Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 16

User:Milad Mosapoor

Milad Mosapoor (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) This is a persistent copyright violator who is completely ignoring all warnings. I spoke to him about "Flickr washing" here, and he has been busily at it since...oh, and in addition to uploading new copyvios, he's removing copyright violation tags. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month, I only left 3 images who are under DR. Thanks. --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 06:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper

Unblocked? Again? Seriously?

Are we just going to waste months and months more on a user who is actively dfriving away more productive people, just because the deletion review cabal isn't the ones being attacked, and don't care if people not involved in that get attacked?

Pieter is bad for Wikipedia. He's a rot in the system, who shows that some users are privileged, and can literally' get away with anything.

He's not even good at what he's praised for - deletions. I've reviewed many of his, and have found questionable logic, poor understanding of the law on copyright, and harassment to get an image clearly within scope and copyright permissions deleted despite being widely used. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't done anything to make you upset. What's your problem? ZooFari 20:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Except attack and harass me here and on Swedish Wikipedia because I blocked him for creating a wall of shame. Or did you just ignore his previous blocklog when you unblocked him, without bothering t talk to the admin who blocked him, as te unblock template says you must do? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty normal to be upset even when it's other people being harassed. He doesn't have to be a victim himself. DarkoNeko 21:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

With Pieter, ANYONE whose tried to enforce anything regarding him will be attacked, and have their reputation dragged through the mud, if he can pull it off. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A fine example of muddragging is here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's time you all apply from now on the principle of good faith to Peter Kuiper. --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

.

Good faith is a principle, but requires good faith in both directions. We don't allow copyvioers to stay around because we assume good faith - we agf, we get burned, we warn, we get burned, we see they're not going to change, we say thankyou and goodnight. I agree with Adam, and that is why I indefed Kuiper to begin with, and lookee here, here we are, at it again. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reason we are here is because the same part of the community against Pieter do not want to reconsider, even though nothing [after the unblock] has happened. Everything was peaceful proceeding the block lift, until Adam realized that Pieter was unblocked. I'm not going to waste my time dealing with Adam's hyperbole that's related to things that happened before the block. Some of you think all this is is rotten, bad, etc but I see valuable hand. This thread was unnecessary and not going to change anything. It's just redundant repetition that triggers drama. ZooFari 00:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. –Tryphon^☂ 01:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying who brought us here, or whether or not it was justified, merely that we are here again, on the same subject as ever, wasting our time. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's no reason to continue belittling Pieter. ZooFari 01:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper's name on this board? Again? Seriously? It's a good real life skill to learn to get along with people you don't like, especially when it's for the greater good (in this case, the project, as he does a lot of good work here). Unlike a habitual vandalizers or copyvio-uploaders, not everyone has issues with him (yes, even those with uploads he has targeted). That means the drama is not entirely his fault. Rocket000 (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And evidently, despite him continuing the exact behaviour for which he's gotten blocked over and over, with increasingly desperate rationales. Claims an American sculpture from 1924 - clearly in copyright - should be put through pointless procedure when it has literally zero chance of being out of copyright by the uploader's own statement! Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Very likely it's long time in PD, because copyright wasn't renewed on 28th year, or it was published w/o copyright notice. And it's quite troubling that you have speedily deleted the file w/o notification of the uploader. Trycatch (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's out of copyright. I'm 99.7% positive that that statue is out of copyright, and if I could see the photo and description, like I could if it had been DRed, I could probably add another .2% to that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban on "Pieter Kuiper" for Adam Cuerden?

Withdrawn I talked to Adam on IRC. --MGA73 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC) It seems to me that Adam hates Pieter so much he will do anything to get Pieter blocked. He can not keep focused on the case when Pieter is involved. If Pieter brings up a possible error by Adam he does not focus on the subject but asumes that Pieter is trying to harass him. As I read it Adam has just told he is checking every edit Pieter is making just to find any bad edits. I think that is excactly what some users has told Pieter should be blocked for: Checking just to get revente.

And now Adam wants to waste our time here by starting this complaint (Pieter was indef banned recently for starting a complaint here recently). So perhaps we should make a topic for Adam (Ban him from topics related to Pieter Kupiter. --MGA73 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not just about me. Adam Cuerden speedily deleted a photo by Billy Hathorn without any notice on uploader's user page. Probably that image had not been tagged by anybody else. Cuerden thinks he understands American copyright (but he does not), and that something like this does not merit a response by the uploader, and that it does not need an extra pair of eyes by a different admin. He should not have the admin buttons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think he does good work in other areas. I expect him to learn from his mistakes so I do not support a deadmin yet. One step at a time. --MGA73 (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

He does not need admin buttons for that (just 238 admin actions in the last half year). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

But if he wasn't an admin, he couldn't block people who he's in a personal conflict with, edit war over the site notice where there's also a POV involved, and vandalize the main page. Rocket000 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose! Adam Cuerden (whom I do not know) is not at all alone in opposing Pieter Kuiper's renewed right to stalk, harass and alienate other good contributors. And I respect and admire Cuerden for not giving up. The work Kuiper does, whether perfect (always right) or not, is no reason to allow him to go on with what I consider to be extremely nasty behavior. It is very sad - repulsive in fact - that so many Commons users continue to want to enable Kuiper to carry on as usual, though he has shown us time and time again that he is incorrigible and will never change. He considers himself perfect (I have never seen anything else), has never once apologized to anyone for any of his cruelty, and will never stop it. Are you going to topic ban all of his intentionally targeted victims who object? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Adam speedied a file as a copyvio. Pieter told him it was wrong to speedy but Adam would not listen. He just kept talking about harrasment. Now it is on COM undel and only then Adam is trying to explain why he speedied. Admins should always explain why they delete files if someone asks. I think it sends a bad signal when admins speedy files and refuses to tell why.

As for the question regarding "topic ban all of his intentionally targeted victims who object" the answer is "NO". But the point is that Pieter did not attack Adam but Adam seems to have a problem to think clear when Pieter is involved. So I think it is better to topic ban Adam before he gets himself deadmins or blocked.--MGA73 (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose - you have got to be fucking kidding me. Adam says he disagrees with an unblock, and you want to topic ban HIM for harassment? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • When Kupier objected to one of Cuerden's deletions, for entirely valid reasons, Cuerden posts "And evidently, despite him continuing the exact behaviour for which he's gotten blocked over and over, with increasingly desperate rationales. Claims an American sculpture from 1924 - clearly in copyright - should be put through pointless procedure when it has literally zero chance of being out of copyright by the uploader's own statement!" Instead of paying attention to what Kupier was correctly pointing out, he choose to attack Kupier, claiming that it had no chance of being out of copyright when it was very likely out of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Just that ^ Also he said he blocked Pieter for a wall of shame. Except for Adam not many users thought it was a wall of shame. Adam is not neutral when it comes to Pieter and yet he used his admin rights to block him. Admins should not block users if they have strong feelings against a user. That is abuse of admin powers. When admin overruled that block he kept looking for another reason to get Pieter blocked. That is stalking and I think it is excactly that Adam said we should block Pieter for. So to prevent Adam from getting blocked I suggested a topic ban. --MGA73 (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose, I don't think a topic block is the answer (I'm very skeptical about topic blocks in general). Expressing his opinion is fine, as long as he doesn't use his admin powers against Pieter Kuiper. That being said, I would advise Adam to take a step back, breathe calmly, and maybe just take a few minutes of reflexion, instead of screaming "harassment" every time Pieter says or does anything. –Tryphon^☂ 19:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I have no urge to contribute to commons anymore. 86.160.167.80 20:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment If ^ is from Adam there is no need for this suggestion anymore. --MGA73 (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Yeah, I am sure it was from Adam, which means that Commons just lost a good contributor, but who cares? Right?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • He always "disappears" for a while when there is a problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Let me put it this way Pieter, go fuck yourself. You drive him from commons and now you fucking crow about it. You truly give scum a bad name. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
      • No, he drove himself away by crying about it instead of alternatively considering Pieter's analysis. Yet you decide to demonstrate ridiculousness in front of the community. Put some thought before you post. ZooFari 21:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Oh, I'm sorry, I simply said what I felt, which is that having been the cause of Adam leaving, Pieter felt the need to crow about it. I did think about it. I thought about what Pieter meant, and I considered it to be vindictive. I then called him out on that in a way which best suited my dismay at having a community here which not only tolerates but actively endoreses such behaviour. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I talked to him on IRC so I also think it was from him. If Adam takes a break (long or short) this suggestion is no longer needed. --MGA73 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, I find myself agreeing 100% with Mattbuck, even as to the specific terminology he just used. Kuiper deserves nothing less that that exclamation. Let's all quit Commons and let Kuiper and his dogged defenders run this project themselves, as rudely, cruelly, sarcastically and persecutively as they please! Those who keep supporting him, regardless of all his disruptive and obnoxious input, are likely to be the same kind of people. They'll have to bear that qualification now. How utterly repulsive! I only regret that my friends and I already have contributed over 1000 images that these people now are in charge of, to use and abuse as they please. Btw, Kuiper is the one who helped us get started making those contributions, then turned on us and began stalking and harassing us when he imagined (!) we had other political views than his. All that is in here if anyone ever wants to track and check it. That's what a creep he is. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I find Kuiper increasingly frustrating, but when an admin has one of his deletions questioned, the appropriate response is never to accuse that user of harassing you and loudly trumpet the obviousness of your deletion, especially wrongly. Kiuper opened a calm reasonable undeletion request, and it was Cuerden's responsibility to respond to that in a calm reasonable way like he would any unblocked user.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I conclude that the part of the community who are against Pieter do not take the time to educate themselves about what is going on, as I have not once seen a good reason nor a good objection to those who defend Pieter. Either that or people just decide to open their mouths simply on the basis because they do not like Pieter. ZooFari 21:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It only took a few minutes for an unleashed Kuiper (thank you all!) to retaliate against me with this sarcastic edit summary. Not only is the first part of it inaccurate (there are stars in the original coat or arms) but the second part is nothing but destructive, as usual. Defending Kuiper is defending hundreds if not thousands of actions like this on his part and enabling him to keep it up forever, polluting this project severely. So "not once seen a good reason nor a good objection" looks like an extremely subjective comment to me. Defending Kuiper is the main thing to many of these editors, with total disregard for all his nasty capers. He found and acted on this by immediately stalking me. That's what he does. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look at File talk:Blason Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte (1763-1844) Prince de Pontecorvo.svg. Someone else questioned the stars. Are they also stalking etc.? Perhaps Pieter is just trying to correct mistakes? --MGA73 (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And it actually is pretty "terrible" to derive a low quality JPG from a clean SVG. What is the point? --Dschwen (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrators are expected to be civil and to act to calm heated discussions, not to further inflame them. Perhaps this discussion could be tabled for a day or two to allow the dust to settle a bit? Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I do want to apologize for my tone. In my opinion there is no need for further discussion, since MGA73 withdrew his proposal. Not sure what would be the purpose if we let it continue, but if people have hope for Pieter to be reblocked, then let it proceed. I cease my participation in this discussion, I just don't like drama. ZooFari 23:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Pieter should be blocked if he deserves it an not just because some wants him blocked. Last time we had a vote there was not concensus to block so we need god arguments to overrule that. --MGA73 (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I gave it a try. I just can't argue with stuff like that:

ZooFari 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

'Pieter spent the last bloody month attacking me, then suddenly comes out with a comment about an obscure deleted image, and I'm not to presume he's once again using DR to attack me? You know what? Fuck this. I'm leaving commons. I resign as an admin, forget about uploads, have fun with your fucking troll: You just lost one of the most productive featured content contributors on Commons. I'm sure all those people who whined and complained about how we were losing Pieter's priceless DR contributions won't care a whit that I was the only damn person regularly providing high-quality historic media, because actual content contributors aren't valued, only trolls who do DRs. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment And these people blocked Kuiper for intimidating behavior and personal attacks? Ough, "Physician, heal yourself!". Trycatch (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What is your point Trycatch? That Commons will be better off loosing Adam Cuerden and keeping Pieter Kuiper? Or is it just you getting in a cheap shot? There are far too many users participating in this discussion who are advocating for a point of view and playing a Zero-sum game, which is contrary to what is good for Commons. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• My point is rather simple -- I've never have heard that Pieter Kuiper used such language & made so substanceless attacks as Adam Cuerden & Mattbuck on this page, so I wonder if these admins really have moral authority to block users for such laughable reasons as Pieter Kuiper has been blocked for. BTW you arrived slightly late, this chapter of drama is over, so I'm not going to discuss anything more in this thread. Trycatch (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  The problems involved here have nothing to do with language style, as you well know. The problem is users playing to get a win for the issues they advocate, and resulting (no matter who wins ) in a loss for Commons. Claims of having "moral authority" are frequently just a rhetorical tool, used by those who are using Commons to advocate for their issues. Please do not not play such word games. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, Malcom that is a very true insight you are having there. For this same reason a de-admin of Adam would surely fail right now. --Dschwen (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  I really don't see bad language as a problem here - it's sometimes necessary to use it to show depth of feeling. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

These noticeboard discussions can generate a lot of emotional pressure, and not everyone is good at handling that kind of pressure. Sometimes those involved say or do things they regret. I remember one time on WP:AN/I someone who was taking a lot of flack got so frustrated he blanked all the articles he had been editing. Of course that was not a good idea, and it got him indeffed, but he snapped under pressure. I think plenty of allowance needs to be taken when frustration levels are high, and not blame people for occasional venting. Hopefully Adam Cuerden will reconsider his resignation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hope so too!! Amada44  ^{talk to me} 14:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"it's sometimes necessary to use it to show depth of feeling". I do not agree that bad language is needed. We block users that attacks others like that (perhaps except if admins attack Pieter it seems). My point is that if we accept personal attacks as a way to let feelings out then we should also allow Pieter to attack admins to get his feelings out. I think it is better to talk nice to other users and give warnings and blocks to those who can not controll themselves (or at least say "sorry" very short after if not). --MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, and I would like to apologise for my language, though not the sentiment it expressed. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that Adam Cuerden used some vulgar language, but I do not see any personal attack on Pieter Kuiper. As far as I can see, not a word of it was name calling directed at anyone. It was just Adam Cuerden venting, and I do not consider that to be anything like a big deal. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Support I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again. Pieter kuiper has done excellent. He’s reported images when they haven’t been completely safe with regards to copyrights so that the images can be further examined. This is one of the most crucial aspects for Common to keep good a high quality. Pieter Kuiper has always been detailed and taken his responsibilities as a user on Commons with the utmost seriousness. It isn’t stalking that you report images that may not be copy righted on, it’s necessary if we are to have a free imagecollection here. Adam Cuerden and other users have to learn not to take a deletion requests personally. If a picture one has uploaded here gets reported, one should put forth evidence that the picture has copy rights or plead for deletion. It is the person uploading the images that should show evidence and not the one who files the complaint. All these discussions and demands of blocking Pieter Kuiper create a very bad and tense situation here and it has to end. Learn to accept that every image that is uploaded here will be looked upon.I agree with MGA73 that Adam Cuerden must end his personal vendetta/campaign against Pieter Kuiper immediately. Obelix (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem side of his copyright work is that he tends to comb through the uploads of users who have crossed him. I have experience that myself, when I disagreed with him about something...I think it was over the issue of deleting porn files. That sort of targeted accounting, of selected users, brings to mind memories of Richard Nixon's enemies list. Its a very problematic approach, and if Pieter Kuiper is going to do that sort of crap, he should expect to get some negative reactions. La vita e cosi. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I unblocked Pieter Kuiper for a reason. I gave him a chance and since then he has not repeated his actions. I did not unblock Pieter because I disagreed with the problems he has done in the past. After I unblocked him, I wrote in the old thread above that I hoped the community would not have strong reactions. Unfortunately it happened, yet I regret having to raise my tone about Adam. I did not want it to escalate to resignation of users. I simply wished that the community would accept his secondlast chance, but my wish was crushed, and as his block lifter it makes me feel guilty. People still see Pieter from the past, and therefore it's no doubt that his little actions are still looked at no different. I will repeat again that this discussion is not going to go nowhere if Pieter has done nothing wrong after his block lift. It seems to me that people are upset because the block was removed. So we either we all agree and conclude this discussion, or change the topic to ZooFari is trippin', that unblock shouldn't have happened, so let's do something about it. ZooFari 22:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

done nothing wrong after his block lift??? How about stalking and targeting his same old self-appointed "enemies" just to annoy them? How about flouting at us all that he is never going to stop that and will never be forced to????? Just like slapping faces the minute you get out of prison!!!!! Is that "nothing wrong"????? I give up! ????????? SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And the sarcastic stalking continues, thanks to all of you who think Kuiper is such a defensible bloke. I have decided, after much soul searching, to subject myself to more gut wrenching cruelty at Wikimedia Commons and stick it out here, just to see how far y'all will let Kuiper go, and how long, if for nothing else. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing sarcastic in his post, unlike yours, where you misspelled a word in your haste to criticize him for a perfectly valid if unusual spelling. Considering you neither uploaded nor created the photo, I think you're taking this a little personally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no other alternative now than to ask for a permanent block of Kuiper, and have done so. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Celcruzaga

ResolvedRfCU filled --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 13:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Celcruzaga (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user appears to be yet another incarnation of the blocked sock Everything179 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Uploads of images of Fillipino/other Asian celebrities with claims of self creation of screen shots and studio shots. Active Banana (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

CU's informed. Thanks, --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 13:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of admin buttons by User:High Contrast

See file history - this admin is using his admin buttons to get his way in a conflict. I tried to discuss, but he thinks it is a waste of time. Of course, the file description is not a Very Important Issue, it is the abuse of power buttons that is the problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I was expecting you here. Your absurd reverts to get your way in a case about a redundant naming of the author of this photograph is really waste of community time. But that is not the first time, Kuiper. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As to the issue, File:US Marines in Operation Enduring Freedom.jpg has a size of 1,600 × 1,098 pixels (file size: 235 KB). The url that User:High Contrast absurdly wants to have listed as the source links to much smaller files - clearly that does not make much sense. The url is in the source field only because of the credit line, which justifies the US-Gov license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The url is in the source field only because of the credit line, which justifies the US-Gov license => Yes, exactly and it is good like this. If you have a better source, then feel free to insert it. If this should happen within the next 23 hours, please talk to me on my talk page - in a constructive way. Thanks for your attention and I hope we can continue our good cooperation. Thank you. Ragards, High Contrast (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not the source at all, High Contrast version is highly confusing. For my taste, better to move the URL to reference. Something like "United States Marine Corps<ref>URL</ref>". Trycatch (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Or simply to the Permission field, since it's basically there only to justify the license tag. –Tryphon^☂ 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the source field should link to the actual source. That is not the case here. There's no such thing as "a better source". Either it is or it isn't the source. Rocket000 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment, I'd really like to see more constructive suggestions for resolutions and less aimless whinging on this noticeboard. (By the way, that's a constructive suggestion, not a whinge.) I happen to like the original phrasing of the information template, and I did indeed phrase it that way for the reasons stated, but indeed, it's not an important issue, and you shouldn't edit war over unimportant issues. Also, a dickish heading and a link to a file does not a discussion make. Don't provoke, and don't be provoked – that goes for everyone. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Kuiper reverted High Contrast twice [1][2], High Contrast then protected the page [3] and restored his preferred version [4]. That's unacceptable use of the tools. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong or what the correct formating is. Admins should not be using tools when they're an involved party. Take the concern to a forum for broader discussion, then we can talk about genuine Commons issues for a change instead of this unnecessary and dramatic nonsense. Эlcobbola _talk 16:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that was proceeded by me was to remove a redundant naming of the author in the "source"-field and in the "author"-field of the template. Then the citation was changed from "[1]" to the "internetlink". I was aware of the fact that the stated source is not the original one where the image came from. Kuiper decided not to accept this. Instead of that he started an edit war which I ended by protecting this file due to save wiki server traffic from this useless editing. Kuiper did not start a discussion, he only stated nonsense on my talk page: "Please look at the files before you revert". Because it is a Kuiper-typical provocation, I have reverted this nonsense from my talk page because such not very productive comments are not appreciated. That's all. Sadly Kuiper made it back to waste time again. Greetings to all, High Contrast (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

