Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 23
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi,
Just to let you know that the user Bkesh had been blocked forever on the french wikipedia for vandalism including association of child and pornography. He used the only picture he ever imported : File:Legal Tabar.jpg for illustration of a porn move actor and incrust it on the most visited pages (like google, wikipédia, etc.). He even created a full page (erased fastly) about this "joke".
I think that the personn on the picture can be someone from is school or something like that and that the "joke" is a serious violation of laws... (not even talkibng the risk on the other kid) and so suggest that you block forever the account.
NB : As I am really busy, I will not come back on this page or put it on my following list, so you don't need to ansewer me... just do what ever you feel right
Best regards --Jmrosier (dit Ampon) (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- File deleted and user blocked. Yann (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Sridhar1000
I warned this user earlier about license reviewing images while not being an approved license reviewer. User responded with this in retaliation: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. All the edits were self-reverted, but this is clearly unacceptable. Please note also Commons:License review/requests, including copyright issues and the previous "retired" account of Sridhar100 (talk · contribs). Given all of these factors, I think a general request for admin assistance is now justified. CT Cooper · talk 14:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Done, I blocked both accounts for 1 week (one for vandalism - another to not be used to edit while the main one is blocked). Béria Lima msg 15:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- They're continuing with Sridharbabu58 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log). It would probably be a good idea to block the following as well:
- Fatbuu58 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)
- Sridhar00 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)
- Sridhar10 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)
- Sridhar10000 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)
- Sridhar100000 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)
- Sridharbabu100 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)
- Sridharbabu1000 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)
- Uselessfellow100 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)
- Although not currently used, I don't foresee any legitimate potential uses for these accounts. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- I blocked those along with a slew of other socks. They are using useragent generating software which pretty much tells me they are up to no good. Tiptoety talk 07:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- They're continuing with Sridharbabu58 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log). It would probably be a good idea to block the following as well:
I know this user is blocked for being uncivil but some of his recent edits have been intentionally disruptive. I tried to respond to one his re-name requests and found that my edits were not showing up in the history and the re-name template remained. He has been adding a disruptive template to files that he thinks should be renamed despite his not providing a valid reason according to the guidelines. He is blocked but if he continues this after he is unblocked, I think it warrants further attention from admins. Thanks. Addendum: I went back and looked at his user rights and he actually has File Mover rights so I'm not sure why he was requesting renames with a {{rename}} anyway. Warfieldian (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that Queeg is taking out his/her disagreement with the filemove rules in a somewhat disruptive manner. I have removed the filemover right - thanks for noticing this. --99of9 (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of which: I didn't want to get in an edit war / wheel war, but for the files that are now at File:1954 custom Cadillac El Dorado 01.jpg, File:1954 custom Cadillac El Dorado 02.jpg, File:1954 custom Cadillac El Dorado trunk.jpg, File:1954 custom Cadillac El Dorado dash.jpg, File:1954 custom Cadillac El Dorado dash-detail.jpg, he changed both the names & descriptions from 1953 to 1954 despite the fact that the license holder in File:1954 custom Cadillac El Dorado 02.jpg clearly declares the car to be a 1953. In the dialogue I attempted at User talk:Queeg#Cadillac Eldorado, he insists that he is right and the owner of this meticulously restored vehicle is wrong about what year the car was made. Again, to avoid a war I was going to leave this alone, but since apparently I am not the only one who has had a problem with this user, I'd like to request that a third party either undo the renames and restore Category:Cadillac 1953 instead of Category:Cadillac 1954 or simply assert here that they will back me up in making that change. - Jmabel ! talk 15:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I just remove all rights from this user, and also restored the images to 1953 names and category. Béria Lima msg 09:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 14:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is a new account of User:Erik Warmelink. Why? Same kind of behaviour and the way he uses the word "nick". Erik is the only user I know of who used the word "schuilnaam" (nickname in Dutch) like that. For example compare nl:Overleg gebruiker:ErikWarmelink/Archief003 (Dutch) with https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMultichill&action=historysubmit&diff=60451686&oldid=60205429 . Multichill (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am dubious about this linkage. The "nick" usage does not seem to be associated with Erik Warmelink on Commons.[6] CarolSpears (talk · contribs) is fond of this usage, TV/film references and long digressions.[7][8] She is more likely to be linked to Queeg, in my opinion. I think the writing style of Queeg is distinctly different from Erik Warmelink. Queeg claims to be monolingual.[9] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is a new account of User:Erik Warmelink. Why? Same kind of behaviour and the way he uses the word "nick". Erik is the only user I know of who used the word "schuilnaam" (nickname in Dutch) like that. For example compare nl:Overleg gebruiker:ErikWarmelink/Archief003 (Dutch) with https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMultichill&action=historysubmit&diff=60451686&oldid=60205429 . Multichill (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 14:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Distressed IP
- Special:Contributions/194.48.218.11
- Special:Contributions/194.48.218.13
- Special:Contributions/194.48.218.14
- Special:Contributions/194.48.218.15
For some time, a Russian IP inserted near-nonsensical "coded messages" into file pages related to Russian and U.S. security forces (search for ШОШИНУ or ИЗОТРОННАЯ). Seems like last week they had a seasonal fit. Medication, perhaps? NVO (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Some of these "intergalactic missives" (of the lengthier kind) also mention a real-world person, chief of a local FSB office, in a comic way - may be taken as BLP violation. I left a note at their service provider (it's a small-town WAN). NVO (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Could someone have a second look at the uploads of User:بلال الدويك? All of his calligraphy uploads appear to be copyvios, and at least one other photo was grabbed from panoramio. I can't find sources for the others (which tend to be low-quality, suggesting self-made), but some are low res and the exif data is sometimes missing and (when there) shows a variety of cameras. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the calligraphy over the roundels may be problematic. My guess is that both the calligraphy and the roundels are from clip art that he pasted together in a graphics program. The image of the book with calligraphy [10] would be ok if he took the photograph himself, and if the manuscript itself is out of copyright, otherwise its a copyright violation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have found the sources for the calligraphy - there's basically no question that they are copyvios. Now the question is whether the photos were self-taken or grabbed from the internet (I'm discouraged by the panoramio pic) - that's where I need another set of eyes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you provide us the source of the copyvios? Béria Lima msg 10:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Links are on the deletion nomination pages. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you provide us the source of the copyvios? Béria Lima msg 10:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have found the sources for the calligraphy - there's basically no question that they are copyvios. Now the question is whether the photos were self-taken or grabbed from the internet (I'm discouraged by the panoramio pic) - that's where I need another set of eyes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Carried away by his administrator powers, the user has trawled through all my uploaded images, reverting each one I had uploaded over an existing image; including File:Steeple Ashton.jpg -- an improvement over my own earlier photo (originally uploaded on 24/9/2007, new version uploaded on 7/10/2007, completely untouched for over 4 years, until Mattbuck's frenzy).
- It's indicative of his true intent that he only applied COM:CROP one-sidedly, not bothering to revert File:RussianPassport.JPEG, which had been overwritten with a much inferior image, to my original revision.
- My attempt to communicate with Mattbuck has failed, thus I need other administrators' intervention. --My another account (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- At least in the case you cite, Mattbuck's actions are entirely within policy. You should not have overwritten your old image with a different one. Although they are similar, and the new one is brighter, the older one is less obscured by greenery and is probably a better record shot of the church.
