User:SnacksIndia

SnacksIndia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

only contributions are advertisements...--Trex2001 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Uploads nuked and user warned. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)