High Contrast's claim that he "was aware of the fact that the stated source is not the original one where the image came from" does not fit well with his edit summary here. So I asked him in a friendly way to look at the files. He just removed that attempt to discuss the issue, and protected the file. This is just heavy-handed behaviour - an ordinary user needs to discuss, an admin presses his power buttons. And the ordinary user is told he is editing uselessly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You follow always the same scheme: accusing others "friendlyly" with nonsense. Such heavy-handed behaviour is not purposeful. Keep it Kuiper, we all must keep up good work. There is nothing more to be said. Every word more would be wasting community time - something I do not appreciate. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I concluded from your edit summary that you were uninformed, so I tried to ask you to compare the files. How was that "heavy-handed"? But you used your power buttons... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe he asked you to take a look at the photo on the linked to page so you can see that it's not the source. Maybe that was unclear but I wouldn't call it nonsense (maybe because you judged the speaker instead of what was spoken?) Rocket000 (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not judge people beforehand. I was aware of the fact that the stated source is not the original one where the image came from. I just removed a redundant naming of the photographer - as can be seen easily. --High Contrast (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

But can you see now what Pieter was trying to do? And would you consider unprotecting the file, so that one of the solutions suggested here can be implemented? I think it would waste much less community time than continuing arguing about who was right or which of the two version is correct. Maybe a third version can make everyone happy and we can move on to something less futile. –Tryphon^☂ 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In my view, this thread appears to be more, than anything else, an effective move by Pieter to regain ground that he lost in some of the other threads involving him that can be found above this one. Doing this is probably an effective strategy, even if not an effective use of noticeboard time and effort. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This thread is about High Contrast and the question if it is ok for an admin to protect a file to win an edit conflict. Since you do not commont on that I would like to remind you that there is a section or two above where it is possible to make complaint about Pieter.

As for High Contrast and the protection I prefer that users talk about it instead of reverting over and over. I would not expect "old" users to waste time doing that. I also think that admins should be careful not to use their tools "to win" a dispute. We have Commons:Administrators' noticeboard with different subpages (+ IRC if you know how to use that) so it is easy to ask an uninvolved admin to have a look.

But I think that Tryphon is on to something - a third option that makes both happy? --MGA73 (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire. I am talking about what, in my view, is the actual purpose of this thread. The real purpose and the stated purpose are not always the same, and that is what I want to point out. Feel free to disagree with me if you think that justified, but please do not tell me that I can not say what I think this thread is actually about, or that I can not say that where I think it best to say that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, maybe not, we'll never know. I just think it's a pity we're letting this blow out of proportion, when it would have been so easy to defuse it. Even if people think there's an ulterior motive, by treating it as nothing more as a small disagreement it won't escalate. Just pretend. –Tryphon^☂ 22:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Small thing or WP:CIRCUS? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In my view, this thread appears to be more... isn't off-topic. Or if it is, so is a comment about that comment (and so is this). @Malcolm Schosha: Am I a meatpuppet for defending you? Rocket000 (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Rocket000, I can not actually understand your point, which may just be too subtle for me.

The issues of "meatpuppet", or even "sockpuppet", as usually formulated, are rather meaningless issues to me. What concerns me is the misuse of WP and Commons by editors (single or in groups) who want to use WP or Commons as a soapbox to advocate for a cause. Doing that is harmful to the core principle of the project WP:NPOV, and is behind some of the most difficult cases of edit warring.

Sockpuppets are editors who are wiki-illegal aliens. But some wiki-illegals make more constructive contributions than others who are legal inhabitants. I have tried to word this in a way that makes parallels to the issues many nations have with residents who are there without permission, but who may do good in all other respects. How you stand on this range of issues is entirely up to you.

Concerning meatpuppets, if you mean by that editors working in groups to achieve anything but WP:NPOV and inclusiveness, that is always harmful. As far as I know you are not involved anything that would undermine WP:NPOV and inclusiveness. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I was unfamiliar with the acronym WP:CIRCUS, and a quick glance at the page gave me the impression it was about meatpuppetry. Rocket000 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Skrunyak

This user uploads images with copyright-problems and removes the deletion requests.--Avron (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted his edits and warned the user not to remove the deletion requests tags until the debate has been closed. Images looks like copyvios so I'll be investigating them too. If anyone wants to help, it is welcome to do so. Thanks, --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 20:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

After being warned not to remove legitimate warnings and not to remove deletion requests tags from pages; the user still persists in his disruptive actitude by blanking again his talk page and continued removing deletion requests tags from his images. I have previously rollbacked all his DR tag removals. Because the user is accusing me of being a vandal I prefer to request his block here rather to do it myself. Please stop this user. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 22:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 day. Bidgee (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 06:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Desysop of Rama

Yesterday user:Rama seems to have gone out of control, and apparently not for the first time.

First, in an apparent fit of anger for my disagreeing with him he threatened to sue me [5], which is grounds for blocking on WP, and I suspect is here on Commons also. His saying to me that "Casting unfounded accusations borders on libel..." is a clear warning that if I continued to disagree with him that he would, in fact, sue me for libel. Noticeboard talk pages should not be used for making personal threats and threats of legal action, and Rama doing so seems a misuse of administrative authority.

Then, he blocked Mbz1 for three days, although he was at that very moment involved in an editing dispute over the categorization of an image file with her. An involved administrator blocking an editing opponent is clearly a misuse of administrative authority, because that block served his personal interests.

I think it would be in the best interests of Commons if Rama is Desysoped for misuse of his administrative authority. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate saying this but the behaviour I have seen falls short of what I would like to see (& have seen) in Commons admins sadly. However I am unsure whether a desysop request is appropriate yet. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I will not comment on Rama's conduct, it is not my call. If it were only for my own blocks, that's OK, no desysop required, but his conduct with Malcolm Schosha, and even more so with Herby sadden me a lot. I came here mostly to comment on my own conduct and apologize for it. When yesterday I wrote what I did at this very board, I should have known Rama could block me for that. Although I stand behind my words, I admit I probably should not have said them, not because of my own block, but just to avoid putting other people under fire. The worst thing I've done was my outburst at my talk page last night. I had absolutely no rights to blame anybody for not lifting my unfair block right away or for not lifting it at all for that matter. So, here's my apology to you, AFBorchert, to you Herby, to you Huib, and to all other admins, who were offended by my last night comment. Herby, please forgive me that yet another time you found yourself under attack because of my conduct. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

At one point, inside this story, I understand arguments of Rama but I suffer the same rigid attitude, very despotic in reality. This user uses status and offense very easily and is clearly closed to discussion in fact.Old user Hcrepin in a desperate of complete removal from WikiCommons

I agree with Herby, while I hate behaviour like this I would need to think good about the vote I would give, I don't know what to vote right now. But when you make a desysop please make sure you have all the facts clear. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 14:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Huib, I claim expertise in only a few areas, and a desysop request is certainly not one of those areas. I did my best. I said what seems true, and the request is something that I think is in the best interests of Commons. This was (to the best of my recollection) my only encounter with Rama, and his misuse administrative authority in this instance seemed extraordinary. I have had plenty of disagreements with other administrators, but never had even the thought of making such a complaint against any of them. In my view, Rama's misuse of administrative authority is unacceptable, is harmful to the interests of Commons, and see no reason why action should be deferred to some other time. I understand that it can be very difficult for administrators to take action against another administrator, but I believe they should do what clearly needs to be done, and do it now. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see any threats to sue, but he did say "If you do not desist from such behaviour, you shall be blocked.". As for the block of Mbz1, the block was correct, but it should probably have been left to an uninvolved admin. So far nothing that actually warrents a desysop. // Liftarn (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is how can you vote against somebody able to block you or revoke your changes :-) Not the point that Rama is necessary all the time wrong but have regularly the same manner that's justifying a blocking and refuse any evolution if putting in cause his/her own value. - Hcrepin -

I also fail to see any legal threat, merely a threat to block someone for calling people hateful because of their opinions on categorisation. I'd probably have done the same. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mattbuck, could you show me where I called "people hateful because of their opinions on categorisation", as you said I did? My recollection is that I said no such thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I'm simply saying that's my interpretation of Rama's comment. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Without weighing in on any other aspect of this, saying something "borders on libel" is not a legal threat any more than saying something "borders on a copyright violation" or "borders on child pornography." - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Stating that Rama threatened to sue is a misunderstanding at best and a flat out lie at worst. --Dschwen (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I read it as a legal threat. If you disagree with my understanding of what Rama wrote, it might be better to say that you think I am wrong, rather than calling me a liar. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And you are doing it again. Is this a pattern? I merely give a range of possibilities. You being wrong is at one end of the spectrum. --Dschwen (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Then let me rephrase it: I read it as a legal threat, as I explain further below. If you disagree with my understanding of what Rama wrote, it might be better to stop with saying that you think I am wrong, rather than continuing on to also call me a liar. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to put my discussion with Rama into full sight, I wrote:

I understand perfectly well that antisemitism is a crime in some European countries. But it is not strongly enforced anywhere. For the most part its unenforced. The image is antisemitic, and the category is justified. What I see happening is a very selective concern for legal issues. I would like to see something from WMF lawyers saying that this is actually a problem for the Foundation. Otherwise, I will continue to consider this to be just one more excuse from those who do not want such images called antisemitic because of their own personal POV.

And Rama replied:

That has nothing to do with POV; I do not claim that this image is or is not antisemitic, and I do not give a damn. Casting unfounded accusations borders on libel, is disruptive and provocative, and will not be tolerated -- period. If you do not desist from such behaviour, you shall be blocked.

He was apparently saying, in response to my "Otherwise, I will continue to consider this to be just one more excuse from those who do not want such images called antisemitic because of their own personal POV", that my words were

1. Libelous to him (with an implied threat of a law suit for libel),
2. disruptive,
3. provocative, and
4. grounds for his blocking me.

That extreme reaction to my words ("Otherwise, I will continue to consider this to be just one more excuse from those who do not want such images called antisemitic because of their own personal POV"), and his block of Mbz1 while he was involved in a dispute with her, is the reason I started this thread. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think Malcolm and Rama are perhaps mutually misunderstanding each other. I see no grounds for a desysop but would urge both parties to try to communicate better. ++Lar: t/c 10:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Rama and I understand each other pretty well. My proposal to desysop Rama is, in my view, justified; but I had no illusions that it would succeed. There is the tendency of many administrators to circle the wagons in defense of one of their own. That is understandable, but it may further reinforce the view that there is an element of favoritism at work, and that administrators sometimes place their own interests above the interests of Commons. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That last is a non-argument. It seems to me the discussion gets further and further out of scope. The scope is not about opinions or world visions. The scope is about: has there been misuse of admins rights, yes or no, and if yes, is that an unintentional misuse, incidental misuse or structural and intended misuse. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Havang, I have said what I think is correct, in a way I think makes some important points. I am not good at presenting a long arguments with multiple diffs, as is the norm arbcom cases. Perhaps this diff [6] will clarify my thinking, in the following two points:

1. In this diff I see that Rama is abusive: I don't care if it's true or not. You can add up truths and go anywhere you want just by ordering them as you want. I do not discuss whether Mbz1 was correct or not, I am discussing whether she was insulting and being a troll. Which she was., and
2. And in the same diff I see that Rama is attempting to use this site to promote views, and that he is actually trying to prevent the balanced use of categories, at least with the Latuff cartoons: Mbz1's sources are biased, scarce, and prove absolutely nothing. She bases (or rather excuses) her entire argumentation on a handful of editorials in Israeli newspapers. With that sort of sources, we could also take it as a fact that Iraq has nuclear weapons. On the other hand, there are very numerous sources, including the United Nations, that have declared the aggression against Iraq to be illegal; will you add "war crime" to the parent category, or shall I? Will we start digging Al Jazeera, anoter "WP:RS", for other idea of funny categorisations? Or will we drop the matter as needless fuel trolls? This was in a reply in which I linked to the WP article on Latuff, which has sources that are certainly WP:RS.

This ugly behavior shows, in my view, an administrator who is trying to use Commons, not for a balanced source of information, but for propaganda, and is using abusive methods to do that. Does that help with your request concerning "scope"? If not say so and I will try again to explain better. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The scope here is not about content, (discussing content is between users) but about an administrator in its administrator functions. Rama as administrator must stick to judge behavior, and not judge content. That is the meaning of his phrase <quote>I don't care if it's true or not. You can add up truths and go anywhere you want just by ordering them as you want. I do not discuss whether Mbz1 was correct or not, I am discussing whether she was insulting and being a troll. Which she was. </end of quote>. (1) I dont'care if its true or not = Rama as administrator is not judging content, correct. (2) I am discussing whether she was insulting and being a troll = Rama as administrator is judging behavoir, Ramna's task. (3) Which she was. = conclusion, basis for Rama's action as administrator. So, Rama spoke and acted correctly as adminstrator but you missed that point. I agree, it is not always possible to separate completely the administrator position and the user position, and you are focussed on content, so you bring that repeatedly in the discussion, but its out of scope. If you have a difference about content with Rama, that has to be discussed at the talk pages of the articles or categories. Here we must judge Rama as administrator. Which I do now by giving my vote:

•  Oppose desysop. --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Havang, that is absurd. What is the purpose of voting when I already said this morning that I know this will fail. I think I am right on the issue, but I knew from the beginning there was no chance. There is the usual tendency of many administrators to circle the wagons in defense of one of their own. That is understandable, but it may further reinforce the view that there is an element of favoritism at work, and that administrators sometimes place their own interests above the interests of Commons. Your vote is an absurdity. But thanks for your comments.

Tanto e inutile. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Inutile, but utile also. No desysos for the moment, but it does not mean that Rama was irreprochable. This discussion is for Rama an appeal to improve his functioning as administrator, notably that in the future in cases where he is involved in a conflict, he may leave the use of administrator tools to one of the other administrators. And for Malcolm: why not apply the principle of good faith also to administrators? They are watching each other severaly ... --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We are witnessing a disturbing pattern of people getting blocked for varieties of disruptions and claiming to have conflicts with the admins who inflict the blocks. Kuiper does that quite systematically, and Schosha has invented a conflict between me and Mbz1 to attack my block (to be fair, she did take on attacking me repeatedly afterwards to back that point, but it's one-sided and posterior).

I'd like to make a statement about this:

• I believe is very important that, in real life, law enforcement forces be held accountable and stick to procedures.
• Wikipedia and Commons are not real life: if someone doesn't like it here, he can just go somewhere else, which is not something you can reasonable expect about real life; on Wikimedia projects, we do not have the same time scale; etc.
• Nevertheless, I am rather favourable to having standards and accountability for the administrative corps and other corps that could be seen as invested with authority (I believe that the idea that admins are invested with particular authority is mostly mistaken, but still, Caesar's wife and all that jazz)
• BUT: if we are heading in that direction, it means that we do need to have standards, real ones -- not ad hoc complains from the very offenders and their meat puppets; they must be written clearly, firmly, and preferably not by known trolls to custom-tailor their needs; it means that admins must be able to know what they can and cannot do, and have confidence that they will be protected and defended efficiently when they stick by the book; it means that we do not tolerate offenders trying to generate artificial or a posteriori conflicts to disqualify the particular admins who deal with their offences. Police accountability cannot come without the possibility to make arrests for wasting police time. If "admin accountability" only means "backlash against admins", we'll simply give a free reign to trolls; I believe that this is an even less desirable situation than informally relying on the good judgement of selected trusted people.

Rama (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We have rather clear rules for editors, and that doesn't seem to help very much on any of the projects, so I'm not hopeful about adding clear rules for admins to be any different.

The problem is that some people are just taking things WAY too personal and get way too attached to their viewpoints and their commitments to defend those viewpoints within the project, even when it is clearly not gonna become consensus. That is fine and everything, this is an open place, but at some point people are tipping towards becoming disruptive. Disruptive behavior is disruptive behavior and admins should block for it. Blocked people will complain, because that is what they do. That doesn't make the block incorrect. If you cannot understand that you are taking something from argumentative towards disruption, (which due to our rather liberal discussion places, where we let a lot slide, arguably can be a thin line), then that is where the problem lies. I really didn't see much of a problem in this specific block, though perhaps Rama should have distanced himself a bit more, but I know the feeling. Rama warned, someone figured he could be cute/provocative about it, people get hurt, people complain. Such is life. TheDJ (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is all beside the point, Rama, if you are not citing the policy, or "procedure" in your words, that exists when you do what you do. Trycatch's comment stamped 22:33 on 5 August 2010 cited some policy to justify another decision of yours. This is an example of what could be done. Instead you get talking about how other editors are "wasting your time" and engaging in "childish" behavior and this just antagonizes people. I don't think the "law enforcement" analogy is applicable here. Admins/sysops are more administrators and facilitators such that your references to "my judgement" should really be avoided since it really should just be acting on behalf of the community's judgement. Anyway, this desysop request is like asking for a doctor with a nasty bedside manner to be dismissed. It is not going to be seriously considered if the doctor is still competent in diagnosing and treating but it ought to be cause for a rethink about how to soothe instead of inflame.Bdell555 (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any comment made by Rama where they said they were going to "sue", nor do I see abuse of Admin tools that require desysop-ing. Fact is all I see if allegations which are from misunderstandings by two editors and I agree with TheDJ's comments. Life is too short. Bidgee (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee, even if I were to concede, just for the sake of this argument, that Rama did not intend a legal threat; what he obviously did say is still enough to justify that he be desysoped. The edit by Rama in question was as follows

That has nothing to do with POV; I do not claim that this image is or is not antisemitic, and I do not give a damn. Casting unfounded accusations borders on libel, is disruptive and provocative, and will not be tolerated -- period. If you do not desist from such behaviour, you shall be blocked.