- Often, when editors run across a problem which a user has created, they will go through all of his or her uploads and take action which seems to them appropriate. This can feel like persecution, but in fact it is only a logical progression -- where there is one problem, there are often more.
- Further, the action that Mattbuck took does not require being an Admin -- any user could (and should) have done the same thing.
- Finally, Mattbuck replied to your message on his talk page at 21:14, 14 October 2011 which was only 33 minutes after you placed it -- certainly very fast by any standard. You responded to his comment there an hour and a half later. Then, today, you placed the message above which gives the impression that he did not respond. It's clear that you didn't like the response, just as I am sure you will not like my response, but that is not a reason for a complaint here.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- He's been editing today for 3 hours and a half, but didn't take a look at his talk page? Is that what you mean? --My another account (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Right, let's get to this... first off, thanks for telling me about this topic, it's not nice at all to only know about this after seeing my name appear in the edit summary. Second, I did not arbitrarily "trawl" through your uploads - you overwrote an image on my watchlist, and so I went to investigate, and found you had uploaded one of your photos over a photo by another user. I then took a quick look at some of your other recent contributions to see if something similar had happened. I noted you uploaded over another file, with clearly a different image, so I reverted it. I left you a message on your talk page explaining why I'd reverted. You then came to my talk page, and I said again that it was a different image, not the same image, so shouldn't be uploaded over. You then left a message effectively saying that you were right because you'd been here longer than me, and so I asked on Commons IRC channel if someone would explain my reasoning to you, but clearly no one did and by this morning I'd forgotten it.
- My point was that this particular image is on Commons longer than you are, and you're the first to notice anything wrong with it. It's bizarre that you refer to a four-years-old upload as a recent contribution. --My another account (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, this page is about half of your edits on Commons, so recent meaning last 20 edits is pretty much your entire history. The new image you uploaded over it was recent by any definition though. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Eh? The new image I uploaded over it in Oct 2007 is recent by any definition? That's quite a stretch. --My another account (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, so you did, I thought it was October 2011. I still think it would be better to keep both images, but I see what you mean now. I'm sorry for misreading it. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- This refusal to see the other's point, when it's stated first on your talk page and two more times here, is precisely what I described as "failure of communication", and Malcolm as "deplorable attitude". Perhaps a better term is "arrogant self-righteousness". Now please undo your revert, and restore the revision which was there ever since you signed up, and until you stumbled on it. --My another account (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, so you did, I thought it was October 2011. I still think it would be better to keep both images, but I see what you mean now. I'm sorry for misreading it. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Eh? The new image I uploaded over it in Oct 2007 is recent by any definition? That's quite a stretch. --My another account (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, this page is about half of your edits on Commons, so recent meaning last 20 edits is pretty much your entire history. The new image you uploaded over it was recent by any definition though. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- My point was that this particular image is on Commons longer than you are, and you're the first to notice anything wrong with it. It's bizarre that you refer to a four-years-old upload as a recent contribution. --My another account (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- So because you didn't get a reply sufficiently quickly, you decide to bring me up here and accuse me of a "frenzy"? A frenzy of reverting two images? Might I suggest that next time you just add another message to my talk page rather than coming here and claiming that you have exhausted all possible options of dialogue and that I'm being completely unreasonable because I didn't reply within 24hrs. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Right, let's get to this... first off, thanks for telling me about this topic, it's not nice at all to only know about this after seeing my name appear in the edit summary. Second, I did not arbitrarily "trawl" through your uploads - you overwrote an image on my watchlist, and so I went to investigate, and found you had uploaded one of your photos over a photo by another user. I then took a quick look at some of your other recent contributions to see if something similar had happened. I noted you uploaded over another file, with clearly a different image, so I reverted it. I left you a message on your talk page explaining why I'd reverted. You then came to my talk page, and I said again that it was a different image, not the same image, so shouldn't be uploaded over. You then left a message effectively saying that you were right because you'd been here longer than me, and so I asked on Commons IRC channel if someone would explain my reasoning to you, but clearly no one did and by this morning I'd forgotten it.
- He's been editing today for 3 hours and a half, but didn't take a look at his talk page? Is that what you mean? --My another account (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Jameslwoodward, even if Mattbuck is supported by policy, would it have hurt for an administrator (or anyone) to just point out the problem on My another account's user page and see if things get corrected? I know that often takes a little more time, but the other approach amounts to administrators treating Commons users like serfs. Is that so difficult for an administrator to understand? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Sorry about the incorrect accusation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- The accusation is correct: the message was added after reverting the images. Mattbuck doesn't to care to see if things get corrected, he goes straight ahead and enforces his judgment. --My another account (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was already at the page, and given that it needed reverting I just did it. In the first case you uploaded over someone else's image, which brings up attribution problems, so that needed an instant reversion. Doing the other one was just sensible. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, and leaving File:RussianPassport.JPEG alone was just as sensible, wasn't it? Double standards at their best, I must say.
- By the way, you still haven't given an explanation for reverting File:Steeple Ashton.jpg, other than just sensible --My another account (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think I looked at that file - I looked at files you'd uploaded over, not which ones you had created. As for the steeple, as Martin H says below, it creates problems with licensing, and also since it is a different photo, and the other one has been here such a long time, it's not just a case of accidentally uploading the wrong photo. This was uploading over an image that was freely released, with something that was not a derivative improvement of the existing file. You don't have sole rights to the original image anymore, you released them to the world at large, and uploading over it, even with what is a better image, is reducing the choice available to other users, because they won't see the original version when they search, they'll just see the new one, and maybe they would rather have the original - maybe the colours suit their needs better, who knows. We lose nothing by having both, and I honestly don't see why you're kicking up such a fuss over this. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- This applies to any modification of any image. How dare you routinely overwrite freely-released images with cropped/rotated/colour-corrected version, reducing the choice available to other users? Maybe they would rather have the uncropped/tilted/dull-coloured original? --My another account (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think I looked at that file - I looked at files you'd uploaded over, not which ones you had created. As for the steeple, as Martin H says below, it creates problems with licensing, and also since it is a different photo, and the other one has been here such a long time, it's not just a case of accidentally uploading the wrong photo. This was uploading over an image that was freely released, with something that was not a derivative improvement of the existing file. You don't have sole rights to the original image anymore, you released them to the world at large, and uploading over it, even with what is a better image, is reducing the choice available to other users, because they won't see the original version when they search, they'll just see the new one, and maybe they would rather have the original - maybe the colours suit their needs better, who knows. We lose nothing by having both, and I honestly don't see why you're kicking up such a fuss over this. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with enforcing an existing policy and then letting the user know about it afterward (it doesn't require administrator rights to revert an improperly uploaded image). I do see something wrong with bringing an editor to the administrator noticeboard after not listening or trying to come to an understanding of the problem with the other editor. I think he responded to you with civility and within an reasonable timeframe. File:Steeple Ashton.jpg was reverted because it's not the same image and should be uploaded under another name. Is it really that difficult? It would be easier and less disruptive to take your new image and give it a slightly different name and upload it. Problem solved. Warfieldian (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was already at the page, and given that it needed reverting I just did it. In the first case you uploaded over someone else's image, which brings up attribution problems, so that needed an instant reversion. Doing the other one was just sensible. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- The accusation is correct: the message was added after reverting the images. Mattbuck doesn't to care to see if things get corrected, he goes straight ahead and enforces his judgment. --My another account (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Sorry about the incorrect accusation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- @My another account: For File:Steeple Ashton.jpg, used as an example above, please also consider that the new upload only contains the summary "(a better photo)". Thats not a free license release. The new upload is not derivative of the old (licensed) upload, its a different work and it was upload without a license. Upload different files under different filenames with licenses please. --Martin H. (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a derivative of the pixels of the original upload, but a photograph is not pixels. The new version is a derivative of the original work of going to the church and finding the spot and the angle for taking a photo. Does rewriting a novel in another handwriting make it a different work? --My another account (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's hardly rewriting a novel in another handwriting. I saw a tiny image on Wikipedia and uploaded File:Lowell MBTA.jpg from the exact same angle, which had been taken before I looked at the Wikipedia page. The concept of derivative work there is complex.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- @ Warfieldian: Your attitude is deplorable, and unfortunately very common among the Commons administrative class. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- What is deplorable about it? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- mattbuck, since you are one of the administrators here who frequently use your administrative tools to treat users like shit, there is no reason to be surprised to know that you see nothing wrong with treating users like shit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- What is deplorable about it? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- @ Túrelio: Administrators calling those users who say what they do not want to hear "trolls", as you do, is problematic. Tres charmant. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a derivative of the pixels of the original upload, but a photograph is not pixels. The new version is a derivative of the original work of going to the church and finding the spot and the angle for taking a photo. Does rewriting a novel in another handwriting make it a different work? --My another account (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I reverted File:RussianPassport.JPEG to its original image. But as Jim said, My another account, you could and should have reverted it yourself. Where's the problem with Mattbuck's behaviour (besides that he forgot to check this file of course)? You can still upload your newer version with another name. You're not being censored or abused. I don't get why you're so annoyed. I don't think I would have been offended if that had happened to me, and yet I'm quite touchy myself and don't really enjoy bossy people. - Olybrius (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes and no - when it comes to files you uploaded yourself, you have every right to upload a different version of the file. If you are uploading over someone else's file, then not necessarily. User:Rasbak "improved" the image File:Steeple_Ashton.jpg, which happens all the time, but there is no difference from his action and the action of the original uploader taking a shot without the shrub. The unfortunate thing is that the user was not "right" to upload the second image as an improvement - the first is straighter, more visible, etc. However, by going around like that, everyone who complains about the uploader's actions merely bit a new person, which isn't allowable practice. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Analysis of File:Steeple Ashton.jpg
(Split to sub-section due to length) I'm just going to analyse the situation regarding File:Steeple Ashton.jpg, and determine what should be done there. I'm not going to really pay much attention to user conduct here.
Firstly, a timeline. My another account uploaded this (version 1a) of the file on September 24, 2007. The next day, Rasbak uploaded this tweaked version (1b). Two weeks later, My user account uploaded a slightly different image - version 2.
"Don't overwrite files" is clearly expressed in policy, and this has been the case for some time. It was OK for Rasbak to upload his tweaked 1b over the original 1a, as this was a "minor" change. If My another account, or another user, objected they could have reverted - and Rasbak would then have had to upload to a new location. My another account's upload of version 2 was more clearly against policy, and again had any user reverted at the time - the reversion would have been correct. However, there was no revert at the time. This meant that version 2 went on to become the stable version of this image, and has been so for over 4 years (and until Mattbuck's involvement).
The underlying purpose of the "don't overwrite" policy is to protect the integrity of the file name. This means that the attribution pathway for derivatives, as well as external users, is not broken by us changing the file at a given location to a different one. It also means that our URLs are stable, so a given URL will point to a given file. If we change the image a filename points at, we change usage links on other Wikimedia projects. We should not do this, as we do not make editorial choice for other projects - but give them the ability to choose what they want. Licensing considerations are not an issue here (both have clear PD releases).
In this case, the original version (1a / 1b) was only live at File:Steeple Ashton.jpg for 2 weeks (~1% of the lifespan of the URL). It is unlikely that any derivatives were created in this period, or that there was any external use. I have not identified any, but that doesn't mean there is none. It is much more likely that external use has been made of version 2.
As for internal Wikimedia usage, the file is used in two articles on en.wp: Steeple Ashton and Grade I listed buildings in Wiltshire. It was added to the first by My another account, who clearly prefers version 2. It was added to the other article in 2009, when version 2 was the stable image at File:Steeple Ashton.jpg. For the entire 4 year period when both versions have been available, it has been version 2 that has been used in all cases. Version 1 was removed by the user who added it in the first place (My another account), and replaced by a version that user perferred (version 2).
Therefore, I believe that the file visible at File:Steeple Ashton.jpg should be version 2 - the one preferred by My another account. If there is any demand for version 1, it is that file that should be uploaded to a new location. This is contrary to the letter of Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files, but better reflects its spirit.
In terms of conduct, all this means is strict adherence to policy - without necessarily understanding the reasons for that policy - is not always the best course of action. It may be better to be flexible, and consider what is the best thing to do.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the thorough objective analysis. May I add that Commons:Avoid overwriting images with new uploads was created on November 1, 2010, over three years after me "violating" it by uploading the improved image. --My another account (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- That policy page is recent. The policy itself is not, Template:Dont overwrite dates to 2006; the fact the template existed then reflects the principle had consensus at that point. In general, Commons rules have existed for a lot longer than the policy that describes them.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Templates are obscure and do not reflect consensus. So that means nothing. There is no actual policy, so having people enforce something that doesn't exist yet is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- My reverting in this case seems to have been a mistake - I thought it said uploaded October 2011, not 2007. I am happy for it to be returned to the preferred version now that I have realised this. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to you. :) I was just mentioning general principle. I don't like the idea of a template be construed as a policy without a policy yet. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- I tried undoing Mattbuck's revert, just to have another trigger-happy administrator overrule me twelve hours later. Should I keep reverting? --My another account (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- My reverting in this case seems to have been a mistake - I thought it said uploaded October 2011, not 2007. I am happy for it to be returned to the preferred version now that I have realised this. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Templates are obscure and do not reflect consensus. So that means nothing. There is no actual policy, so having people enforce something that doesn't exist yet is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- That policy page is recent. The policy itself is not, Template:Dont overwrite dates to 2006; the fact the template existed then reflects the principle had consensus at that point. In general, Commons rules have existed for a lot longer than the policy that describes them.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I re-uploaded the original version at File:Steeple Ashton 2.jpg. Can we get on with our lives now? Wknight94 talk 23:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
For this edit --EllsworthSK (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- 1 day. --Túrelio (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Messi112 (talk · contribs) - Continued uploads of news agency photos, File:Fabregas and his teammate Lionel Messi.jpg and File:Fabregas playing for Barcelona in the UEFA Champions League.jpg, after being asked to stop. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- True, but his last uploads (now gone) happened already 2 days ago. Should be blocked immediately with next copyvio upload. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
SIDDHARTHSB.MECH repeated copyvio
SIDDHARTHSB.MECH (talk · contribs) has repeatedly uploaded copyvio images - including today images that were previously deleted by admins. He is also a problem editor on Wikipedia. Can someone deal? --Biker Biker (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked for three days. Courcelles (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This user continues uploading unfree image after warning. Can he/she be blocked?--Quan (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This new user doesn't listen to more experienced users und tries to press home (by edit war) overcategorization and an inappropriate description of his File:Liechtenstein 2004 -019 Junger Rhein von Triesenberg in Liechtenstein betrachtet.JPG. He's also spamming several projects with his low quality, low resolution pictures with bad descriptions. Please note that "Junger Rhein" ("Young Rhine") is not a geographical term, but a poetic line from the national anthem of Liechtenstein. Mixing it with geographical terms here is misleading. --Sitacuisses (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- What is the quality of an experience user when he shows it very selective. please comment always your changes of files. and in case when you comment doesn't push again and again new comments while the further comments just are resolved. --Neptuul (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Pieter Kuiper again (sorry!)