So it is clear that he did threatened to block me. For what? There are only two possibilities, based on my comments that he was responding to he was threatening to block me either for saying

1. "The image is antisemitic, and the category is justified." Or,
2. "What I see happening is a very selective concern for legal issues. I would like to see something from WMF lawyers saying that this is actually a problem for the Foundation. Otherwise, I will continue to consider this to be just one more excuse from those who do not want such images called antisemitic because of their own personal POV."

If it was the first, it is clear from discussion on this page that (despite his claims to the contrary) he has argued throughout that the image must not be labeled antisemitic. In that case he was using his administrative authority to enforce his own editing goals. That is something that an administrator should do.

If the second, he was threatening to block me for saying that he has a POV. Is that a blockable offense? I think not. And if it is, would it be proper for the administrator involved to do the blocking? Again, I think not. The fact is that WP assumes that all editors have a POV [7], and that if an issue is controversial that balancing the various POVs will result in a neutral result. So if Rama was using threats to suppress a potentially balancing view point, then he was using his administrative authority to inforce his own editing goals. That, again, is something an editor should not do. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The best that could be said for Rama's edit (above), in which he excuses all of his problematic behavior, is that it is a revolting example of self glorification and excuse making. Particularly in the last paragraph I see a series accusations, apparently directed against me and Mbz1, that are supported by nothing. That paragraph includes a broad range of such accusations, such as

1. ad hoc complains from the very offenders and their meat puppets,
2. known trolls,
3. offenders trying to generate artificial or a posteriori conflicts to disqualify the particular admins who deal with their offences,
4. give a free reign to trolls.

Rama has completely ignored Havang's comment: "This discussion is for Rama an appeal to improve his functioning as administrator, notably that in the future in cases where he is involved in a conflict, he may leave the use of administrator tools to one of the other administrators." Instead he has placed all the blame on the user he offended the most, and none of the blame on himself. Considering that self-justification, there is no reason to expect that anything will change in Rama's behavior, at least not for the better. Rather more of the same, and worse seems likely. I think to regrettable that administrators refuse to desysop Rama now because he has made it clear in his comments above that he has no intention of changing.

I would appreciate it if Rama would either back up his accusation of "meat puppet" with something to support it, or apologize. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you take those points to be accusations towards yourself, says enough. They were points about what sysops have to deal with, and thus what such rules (that you were demanding) for sysops would have to deal with. They exemplify that having clear rules for sysops will have to provide some leeway for 'force' and 'authority', because an anonymous contributor with enough time on his hands will otherwise always have the advantage. Basically what Rama is saying, is that stricter and more clear rules for sysops will mean stricter and more clear rules for editors as well, or otherwise we will truly have wild west territory. TheDJ (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting example of administrators circling the wagons, going on defensive posture, instead of dealing with the problems. (I do not know why you made the comment about administrative rules here, because I have not said anything on the subject in this thread, or elsewhere. In fact I doubt that more rules will resolve problems such as this with Rama.)Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ready to support desysopping, but it does seem Rama causes quite a bit of trouble on the noticeboards. Similar to Herby I'd like to see some improvement in this user's on-wiki behavior. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Support desysop. Rama is prone to issuing arbitrary blocks on his own whim, see for example User:Hcrepin. He refuses to respect Foundation policy on {{PD-Art}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  Oh, what a surprise, having had Rama agree with your block, suddenly you reopen a dead request to see him desysopped. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  You apparently agree that Rama is using his blocking powers irresponsibly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  I grant that I felt the block was overzealous, but if it weren't for the fact I want Mbz1 to defend her image I'd have just left it there. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  In the evidence you showed, Rama replaced a license in one of his own pictures. He acted as a contributor and didn't use sysop tools. --Dereckson (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Support desysop. I have explained my reasons in this section, and more of my thinking on the subject can be found in other sections also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• It does not matter whether Malcolm Schosha's accusations of LEGAL were right or wrong. What I can clearly see from this diff is an irritation that borders with rudeness. Rama is obviously at the breaking point and that is why I support speedy desysop. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 16:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  Does Wikimedia Commons have to vocation to prevent breaking points? Is Commons a psychiatric hopital or a media repository? Are we psys or free media contributors? --Dereckson (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  At least Commons is not Sharashka, you know. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 19:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

*Support for anti-Semitic comment made on English wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• • You know, I'm a Jew, and I can't say his remarks there look so much anti-Semitic as clumsy and insensitive. In any case, though, even if I grant your accusation of anti-Semitism & say I probably wouldn't want to hang out with the guy, that is neither here nor there in terms of his qualifications as a Commons administrator. I'm sure that many Commons administrators hold opinions on one or another topic that I would find execrable. Normally, the only reason to remove someone as an administrator is that the person is abusing the admin tools. - Jmabel ! talk 05:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • No, I did not know you are a Jew. I believe the remark is anti-Semitic, and rama has abused the tools many times as it is seen from this thread. I also believe that all administrators should be neutral. So I believe he deserves to be desysoped, but you know what, who cares? I stricken my comment out. I believe rama is a bad administrator, but whatever....--Mbz1 (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cross-wiki sockpuppeteer

Hi. Just wanted to give you guys a heads up that you're being hit by a Wikipedia sockpuppeteer with a history of completely ignoring copyright policies: en:User:Amir.Hossein.7055. You've had your own problems with him (User talk:Amir.Hossein.7055), and I see that you've bagged one of his socks: DemocraticIranWeNeed. Verysomenotes (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) is still running around (CU confirmed at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055). I do not know, but would not be surprised if he has some Flickr-washing going on, but beyond that he's creating his own template (Template:PD-IRN) and using it to justify images like File:President Ahmadinejad in Qatar.jpg. The only thing I see about "national heritage" in the Iranian copyright law is "Original works based on folklore and national heritage of culture and arts." Is a photograph of some men "national heritage"? Who says so? His uploads and especially his rationales may bear some investigation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Amir.Hossein.7055 is stale, but all the rest are Confirmed socks of one another and have been  blocked. I will let others take a look at the accounts uploads. Tiptoety ^talk 17:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There's definite evidence of flickr washing, though I don't know if he's in on it or victimized by it. [8], uploaded to Flickr 9/7/2010, is pre-published (the tineye match is smaller, but includes elements cropped out of the final). We have it in three pieces: File:Estili.jpg; File:Ali Daie.jpg and File:Afshin Ghotbi.jpg. (It's also uploaded at File:Afshin-ghotbi-2.jpg by Milad Mosapoor (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions): coincidence, or undisclosed sock?) While cropped, this version of the image claims a news agency. (Other images uploaded at Flickr by that account are obviously flickr washing: [9]; possibly taken from this website; [10] was taken from [11].)

Some of his other images look legit, but worth checking out are File:Parliament of Iran2.jpg, File:Parliament of Iran1.jpg, and File:President Ahmadinejad in Qatar.jpg which he has declared with his very own template are PD because they are "expropriated as national heritage".

He's also uploaded a postage stamp (as GFDL/CC) and various images of money: File:QAR.jpg, File:500_QAR_reverse.gif, File:500 QAR obverse.jpg, File:100 QAR reverse.jpg, File:100 QAR obverse.jpg. Obviously the license on the stamp is wrong, but is the money PD?

Should I open a deletion discussion on these, or is there sufficient concern for a tool-user to take action? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could take a look at User:Nima.afroozi‎. Back on Sept 8 a user with the same user-name, en:User:Nima.afroozi‎ has been blocked on en-wiki as a sock en:User:Amir.Hossein.7055. Here, at Commons User:Nima.afroozi‎ yesterday uploaded File:Ghotbi.jpg. The file is an obvious copyvio - at the source flckpage[12] the license is specified as "All Rights Reserved". Nsk92 (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 06:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And another likely sock User:Amir hossein alvandi has just popped up and started uploading images of the same subjects that several previous socks did in the last few days. Nsk92 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked since it is clearly a duck. Bidgee (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed. --Martin H. (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:CGPGrey

He is using categories like Category:Animals in connection with protests against the actual visit of the pope. Nonsense in my opinion. I gave a hint on his discussion page. Please have a look if he will stopp it. --4028mdk09 (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just the Flickr tool. No need to report the user here. Multichill (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

98.26.86.195 (talk · contribs)

In last two days, this user vandalized several description pages of images from Flickr. He claims they are his images and not released under CC-BY. User:Túrelio tried to discuss, unsuccessfully. Please check copyrights and avoid next vandalisms. --ŠJů (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. They have other means to raise this rather then vandalise/disrupt Commons. Bidgee (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:سبأ

I have just deleted nearly a hundred files uploaded User:سبأ that were obvious scans from printed material (books or magazines). The user has a huge list of other deleted uploads and one block logged for uploading unfree files. User also has a repeated history of just blanking talk page when questioned about copyrights [13] [14] [15] [16] (sample only!).

Time for a permanent block? Should all the user's other uploads be deleted as highly suspicious?

Note that any effective communication with the user requires a Farsi speaker (which I am not!) - MPF (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Toniliciousz

Among the users first edits are a statement "we have a multiply.com account" and then an upload of an image from a TV show make me concerned that the image may be a copyright screen shot and not one taken by the individual from the audience for which he would have the ability to release copyright. Active Banana (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The image has been deleted as a copyvio and the user page has been deleted per COM:ADVERT. Bidgee (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Naxoshk

I'm a bit concerned about the recent uploads from Naxoshk. It appears to be a Naxos representative (assuming good faith), but even so, do they have the rights to re-license these uploads? Have they confirmed through OTRS or anything like that? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS permission is needed from the copyright owner since the recordings are copyrighted. I have marked all files with {{No permission since}}. Bidgee (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Castellónenred (talk · contribs)

Please see file history of File:Bus-11.png and other images in this category. I tried to warn him on his discussion page but he probably doesn't understand English, only Spain and Catalan.

Btw. it is a very frequent mistake of Commons users that they overwrite images instead of uploading under new name and changing links in articles. Can somebody create an international warning template to explain the right method for such cases? Can somebody insert a more strong warning into the re-upload dialog? --ŠJů (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Dont overwrite}} is available in 16 languages, including Spanish. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Martin H.

See revision history and File talk:Acción de la Standard Oil.png. This is about the second upload by a newbie. The image is free, and Martin H. knows this well enough. Yet he tags it, threatening with deletion, and leaves an harassing message on uploader's talk page without any good reason. And when I remove his tag, he starts edit warring instead of taking the issue to an ordinary DR. Which is a perennial problem with this user. I propose a block of a day for harassing newbies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not the second upload by a newby. The user also uploaded Treize Khushrenada.jpg, Winthrop Rockefeller.png, David Rockefeller.png, Luis Fernández.png and Mirla Castellanos.gif with the claim that he creted this stolen files entirely himself. Instead of nuking all his uploads I kept File:Acción de la Standard Oil.png because someone will be able to fix it, it is likely public domain. So it would be more appreciated if you fix this file instead of vandalizing and complainting that I kept this trash upload but not fixed it myself. --Martin H. (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Martin H. is right, it's not own work in any sense of these words, the picture was taken from this site. It's the duty of the uploader to provide their source, nobody else should google it all over the web. Trycatch (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The url was not important at all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree with Pieter that it is important to help newbies. If we "spank" them too hard they will go away and we might lose good contributers. However this user also uploaded a few copyvios so adding a warning on the user talk is ok. We have been discussing {{Nsd}} before. I think that it should ONLY be used if there is no source at all. If user claims own work I think it is better to leave a note to user or start a DR. I do not think that a block is needed it is better to ask Martin if he would please give newbies a little more help. --MGA73 (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment NS is widely used for bad source. Should we create a new template for bad sources? And I don't think that putting a DR onto all those copyvios which come in every day with own as a bogus source is a reasonable option. Just try and do the work Martin H. does for a few days and you'll see. Also the 'being nice to (copyvio) newbees' will quickly find some limits. I think this needs some discussion because many people use it for that and Pieter keeps reverting them (mostly without stating why). I think we should start a discussion on Village Pump if we a) use NS for bad sources, b) create a new tag or c) put a DR onto all of them. I find it rediculous when Pieter comes in saying 'so you don't trust the source? put a DR to it' where its obvious that the image can't be 'own'. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 19:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We have many users that makes mistakes with "own". We even have "many" admins taking a photo of a statue etc. and claiming "own" even if they did not create the statue. So it can be confusing and therefore I think that we should help the new users. The amount of work should not make us forget that.

I think that a new template or a modification would be nice. Perhaps make it possible to add a reason "|The work is from 18xx so I doubt that uploader made it" or a "|The works shows a statue. I doubt that uploader made the statue" etc. But perhaps we should discuss that somewhere else. --MGA73 (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Careful about making blanket statements like claiming "own" even if they did not create the statue, {{Own}} work is legitimate/legal for photographs of statues where the statue is displayed in a public place, granted there are as many where it isnt and theres others with differing laws depending on whether its the primary focus or an incidental element of the photograph. Where there is reason to question due to doubt about any claims of authorship the person with the doubt has three options depending on how certain they are, ask the uploader, DR, Speedy(either/delete) having a translatable tags for each general situation is good solution as one size doesnt and cant fit all. Gnangarra 02:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• See now also http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Galeazzo_Ciano-473_%28PD-old%29.jpg&curid=10229555&action=history - this is about the last remain photograph in Category:Media without a source as of 10 May 2010, the oldest category in Category:Media without a source - no admin has been willing to delete it, despite that tag sitting there for months. Martin H. is edit warring over removal of the tag, yet does not want to make an ordinary DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Point to your own direction. You are changing license information without knowing anything about this image. Faking of license information, Pieter, is not appreciated. You are removing the tag that indicates that there is no source without any edit comment. Vandalizing our wiki, Pieter, is not appreciated. You are making strange requirements for me that I must open a deletion discussion... must I? I have no legal relation to the file so I must do nothing. Additionally the file fails the source requirements of Commons:Licensing obviously. And keep in mind that it was likely me who reduced the size of that old category to one remaining file - I can however not fix or delete this file. Again you try to blame someone for working, also not appreciated. --Martin H. (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
    • If this tag is not removed, it will be deleted by an admin cleaning out of of the May entries in mass deletion. I did research - such photos normally do not have a name attached to it. A book about Galeazzo had a list of photos with credits - none of those a name, just image collections. And that is because such photos are not protected in Italy anyway - no reason for bylines or to keep records. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
      • • Thats no evidence that this photo in question was published anonymously as you claim. Also a source is still missing, so no reason to remove the tag. With this little/no information this file is not ok to uploaded to Commons. Its not understandable why we start to invent information based on no evidences to not exclude something that should never be included (and that is preserved in it.wp anyway). --Martin H. (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• outside view, what I see is an image apparently sourced via it.wikipedia its therefore not unreasonabe for the uploader not know the actual source. The licensing of PD-old specifies life of the author plus 70 years. the alternative {{Anonymous-EU}} also requires Always mention where the image comes from, as far as possible, and make sure the author never claimed authorship. 6/7 months on the source hasnt been identified so we cant be sure that either of these apply. If we are to make an assumption its unlikey that the photographer died between 1936 and 1939 to make death +70 valid, while the image was taken in 1936 we need to know it was published before dec 1939 for the annon template to be valid... Both options require a source to verify the license, without it it should be deleted or returned to it.wiki if they have alternative license options like en has fair use. Its been here long enough(longer than most) without the source being addressed we are obliged with a lack of evidence to the contary to assume that the image is not freely. Gnangarra 12:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I started the DR for you all. Why start an edit war when it only takes 10 seconds to start a DR? I really do not see the need of making a big problem out of this? We have enough work to do and we do not need discussions at COM:AN over a simple issue that belongs in a DR. Please put the arguments in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Galeazzo Ciano-473 (PD-old).jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Asdxczcv (talk · contribs)

This user should be blocked, and his "contributions" should most likely be hidden. –Tryphon^☂ 09:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked the attack account even before I read your message. --99of9 (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to hide them as far as I am concerned. Or you can also censor Mattbuck's statements about me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I've now hidden them anyway (before I read this). --99of9 (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, and I appreciate it, but as shown here, incivility by an admin is setting a poor example. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Potential libel is categorically different from incivility. I agree that admins should not be incivil, but as far as I recall there was an apology for that from mattbuck. Anyway, that was disussed at length, and is not the topic here. --99of9 (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Tapex

Is a CORPNAME of Tapioca Express (http://www.tapiocaexpress.com/) and has been blocked on En as such. Has also uploaded several images that appear to be copyvios.--ukexpat (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Pieter Kuiper defense league

I have left Commons over trolling by Pieter CKuiper. Whemn I saw he had been blocked, I thought it might be a sign that there was hope yet that I could return.

No, if one of the dozens of files he was edit warring over is protected, he gets a free unblock. Again.

Last time, MgA72 tried to get me prevented from talking about Pieter after he began stalking my deletion log. Pieter uses DR to harass, he's been very open about it: Immediately after having an unblock declined by Havang, he came out with this.

We've also seen that Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Mbz1 a comment that might offend Kuiper - note "comment" is singular - will result in a block.

The only defense of Pieter's actions ever provided is that he does too much good work at DR to be blocked. This ignores the numbers of people he drives off Commons, who don't harass people, stalk them, and otherwise troll in addition to said work. For he is Commons' worst troll, because he has complete immunity to any consequences.

It's time we identify who we're losing. If you refuse to edit Commons while he's still around, put your name here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

People boycotting Commons over the Pieter situation

• Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A comment on someone's talk page that not only is a personal attack, but an attempt to restart an long-standing edit-war should always get a block. It doesn't matter whose talk page it is. I'm appalled by the number of people who let their personal sympathies one way or the other blind them to that point.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Pieter's entire modus operandi is reopening long-standing disputes he has with others. And he gets unblocked by his supporters every time.

There's no point saying "people should always get blocked for that" when the point of bringing it up is that Pieter has done it over and over and over and always got easy unblocks for it, but anyone who's on the opposite side to him has the block stick. You cannot say that one side of the dispute should be blocked because that's right and proper while ignoring that the other side is improperly getting no such sanctions. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This should not be about sides. If you had brought forth a similar edit from Kuiper, I would have asked that he be blocked for it, too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this diff could arguably be an understandable act of provocation, and the previous 'attack' had provoked it. Or maybe it was just 'educational'? cygnis insignis 20:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I think this is a waste of time since we just had a discussion that ended with NOT blocking Pieter. If you want to edit Commons feel free but I think it is a bad idea to come back with threats and anger. Just before you left there was a debate weather you should still have the admin tools. That debate stopped when you "left". If your first actions when you come back is this I'm sure the debate will start again. --MGA73 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This discussion were before Pieter is blocked again, by Adambro, as he were “continuing to edit war over Latuff image categorisation”. --Dereckson (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I agree and sympatize 100% with Cuerden. Kuiper stalks people he dislikes to pick fights and to be intentionally cruel to them. He has done this so much and so long that it is known to lots of us. Common(s) knowledge by now. The more people that support him, the worse he behaves. He shows off his power to be uncivil at Commons as practically unlimited. This is a poor reflection on his supporters and defenders, and they can hardly, rationally expect to be immune to criticism for it. Whatever amount of good work he does is absolutely irrelevant as compares to the amount of users he offends, all of whom have good reason to be offended and to complain about it as often and as LOUDLY as they please. All of Kuiper's victims need support, not more cruelty from other users in what looks more and more like his ready rat pack. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a question. Are you calling users that does not support a block of Pieter for en:Rats? --MGA73 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No. That's not what I wrote, in English. There is a big difference between an honest opinion, about what something looks like to someone, and a nasty accusation of that kind. Please try harder not to read any cruelty into what I wrote! I am very concerned about how this all looks, and about the reputation of Wikimedia Commons, as well as our working climate here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How is the working climate improved by your attacks on anyone who disagrees with you on this subject? You have made a habit of abusing me, and it's starting to really annoy me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing Good that you did not mean it like that. I tried to understand what you meant and I looked up en:Rat pack to see if there was an other meaning that did not mean rats. Perhaps you should avoid to talk about what "someone" might think or how it "could could look" like and write what you think.

As a user that is concerned about the climate what do you think of the heading "The Pieter Kuiper defense league"? Do you think that it will do any good to use a heading like that? I'm sure that if I started a debate with a heading "The whining admin league" the debate would get a bad start. I think it is a good idea to comment on the case/subject/the actions and not the users.

I would like to end this debate with your comment "Please try harder not to read any cruelty into what I wrote!". I think it is a good comment. If everyone here on Commons would read that comment and think about it more often Commons would be a better place. Also when it comes to Pieter and the edits he does. --MGA73 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am going to repeat, as cordially as I can, that we all have the right to our opinions and to state them anywhere, as long as we remain civil. I have an opinion as to how this looks, and it looks very bad in my opinion. I would truly, sincerely, heartily be glad if I could change it. Some of you seem to want me to change my opinion about Pieter Kuiper, but without ever once ever having seen the slightest scrap of evidence, from you or anyone else, that could lead any reasonable person to believe that he will ever change his extremely antagonistic behavoir. That's not going to work, no matter how willing I actually am to change it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We all have the rights to our opinions. We do not have the right to express our opinions whereever or whenever we want. Repeated badgering on a subject has a habit of annoying the hell of people, and is likely to be considered uncivil. Accusing people of forming a cabal against you also is a good way of making people ignore you and be annoyed at your accusations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is it please? Are you going to "ignore" me or "be annoyed" on behalf of yourself and of "the hell of people" (which I'm not sure what it is)? You only read the first sentence of what I wrote, or else you don't care the slightest about my sincere good intentions here. You just skip over that and go on badgering me with disagreeable comments. And who said I think there is a "cabal" against me? I certainly didn't. I said there are several editors that appear to want to defend Pieter Kuiper at any cost. That's what this discussion is about, I believe. Please do ignore me, unless you can show me anything at all that would give a reasonable person any reason to believe in good faith on the part of Pieter Kuiper and his habitual behavior! I would love to. Read what I write or don't bother to argue! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh please.

There are no leagues or cabals or whatever. Nobody is organised. It just happens that we, admins, as a corps, are even more vulnerable to disorganisation than small and loose groups of dedicated militants.

What we have here are a tiny handful of far-left-wing people with an axe to grind, and a tiny handful of far-right counterparts who have the opposite axe to grind (or "radical left/right" or whatever, I don't care). Some admins will have a tendency to sympathise with either group, but that doesn't make a collusion. If there are collusions, it's the temporary alliances of the far-right and the far-left against non-lunacy that you can observe when somebody starts beating both groups of extremists at the same time; it's natural, they love to hate each others, and they are much less a threat to each others than somebody trying to alter or destroy their cosy ecosystem. They live in hatred, filth, defamation; that's what provides the atmosphere they need to dream themselves as heroes of anti-nazism.

Problem is: between these extremist groups, you have a vast majority of normal people who are actually here to do useful work. A few weeks ago there were quite epic battle here and I started wondering whether my own efforts to quieten both extremist groups did not generate most of the trouble themselves, so I removed COM:ANU from my watchlist. What do we see on this page now? Pieter Kuiper and Mbz1 all over the place. And they have generated incidents of various sorts in the past week. Fact is, even if you try to avoid them, shut your hears and eyes and see no evil, they are all over the place. By contrast, there has been a discussion about Latuff's images on the Village Pump, with amazingly disciplined and courteous exchanges, given the volatile subject; surprise, surprise, that happens when the figureheads of these extremists groups are all blocked.

There are no conspiracies or supporting groups. There are only people who are not familiar with the case yet, and get fooled by tricks, tactics and procedural niceties of the extremists. That won't last forever. Kuiper got himself indefed already, and had it not been for nobody daring to formally deny his unblock request, we'd be rid of him now. It's not the Right against the Left, it's the far-whatever united to make the lives of normal people miserable, preying on them to generate the conflicts that feed their fantasies. The vast majority of people who want to do honest work cannot be fooled forever. All we need to hasted the issue is discipline, unity and resolution. Rama (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But if you are including me as any kind of a political extremist I am absolutely not one. If I am an extremist at all, though I too fail at times, it is on civility, and about all of us trying to treat each other the way we'd like to be treated ourselves. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

When Pieter nominated one of your files for deletion you said "he is evil" (perhaps not excactly these words) but you ignore that several other users woted "delete" because there really was a problem with the file.

You treat others how you wish they treat you? It seems to me that you uses every opportunity to tell how bad and evil Pieter is. Do you really want Pieter to do the same to you?

So if you really want to "get along" with Pieter perhaps you should start by fixing own mistakes first. If he points out one of your mistakes and you agree then fix them and learn. If you do not agree that it is a mistake tell him why without telling that he is evil. If others agree that you did make a mistake then accept it and fix it. If others agree that you did not make a mistake then be happy. If Pieter keeps telleng that you made mistakes and other users keep telling that they agree with you then Pieter is stalking and then we can block.

I and many users do not like the idea of blocking Pieter for being right and finding copyvios and other mistakes. Martin H also finds a lot of copyvios and I'm sure that many users think that he is evil and he is stalking them. But we do not care because Martin does a good work finding copyvios. Pieter also finds many problems but sometimes the timing is bad (good work - bad timing). That is why it is so hard to find a concensus. If you do not like Pieter it is almost always possible to go back in time and say "Oh he made this because he does not like that I (or some user) did that. That makes it a revenge and therefore he is evil.". Some weeks ago a user thought than admin was involved in a case because the admin had made some edits 1½ year before. Well if we can go back more than one year then it is always possible to find a connection and then you can always find a reason to conclude that Pieter is evil.

To end this long comment I would like to say that I agree with Rama. There is no leagues etc. We just happen to disagree on some issues. Some time ago many users on Commons even disagreed with Jimbo. Just for fun you could check some old edits and see if there is not some issues where you agree with Pieter. --MGA73 (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing No, you're not one of the bad ones. You're one of the decent people. And you're human, and it's human to doubt, get angry, make mistakes. Just try to to get manipulated by the scum, they don't deserve that pleasure. Rama (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! - the editor before you would like to see me leave Commons for good, or else he/she wouldn't keep misquoting me and accusing me falsely of writing horrrible things. We are discussing behavior here, not work, I believe? Kuiper has treated me for a very long time and on three projects the way he apparently wants to be treated himself now, so that's exactly what I'm doing. I have never in my long life called any individual "evil", no matter the argument. I have never criticized anybody's work here in any uncivil manner, so anybody who refuses to discuss Kuiper's habituallly and incorrigibly uncivil behavior - which is what this particular discussion is about - is wasting our time, yours mine and everyone else's. Oh, and I don't get manipulated very easily, I want to hope. But it won't be long till I've had it here if these kinds of barbs continue to be leveled at me (and often in such poor "English" that you can only sense how bad the insults are intended to be). Sickening. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You say I "want you to leave Commons for good" and that I "misquoting me and accusing me falsely of writing horrrible things". I asked you if you called other users rats and you asume that I have the goal to get you to leave Commons. Well I don't I just wanted to know how I should understand your comment "rat pack". That is the problem when you/someone try to find out what the reason behind a action is. So if Pieter starts a DR on a file is he trying to get a copyvio deleted? Is he stalking? Does he hate jews? Does he want to ruin Commons? We do not know. You asume he has an evil purpose and once you have decided that an user is evil it is easy to find evidence supporting that view. When I comment in his favor you asume I also have an evil purpose. To make it short: My message in all this is that it is important to get copyvios deleted - even if users do not like to see "own files" nominated for deletion. Some of his DR's may be a sort of a pay back but who says that all of his edits are stalking? --MGA73 (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

So the fact that other users feel you're being uncivil is dismissible then? Criticizing other's English is generally abusive behavior, and given that you can't be arsed to use a spellchecker, a bit hypocritical.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

MGA's comments show both poor judgement and a notable ability to ignore the actual substance of disputes. As I said at the start, Pieter has used DR to openly attack admins whoo deny him unblocks minutes after they do it - complete with copious personal attacks; and has shown willing endlessly try to fight the same battles at DR, even after the community say there's no merit to his complaints - if he dislikes the person.

Further, he very aggressively uses DR to attack others. Indeed, while blocked, he even took the example above to directly attack Havang for blocking him on Commons on Swedish Wikipedia.

This behaviour is not the harmless and noble search for copyvio that MGA would have you believe - it is a malicious and systemic series of attacks on anyone who disagrees with him, hiding behind the most transparent possible of pretexts - and in those links, he isn't even trying.

Are we to seriously believe, given Pieter's actions and constant personal attacks mixed in with the DR sequence, that he is actually a neutral layer here? Are we not to use the evidence of him clearly trolling in those situations, and instead endlessly assume good faith anew every time he does the same damn thing again? No, he is a troll, a<nd those who support his trolling by pretending it's a harmless, neutral search are just as guilty as him.

I would go so far as to say that MGA's actions in this situation, including asking for those who complain about Pieter to be topic banned from talking about them, as he simultaneously repeats the well-documented trollign behaviour against them, amounts to such a serious lack of judgement that they cannot be trusted with sysop powers. MGA's consistent belittling of anyone who complains about Pieter, in the face of well-documented evidence, is the very picture of a defense league. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Hey, a quick reminder, here: I'm one of the good guys, and you're on my side" (DCI Gene Hunt).

Adam, please, calm down. Nobody is trying to help Pieter destroy Commons. Why would one? We all have different sensitivities. You are incensed by Pieter's provocations, and you have your reasons for that; MGA73 thinks that Pieter does some good work on the DRs, and I respect that assessment. And I think Pieter does a shitty job at best when he tries to pose as a contributor, and I utterly despise his fantasies of being some sort of Robin Hood, his histrionic provocations, and the way he relishes conflict for the sake of it.

Point is: we'll all agree that Pieter relies on provocations. When someone tries to provoke you, you stay calm, that'll annoy them.

And we'll also agree that previous attempts to ban Kuiper have failed because they were just premature enough that some wanted to still give the benefit of the doubt. So value MGA's assessment for that: when he says he's have it, the case will most probably be watertight at last. You don't want to give the impression that you're after Pieter because you dislike the man rather than his behaviour. Be it only because obsessing on one troll might make you miss the others. Rama (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I came to Commons for other reasons - wholly and soully - than to try to figure out and remember how to stay calm so as to annoy Pieter Kuiper if he provokes me. Rama, it's very clear though that you mean well... SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean, first of all, to let nothing spoil the fun, pleasure and pride of contributing to a great project; that keeps me in perspective and makes me happier. And then again, I'm not pink fluffy; I know that there are also real disciplinary problems here, and I believe they are much better solved in cold blood than in excitement and exasperation. Try it. I'm not saying that to pacify you, but to have your energy invested efficiently. Rama (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Carbenium

Hi, please check some of the edits by User:Carbenium on October 6, 2010 (around 17:39 to 18:16) referring to Category:Planetenweg Uetliberg-Felsenegg, and before on July 7, referring to images in Category:Sunrise Tower (that edit p.e.). Those edits by User:Carbenium usually are claimed to be: “removed Pictures in "other versions"-Section: This section is only for adaptions / edits of *the same image* and NOT for other images with the same motive (this are CATEGORIES for)”. Thank you, 84.75.160.122 18:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think, this IP-user didn't get the purpose of the "other versions"-section and someone else should explain them to him/her. One of the affected files has been already semi-protected on my request because of an edit war by exactly this IP user. Regards, Carbenium (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you can use "other_versions" that way. There's no rule saying you can't. I've seen a lot of people do things like that. It's not something to edit-war over, IMO. Rocket000 (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, check the description of {{Information}}. It says: "links to files with very similar content or derived files;". And very similar doesn't mean just the same motive or another motive with an aspect of the main file, otherwise it ends up with something stupid like this one. It's not the meaning of this section to replace galleries or/and categories. And the fact that a lot of people are doing it the wrong way, doesn't make it more correct. And if an author of pictures wants to collect all of his works in one one place, he can create a gallery on his user page or a category named after him. --Carbenium (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Here is an example where this section is used in the way it's meant. --Carbenium (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I can change that description right now if I wanted to. I'm going by actual practice, not an interpretation of some sentence in the template's documentation. And the fact that you say it's one way and not the other doesn't make it more correct. Rocket000 (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If all the time someone alteres rules to fit his personal opinions, there would be chaos, huh? I think, this rule is based on a consensus and it reads as it reads. Any further interpretation is noting but an interpretation. If you begin to interprete consensus rules with such a broad range of meanings and not (if possible) by word, there also will be chaos and the commons:policies finally are getting sense- and worthless. Please deliver real arguments or we shold better hear another statement. Your opinion is not representative, as the page protection by user:Tiptoety shows. Please don't be polemic/drastic/whatsoever ("hell", "alter rules"), because it's not helpful since that doesn't lead to a solution. --Carbenium (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. But I just want to say: template documentation is not policy or guideline and may or may not represent consensus. Rocket000 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and @Rocket000, thank you for your statement. As i do not plan further statements referring to that matter and asked here to avoid an edit-war, please kindly take notice that User:Carbenium started on 00:31 8 October 2010, referring to the (quite) same matter, and claiming vandalism, at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism the topic File:Albis - Planetenweg*. Thanky you for taking notice and best regards, 84.75.160.122 04:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would support Rocket000's interpretation of the template here and would ask Carbenium to do two things: stop imposing their extremely narrow interpretation of the template onto others, and secondly stop trying to turn other's use of this into a claimed "vandalism war". I think you're wrong on the first, albeit not unreasonably, but your behaviour on the second is disruptive and harmful without any justification.

Personally I often use this parameter to link related images, often not even of the same subject. I would be most unhappy for Carbenium to start changing those uses. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, did you follow the link to the golden-Gate-File? Whats wrong with treating the "other versions"-section as it is meant (I think, there are reasons, why the template-description say exactly those words) and creating ONE galery-page instead of pasting the same 20-pictures-gallery in 20 filedescriptions?. By the way: I don't chase anything, I fix as I go by. --Carbenium (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did. Not that it matters. If you think it does matter, that would be an example a well known logical fallacy, arguing from the specific to the general (which will be on WP somewhere, but it's certainly there as en:WP:OSE). Even if you've found one case where it's used badly, that's no reason to enforce a narrow view of its use across all other images, which is the most charitable view for your current actions.

There is a template, there is a parameter to this template, this parameter can be used to make pages display in certains ways. Anything else is up to the editor and we have to judge the actions of that editor by the results they cause, not by how well they fit the user manual! What the parameter is called and even how the template documentation describes a suggested use for it, is of no other relevance.

As to the Golden Gate, then yes, that page might be better as a stand-alone gallery. It still doesn't justify your changes against other non-problematic uses of it and certainly not your behaviour towards other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Fotografia "Sé Viseu noite"

La fotografía " Sé Viseu noite " no es de Sergiolf como se atribuye, esa foto ha sido bajada de Panoramio de R.F.Rumbao (https://www.panoramio.com/photo/21737215)

File:Sé viseu noite.jpg, Sergiolf (talk · contribs). Obviously someone who grabs images from panoramio - copyvio uploader. I wrote done the reasoning to say this in File:Palácio do Gelo.jpg. Thanks for the information. --Martin H. (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Uploads nuked. --Martin H. (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded image facing difficulties

Dear Admins, Please have a look at my gallery [Gallery] # I was using a Sock account before (Not aware of commons or Wikipedia's objectives)

1. Stopped socking and editing from that user name (Put a retired tag on my userpage, as i dont have another option)
2. Moved back to my own maintained account once i got several warnings from commons and other wiki projects
3. There are some concerns raised by an admin regarding the copyright status of uploaded image, and he is not believing in my answers and repeatedly telling that i am following the same as before (Sock)..
4. Please advice me how i can continue by providing only free content to commons
5. Because i feel that now i am okay with the rules of wiki and following that.
6. Hoping that wikipedia or commons is not driven by a single member. As all the notices are good for the wiki projects

I understand that the Admin have a strong belief on my copyvio background.....

Please help..--Common-Man (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No other admins here....--Common-Man (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your questions are somewhat hard to understand, that may be why no one has responded. Can you ask a more simply worded and specific question? ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OKAY, Can i still contribute to commons by blanking my "Sockpuppet features", As admins not believe that my style of contributing is changed...--Common-Man (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that didn't help. ++Lar: t/c 11:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• So i can stop contributing to commons right..??. How can i erase all of my uploads from commons..Please advice..--Common-Man (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Compromise on Pieter Kuiper

To end this never ending discussion we need a compromise that most users can accept. As I see it the main problem is deletion requests. We have 2 conflicting interests 1) we want to delete copyvios so finding copyvios is a good thing 2) we want to avoid edits that creates conflicts so if a DR creates a bad climate we would like to avoid that.

Therefore I suggest this compromise:

1. We start on a fresh. All older edits are forgotten. No more time spend on discussing old edits and old conflicts.
2. Pieter is put on special terms regarding deletion requests. The terms have to be made very clear and can be changed over time if needed. If they are changed they are only valid for future edits.
3. The terms are set by the community and Pieter does not have to agree.
4. The terms are valid for 1 year. After that we discuss if it should continue, be lifted or changed.

The terms could be like this:

1. We create a list for users that does not want Pieter to start DR’s for the files they have uploaded.
2. If a user thinks that Pieter has been stalking them in the past they can request to be added to the list. If three other users (not on the list) agree that Pieter has been stalking the user then the user is added to the list.
3. Pieter gets a notice on his user talk about the list + new users on the list to make sure that he knows about it.
4. If Pieter starts a DR on files originally uploaded by one of the users on the list (after they are added to the list) he gets blocked. (He is granted 15 minutes of free time from the notice on his talk page to avoid that he is in the process of starting a DR on a file and at the same time some user is added to the list). Pieter can still comment on DR’s started by other users.
5. The block is not for discussion and only 1 DR is needed to make a block. The block starts with one week. After that all blocks are one month.
6. Admins on the list may not block Pieter at all while on the list or 3 months after they have removed themselves from the list. If they do the block is reverted and the admin is blocked. (Reason you should not block users you have a conflict with).