Is there really no one who can get Dr. Kuiper to stay away from my work?!? Please see his contribution history as of 19:13, 24 October 2011 and then resuming at 19:24, 24 October 2011! No discussion anywhere (in answer to this for example), he just reverts the categories then proceeds to remove them from all 5 the photos in the category where the Southerly Clubs has been involved in contributing the images. His bias and selective bullying is very evident this time, as he stared at 19:28, 24 October 2011 to edit 21 other travelers and recategorized them very efficiently, none of the images were contributed by the Southerly Clubs, of course. We were just mutilated and left.
Questions:
- . Is Category:Travellers really only to be used for "explorers" as Kuiper puts it?
- , Why not rename it then so that so many of us will not misunderstand our first language and think that it's actually for travelers?
- . When, if ever, can someone with clout get Kuipoer to stop stalking, hounding and bullying us in this selective manner?
Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- What's a "Traveller" by your definition? Wknight94 talk 22:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
"Travellers" seems too vague to be useful. I vote either scrapping it or turning it into a meta-category and recategorizing its contents as needed. Since we already have Category:Explorers and Category:Tourists the remaining group that needs to have a category would be business travelers - Category:Business travelers or Category:People traveling for business reasons or Category:People traveling who are not tourists or explorers --Kramer Associates (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I believe he means gypsies and the like. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- See Category:Roma people and Category:Irish Travellers. At the moment Category:Travellers contains only:
- People noted for their travels e.g. Ibn Battuta and
- People doing touristy things
- I recommend creating Category:People noted for their travels for the first group.
- I have similar concern with Category:Visitors. Just sounds like Tourists again. Wknight94 talk 03:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- See Category:Roma people and Category:Irish Travellers. At the moment Category:Travellers contains only:
- Woodzing is complaining here because of File talk:Wild Side Story 1974 Tour.jpg. Maybe he should be told not to abuse this notice board for trifles? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm slightly surprised :) however I agree with Pieter. Definitely over cat'ing in my opinion too and reverted correctly by PK in the example above. I do not see this as an admin board issue - discuss but this is a wiki. --Herby talk thyme 12:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
User:DeeperQA
DeeperQA (talk · contribs) needs to be indef'd here. He's already indef'd as a sock on wikipedia. He signed on here for the sole purpose of uploading a crude (and wrong-headed) illustration attacking wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Also note that his latest comments include something resembling a "legal threat". I don't know about commons, but on wikipedia that is grounds for automatic indefinite block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This user was blocked in July 2010 for uploading non-free files. He's back, uploading more non-free files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed - blocked and thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
ClemRutter is removing nude categories without any valid reason. Please, can an admin try to explain him ? And can any bot undo all his removings ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Has continued to upload copyvio's after repeated warnings and final warning of possible block. Warfieldian (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks -
Done --Herby talk thyme 17:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Software error or compromised admin account?
Whatever it is, User talk:High Contrast#No source tagging indicates that there is a serious problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do I see it correctly that there was just one strange (non-admin action) edit? "compromised admin account" and "serious" sound more severe for me. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sometimes even one small thing is a symptom of big trouble. If High Contrast truly did not make an edit (adding a no permission template) that the file history shows High Contrast as doing, then something is very wrong. Either we have a bug or someone else is using High Contrast's account. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- High Contrast could change his password - log off and relogin (maybe also on the old secure server) then he would be the only owner again (taking aside a trojan infection). I suspect it could be a JS error in the QuickDel script or a accidental click on the no source link. Maybe induced by a browser bug. Would be helpful to know what actions HC has done at the file page (clicked anything other?). --Saibo (Δ) 14:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Rather disgusting vandalism to another user's page. Certainly deserves some consequences. I'd go as far as a permanent ban and a check on who else uses the same IP address. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorted thanks (& CU :)) --Herby talk thyme 17:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Tubgirl... not seen that for a while. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
OSX and file redirects
Deletion policy indicates when a duplicated file is deleted, it should be redirected to the kept version. Likewise, when a file is moved the redirect should be kept (unless it is recent upload, name is misleading... etc). The reasoning for this is to prevent breaking links for external users.
OSX has renamed a number of his uploads, for example File:2002-2004 Land Rover Discovery (MY03) V8 5-door wagon 01.jpg to File:2002-2004 Land Rover Discovery (MY03) V8 5-door wagon (2009-08-22).jpg. This particular redirect should be kept (original upload over 2 years ago and not misleading = keep to prevent harm to external users), and its worth noting that this particular move would probably be declined as a rename request as its a case of merely "looking better".
Over the past few months both Tony Wills and myself, have repeatedly requested that OSX does not tag these redirects with {{Speedy}}. I reverted the speedy-tagging of this redirect; and OSX reverted again (by a misuse of rollback). Same applies to File:2002-2004 Land Rover Discovery II V8 5-door wagon 01.jpg
Could others look at this please?-Nilfanion (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- If it's too hard for you, then I will not be uploading any more images. Take your pick. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. Bye.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Redirects have now been deleted by Denniss, I've asked him to comment here. There's a double redirect going on here, as OSX moved the file twice in a minute. The intermediate file is redundant, as it only existed for a few seconds, but the original should redirect to the final destination for reasons I've stated above (its not a speedy, a MY03 Discovery is a Discovery II - so still not misleading).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you, that those redirects should not have been deleted. Furthermore, I think OSX is using the rollback and move tools in an inappropriate way. I suggest warning the user and revoking these privileges in case of repeated abuse. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent. No wonder people are leaving this project in droves. I'm certainly considering it. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Rather than taking the comments on board here, OSX has accused Nilfanion of "stalking" (User_talk:Nilfanion#Stalking). Together with the comments there and here, it seems that OSX has either forgotten the Commons:File renaming guidelines, or thinks they don't apply to him. If this continues, the file mover right should be removed. Rd232 (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Resign
Hello community
I request to be blocked indefinitely. I'm busy with my study for my next exams and I'm tired of contributing here. Moreover, my presence on Commons will be a dissatisfaction to somebody. Therefore, indefinite block will prevent me of coming to Commons so that I can't be distracted. Again, thank people who has helped me recently.