The benefit of this is that we get some clear "rules" and 1) Pieter can stay on Commons and help us with good edits and 2) users that think they have been stalked by Pieter get a chance to avoid that. --MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The proposal pampers Kuiper in a way that he does not at all deserve. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Per wise and astute comment by SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs), above. Way too lenient. Especially with regards to prior pattern of behavior by user in question. The extensive history of abuse is most certainly directly relevant. -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose If me making a proposal is worthy of a topic ban, as MGA73 claims, why does MGA73 get to make their own proposal, when he has constantly belittled and attacked those upset at Pieter's behaviour? Surely, his actions are as "worthy" of a topic ban as is complainign about a harassment campaign which you had spent a month going through. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you oppose because you do not like me? The reason I did not support the suggestion above is because it says "Any attempts to harass, personal attacks, or abuse of the processes of Commons". Everyone agrees that such behaviour should not be accepted. Not even attacks made by admins on Pieter I hope. But the problem is that there is not concensus on what "Any attempts to harass, personal attacks, or abuse of the processes of Commons" is. That is why I suggested a very clear rule to what is not acceptable. --MGA73 (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Pieter has shown willing to go down new routes if one doesnt' stick. For instance, just before I last left, he decided to scan my deletion lgos instead, something which I am not aware of him doing for anny other user, and which I presume means that I can consider my uploads all fabove board, since even he couldn't find anything. As such, a narrow restriction like this is worse than useless, particularly with the complete amnesty given in point 1.

Further, saying that we should ignore the past is pointless when Pieter is constantly bringing up things from 1-7 months back. And all four of those examples are from the last week alone. Pieter constantly reopens old battles; we can't say all older edits are forgotten when he's the one who constantly brings them up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well Pieter is not the only user that have problems with letting the past go. Your first coment to this suggestion was bringing up a 1 month old topic/edit. I did that to avoid that we should waste more time discussing old edits over and over again. Pieter is not the only one who could benefit from a new start. You have probably also regrets about some of your old edits. If you think it is a problem that Pieter finds "old dirt" then why not support a suggestion to look forward? And if you do not think that users should look for dirt then you could take the first step and stop looking yourself. --MGA73 (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The link I gave was from yesterday, not a month ago. Did you even look at it? Yesterday is not old dirt. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know. You talked about "ignore the past" and that it was pointless because Pieter looked at old edits. I said that so do you (you linked to an edit/topic I made 1 month ago). And there is no rule forbidding Pieter (or you or me) to look at old edits - I just suggested that we should agree not to do so. My suggestion was to make some clear rules that can not be discussed and then look forward. If we agree that "Pieter may not make bad edits" then we can discuss forever when an edit is bad. --MGA73 (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Read what I'm saying: The link you are attempting to attack me over was from yesterday, not a month ago. You're making the same erroneopus point over and over. All links I link to in this thread are from no more than one week old. You can't attack someone based on made-up facts. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

OK so I must be no good at English :-) In your first comment under this heading you refer to the suggestion of a topic ban. I originally made that suggestion 1 month ago and it still makes you very upset. That is all I meant. If I wanted to attack you I would use the time looking at your edits and bring out your mistakes and not wasting time on simple matters like if you brought up an old topic or not. There is no rule saying that it is forbitten to look at old diffs so I really do not understand why you think that the comment was an attack. If you still do not understand what I'm trying to say then let this be my last comment: "I'm sorry. It's not important to me - just forget it.". --MGA73 (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you said "Perhaps we should reopen this discussion?" at the end of that diff if you WEREN'T trying to reopen the proposal. If you hadn't said that, I wouldn't be bringing it up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Or...

Since everyone seems to be dishing out proposals of what to do about Kuiper, I'll give it a try:

1. If Pieter Kuiper says or does anything on Commons that is considered a blockable offense by any user, involved or not involved, they may start a thread here reporting what they see as an issue. (Nothing new.)
2. Instead of the usual drama, this begins a poll for uninvolved** users*** to vote on whether the block should happen. Votes may be accompanied by a short rationale but anything else (like bringing up other issuesunrelated issues that have already been thoroughly discussed or making generalexcessive or disparaging comments on a user's character) are discouraged and forfeits the commentator's vote.*
3. If we reach a majority of 65% in support of the block, with a minimum of 5 replies (for or against, not neutral or comments), the block will happen and can be performed by any admin.
4. Unless a block length is also stated and agreed upon in the poll, we default to the minimum terms, which are:
   • First time: 1 month. Second time: 3 months. Third time: 9 months. Forth time: Indefinitely (banned).
5. There are no provisions for unblocking unless it was done in error.
6. While this is in effect, admins can only issue regular blocks (i.e. without going through this process) that are short-term (2 weeks maximum) for unquestionably disruptive isolated incidents (vandalism, serious threats, etc.), not for being his usual self. They can't be involved in any way (nothing new) or have blocked him in the past (unless they were acting on account of this process).
7. These conditions expire one year after the end of his last block issued via this process. If no block occurs, they expire in one year from this proposal's acceptance.

* This is not implying you can't consider past events as part of you rationale for the block; it's to prevent unnecessary drama and wasting the community's time with things that don't need to be said in order to block him.

** Not necessarily neutral—that would exclude pretty much everyone if we listen to both sides—but uninvolved in that particular incident.

*** IPs or SPAs are excluded. The account must have other edits confirming they aren't here only to bash or defend Kuiper.

Not perfect, but there it is. I don't like the list idea above and I don't think his DRs are the real issue. It's the combination of his methodology, personality, timing, and abrasiveness that some people can't handle. Rocket000 (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose Not only does this not sort the Pieter situation, it gives him strong immunity by A. assuring that his history of behaviour cant' even be considered, and B. setting up a situation where it's likely that his supporters will claim uninvolvement, but those who have suffered at his hands are silent - and anyone who opposes him will quickly be made involved by him, if his modus operandi sticks. Completely wrongfooted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it most definitely can be considered. I'm talking about discussing old issues that already have been discussed. Also, see the footnotes; they're important. Rocket000 (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right - though "bringing up other issues or making general comments on a user's character" needs rewritten for clarity. It's a reasonable attempt, but it's going to work very slowly - a poll is going to take at least a week - and that's problematic and possibly a deal killer. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Revised. We can add something about time limits. Open to suggestions. I doubt any of us can make an acceptable proposal alone. But like an article, collaboration may result in something everyone agrees with. Rocket000 (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the only way to make this workable also ruins the value of it: Block Pieter while discussion is ongoing. I don't see how reasonable discussion can be had in less than 4 days, which is a hell of a long time to allow someone to be harrassed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that admins can still, at their discretion, make "regular" blocks while this is in effect. This process is for those issues that aren't crystal clear, like accusations of stalking someone's uploads, where we have disagreement about. This kind of harassment takes time as well and I don't believe it's an urgent matter. Rushing to block or unblock without discussion is part of the problem. I guess it could in some cases start after he is blocked, specially if it is about extending the maximum 2-week "regular" block into a minimum 1-month block (that has this backing it instead of being a single admin's choice). Rocket000 (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose On record. The pampering of an obviously hopeless Dr. Kuiper goes on and on and on. Why not check on his latest activity and it's tone?! If I begin to stalk and harass and intimidate and persecute and alienate and cause distress for a number of valuable users at Commons, all of it intentional behavior on my part that continues for years, will y'all go to great lengths to devise a multitude of proposals so that I may have hundreds more chances to continue to do so, besides the hundreds of instances already on record? Will you tell me that I did valuable work here so I am OK to go on and on and on and on and on? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have an offer for you SergeWoodzing. You say that Pieter goes on and on and on. Lets count the latest 100 edits you made and the latest 100 edits Pieter made. If Pieter made more "attacks" on you (DR's and comments that he thinks you are bad etc.) than you did on him I'll block him myself and write "I'm sorry! You were right." 500 times on your talk page. If you however made more edits than he did telling how bad he is etc. then you stop telling how bad he is for 3 months. Can't wait to hear your response. --MGA73 (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose Admins (or other users for that matter) should stop taking DR's personally. How can you say to a user "do not take deletion requests personally", but then simply decide to block someone because you have taken one personally. And SergeWoodzing, Adam Cuerden, Rama cs.: stop with your Kuiper-bashing, it is already annoying and now it's simply pathetic. Kameraad Pjotr 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think your vote was meant for the proposal above but I'll take it as applying for both since, like SergeWoodzing, compromising seems out of the question (not that I don't agree with you about you said). Rocket000 (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:MGA73

The above user has begun resorting to personal attacks against me because I oppose the uncivil behavior of User:Pieter Kuiper. MGA73 has displayed so much personal bias on the subject that he/she seems to be incapable of being fair and will now attack anyone who has had enough of Kuiper and says so. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a he (my name is Michael). --MGA73 (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs), can you please give a specific diff link, instead of simply linking to an overall subsection discussion? That will be more useful and helpful to assess this. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OK (second entry on that diff). I am not hunting anyone by giving my opinion in these discussions. To claim that I am is a nasty accusation that I feel was a personal attack. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel hurt about that comment. You are allowed to say what you feel but I based my conclusion on the fact that you have said pretty much the same 50 times or more every time there was a chance. If you had said it only once or perhaps 5 times then I would not have called it hunting. I suggested elsewhere that if you want Pieter to stay away from your edits then it would perhaps be a good idea not to comment on Pieter all the time. --MGA73 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I rest my case. Obelix (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is what SergeWoodzing considers civil, and this is what he considers an attack. This accusation is completely groundless.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This attempt to have me topicbanned for complaining about an out-of-process unblock of Pieter last month shows poor judgement on their part. That he is still pushing for it today after having it shot down completely shows that their judgement is so poor that they cannot be trusted with the admin tools. Evidently, contributing to harassing someone off the site isn't enough. To bring up the same ridiculous proposal again after the editor gives Commons another chance to change into something they would like to contribute is tantamount to harassment. Particularly as, at the time MGA made the proposal, Pieter hadspent a month attacking me on Swedish Wikipedia (while blocked), and, had been indef blocked at least in part for harassing me. Which I think gives me a right to complain about his unblock. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that you do not agree with me and that you do not like me (based on you calling me a moron etc.). My engagement in the debate related to Pieter Kupiter is not personal (meaning that I'm hating some users or want to see them down). The reason that I have not supported a block of Pieter is because think that finding copyvios is good work. We should not block the users that find copyvios but the users that uploads copyvios. You will probably notice that most of the users that does not like Pieter had files nominated for deletion by Pieter (and deleted). --MGA73 (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

@MGA73. No, the problems with Pieter are not de DR's. Pieter did use in the past DR's for personal attacks and he was proud of that fact. At some moment I asked Pieter to make DR's on uploads of me which he declared doubtful, he refused. Subsequently at the moment I made an appèl to him to change his behavior, he came back to those uploads, an inappropriate manner to counter my appèl, you have seen that on his talkpage. The CONTINUOUS line of Pieters behavior is PROVOCATION, not concern with DR's, and THAT has brought him on the verge of a permablock. But he still can change his behavior, if he wants to contribute to the encyclopedia. --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I said "main problem" and not only problem. I know there can be othere areas where some may think there are problems. You can not demand that other users check your uploads so if you ask me it is ok that/if Pieter did not want to check your uploads (I think we agree on that). Most of the times I see Pieter reported for stalking etc. the proof/examples shows diffs where Pieter pointed out some mistake made by the reporting user. As I said before blocking users for finding and correcting mistakes is not something I like. If he nominates one of your files for deletion then it is not a problem because you do not mind (if I understand you correct). But if he nominates a file for deletion on a user that do mind then it is a problem. If let the user decide if it is stalking do we get a neutral opinion? --MGA73 (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

of course, i don't object to DR's on my uploads; of course it is oke if Pieter did not want to check my uploads, but it is not oke that he did check my uploads for a "wall of shame" and refused the correct procedure of DR's. He condamns himself by such actions; you saw him doing it again on his talk page.--Havang(nl) (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should not have wall of shames. If there is a problem with a file the correct thing is to start a DR. If all DR's were treaed good and fair there would be nothing to add to a wall of shame (I hope). My suggestion was meant as a way out of this. Some think that a block is the solution. Some thinks the solution is to let Pieter start all the DR's he wants and I suggested that we found a compromise somewhere in between. I never said it was the perfect solution. But we have been discussing Pieter for months and every time some say "Block him" some say "Stop whining" and we are getting nowhere. I still think that we need to set up some cleare rules on what is allowed. Before we have some clear rules I do not think we should block. --MGA73 (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a wall of shame is tacky, but I think it not criminal. It doesn't matter how DRs are treated; there are going to be some images that are questionable one way or the other; is this text or shape fall under PD-Shape, is this teddy bear copyrighted, can we argue PD-EU-anonymous on this image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have laughed about the childishness of the walls of shame; but a person who specializes in being tacky all the time, should soon be dismissed in a job-situation and deserves to be dismissed from participating on commons. I have tried to come to objective judgment, and my judgment is: Pieter has been trespassing repeatedly rules of behavior, and I repeat here what I said above: I do no longer oppose to a permablock of Pieter. --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You evidently think that if a process is being used to harass, that's just fine. I would hope that noone else agrees with you. I will also note that Pieter engaged in malicious personal attacks, slandered me to all of Swedish Wikipedia, and did similar for many other administrators, so your attempt to reduce this to "But he just does DR!" is both contrafactual and ignorant. Further, I will ask you to provide diffs when claiming I attacked you, or withdraw the comment. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you remember all the messages you send me on IRC? --MGA73 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so, you, the person who said we should ignore Pieter's open comments on Swedish Wikipedia, now evidently think that if you goad me privately on IRC until I get upset at you, that counts against me here? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No. I deleted the "copy paste" 2 weeks ago :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And in case you wonder why I even botherd to keep what you told me: I always listen when someone does not agree with me. You said a whole lot of things in a short time so I saved it and read it a week or so after to see if I missed anything. Often it is a good idea "to sleep on it". After reading it again I decided there was nothing new so I deleted it. I prefer to look forward :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I'll give you credit for this: [17], though I still think your continual pushing for a topic ban - and claiming it's for my own good - was a ridiculous escalation of the situation, and I cannot see how you thought it would end well with someone already near snapping point over the situation. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The suggestion to make a topic ban was withdrawn when you announced that you left Commons. Did you not notice? --MGA73 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

MGA, you tried to reopen discussion of it YESTERDAY. I have included this link several times to remind you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I gave you this hint to reminded you to "stay cool". If I really wanted to reopen the suggestion all I need is to make the suggestion again. However I no longer have a whish to protect you from getting yourself desysopped or blocked. You clearely told me that you do not want a topic ban so this time I will let you go all the way. --MGA73 (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

...So, what, you're using sneaky threats to try and intimidate people? Even when last time it was made very cclear to yout hat that wasn't on?

•  Support desysop. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No I was not trying to be sneaky or to threat you. I was trying to give you an advice to keep a low profile because I felt sorry for you (if you remember what you told me on IRC you should know why). Just before you "left" someone (not me) used this edit [18] and some other edits as an argument to desysop you. I did not know that you made such an act at before it was brought up in the debate and I doubt that many did. Honestly I do not think that you should be the first one to demand a desysop. Sorry, but I really hoped that you would understand the hints and not ask further. --MGA73 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Noone has started a desysop-process against MGA73, so it's a bit premature to add support for that with !voting signs. I can't see that either MGAs remarks to SergeWoodzing, the discussion regarding AdamCuerden that MGA initiated a while back or his reminders about that discussion recently could fairly be described as personal attacks - and it is definitely not behaviour that should lead to a desysop-process against him. Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose desysop. MGA73 is a good user. Obelix (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

We're not really having a desysop vote here. :) Rocket000 (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Move Do people only see vote templates now and not anything else? There is no vote. Rocket000 (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

MachoCarioca

One of the most troublesome editors in ptwiki, MachoCarioca ( local | logs | global ), has been using his talk page here in Commons to make serious attacks on other users from ptwiki, after being blocked from that project. Some of the most astounding examples are User talk:MachoCarioca#Recado pro Kleiner and User talk:MachoCarioca#Kleiner (2), in which he calls some of these editors (myself included) "canalha", "psychopath", "coward", "stupid", "cynical", among other "compliments" of the sort. Since I believe the same rules valid for Wikipedia are valid here, in termos of civility, disruption and abuse, I bring the topic here so that some form of action can be taken against such behavior. RafaAzevedo (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I misplaced the request below on COM:AN/B, but I'm not discussing a block, I'm asking a block, so here seems to be the right place to do that. I'm sorry for that. Thanks, Castelobranco (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Is there a consensus for Pieter Kuiper permabanning?

I'd wish to know if there is a general consensus to mutate the current temporary Pieter Kuiper block into a permanent ban, considering his disruptive continuous behavior, and his lack of amendment after the September unban, which leads to a new block. --Dereckson (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

PK has been the centre of too many incidents and his editting practices have been called into question on many occassions over an extended time period, for some of those occassion it wasnt entirely justified. I do believe the community needs to make a decision as whether PK should have either restricted editting conditions or be permanently banned, IMHO we have expected standards of conduct for editors, occassionally editors will stray from that and get blocked but a continual return to such activities shows that the editor is not acting as part of the community nor is the editor treating the community with respect it deserves. I believe that if his actions were brought to en:ARBCOM for consideration PK would recieve extensive edit restrictions if not a perminent ban, as Commons does not have such a dispute resolution system nor sufficient "neutral" admins to effectively enforce topic bans. Given this extensive history I would support an indefinite block of PK, I also think that there are other editors who's actions should be placed under similar scrutiny. Gnangarra 03:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Three remarks:

1) I do not think that Commons lacks sufficiently neutral admins. It simply must develop a system, formal or informal, that prevents these admins from being sullied and put out of service by the very offenders. This "provocation; get blocked; get unblocked; rush to nominate blocking admin's images for DR and cry bloody conflict of interest" pattern cannot be allowed to happen; if I just had to kick all the coppers of my town in the butt alphabetically to be allowed to drive like a maniac, I'd know all about it.

2) I do not think that a community vote to ban people is a good thing. We need some mechanism to ensure that a decision is not taken in the heat of the moment. And frankly, it's really not like Kuiper doesn't provide a plentiful corpus of incidents, is it? I like the pink fluffy Commons where there is no Arbcom, and I'd hate to give Kuiper the satisfaction of leaving his mark on this project. But I don't think that we can vote to lynch a user who was un-bloody-blocked yesterday and that I had to re-block in the faint hope that he'd serve an entire block just once, for a change. If Kuiper gets banned (hmmm, "when", that is...), it'll be for his entire works. And cunning as he may be, he can't dance his perverse dance on the thin blue line forever; he'll trip some day, and sooner than later.