Note: Please delete my user and talk page and tell me how to get blocked globally or delete my account forever (if possible). This will be my last conversation here. Thank you very much--Quan (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- May I ask why you have decided this? Last week you wanted to be an admin. Frankly, no matter what people do, there will be people who are unhappy about it, even if all you do is upload pictures of cute bunnies. You have to be moderately thick-skinned in this place unfortunately. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know it's hard to decide this. I have wasted a lot of time on Commons while I'm only a high school student. My study program is rather heavy and I am going to have many exams, so you can see that I am less active in this week. So I will have a big wiki break. Moreover, I admit that I (may be) addicted to Commons. Sometimes, I can hardly think about anything else except for my work on Commons. That somewhat makes me feel tired. Now, I want to change it. I will stay away from here for a while. Maybe, a block can do that. When I am better, I will request for unblock and continue working here. So goodbye, see you again--118.71.133.101 09:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Administrators/Requests/Blue Marble; multiple names are confusing. Good luck with your studies. Take good care of yourself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear your decision to leave and withdraw your RFA; I hope Jcb's comment was not too big a factor. However I do sympathise with the decision, having done a similar thing in leaving en.wp (and resigning adminship). Whether you come back one day when you have more time or not, please don't feel your time here was wasted, I'm sure your many contributions are a valuable part of the history of this volunteer project, and that isn't going to change. All the best, Rd232 (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to lose any editor, especially a good candidate for administrator. I see that Adrignola has fulfilled Blue Marble's user page deletion request, consistent with the precedent of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_24#Restoration_of_deleted_user_pages. I don't think we delete talk pages because activity such as DR's that require notifications may occur in the future. I don't see in the Commons:Blocking policy explicit mention of blocking at the request of the user. While unusual, I think that it could be granted as long as it is clear from the log entry that it was done at the request of the user and may be reversed upon request. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of blocking logs on WP show entries "per user request", "Benutzerwunsch" or similar. I do not think that there is a need for an official policy for that any user could be unbureaucratically blocked and consecutively unblocked if this is someone's own wish. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- 36 hours after his explicit own request, I have indef-blocked the account Blue Marble/Quan and put a "blocked by own wish"-note on his talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- In fact he requested to "get blocked globally". Blue Marble, please ask for this at m:Steward_requests/Global#Requests_for_global_.28un.29lock_and_.28un.29hiding if you still want it. I am sad to loose you, thanks for the work you have done and all the best for your exams/studies! --Saibo (Δ) 16:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- As per his above messages it's unlikely he will comment. I've asked Trijnstel on meta to have a look. --Túrelio (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Done, I globally locked Blue Marble. Please note that Hoangquan hientrang (his previous accountname) is still open. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- As per his above messages it's unlikely he will comment. I've asked Trijnstel on meta to have a look. --Túrelio (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- In fact he requested to "get blocked globally". Blue Marble, please ask for this at m:Steward_requests/Global#Requests_for_global_.28un.29lock_and_.28un.29hiding if you still want it. I am sad to loose you, thanks for the work you have done and all the best for your exams/studies! --Saibo (Δ) 16:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
HappyMarc1
HappyMarc1 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly uploaded non-free album covers to Commons under false free licenses. There are over 30 notices and deletion tags for such on his talk page over the last 2 months, yet he continues to upload non-free album covers to Commons as recently as today. He evidently does not understand the nature of Commons or is simply unwilling to read the warnings or follow policy. Blocking may be warranted. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Denniss (talk · contribs) has left a final warning. (Frankly, I'm a little surprised the block cycle didn't begin long ago). Wknight94 talk 03:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Happy Marc1 to you too. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The final warning didn't stop him. Block time? --IllaZilla (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- EugeneZelenko blocked HappyMarc1 for a week. I'll be happy to block quicker next time. That talk page is ridiculous. Wknight94 talk 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The final warning didn't stop him. Block time? --IllaZilla (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Uploads unfree images with copyleft license. I dont know how to warn him, so i put disputed onto his copyleft images. Can someone do something with him? Tell him to reupload the unfree files under fairuse to ruwiki? Lone Guardian (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I tagged the questionable uploads with no-permission. Wknight94 talk 19:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Pieter Kuiper (yes again, what a surprise)
Pieter Kuiper seems to have gone back to his old habit of harrassing people who he feels have done something he disagrees with - Saibo started a deadmin request on Jcb and, less than 10mins later, Kuiper posts a sarcastic remark and the next day nominates three Saibo uploads for deletion.
While the requests may be grounded in fact, it is impossible to dispute that this is just the latest example of Kuiper attacking people he feels have slighted him in some manner. How much longer are we going to lie back and accept this? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed - certainly more the old style of behaviour here - a pity as things had been far better (IMO). --Herby talk thyme 15:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- At is an attempt at exposing Saibo's double standards: nominating and renominating and renominating File:Panorama Berliner Olympiastadion-Glockenturm.jpg, while self uploading File:Commerzbank-Arena-Luftbild.jpg and other non-street-level photos of recent buildings in Germany. And we now have several admins that are aware of File:OE Award.png without doing anything about it. Just telling me off. There is clearly a problem when an admin removes the A.D.A.M. watermark in copyrighted images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just for info: File:Cellulite-2.jpg - that is the possibly and apparently (DR) copyrighted image where I removed a watermark from a image which I had not uploaded originally in assumption that it is PD-gov four(!) years ago. I am glad that Pieter didn't find really problematic files while digging through my uploads. Thanks, Pieter, for checking all my uploads for problems. :-) --Saibo (Δ) 17:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with mattbuck's statement except the "grounded in fact" part. (See File talk:Bolsa de Comercio Rosario 1.jpg.) —LX (talk, contribs) 16:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- If I went by Saibo's own extreme standards, I would have nominated several other images. Sometimes Saibo credulously accepts declarations of "own work" for 1925 photos, see File talk:Bengen Emmy und Harold Hiddensee.jpg. But he nomiminates anonymous WWI images like File:Shooting on an Italian airplane over Mte Chiesa.jpg and renominates and renominates when he does not get his way. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how that's a response to my comment, which was about your destructive, disruptive, incorrect and careless nomination of a file uploaded by an innocent bystander (whom you failed to notify). You nominated it not because you care about what's best for Commons, but because you were looking to avenge a copyright violator who had been temporarily blocked by User talk:ALE!. This is the essence and the effect of your behaviour, which is not by any means limited to Saibo. Your involvement with Commons is not for the good of Commons. You're involved, by your own admission, to make a point about your dislike of Commons' administrators and of the working atmosphere of Commons. You do this through deletion nomination sprees aimed at contributors who you handpick because you disagree with them in some way. This behaviour has caused endless amounts of drama in the past, has driven contributors away, and has led you to be blocked on several occasions – yet you persist. That is, when you're not busy calling people names. Your actions are a timesink and a net loss to the project. And this is me putting it as diplomatically as possible. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I failed to see the original upload, thank you for finding it, but undoubtedly Saibo would have enlightened me too. I tagged because there was insufficient information on the file page - that happens all the time. That was because the original upload had disappeared from the thumbnails. Your accusations about me failing to notify the original uploader are drama without base - the original upload was not on the file page. You have also tagged files that could easily be removed. As to namecalling, please direct you comments to Woodzing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Once again, you're dodging the issue and projecting your mistakes and deliberate transgressions onto others. I don't know why you expect Saibo to fix mistakes you made because you were trying to attack ALE! Perhaps if you'd be less motivated by personal vengeance, you'd have the wits about you to consider looking at the page history. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I failed to see the original upload, thank you for finding it, but undoubtedly Saibo would have enlightened me too. I tagged because there was insufficient information on the file page - that happens all the time. That was because the original upload had disappeared from the thumbnails. Your accusations about me failing to notify the original uploader are drama without base - the original upload was not on the file page. You have also tagged files that could easily be removed. As to namecalling, please direct you comments to Woodzing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how that's a response to my comment, which was about your destructive, disruptive, incorrect and careless nomination of a file uploaded by an innocent bystander (whom you failed to notify). You nominated it not because you care about what's best for Commons, but because you were looking to avenge a copyright violator who had been temporarily blocked by User talk:ALE!. This is the essence and the effect of your behaviour, which is not by any means limited to Saibo. Your involvement with Commons is not for the good of Commons. You're involved, by your own admission, to make a point about your dislike of Commons' administrators and of the working atmosphere of Commons. You do this through deletion nomination sprees aimed at contributors who you handpick because you disagree with them in some way. This behaviour has caused endless amounts of drama in the past, has driven contributors away, and has led you to be blocked on several occasions – yet you persist. That is, when you're not busy calling people names. Your actions are a timesink and a net loss to the project. And this is me putting it as diplomatically as possible. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The original issue about Pieter nominating 3 images for deletion has got overshadowed by wider discussion, so I'm separating it out. The DRs are
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paul Grohmann.jpg (closed 31 Oct as "PD in two months")
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trondur i gotu 1904.jpg (still open)
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cellulite.jpg (still open)
Regardless of how or why Pieter found those files, I don't see anything obviously wrong with those deletion requests in themselves. Am I missing something? And at the end of the day, does it really matter whether DRs are made in retaliation or in order to be helpful or because it's Tuesday and the user's name starts with a Q, as long as the deletion requests themselves are reasonable? Rd232 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- (as I said somewhere else on this page) The DRs are correct and I thank Pieter for checking my uploads (he found those files are old, and not initially uploaded by me). I wanted for a long time go through my own uploads - but never did it. --Saibo (Δ) 23:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Wider discussion
And it goes on and on in a never-ending carte blanche for Dr. Kuiper to behave like this, because of "all his valuable contributions". I guess Commons would just collapse without him, huh? Stalking, hounding, false accusations, insults - never-ending. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- There was a time when I defended Pieter (sorry, Serge) because he does a great deal of useful work here, but I, too, have reached the end of my willingness to put up with him. As I once said to him, I really don't understand why he puts in thousands of hours on a project on which he continually tells us all about his lack of respect for everyone involved. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am trying to help colleagues like Reimarspohr (talk · contribs) and other uploaders and users against deletionists like Jameslwoodward. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Except if they are people you despise for your own personal reasons. Them you never help, only stalk, snap at, hound, insult, ridicule and go out of your way to try to make their work time on WP as miserable and disagreeable and foolish (!!!!!) as possible. Your never-ending hate grudges, sleazily deceptive methods and incorrigibly belligerent behavior absolutely disgust me, as does your obvious opinion of yourself as faltless, flawless and papaly infallible, and the poor excuse that you do "so much good work" and should be allowed to continue to be the rudest, most aggressive and depressing user in all the WM projects (I have a right to my opinion) is just sickening. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- That was rude. And File:Leo Poster.jpg is a COM:DW of a copyrighted poster. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- It was nothing, compared to the 3 years of abject misery I have now gone through just about every time I've had try to deal with you constructively, and then the scores of others you've mistreated over and over and over and over again. And your comment just backs my point about your obvious opinion of yourself as faultless, flawless and papaly infallible. You'll never change. That's what’s so discouraging and frightening about you. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- And that poster collage was created in its entirety by Lars Jacob in 1969. About 1000 people know that. It still exists and is prominently displayed in an office in Stockholm. Anything else you'd like to stalk today? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- That was rude. And File:Leo Poster.jpg is a COM:DW of a copyrighted poster. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Except if they are people you despise for your own personal reasons. Them you never help, only stalk, snap at, hound, insult, ridicule and go out of your way to try to make their work time on WP as miserable and disagreeable and foolish (!!!!!) as possible. Your never-ending hate grudges, sleazily deceptive methods and incorrigibly belligerent behavior absolutely disgust me, as does your obvious opinion of yourself as faltless, flawless and papaly infallible, and the poor excuse that you do "so much good work" and should be allowed to continue to be the rudest, most aggressive and depressing user in all the WM projects (I have a right to my opinion) is just sickening. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am trying to help colleagues like Reimarspohr (talk · contribs) and other uploaders and users against deletionists like Jameslwoodward. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Rather than been diplomatic and respectful by staying away, Kuiper continues to try to irritate (hound) me by picking at about one image a day that he knows I'll see (Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives), just to show us all that he does as he pleaes with no restraint. Is anyone ever going to get him to leave all those images alone? If there is anything wrong with a few of the 1000+ images, can't we let someone else find the problems, or must we continue to permit this constant contentious stalking? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think he is right with some of the questions he is aksing regarding this Southerly images. The 'one image a day' problem... Look, you are not very open for questions or ideas or problems if it comes to this images or the categories. You hit the roof in some cases. Better asking in small portions. --Martin H. (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I am open to all constructive criticism and love sincere help to correct mistakes we have made. There is a lot of evidence of that. Kuiper's criticism is never constructive. Even if he has found a very small amount of legitimate problems, his input is not constructive because he knows we want him to leave us alone and let other editors deal with those few problems. A vast majority of Kuiper's complaints against these images have turned out to be unfounded and worthless. I have long been convinced that he only does this to hound us, not for the benefit of Commons.
- Your accusations are unfounded and very unfair. I am not open to personal cruelty and persecution. Just about everything else is fine with me.
- Here I am om the defensive again. So, what else is new? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- PS Kuiper was extremely, ingratiatingly helpful and instrumental in helping us create the Southerly Clubs template and then (2008) encouraged us to use it for any and all images we had, giving us no other guidance or warnings of any kind. Then one of us did something that rubbed him the wrong way politically (as he thought) and his campaign of hateful stalking has been unrelenting since then. That's the real background here. I've provided the links to prove it several times. We have been very severely duped by Kuiper, and that's the main reason we would like him to stay away. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I did not read the entire discussion here but I wanted to add that Pieter Kuiper has a strange way of handling discussions that do not go his way. I blocked an Italian user for repeatingly uploading copyvios after warning. As I did not unblock him as Pieter Kuiper requested, he started to tag some of my uploads with "no permission", "no source" and other 'close to copyvio' tags. None of his accusations were true. But it keeps me and him busy. Said, very said. He should reconsider waht he does because otherwise it might happen that some admin will block him. (But it will not be me. You can be sure of that!) --ALE! ¿…? 08:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- An excellent and very typical example in several ways. Thank youi! SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is getting interesting: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Unasur member states German.PNG, File talk:Bandera de los andes - san martin - bandera de mendoza.jpg. --ALE! ¿…? 10:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- This a particularly good example of retribution because the clear source of this German version of a map is the English and Spanish versions, but Kuiper tagged only the version that ALE! produced. If there is a problem here (and I don't think there is), it would be the same on all three versions. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is getting interesting: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Unasur member states German.PNG, File talk:Bandera de los andes - san martin - bandera de mendoza.jpg. --ALE! ¿…? 10:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's stop beating around the bush
So, now that we can see that Pieter engages in vindictive attacks on people he doesn't like via deletion requests and the like, I ask, what are we going to do about it? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Start a request for comment from the community at large? – Adrignola talk 13:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- We are at Commons and not at the English Wikipedia. --ALE! ¿…? 14:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe Commons should have such a process too. Certainly the two sections about Pieter on this page don't impress me in terms of evidence of deliberate bad behaviour, yet there are quite a few users who seem to have issues. This is exactly the sort of situation in which I would, on en.wp, recommend an RFC/U, as a more structured way of examining issues and hopefully reaching a conclusion by voluntary agreement among users. RFC/U on en.wp is often seen as unsatisfactory, but it is still better than the unstructured ad hoc format of noticeboards, not least because it encourages a focus on proposed solutions to problems, and not just an airing of complaints. Rd232 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, two sections started by an admin with an axe to grind and a history with Pieter Kuiper and a user that generates more heat than light regarding anything related to Pieter. I'm not defending him, because frankly he can be an ass and he definitely doesn't help himself, but it's the same old Kuiper-haters that start these discussions and waste the most community time.