To be perfectly clear, I am not saying that we mustn't do it, but that rushing for an indef block has been repeatedly premature in the past, and is the very reason why this joker may appear untouchable. He is not. Just hold your fire until you see the white of their eyes. Nothing prevents us from first having him actually serve one bloody week of block, and double the sanction at the next offence, and the next, etc. until he's either tamed or blocked for years. Don't worry, Kuiper will provide a plenty of incidents to feed that scheme, it's not like he can help himself, now.

3) Yes there are others who show very definite signs of "kuiperisation". I believe that there is hope for them if they meet firm warnings that end in blocks, blocks that get served, and a consistent increase in blocks for repeated offences. If not, they'll spiral further into bad-childishness until we have no choice but to get rid of them.

• no premature action -- it only undermines the policing action of admins and gives an appearance of plausibility to accusations of "admin corruption" ("discipline")
• no unblocking without a discussion on the admin's noticeboard, especially when the unblock has been formally denied by another admin. ("unity")
• Increasing sanctions for re-occurrences of the same offences ("resolution")

Rama (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to deny that I am anything but an ardent supporter of PK getting indefed - hence why I did it a month or so back. But I also agree that the community as a whole has not reached this point. I agree with Rama's suggestion - we need to give him the rope to hang himself with. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be able to tie very good knots at the moment. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is, if everyone concerned comes forward now and the powers that be do a good turn on this. Like I have said several times before, this person has proven himself beyond the shadow of a doubt to be consciously incorrigible. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment No there is not concensus. Some users whish there were. It has been discussed several times and as only 3 weeks ago the answer was no. Just check Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_&_protections#PLEASE_block_Pieter_Kuiper.21. I think we should not discuss the same thing over and over every 3 weeks. This is a waste of time and it makes the climate on Commons even worse. A new discussion should only start if something new and important has happend. --MGA73 (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree MGA73, nothing have changed since the last time. Trycatch (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Can't specific editors be banned from editing specific files? Meaning that some files are protected from edits from certain editors? I see no reason why anyone should be permabanned from Commons unless they're vandal only accounts. FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  We could, but it would be hell to enforce. And yes, people should be permabanned if they are a drain on the community - ie they are incapable of being productive without starting a war every 5mins. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  I don't see how that would help in this case. Kuiper is accused of stalking; you'd basically have to ban him off any page someone who has annoyed him has edited on, which amounts to a large part of Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Voilà! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter has the unpleasant habit to join a small bit of personal attack in almost every edit he produces. He has not improved since september. I am not against permabanning any longer.--Havang(nl) (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I totaly agree to that and I am also not against permabanning anymore. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 17:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction

Per Gnangarra's suggestion, I propose

1. Pieter is put on a civility warning. Any attempts to harass, personal attacks, or abuse of the processes of Commons will result in a block, generally not less than 1 week and not more than one month, depending on severity.
2. A list will be set up where administrators and other users may "opt out" of Pieter. Other people are encouraged to review this list of people for copyright violations, but Pieter may not publicly suggest such searches (e-mails and other private communications are fine). Actions by Pieter involving people on this list will be looked at with strict scrutiny.
3. Continuing uncivil behaviour while blocked will add time to the blocks.
4. After every five blocks under this proposal, the length of blocks will double. [revised per suggestions below] The blocks should roughly follow the following terms, with any block which the community overturns (see below) not counted:
   • 1st block: 1 week to 1 month
   • 2nd block: 2 weeks to 6 weeks.
   • 3rd block: 3 to 6 weeks
   • 4th block: 3 weeks to 3 months
   • 5th block: 1 month to 6months
   • 6th block: 1 month to 1 year + community discussion on whether to make it permanent.
5. Unblocking Pieter may only be done after discussion on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_&_protections. As such, all blocks should be immediately mentioned there, for community review, linking to this sanction.
6. [Added per Gnangarra] Should no blocks (ignoring community-overturned blocks) occur for a 12 month period, all these restrictions are lifted.

Before we begin voting, any suggestions or refinements? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Doubling every 5 seems rather lenient to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Would 3 be better? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• doubling period after x number of blocks why? How many more blocks before enough is enough, 5x1 week blocks, 5 x 2week, 5x 1month, 5 x 2months seriousy such a staggered approach will be drawn out for years thats not reasonable to PK or the community. If this is to be serious then there needs to be more clear end point like 5 blocks within the next 12 months permament block, no blocks in 12 months then the restrictions are lifted. 12 month period is reset at each subsequent block. There should also be an equal warning that friviously complaints or baiting of PK will result in a block of 1 week. Gnangarra 12:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Double each time would mean 1w, 2w, 1m, 2m, 4m, 8m, 1y4m and 2y8m and would limit block duration adjustment.
  I suggest to fix the recommended durations of the first 5 blocks and then to review the situation: 1w-1m, 2w-6w, 3w-3m, 1m-6m and finally 1m-1y. --Dereckson (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Right. I've revised it in line with the above. Any other suggestions? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• To be even more fair, we should decide who should and shouldn't block him. I suggest that anyone who has been involved with his blocks/unblocks in the past should not perform this action, and should take it to the board for discussion just as it would happen for someone who wants to unblock him. The "list" proposal should be eliminated. It's just a method to escape his actions, which would make this proposal useless. "Harassing and abuse of the processes of Commons" should be defined, since that's the heart of the controversy. Perhaps three retaliatory actions in a row against someone can be defined as stalking/harassing. Also, if the person in conflict is mature enough to handle it, the proposal shall not be applied to the situation. If we can tweak the proposal this way, I'd be happy to support this so that we can end this controversy. ZooFari 15:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment This debate asumes that we agree that Pieter does something wrong. Besides what ZooFari says I think we should find out what Pieter may and what he is not allowed to do. Before we have concensus on that there is not concensus to block.

Just before Adam "left" I raised the question if we should put a topic ban on AdamCurden so that he should not discuss Pieter Kupiter because AdamCurden has problems acting like an admin should when it comes to Pieter. Perhaps we should reopen this discussion? --MGA73 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you use "Left" in quotes. Note that my only actions since this time was this thread here, over the last 24 hours [19]. Also note that MGA73 doesn't mention that [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_16#Topic_ban_on_.22Pieter_Kuiper.22_for_Adam_Cuerden.3F even before I left in disgust - at least partially duue to MGA73's actions in defense of Pieter - her proposal that I be topicbanned was immediately met by multiple opposes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. But after your comment with BIG then there were no opposes. --MGA73 (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment - Strongly agree with everything said in the Proposed editing restriction as suggested by Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs), above. This is a most logical, rational, and sensible proposal for how to move forward in the future in dealings with this user. -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment - So do I. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As there appear to be no further suggestions, I open this fully to voting. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose Who does not agree that "Any attempts to harass, personal attacks, or abuse of the processes of Commons will result in a block"? I think that even admins (!) should be blocked if they show such behavior (even if it is Pieter who is attacked etc.). The problem is that we do not agree what "Any attempts to harass, personal attacks, or abuse of the processes of Commons will result in a block" is and therefore this makes no sense. The users that do not like Pieter will take this as an excuse to block Pieter by the first chance they get. I agree that the problem should be solved therefore I suggested another solution below. It may not fix all problems but it is clear and easy to manage. If a unblock should be discussed on COM/AN then so should a block if you ask me. Otherwise someone could just block him because they do not like Pieter and when someone finds the reason no good then we could have a long debate before unblock can be granted. I also think that if Pieter is not allowed to start DR's etc. on some users (admins) because "he is stalking them" then those admins are involved and should not be allowed to block Pieter. Admins should not block users they have a conflict with or delete their files etc. --MGA73 (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • If people object to the admin, they can oppose the block in the discussions set up. If the admin is involved, the block will be overturned. May I remind you that Pieter is currently involved in attacking people and dredging up half-year old slights on his talk page; this is not the actions of the saint that you seem to think Pieter is. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The problem is that if Pieter makes an edit and the first admin looking at it decides it is ok and therefore do nothing. Then the next admin decides it is ok and "overturn" the first admins "not block" without discussion. After that the first admin can object and while the discussion takes place Pieter is blocked. If the first admin decides to block and the next one does not agree then the second admin may not overturn the block and again the result is that Pieter is blocked while the discussion takes place. That is why I think that every block and unblock should be discussed.
    • Also I still thinks that admins that is not neutral to Pieter should not block him. I think it is one of the basic rules for admins that they should not act in cases where they are not neutral or does not appear to be neutral. That is why admins can not close DR's for their own files or unblock themselves if they are blocked.
    • One of the problems is that if admins block or attack Pieter then nothing happens because there are too many admins that are just waiting for Pieter to be blocked. So right now admins can slap Pieter as they want and if he dares to slap back they can block him or just wait for one of the other admins to do the block.
    • My suggestion was that users could ask to be "protected" against Pieter but if they are added on the list they are no longer concidered neutral and therefore they loose the right to block Pieter. I think that is fair. --MGA73 (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How are your objections any different under this proposal as without it? You say only neutral admins should block (and I would add unblock) - that isn't mentioned and thus remains the same. You say that one admin could review and not block, andanother could review and decide to block - that's true for ANY block. Your objections are irrelevant, because this proposal doesn't propose any change from the status quo on those points. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is there another person than MGA73 to oppose this progressive block proposal? If no, as his counterproposal have been opposed, we can resume the discussion here. --Dereckson (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• By the way, I approve the Gnangarra addition, as such year will tell us Pieter will have a behavior accepted by everyone. --Dereckson (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with these comments by Dereckson (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose, at least not until my comments are taken into consideration. ZooFari 15:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Since every aaction must be puut up immediately for review, it should be easy to deal with this on a case-by-case basis. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose As I said below, I don't like the "opt out" idea. I do support doing something about the behavior though. It just this doesn't set a clear and unambiguous way of dealing it as it relies of the personal opinion of the blocking admin which is our current situation. My proposal isn't that great either but it shows the direction I'm thinking we should going in to resolve this, which is creating some process to reduce the drama, repeated unnecessary discussion, "personal attacks", and develop a clear systematic way of deciding if he should be blocked long-term or not. Rocket000 (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose No opt outs, per my comments below. Kameraad Pjotr 17:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Anyway, since I suyspect I won't be counted without the symbol, I  Support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• not yet more discussion need I've just numbered the points above for clarity of discussion. What is being proposed needs to be very clear very simple it need to be in form that everyone can understand including anyone that needs to translate the conditions to a language other then english. PT1 suggest Pieter is on a civility warning. Any harassment, personal attacks, or abuse of the process will result in a block of not less than 1 week and not more than one month. PT2 I dont understand whats being defined or why pt1 says "no abuse of processes" what is PT2 trying to do is it excluding PK from a specific process or is directed at others. PT3 is reitteration of standard practices so its ok. PT4 is just too complicated pt1 alreadys say 1 week to 1 month. PT5 is a concern, discussion is important but the drama isnt we know if PK is blocked someone will speak out against it. PT 6 is ok but wording would be better if i said all these restrictions are lifted if no blocks have occured within the ast 12 months, excluding community-overturned blocks. I also suggest that discussions be centralised to one point with a notice of block placed on COM:AN directing people to the central discussion say at COmmons:Community sanctions Pieter Kuiper/Block discussions with a notice on PK talk page so tjhat concerns are directed to there rather then dramatically across the wholo community. Gnangarra 04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Pieter Kupier should never have been blocked. The consensus has never said to block Kupier, but some airy administrators keep blocking him incorrectly. Some has gone so far as to block him again even though many oppose this. This harassment of Pieter Kupier has to stop, immediately. Adam Cuerden, Rama amongst others must stop with the continuous stalking of Kupier. If they do not they should be rid of their administrative privileges. It’s you who should find a consensus for blocking him, and that you do not have.Obelix (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Right. I tried. Goodbye. Commons has departed from its mellow roots so far that it now has defense leagues for trolls. I cannot contribute here any more, doubt the situation will change so that I ever will again. That Commons cannot deal with abuse of processes, trolling, personal attacks, and all the other things Pieter does without... attacking the victims instead means that there is no place here for anyone with the slightest sense of justice. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Why cant you presume that Pieter has good intentions? On the wikimediaproject you have to accept being questioned. On Wikipedia one has to accept that someone else reports for deletion an article one self has written and here on commons one has to accept that the same works for an image. Pieter does not report images for deletion, simply to be mean but to help maintain and provide a better commons so that we don’t have pictures that brake copy right laws. Try to respect Pieters work and don’t take it personally. Yours and others accusations that Pieter is trolling, persecuting and attacking other users are false and utterly unacceptable. It is you who is stalking Pieter Kuiper and you seem to want to have him blocked as revenge. On Commons everyone will be treated equally. The role of administrators does not mean any certain privileges that other users must contact before reporting pictures for deletion. The same rules apply for everyone. Most administrators know that but you apparently and some others seem to have misunderstood the role of administrators here on commons. If you can not change your behaviour I think it’s best if you leave commons.Obelix (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Another very rare visit to Commons by Obelix, just to order us around like he did last time and like he's used to doing on Swedish Wikipedia. This user is not the Commons expert he/she pretends to be and can safely be ignored by anyone who wants to be fair in this discussion, at least as far as knowledge of this project goes.

Those of us who long have been the victims of Kuiper's massive cruelty are getting sick of having to defend ourselves here against a bunch of twisted accusations, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, at least not in my case. This discussion has very little to do with DRs or no DRs or who posts them or who takes them personally or gets upset by them. It is a matter of behavior, demeanor, ethics, civlity and an attempt, at times valiant by Adam Cuerden and a few others, to have a decent work climate. Obelix is never going to deal with that. He/she's famous on h home project for vehemently opposing any and every attempt to create any kind of dispute resolution system there. Bossy people don't care for such. They like to get their way. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose pointing out that I don't consider posts like this part of a decent work climate is pointless, huh.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is 'one week' the new 'one day'?

I have had two blocks on Commons, both for one week. Whatever happened to the practice of giving one day blocks to users who have not been blocked previously over the particular issue involved, and then longer blocks only with re-occurrences of the same problem? Starting out with one week seems rather much for a start, even leaving aside questions concerning unjustified blocks.

To me a one week first block seems heavy handed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I would add that a warning or some indication that one more misstep will result in a block should always be issued first even with experienced users that should know better. Some people just need to be reminded, like us admins need to be reminded from time to time to have patience and that things can be solved through communication. Even though it fails many times, it's always worth a try. Rocket000 (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There were, in addition to me, two other users blocked for a week. I think a warning to all involved would have worked quite well. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that the two messages I left you (and the others) about this in December 2009/January 2010 would have served as a warning that I wasn't prepared to see any more edit warring regarding the categorisation of the Latuff images. If I was being completely strict about it I could have decided to block you in January for continuing the disruptive edit warring instead of just reminding you that I'd asked you to avoid doing it. I doubt that you'd have forgotten about the previous categorisation disputes when you decided to start edit warring again recently and so I don't think it is too unrealistic to think you might have recalled my previous messages about this. You were disruptively changing the categorisation in December, in January, and again in October. I think you'd had more than enough chance to stop it and so I'm not sure why I should have really let you get away with it again and only warn you when you'd already ignored me previously at least twice. I trust now this won't continue to be a problem. Adambro (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Adambro wrote: If I was being completely strict about it I could have decided to block you in January for continuing the disruptive edit warring instead of just reminding you that I'd asked you to avoid doing it.

Which edits are you referring to? I only made three edits to the file in question. On was a revert on 4 October 2010, and another was to correct a mistake in a link made by another user also on 4 October 2010. The third was a revert on 28 January 2010. Check for yourself [20]. Two reverts in eight months. Calling that edit warring is a big exaggeration. An any case what do you gain by blocking three users for one week each, when a warning would have served the purpose? You seem to imply that giving a warning is too fatiguing for you to bother with. If you really think that, you should consider if your continuing as an administrator is the best course for you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have explained why I didn't just give another warning about this behaviour. Whilst you suggest, "a warning would have served the purpose", experience has showed that hasn't been true previously so I'm not sure why I should have assumed now would have been different. As I said in one of my messages to you, if the disruptive changing of the Latuff categorisation continued, I would "take further action to reduce the disruptive nature of this by considering the protection of further pages or blocking of users involved". Since you decided to continue it, I took the action I had warned I may. As for your question, what do I gain "by blocking three users for one week each". I gain nothing individually. I consider Commons as a whole gains by not seeing disruptive behaviour continuing. Adambro (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Schosha. Adambro squandered three weeks of volunteer contributions to the project. His block came out of the blue, and as also J.delanoy wrote, purely punitive. Adambro level of activity is rather low here here anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure as to the relevance of the level of my activity on Commons. The suggestion seems to be that in some way being an active contributor to Commons some how gives you a free pass to behave as one likes. I certainly don't accept that. As for the suggestion that the block was "purely punitive", I don't accept that either nor can I actually find where J.delanoy said that, perhaps you could highlight a diff? In his unblock comment he said, "The image in question was already fully protected when this block was made. Hence, this block does utterly nothing", however that fails to recognise that history shows that once one of the Latuff images comes to the attention of those involved in the disruptive playing around with the categorisation, attention soon switches to others and so the single image being protected. It is for that reason that the suggestion that the block was "purely punitive" is in my view incorrect. It prevented the disruption continuing and spreading to other images as has happened on a number of previous occasions. If the reason for the block wasn't obvious to J.delanoy then I would have been more than happy to try to better explain it. Adambro (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Bro Adambro wrote: "The suggestion seems to be that in some way being an active contributor to Commons some how gives you a free pass to behave as one likes."