- Pieter is clearly not the only problem here, formal interaction bans would be a start, particularly with SergeWoodzing. Getting some kind of consensus of whether a "revenge" deletion nomination is a personal attack, let alone blockable offense, would be another, bearing in mind that if the file he nominates is a copyvio (and usually he is right with licensing) it has to go regardless of whether you are personally annoyed that he nominated it.
- Pieter was blocked for his "Wall of Shame" on the whim of a few admins who found it unacceptable that he was detailing their admin decisions (as precent and therefore useful), yet there is a whole page "naming and shaming" Kuiper but nothing is done about it. Admins regularly tag legitimate "own work" and "PD-old" files as "no source" without discrimination causing the loss of contributors and valuable old works, Pieter does it to admin uploads (admittedly to make a point) and he's vilified for it. These are the types of double standards no-one takes notice of because it's Kuiper that brings them up. It makes the admin corps look corrupt and only interested in circling the wagons to defend each other.
- And what exactly is the problem with him nominating files for deletion in response to disagreements with admins? If the only problem is that he irritates a few cliquey admins then I say tough, live with it, let it go, ignore it or learn from it. Admins aren't above the law, the rest of us might feel annoyed when our files are nominated for deletion too. If it rids Commons of copyvios or improves the sourcing or licensing of existing files then it's a good thing. From afar it seems to boil down to some people just don't like Pieter and they are in a position of influence and power to do something about it. 109.155.149.128 21:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- You may be right; certainly I'm slightly uncomfortable with the eagerness to ban him without recent upheld blocks or strong evidence of serious and recent wrongdoing, which hasn't been presented here. Pieter hasn't done himself any favours by not (yet) agreeing to the interaction ban proposed, and he may now have missed the opportunity to prevent momentum for a ban developing. Rd232 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I generally leave Woodzing alone, actually. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well then it shouldn't be difficult to agree to what he proposed, should it? Rd232 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is what I already said: if Woodzing needs special exemptions, he can have it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- You expect your remark "But of course, I can grant Woodzing the same privileged status of being exempt from scrutiny" to be understood as agreeing to the interaction ban? Well, anyway, I'll put you down as agreeing to the proposal. Rd232 (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is what I already said: if Woodzing needs special exemptions, he can have it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well then it shouldn't be difficult to agree to what he proposed, should it? Rd232 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I generally leave Woodzing alone, actually. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- You may be right; certainly I'm slightly uncomfortable with the eagerness to ban him without recent upheld blocks or strong evidence of serious and recent wrongdoing, which hasn't been presented here. Pieter hasn't done himself any favours by not (yet) agreeing to the interaction ban proposed, and he may now have missed the opportunity to prevent momentum for a ban developing. Rd232 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe Commons should have such a process too. Certainly the two sections about Pieter on this page don't impress me in terms of evidence of deliberate bad behaviour, yet there are quite a few users who seem to have issues. This is exactly the sort of situation in which I would, on en.wp, recommend an RFC/U, as a more structured way of examining issues and hopefully reaching a conclusion by voluntary agreement among users. RFC/U on en.wp is often seen as unsatisfactory, but it is still better than the unstructured ad hoc format of noticeboards, not least because it encourages a focus on proposed solutions to problems, and not just an airing of complaints. Rd232 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- We are at Commons and not at the English Wikipedia. --ALE! ¿…? 14:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This is not helpful |
---|
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. |
|
Solutions
In the absence of a more structured approach to solving this sort of issue (Commons doesn't have an RFC/U system), can we try and make some suggestions as to what people want to see Pieter do or not do? If there are concrete suggestions for action, maybe some voluntary agreement can be reached. And if this is attempted and fails, it should be clearer whether any kind of sanction is at all plausible. Without trying for solutions, it seems we're just getting repeated complaints, and nothing changes. Rd232 (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Proposal: Kuiper stays away from any files uploaded by any representative of the Southerly Clubs (he knows who) and from any and all work I am a principle contributor to or worker on. If he sees any serious problem with any such work, he can ask somebody else in a civil manner to deal with it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. From what I see, Pieter Kuiper search for any minor bug in the mostly good contributions by SergeWoodzing, because, basically, Pieter don't like him. Just look at User talk:SergeWoodzing -- it's filled with deletion warnings by Pieter, and most of the nominated files were kept. Looks like an obvious example of harassment that destroys the collaborative atmosphere of Commons and should be stopped. --Trycatch (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment We needn't agree that this was deliberate harassment; but it seems clear that these interactions are causing problems, and avoiding them would help. If Pieter can agree to this it would be a start. Can you, Pieter? Rd232 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- What I do not like is the blanket OTRS ticket that Jcb has given to Southerly Clubs. And I am not in the habit of renominating, but Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pau 2 20101028.JPG was not decided according to policy. Also, the Angela Romeo photo was a very real copyright problem until Woodzing managed to secure permission. But of course, I can grant Woodzing the same privileged status of being exempt from scrutiny. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know about the blanket OTRS ticket (or even what that means). If that's an issue, then raise it somewhere appropriate. For the rest, the proposal is not to exempt anyone from scrutiny, it is to stop you interacting with Woodzing (and some others), since those interactions are causing problems. If you agree to the restriction, you would still be able to point out any problems you come across to a third party. Rd232 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I tried to discuss the highly irregular Southerly-Clubs-ticket at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 13#.232010092510008875 Southerly Clubs - no answers, really. Woodzing has a pattern of complaining at admin boards, see en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Stalked forever (and earlier) where they are telling him that he has no case. But he is so sensitive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Right now there are a number of users, including at least one admin, who want to ban you indefinitely. Whatever the rights and wrongs of what is no doubt a long and complex history, if you're not willing to make concessions to help avoid problems, then I can't help you. Commons is a big place; don't tell me you simply can't avoid this Southerly Clubs part of it. Rd232 (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I tried to discuss the highly irregular Southerly-Clubs-ticket at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 13#.232010092510008875 Southerly Clubs - no answers, really. Woodzing has a pattern of complaining at admin boards, see en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Stalked forever (and earlier) where they are telling him that he has no case. But he is so sensitive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know about the blanket OTRS ticket (or even what that means). If that's an issue, then raise it somewhere appropriate. For the rest, the proposal is not to exempt anyone from scrutiny, it is to stop you interacting with Woodzing (and some others), since those interactions are causing problems. If you agree to the restriction, you would still be able to point out any problems you come across to a third party. Rd232 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- What I do not like is the blanket OTRS ticket that Jcb has given to Southerly Clubs. And I am not in the habit of renominating, but Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pau 2 20101028.JPG was not decided according to policy. Also, the Angela Romeo photo was a very real copyright problem until Woodzing managed to secure permission. But of course, I can grant Woodzing the same privileged status of being exempt from scrutiny. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment It appears that Pieter has agreed to this proposal, and will stay away from Woodzing and from Southerly Clubs, and point out any issues he comes across to a third party. Now, what other issues are there? Rd232 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! Hope it works. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's how long that worked! Another gross exaggeration and sweeping accusation. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's an expression of his views, in the section below, in response to yours. You can hardly claim this is a breach of the interaction ban - be reasonable. Rd232 (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I took the word "interaction" seriously and began to feel a bit relieved at last. I guess that wasn't reasonable. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have some experience with interaction bans. Your expectations seem to have been off here; if you're discussing the other party to the interaction ban, it is unreasonable to prevent them from responding, at least in a dispute resolution context like this one. Rd232 (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I took the word "interaction" seriously and began to feel a bit relieved at last. I guess that wasn't reasonable. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's an expression of his views, in the section below, in response to yours. You can hardly claim this is a breach of the interaction ban - be reasonable. Rd232 (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Support for now and see if it works. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Proposal: Kuiper is banned from commons
- a: indefinitely.