Apparently you have come to think, bro Adambro, that being an administrator gives you a free pass to behave however you like. That may even be true, but there is no need to expect that the peons (aka users) will not do some grumbling over the viciousness of the Commons overseers. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

See for example Commons:Village pump#Admin deleting talk page comments and edit warring. But when some others makes a few reverts, Adambro gets too annoyed to leave a normal message, and immediately pushes his admin power buttons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR

Could someone warn user DIREKTOR. I won't listen how he talks to me here. He makes changes on pictures that i made, and makes changes that are different from originals. There is something called good taste and good manner.--Ex13 (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Docu  at 11:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

He starts again. He totally destroyed the original version of this and this. I took the photo of the originals.--Ex13 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's generally ok for another user to make technical improvements to another's upload. Like Wikipedia, their is no ownership as this is a wiki. Now if this is a honest quality disagreement, and not about some drama carried over from en:wp, please discuss this with each other and try to decide on which is best, not on which is yours. If that doesn't work, maybe let ask a third party for their opinion. Rocket000 (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes i know that there is no ownership, but he changes the orignials, and i dont wont that. I will revert it. --Ex13 (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what I meant by ownership. See COM:OWN#Don't_allow_possessiveness_to_lead_to_the_creation_of_redundant_files. Rocket000 (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes i read it, but let me to explain to you. This and this are NOT the same images. If he wonts to make "repairs", he is free to upload another file. So, its better to explain how to upload another file, instead to overwrite existing. I uploaded several 1000 files to commons. --Ex13 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're just ignoring it then? Rocket000 (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, forget it. I will not upload any files to commons any more. And problem solved. Thank you for help.--Ex13 (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for your work. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Did not take that seriously for a second. :)

• Those are the same images. Those are the same images after small-scale, 2-minute technical repairs with Photoshop CS5. Essentially of the same kind I subjected hundreds of images to. They serve only to repair lower quality older images to our (my :) best ability.
• This is indeed a drama carried over from enWiki. This is a case of a user that dislikes me intensely reverting me for "touching his stuff", regardless of whether its beneficial or not. I'm getting flashbacks to grade school, seriously.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok at this point I would like to note that User:Ex13 has continued to edit war over "his" images. In fact, I've (quite amazingly) been reverted after just 3 minutes. Seems almost as though he's been refreshing his watchlist constantly for hours just waiting for me :P. [21] [22] [23] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly is the problem with uploading your changes to new images? Nine times out of ten, that's the solution to a edit-war over images on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have just blocked User DIREKTOR for continued edit warring with multiple parties after a warning. See his talk page for the specific instance, although it seems the war spanned multiple pages. DIREKTOR, in all 3 of those pages you point to, you were the one who first violated the 3RR. Also, you should listen to what people here are telling you, your changes are clearly controversial, so clearly they are not minor enough to warrant uploading over the originals. When you return from your block, please upload under new filenames. --99of9 (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And these aren't the same images. A picture showing the color of a document is never the same as a picture portraying it in black and white. You're making dramatic changes to the pictures, not small-scale ones.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Malicious unexplained reverts

User:Ex13 and myself have a history from enWiki, now he's taking this grudge of his to Commons. While editing on the en:Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) and en:Josip Jelačić articles, I encountered a number of images (some of them barely discernible) that can be easily repaired with the right tools. For the past few weeks, I've been doing such quick repairs on a very large number of Commons files that I noticed on enWiki, this is the only time I've been reverted by an uploader who thinks he owns the image. The very obviously necessary and beneficial repairs on files uploaded by User:Ex13 were reverted without so much as a coherent attempt to explain.

I will say again I maintain the repairs were very obviously both beneficial and necessary so much so that in two cases it is arguable whether the originals are even usable - and that the reverts were due to plain malice carried over from enWiki. Note:

• File:Reljef splitska krstionica.jpg repaired User:Ex13
• File:Progas o ukinuću kmetstva.jpg repaired User:Ex13
• and in particular File:Sprovod bana Jelačića 26. svibnja 1859 (Zasche-Huhn).jpg - please note the file version Ex13 is pushing [24], and the cropped, cleaned-up repaired version [25] which in contrast makes the image actually discernible in the article

(Side note: After my mention of bringing this sort of deliberate damage to files to the attentions of you fellas, User:Ex13 very shrewdly filed a preemptive "counter-suit" by reporting me before I report him. Its a fairly standard "ploy" I've seen numerous times during my years on Wiki. The lesson there is just report, don't chat about it. :P) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. We're pretty good at looking at the actual situation than just taking someone's word for it. This is about a "user problem" and not a "problem user". Rocket000 (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Destroying information in photos by user DIRECTOR

I just now saw what user DIRECTOR did to my photo File:Ivo_Tijardović.jpg, and in summary was written "Long-overdue crop". Actually by his "long-overdue crop" important information from photo was removed. If anybody wants to edit images which are uploaded to commons under CC or similar license he/she is free to do it and upload it again under another name. But to destroy important, almost vital information from picture is kind of censorship which should not be allowed on free project like commons. As I'm admin which takes care of another wiki project and I'm often see work of vandals, I hope here admins also take care that vandals do not destroy information. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

User:SpeedyGonsales is a friend of User:Ex13 from the Croatian wikipedia who was CANVASSED into this discussion by User:Ex13.

If there were any doubts this is a personal "vendetta" of a clique of Croatian wikipedia users, this should help remove them. I would like to request assistance in allowing me to edit these files with beneficial repairs, without being ganged-up on by this group. (This "admin's" conduct, which includes insulting people by calling them "vandals" without any foundation in policy, should exemplify the extremely low standards of admission to adminship on the Croatian Wikipedia). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I ask admins to see my photo File:Ivo_Tijardović.jpg which user DIRECTOR cropped in such a way that only bust remained in photo, and name, dates of birth and death got deleted. This is foundation for calling him vandal, because he really deleted data from picture.

And what to say to his reaction - personal vendetta? clique? ganged-up? Is this appropriate reaction of Wikimedia user? I do not think so. And please check his last revert to the image, he is not stopping in his actions, he does not see he made something wrong. Please let me know if I miss something, or here is vandal at large. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What you do not understand, is that the picture is to depict the bust, not to depict information. Article text is there to show inormation like his name and his birth/death date. A white stone block is not the bust of this person, nor is it a work of art.

Also: yes, you have been canvassed here as a friend of User:Ex13 from the Croatian Wikipedia. And yes, you are accusing me such outright nonsense as "vandalism" because you and User:Ex13 opposed me viciously on a number of issues on enWiki and did not manage to impose your own views.

In short, I would like to request assistance in allowing me to edit these files with (obviously beneficial) repairs - without being ganged-up on by this group of "old firends". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The bust with just the head and the full sculpture are two different pictures; it's not obviously beneficial, it can always be nice to have more context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Dont overwrite}} says, "I noticed that you uploaded a file using the same name as another file, which already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its original version. If the file you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name." If your upload is reverted, you may assume that a change you thought was uncontroversial is thought to be otherwise. DIREKTOR, please be kind enough to upload your new version under a different name. You may add a link to your new version under "other versions" in the information template on the original file page. Please link to the original on the new file page. We discourage bringing disputes here from other wikis. Ex13 (talk · contribs), DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) and SpeedyGonsales (talk · contribs), you are all admonished to desist. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys, we don't like drama, and as Walter said, especially the kind that originates on a different project. Just upload the files under a different name. I would say these reached the (intentionally low) level of "controversy" that our policy says should be avoided by uploading both and letting the individual projects decide which one they prefer. Rocket000 (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with user mattbuck

I hereby complain against user mattbuck for lodging personal insults without merit and general harrassment [[26]]. He has nominated two of my images for deletion without reason [[27]]. I have not had interactions with him and so I cannot accept that his behavior be overlooked by administrators. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In the words of Roy Walker, I say what I see. You upload images to make a point. They are deleted. You complain and wikilawyer that somehow a cartoon about a Commons user getting banned is a realistically educational piece of propaganda. Pretty much everyone disagrees with you. Seeing the conversation is going nowhere, I close it. You just create it anew, and don't get me started on how annoying it is that your section title was "undeletion request". I call that being a dick. I nominated your other two images because I don't believe them to have any educational use other than to prod commons admins, although I grant they're borderline, so, seeing the fuss you kicked up over the last deletion, I nominate them rather than straight-out deleting them. That's me being conciliatory, and giving you a chance to say why they are useful. That's the reason, and that's why it's not harassment anymore than it's harassment to check over the other uploads of someone when you see them upload a clear copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, well, well... Who the hell do you think you are? Personal attack removed - 99of9 (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC) That is my opinion. What is evident is that you disregard the rules you were asked to uphold, putting your ideas, as if they were universal and inmutable truths ahead of responsibility, civility and tolerance. Your deletion request is nothing more than a visceral act of righteousness gone wrong. Personal attack removed - 99of9 (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC) And lastly, you say copyvio? How can that be? They are my images!!! If you had taken care to read the file information, you would have seen that they were propertly licensed and categorized --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating the arguments of several others - I never said your uploads were copyright violations, I'm quite happy to assume you took them yourself. My argument for deletion is that they were uploaded to make a point, and that they lack educational value. My comment on copyright violations is that it's not harassment to check someone's other uploads if you see one which is problematic. And please, when complaining about lack of civility in others, don't be the pot. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please save your personal beliefs about me to yourself, for they constitute personal attacks, which I see that if coming from administrators, are dished out with impunity. Stick to the facts. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we all need to relax a little. Tomascastelazo, that me that mentioned not complying with licenses as I didn't know they were all your images. I retracted that and apologized. I did check the file info and your gallery before I said it, but I guess I didn't look deep enough. Sorry again for the accusation. I was wrong. Rocket000 (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Rocket000, apology accepted. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) Rocket000 (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is ending up in this forum: [[28]]. At here we have all detractors in one place... ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Nominating files for deletion is quite ok. In fact I think that it is better than speedy deleting them. So I do not think that we could blame mattbuck for nominating your files for deletion.

As for the linking to en:WP:DICK it can be both good and bad. If it is done right it can be good but done wronge it is almost the same as saying "you are a dick" and I fail to see what good should come from that. In fact the dick-page even says that "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is usually a dick-move — especially if it's true. It upsets the other person and it reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say." Personally I never link to that because I would not like to be called a dick myself and by adding that link I risk to upset users. But I trust that mattbuck wanted you to think carefully if your actions were as good as they should be. The important is not to find out who is dicks (or who is the biggest) but that we all try not to be.

I therefore suggest (hope) that we could all focus on the two issues. Should the files be deleted or not (discuss in the DR) and should Mila be blocked (discuss that somewhere on COM/AN). --MGA73 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Wikinger" using impersonation socks

Immanuel Gıel (talk · contribs) (note the spoof spelling with dotless "ı") is an obvious sockpuppet of en:User:Wikinger (aka Piast (talk · contribs), CBMIBM (talk · contribs), Polaczek (talk · contribs) and Load (talk · contribs) here on commons), impersonating Immanuel Giel (talk · contribs), an unrelated user in good standing. He uses fake signatures linking to the genuine account and has a fake redirect of his user page to that of the other account, and pretends to be a German speaker (when his German is mere machine-translation-level). These are well-known tricks of "Wikinger", an extremely obsessive cross-project vandal (see en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger for background). It is time to formally ban this user here on commons too and block all his previous accounts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, both blocked and thanks for the info. Not sure what should be done with the "contributions" though? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

About his recent image uploads (the Greek letter ones): they would be objectively as harmless as they are useless, but they are likely to be intended for use in more of Wikinger's cross-wiki disruption, so deleting them might be better (if only in order to teach him a lesson). Can't say about the other uploads from the other accounts, about obscure software screenshots and other stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

FPAS, deletion is unneeded, I want to use these images in Wikiversity, where original research is permitted. 96.44.133.2 16:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they will want your particular version of "original research". You seem to believe "original research" is the same as "making things up". It's not. Original research means trying to work out what the world out there really is like. Making up stuff about how you imagine the world ought to be, and then claiming it actually is, is not research, it's called lying. That's not permitted on Wikiversity either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

But this "making things up" was already done at http://www.unicode.org/Public/UCA/latest/allkeys.txt , so I simply copy it. 89.238.154.104 17:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've notified the real Immanuel Giel on :de. --Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also blocked one of the other accounts that was relatively active here (& clearly associated). The ones that have not edited since 2008 are unblocked - maybe they should be. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Videostrada Cyfra+ menu with Canal+ channels.jpg might need a sock check. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

and File:German kaczist coat of arms.png/File:Russian kaczist coat of arms.png may be problematic copyright-wise (although I have to admit it is hilarious.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Mailed CU list with cross wiki implications. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, somebody might want to block the 96.44.* IPs that have been editing above, they're open proxies, as always [29]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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

---

User:Mbz1

[30] is completely inappropriate behavior from any user to any user, and can only have as a goal to cause problems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the Pieter Kuiper Defense League an official organization, and are you Chairman? Why don't you stop following Kuiper around to defend him at every turn? Haven't you realized yet how many of us he has offended, how long he has been doing that, that he does it intentionally and that he will never stop unless people like you stop supporting and defending him? Find yourself a more worthy cause and a better way to spend your time and good faith efforts! SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I agree Mbz1 gets a little carried away with any oppositions towards her work, even though you hear her often say she doesn't care much about her work not getting promoted. I do not dislike her, but she needs to become aware that these are not good approaches. Perhaps if she starts saying "I do not care if I'm trolled, I could always take this QI to consensual review" or "one oppose won't hurt this nomination", we would all be more happy. ZooFari 04:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that taking the chance to bring up old fights is more than "carried away"; it's trolling.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not defending Kuiper here. This has nothing to do with Kuiper. This has to do with Mbz1, who responded to a discussion on a featured image by making a personal attack on someone and bringing in an irrelevant issue that has prompted many flame-wars. It is not acceptable to attack another user because sometime in the past they offended you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment The concept of punishment does not exist here, which is wise. But Commons, as well as its users, should be protected against trolling actions and personal attacks, which hurt the project and offend people. I would like to believe that the rest of us also have the right to carry on with our volunteer work without being harassed or insulted. But that is not what’s happening now in FPC and QIC, with Mbz1’s behaviour. It is hard for me to understand why this user is treated with such excessive care, as if she weren’t a responsible adult, and her violent or disruptive actions are often ignored or lightly excused. Well, enough is enough and I suggest that more effective actions are taken to protect Mbz1’s targets and the projects they are involved in. No, I will not provide any links to her offensive entries or to the dramas of the past. By now, everybody will certainly know why the comment "Tomas was right" is insulting to me (as other similar comments are insulting to other people). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I do recognize the good faith in all these opinions and attitudes, but when one sees some editors for years and years get away with any amount of disruptively uncivil behavior, to put it mildly, one can hardly be inspired to be civil oneself. It is too much to ask any human being to bear some of the cruelty that constantly emanates from certain editors, tolerated (apparently?) because "they do so much good work", and then ask the rest of us to remain sweet little angels, especially when dealing with such cruelty and its source person(s). The stink (as in this case) can be irresistably tempting to comment on, and once in a while an editor or two may succumb forgivably to that temptation. That was my point. I intend to repeat that good work should never excuse cruelty until I get some substantial support on that here, or until I quit. Let's all go out of our way to stop supporting and defending cruelty wherever we see it, and in whomever! Let's be so fair that it becomes excruciatingly obvious to one and all! SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree - just because smeone does good work, it should NEVER excuse behaviour that brings their name up here again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.... Now, remind me why you didn't all support Mbz1 being topic-banned from Israel/Palestine stuff? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not about a dead Arab, it is about a something much larger. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Funny; my parents taught me that I was responsible for my behavior. It is not forgivable to pick a fight on wiki, no matter what the prior relationship may have been. Call everyone to a higher standard, and it won't look so much like you're targeting one person. I wouldn't tolerate Kuiper on my home wiki, but I would have blocked Mbz1 the instant I saw this edit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Good! We had similar parents. Now you wrote "It is not forgivable to pick a fight on wiki, no matter what the prior relationship may have been." Though it is forgivable, in my opinion to snap att someone who has hounded you cruelly for a long time and intentionally makes your life and/or work miserable, I really like your principle, if you mean it. I hope you don't mind if I keep this link handy and remind you of what you wrote, if I might not feel you apply that to everyone in the future. Assuming good faith, I suppose I'll never need to. I hope you also noticed that I agree with you about calling everyone to a higher standard. Looks like that's just what I wrote ("Let's all go out of our way..."). Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Mila's work is so excellent, that despite her immaturity at times, I think that on the whole, Commons would loose if Mila was blocked. I also think that Alvesgaspar, Pieter Kuiper and Lycaon should abstain from voting on Mila's images, not because they did anything wrong, but just to avoid a fight. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not propose to grant FP status to all her images? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not put a restraining order on everyone who even thinks on criticizing her concoctions? She even has all previous versions of her images deleted to hide every machination! You'd start wondering what's still real about her 'excellent' pictures. This is disgusting and appalling. Lycaon (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Things that are not regretted shouldn't be forgiven and [31] shows that Mbz1 is not the least bit regretful of her actions. To be fair, this is Mbz1 hounding Kuiper, so according to rules you've set forth, he has the right to snap at her. Which is why nobody sane accepts "he started it!" as an excuse--that whole personal responsibility thing I was talking about. And again you have a bad habit of making this personal, of making this about me instead of the actions I'm reporting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that comments like that should not be on Commons. End of story. I also think that there is no reason to attack users that report such behaviour. --MGA73 (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• The solution suggested by Whale is unacceptable because it will benefit the offender and punish the offended. I will never abdicate of my Commons’ rights, in order to avoid confrontations with someone who has shown not to be able to respect the other users’ opinions. That would be an irrational solution only serving to feed the already improper behavior. Now there will be three people not allowed to vote or comment on Mbz1’s work. How many more in the future? If someone is disrupting the project and making personal attacks, that user should be stopped. That is precisely what I’m asking for. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

•  CommentThank you, The High Fin Sperm Whale for your post. I was really touched, but it was not necessarily. No matter how many images I uploaded, no matter how many FP I have, I should be treated exactly as everybody else is, and if, a user, who just made a new account deserves to be blocked for a comment they made, so am I, there should be no differences. So, I came here not to defend myself, but to explain why I asked the other versions of my file to be deleted. Of course it has absolutely nothing to do with what lycaon claims in his rant, he's as always assuming a bad faith. Please see This and this. It is an explanation of my request to remove other versions of the file. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits like this one are unacceptable. Based on previous blocks blocked for a week. Multichill (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Multichill, why do you think this [32] is unacceptable? Is it your intention to also block all the other users who object to the stinking antisemetic cartoons that have been allowed onto Commons? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

NB: it appears this part of the discussion will be continued on Multichill's talk page[33] -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Only because you brought it there. Don't discuss the same thing in more than one place please. --MGA73 (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you object to my telling those participating in the discussion that a part of it is continued on another page? My notifying about that was informational, and not an attack, and you should avoid twisting the facts of the situation. If you would prefer to move that discussion from Multichill's talk page to here that is quite alright with me. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't. I just think that we should keep the discussion in one place. If you want Multichill to comment just ask him here. If you think he has not noticed you could leave a notice "Hi! Would you please comment at (link to section here). Besides, as I see it you started the discussion on Multichill's talk page - do you disagree? --MGA73 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and think my mistake of commenting first on Multichill's talk page should not result in discussion, important here, being out of sight there. For instance, I just replied to a comment by Multichill on his talk page: In fact I see that you are an involved administrator [34][35], and as such you should not have acted to block anyone over this issue. Since you are involved in the issues of the dispute, it would be the right thing if you removed the block, and let other uninvolved administrators deal with this.

The diffs indicating that he blocked Mbz1, even though he is an involved administrator, are important in this discussion and so should be here also. Because of his involvement, it is inappropriate that he acted administratively to block, and he should remove the block. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a pragmatic approach since previous pleas for tolerance, peace, and quiet have not succeeded. So I suggest the following, when Mbz1 comes back from this block, Mbz1 is banned from nominating her own images for FP, QI, or VI. If someone else chooses, freely, to do so, great, but she cannot. Further, should one of her images be nominated by someone else, or should she nominate someone else's image, Lycaon and PK are banned from commenting on it... leave it to others to comment. Conversely, Mbz1 is banned from commenting on any images of, or nominated by, PK or L. Finally, a more general interaction ban... no post by Mbz1 on the talk of either of the other two, and no post in direct response to either of the other two, and no mentioning them in posts, with a similar restriction the other way, neither L nor PK shall post on Mbz1's talk, respond directly to Mbz1's posts or mention Mbz1 in posts. Draconian but maybe will bring some peace and quiet. The alternative would be to start meting out bans for those that seem to constantly cause these sorts of issues. ++Lar: t/c 03:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don’t like Lar’s pragmatic approach. First, because it is unrealistic: no one of those involved in this dispute will accept the restrictions and no consensus will ever be reached in the community to enforce them. Second, because it is unfair: everybody knows how the picture forums are important to Mbz1. Preventing her from participating with her own images will be a cruel punishment, as she is very much dependent on the feedback of others. I’m not inside her head but suspect that she would prefer to be blocked forever. Third, because it is ineffective: enforcing those measures will hardly bring peace and quiet. On the contrary, it will make the conflict escalate and spread, as no one involved will be happy with the solution. Finally, I dislike the final warning. Please forgive me if I’m wrong, but it looks like a veiled menace: either a solution of this kind is accepted or some blocks are on the way. I suppose the targets are the other users mentioned in this comment: Lycaon and Kuiper (why not me?...). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

  I concur with Alvesgaspar - such a punishment is never going to work, and will only breed greater resentment. Short of banning one side or the other, I don't think there is a solution. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• This proposal is not "punishment". That's a VERY important point. It is a way to get the sides to separate, sort of banning one side or the other (or both sides). And I'd rather not ban anyone. Note that there have been proposals to ban Mbz1 from the FP/VP/QI area completely. No one is stopping anyone else from nominating Mbz1's images and I expect that lots still will be. As for Alve's last comment, he's correct. Either we, the community come up with a solution that works, or blocks are going to be on the way. I expect they won't necessarily be coming from me, but this state of affairs cannot persist. As for why I left him out, I don't see his incitement of Mbz1 as nearly as bad as PKs or L's but if he wants to be added to the proposal after it passes, he can propose that. For right now I'd like an up or down consensus on it as written. ++Lar: t/c 11:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Lol. Well, my position is already above. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• My incitement? What does that mean? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Posing as totally innocent and fault free, as ever. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment She has been at AN before. Last time (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_15#Closure) the result was not a formal topic ban but a warning to stay out of trouble. I begin to think it was a mistake not to close this with a topic ban because as we feared she did not stay out of trouble and was blocked for saying that other users stink worse than "decaying sea animals on the beach". She has now made an unblock request in where she holds on to that and say that those users "smell bad, really, really bad" [36]. --MGA73 (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

See my below (her comment that they smell was removed). --MGA73 (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This block seems quite childish. Sort of like "sticks and stones will break my bones..." --Shuki (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• You may find en:WP:CIVIL helpful. "Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment." "Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians." Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comparing the Holocaust to the situation in the Palestinian territories and suggesting that they are equivalent is the height of antisemitism/racism. All Jews (and others) have the right to be offended by that. If anyone should be blocked for a personal attacks, it is someone who puts up such cartoons and then tries to keep the honest label of antisemitism off of them. Frankly I am shocked that there are so few voices here that understand this. Indeed, it stinks. Stellarkid (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• In fact, there is a recent article from our point of view at the Institute for Jewish Global Affairs, called Anti-Semitic cartoons on Progressive Blogs. It is rather long; it has a POV; and it references Latuff. If there is an open mind available, I urge you all to consider it when you consider whether or not to enforce this ban on a productive member while at the same time providing an open stage for antisemitic propaganda. You guys (you know who you are) need to think long and hard about your priorities. Stellarkid (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but our priority is to create a comprehensive library of freely licenced educational media. That includes antisemitic cartoons, racist rabbits, homophobic signs, etc. We host material which people find objectionable - get over it. If you can't get over it, don't look at it, and if you find that too hard to handle, don't edit Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  Hey bro Mattbuck, that's just such a friendly statement. Pretty much: 'If your heart ain't in wiki get your ass out.' Could you explain to me just why users who find it deplorable that Commons has become such a great resource for neo-Nazies, do not have a right to complain about that? It seems to me that users should have as much right to complain (and resist the unthinking trend to act as a free web host for antisemitic images), as you do to complain about their complaining. You might benefit from reviewing WP:DICK. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  There are plenty of people who find nudity objectionable, yet we host that and pretty much fought a war against Jimbo to make sure we could keep it. This is nothing different. I don't like seeing medical images, so I avoid looking at them. If I were someone who hated those images, but insisted on looking at them and saying that you, for wanting to keep them, stank like a gangrenous limb, I would be rightly smacked by an admin; and if I kept doing so I'd be banned. Please, tell me how antisemitic/antizionist cartoons are in any way different to any of the other nasty stuff we host becase it is educational? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. My recollection is that the problem was not "nudity", but stuff like child pornography. 2.If I choose to look at the the antisemitic files Commons is hosting and then complain about them, why don't you just not read my criticisms of the problematic files, of those who upload them, and those who act administratively to protect the antisemitic files? Would you consider doing that, or is it that you are unwilling to do yourself what you tell others they should do? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I have two independent comments related to Mbz1 block. First, I think she should stay blocked until the danger of further disruptions or personal attacks persists. In her recent explanations I see no regret for the previous actions, no apologies to the offended people and no intention of abandoning her usual conduct. On the contrary she tries to justify or minimize those actions with her political commitment to a cause (which is, of course respectable, but outside Commons) and her outstanding contributions to Commons. As I see it, these arguments don’t offer any guarantee that the mess will not re-start the moment she is unblocked. Second point: why are some Latuff’s obviously anti-Semitic cartoons not categorized as such? If this file is under the category of Antisemitism, why not this one and many other similar pictures by the same author? I’m afraid that until a crisp clear rationale is given for the present criteria (or the criteria are adjusted) people will wonder if some symmetrical political motivation is in force here. - Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  It should definitely be in an antizionism category, but there is a difference between antisemitism and antizionism. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation. I have added the category "Anti-Zionism" to some Latuff's cartoons. Let's see the reaction of the community. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  It should also have category:antisemitism. There are sources that are WP:V and WP:RS that support that, and Latuff discussed it in his interview with the Forward, so there is no doubt that antisemitism is an issue with many of his cartoons. Also, in recent years a lot of antisemitism has been disguised as anti-Zionism, as is discussed in the WP article on New antisemitism. This article[37], from the Stephen Roth Institute, says of Latuff: "One of the most popular caricaturists in Rio de Janeiro is Carlos Latuff, who publishes his cartoons in Vapt-Vupt, the journal of the Workers’ Syndicate of the Federal Fluminense University (in Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro). Directed against globalization, the United States and Israel, his portrayal of Prime Minister Sharon is reminiscent of the antisemitic caricatures of Philip Ruprecht (Fips) in Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer." It is difficult to understand why category:antisemitism is not on many of Latuff's cartoons, because it is a known issue with his work. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  I have no strong opinion on these matters and wouldn't like to meddle. My edits were meant as a good-faith start to fix a obviuosly biased categorization. Due to the sensitive nature of the issue, a broad discussion seems necessary. Anyway, this has little to do with Mbz1 block and unblock. In my opision that black should stay for, at least, the established period of one week, and only released with a strong guarantee that Mbz1 will not re-start offending people and disrupting our picture forums, on the pretext of antisemitism or any other. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  She has criticized users who have made Commons a good resource for neo-Nazis. Too fucking bad she hurt their sensitive feelings. Is it your intention to block every user who understands that and says she is right? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, but your comment is out of context. If you read everything from the begining you will understand that, altough my feelinngs were hurt by Mbz1, I'm neither a fucking neo-Nazi or an administrator with the powers of blocking. You may also be interested to know that I consider many of Latuff's cartoons as violence and hate inciting trash. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say you are a neo-Nazi. I do not recall having any previous discussion with you, and have no reason to think you are doing anything but what you think is best for Commons. But I do, nevertheless, think you are wrong in assuming that Mbz1's comment is WP:PA. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• I commented above regarding the unblock request. I'm happy to see that the the request has been modified and does not contain the comment that the users stink. I think that it shows that she does realise that comments like that should be avoided. That is one step closer to an unblock.

But as you can see on User_talk:Mbz1#Unblock_request_rationale she still has strong feelings against antisemitism. That is ok with me as long as she follows the rules on Commons. She uses en:File:OctopusNAS1.jpg as an example. I think that uploading antisemitism material like that to Commons is ok but trying to spread antisemitism is not. Killing jews (or any other people) is not ok but uploading images that document such crimes is. It seems to me that she accepts that Commons have such files with her comment "Yes, as long as it is added to the right categories...". So if she would agree not to attack users she disagree with but stay focused on the goal (to get the categories right etc.) then I would support an unblock. --MGA73 (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Must we go through this again? How long is her block list now? Every time for pretty much the same damn thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I agree with MGA on this focus on gnome work not other people, what I dont understand is this image history which is the focus of Mbz1 concern as I cant see any edit in the file history by Mbz1, what i do see is a lot of effort to remove and maintain the image out of the category antisemitism, on the face of it that is reason for the concern but antisemitism = anti-jewish and this image isnt anti-jewish but anti-Israeli ie a political commentary not a religious commentary. My other concern is that Mbz1 portrays herself as being on a cruisade and that her cruisade is that of ensuring that antisemitism on commons is clearly marked as such while we need good hard workings gnomes we dont need knights on a cruisade what ever the cause as it only creates conflicts and we are meant to be mellow gnomes. As lso highlighted in this is the FP comment that sparked the response which was not realy a good FP review in that we dont need to like the subject matter to identify a work as our best work, comments should be directed at the works not the subject matter, ie "I dont like dead sea creatures" should not be an acceptable oppose reason especially as the subject is the dead sea creature showing what sharks do to the carcass. Editors should take care when commenting or not comment at all where they have a personal dislike of the subject matter, also editors should not be warned not to comment on any picture at FP unless the community have expressly agree to such a sanction. Until we have a more robust community sanction process where such issue can be adjudicated on and resolved by a trusted group of editor we will continue to have such events arise repeatably. Gnangarra 14:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as Malcolm Schosha points out below, it is an antisemitic and anti-Jewish image. It mocks the Holocaust, and compares Jews and the Jewish state, to Nazis. This is defined as antisemitic imagery by the EU, and most civil rights orgs that concern themselves with antisemitism. To refer to mbz1 as a "Knight on a cruisade[sic]" is another personal attack. The crusaders actually killed Jews just like the Nazis did. Why is it apparently OK for you people to continually compare Jewish people to their murderers, ie Nazis and Crusaders, but not ok for someone to say that that stinks? Stellarkid (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The crusades never actually killed jews like hitler did, no one has ever done what he did - w:Crusades The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and their campaigns were launched in response to a call from the Christian Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. its not an attack on jews nor was it a personal attack, but rather a description (Crusade(WIktionary)) A grand concerted effort toward some purportedly worthy cause. of what Mbz1 descrides as her reason for being here, I will fight antisemitism, and any other forms of racism everywhere I see it. I should not have done it in response of him opposing my image. If community wants me to stop fighting antisemitism and racism I should be banned indefinitely or topic banned for that, but then it will not be my shame.[38] Commons is not a battleground for religious warriors we are here to build a media repository not to judge, not censor, there will be files that we dont like. PK comments about not liking dead sea creatures was not a valid FP comment but it was also not an attack and did not warrant the response on his talk page. Gnangarra 00:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The image is antisemitic, which I have explained a number of times in the past. If a repeat of the explanation is needed, I can run through the reasoning another time here also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether he/she stops and he/she will never go to the dispute again. If disputes on specific topics after several blocks are repeated he/she naturally lose trusts. So I'm reluctant to support his/her unblock. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I have declined Mbz1's unblock request, as it was perfectly in line with the Blocking policy. Kameraad Pjotr 18:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- Bad call in my opinion! As I said above, why is it ok for editors to continually compare Jewish people to their murderers, ie Nazis and Crusaders, but not ok for mbz1 to say that that stinks? Nope. Bad call. Stellarkid (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Because Kuiper was discussing an image when Mbz1 came by and decided to pick a fight over an issue that was currently quiescent. If you can't live with people who disagree with you existing on the same wiki and you not getting to pick a fight with them, go play in some sandbox.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to say that Multichill's block, and your upholding the block, is quite in line with what is described by Fuckwad Theory. Or is there a particular Commons rule you can show she violated? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Editor's index to Commons lists "no personal attacks as policy. Going to someone's talk page and accusing them of stinking certainly counts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That didn't actually happen. That is your interpretation of what happened. Stellarkid (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I quote "Have I ever told you that decaying sea animals on the beach smell much better than the users, who upload anti-Semitic cartoons to Commons?" with a link to Pieter Kuiper's comments. I don't see any way you can reasonably interpret it. --Prosfilaes (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm going to say that that is quite childish on your part. I think that in upholding civil, we should also avoid being overly prude. --Shuki (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it's childish to demand that people not insult each other. There was no possible upside to Mbz1 making that comment. Not only that, she didn't just go to his talk page and say that he stunk; she went and restarted a fight that has wasted more time on Commons then any other. If every time Mbz1 gets grumpy, she's going to start another argument about anti-semitic pictures, then she needs blocking.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Blocking Mbz1 is, in my opinion, cruel and unusual punishment. Mila´s issues revolve basically around her relationships with Pieter, Alvesgaspar and Lycaon, users that in my opinion, are no saints at all, and I speak from my personal experiences with Lycaon and Alvesgaspar. I have no opinion about Pieter. Also, Mila´s issue with antisemitism is a source of confrontation. As far as her confrontations with the mentioned users, Mila is being punished for the exact same behaviour exhibited by both Lycaon and Alvesgaspar, and to cite an example of such behavior, "The correction just made to the stitching errors in the surf looks so clumsy as to be almost almost offensive to the reviewers in this forum. I wouldn't hesitate to use a FPX template if I could. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)". This comment is by no means an objective review of an image from a legitimate photographic and/or encyclopaedic perspective, but in my opinion, a very clumsy attempt to insult a user, and as a user of the forum, I take absolutely no offense in her editing methods or results. And most importantly, it is definitely not a comment or review that is geared toward the improvement of the project or building an athmosphere of contribution and civility. So if Alvesgaspar feels insulted, he should speak for himself, not on behalf of the users. I certainly do not agree with his "photographic criteria", so he cannot speak on my behalf as a user. If he should say that many users do take offense, well, he should get the approval of the offended parties and all that take such offense let their voice be heard and their names published, otherwise this very comment is nothing but a personal attack that is not even clumsily disguised as informed opinion. In my opinion, it is a brutal personal attack. As far as the antisemitism issue, that is a can of worms. Antisemitism exists, racism exists, discrimination exists, and they exisit in a realm that is of a qualitative essence. If I ask someone to bring me an ounce of antisemitism, nobody will, but antisemitism killed 6,000,000 people recently and yet not an ounce of antisemitism was ever produced. And that goes for anything anti- anti-islam, anti-christian, bigotry, discrimination, etc., etc. Is she a radical? By no means. She uses peaceful means to express her beliefs, based on a personal experience, that is just as real as other oppressed people in order to contribute to a world that cannot allow for another Holocaust, jews or no jews. I say UNBLOCK Mbz1 NOW!!!!!!--Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This is the type of attitude I deplore. The rule is not that you can't attack the persons of good users, it is that you can't attack other users. There is a difference between criticism to images, criticism to people, and personal attacks on people, and she went all the way across the line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Well then, let justice be evenly applied. There are plenty of examples that point to the same behaviour from the users involved that got Mbz1 blocked. At this point it is irrelevant who started the fight. All are involved. If this is not a crude and rude personal attack #REDIRECT [[39]], I don´t know what is. I do see a pattern of harrassment on her critics side. What I tell you is this: too stiffle Mila is an abhorrent act of censorship, it is a form of violence. So, as the saying goes, What´s good for the goose is good for the gander. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
      • If it's a form of violence, call the police. Nor is it an abhorrent act of censorship to block someone for personal attacks. Hyperbole is not serving us at all. Apparently you don't know what a crude and rude personal attack is, and I don't see Mbz1 winning any points on that page for communicating well with other people who disagree with her.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Is this a personal attack? #REDIRECT [[40]]. Please read Alvesgaspar´s contribution. What is your take on this particular engagement? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Link the bloody page just like you would any other page. Why are you adding "REDIRECT"? No, a critique of an image, no matter how sharp and harsh, is not a personal attack.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Better yet, here´s the bloody critique, since you pay more attention to form than to depth, and so save you the trouble of going to the page and scrolling down to the point: "The correction just made to the stitching errors in the surf looks so clumsy as to be almost almost offensive to the reviewers in this forum. I wouldn't hesitate to use a FPX template if I could. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)". I will break it down for you easy digestion:
              • a) "The correction just made to the stitching errors in the surf looks so clumsy..." The reference to clumsy is a qualitative statement that considering the caustic relationship between the users can be hardly be interpreted as an objective, civil or constructive critisism or evaluation. Clumsy is an adjective with a negative connotation to the attributes of the person that executed the deed, in this case, Mila. I dare Alvesgaspar to produce a Clumsytometer that can support his statement. If he doesn´t produce quantitative proof, then his statement is just hot air.
              • b) "as to be almost almost offensive to the reviewers in this forum". My question is: How can the clumsiness of a person be offensive? I am a reviewer in this forum, and I do not find either clumsiness or bad photography offensive. I again challenge Alvesgaspar or you to produce the list of offended reviewers. Again, this language, considering the state of affairs, in my opinion is at the very least provocative and an insult to me as a reviewer, for I have never granted Alvesgaspar the right to speak for me, so at least he could have said "to reviewers in this forum except tomascastelazo". So because of the fact that he included me, I personally take offense ;o).
              • c) And last, why didn´t he use the FPX template? He could have. Why didn´t he? Why bring it up after the fact? Just as useless as a Super Bowl ticket... the day after.
              • So, the reference to clumsy relates to the act of stitching and to the actof stitching to the person who performed the action, that is, Mila. Therefore, Mila is clumsy. A derogative statement about the user.
              • The reference to the act being offensive means that Mila offends people by her actions of stitching, by trying to fool people, or think that people are stupid or who knows what Alvesgaspar may have inside his head about Mila´s intentions. He is accusing her of insulting people.
              • So in this supposed critique I find no objective intention to critisize the work itself, or a harsh and sharp critique of the image as you see it, which is the object of the forum anyway, but I do see an intention to attack the person masqueraded as a critique. Face it, this is a conflict between people and you are playing into their hands. Why? Only you know. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Update

Getting blocked don't seem to be enough as the personal attacks continue.[41][42] // Liftarn (talk)

Neither of those diffs is a personal attack. --Avenue (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been concerned about Mbz1 using her talkpage as a soapbox for a little while now, as well as others using it as a venue, not to communicate with Mbz1 but to argue amongst themselves. I've asked Mbz1 to refrain from providing Commons via her talk page with a running commentary which I feel will only inflame things as your comments seem to demonstrate. Adambro (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)