Support →AzaToth 18:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Support - regardless of good work, PK ends up here every other week, and has made life miserable for many, many people. Every time we debate and the harrassment just continues. PK has shown himself incapable of changing - let's end this. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Support: a history of incidents like this conversation leave me doubting he has the ability to interact civilly with people he disagrees with. I don't see him gaining that ability in the future, either. --Carnildo (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- That conversation is indicative of a certain attitude, but it's hardly the sort of thing I'd expect to see cited in a discussion about an indefinite ban. Rd232 (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose at this time. There have not been any blocks upheld in 2011, nor has there has been a well-evidenced case presented that there is serious and recent wrongdoing. Serially pissing people off may make a ban seem appealing, but other means of resolving issues should be tried first. For example,
if Pieter can agreePieter has agreed to the interaction ban proposed above,that would bewhich is a start. Rd232 (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Support: I am not a hypocrite. Commons would be a better place for all of us, overall, without Kuiper. For example, he got us all involved in Commons, and then objects to the very thing he did himself, only because somedody else helped us try to clean up the mess Kuiper got us into in the first place. Deceptive. Frightening. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but such strong words really need to be backed up with a much clearer explanation and better evidence. What exactly did Pieter do that is so terrible? Rd232 (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The links show clearly that he designed the Southerly Clubs template and prodded us on to upload over 1000 images, then he turned on us and stalkewd and hounded us, and today complained about the OTRS now having been redone much more effectively by a Commons OTRS agent and the SoCl board. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Their first uploads were interesting, but now most of for example Category:Emil Eikner should be considered out of scope. There were also copyright violations like Commons:Deletion requests/File:LillianSwedenBertilGrave.jpg. Generally there is a problem with missing authorship information of these photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The links show clearly that he designed the Southerly Clubs template and prodded us on to upload over 1000 images, then he turned on us and stalkewd and hounded us, and today complained about the OTRS now having been redone much more effectively by a Commons OTRS agent and the SoCl board. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but such strong words really need to be backed up with a much clearer explanation and better evidence. What exactly did Pieter do that is so terrible? Rd232 (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose This is not about what Pieter Kupiter does. This is about hate. There is a group of users that monitors Pieter Kupiter and uses every opportunity to attack him and suggest a block. If it was not Pieter Kupiter they were checking im sure many would have said that the close monitoring of edits was harassment. This is excactly what some users want to block Pieter for!!! So it is ok to check hundreds of Pieters edits but if he checks other users edits it is harassment...
- I strongly disagree that we block users for finding copyvios. Admins are not immune and we should not protect admins from having their files nominated for deletion. If Pieter finds copyvios uploaded by admins we delete the files... If the admins yell and complaint we de-sysop them.
- I strongly support that we block users for personal attacks. But that should apply to ALL users and not just Pieter Kupiter. History shows that admins can attack regular users with out anyone objecting. And if user starts a request at AN/U the result is often a mob of admins attacking the user. And if someone attacks Pieter Kupiter they get away with anything... I therefore think we get Commons_talk:Blocking_policy#Personal_attacks right and WHEN it is done we start blocking EVERYONE that has a problem with that... Including Pieter and including admins... --MGA73 (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Support As I noted below, Pieter has been blocked on twelve different occasions in the last two years for the same general sort of behavior we see here. These blocks totaled approximately three months. Although, as Rd232 has pointed out below, the only two blocks this year were promptly reversed, the fact remains that he continues to disrupt things to the point that two highly active Admins chose to block him this year. The current discussion is, therefore, the third time this year that his behavior has drawn a block or block discussion, however brief. That number does not, of course, include all the times he has been disruptive, but we have chosen to ignore it because it is easier to ignore it than to begin a discussion such as this one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - There is indeed a lot of
hateresentment here and maybe the users personally involved should not vote, one way or the other. I'm not involved in the conflict and don't know its details. However I believe that less extreme solutions should be tried before banning a valuable contributor for good. Now that Pieter has agreed to stay away from the sources of conflict I agree with Rd232 that the solution should be implemented. A permanent ban, like the one proposed here, sounds more like a punishment than a preventive measure. Only my 2cents. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't hate Pieter -- but he frustrates me. I don't understand why someone who puts thousands of hours into a project repeatedly says and demonstrates that he has no respect for any of the other people who work on the project. Pieter has agreed to stay away from one minor source of conflict, but there is conflict almost every time a decision does not go his way. I interact with him six or ten times a day -- for him to avoid conflict with me would require him to stop any comments on DRs.
- He also has another adverse effect on the project -- I freely admit that on days when I am not feeling particularly strong, I simply pass over DRs on which he has expressed an opinion that differs from mine -- I don't always have the strength to go up against him. I hasten to add that I don't win every decision -- I don't think any one of us should win every decision, but when a decision goes against me, I usually -- not always -- simply move on. Pieter, on the other hand, takes action frequently when a decision goes against him. Often this is in perfectly legal ways, but the cumulative effect is wearing.
- Also, I have wondered several times whether he deliberately takes particular positions to create controversy -- I cannot prove that, of course, it is only my impression, but his position on some subjects is unpredictable.
- As for punishment versus prevention -- it is difficult to separate the two. His behavior has risen to the point of blocking on twelve different occasions by eleven different Admins. Some of those were brief, but they total three months over two years. I think it is fair to say that we are asking for a ban to prevent future disruptive behavior. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - although I disagreed a lot with Pieter about the Southerly Club ticket, please take into account that the ticket was very complex and that they also uploaded a lot of images that were clearly not covered by the ticket. (e.g. external authors, FOP-related issues). I delete-closed some of Pieters nominations of their uploads as well. I can imagine it would be a good idea if Pieter stays away from the Southerly Club uploads, but then we will need somebody else to keep a critical eye on those uploads. Jcb (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is what my assignment is all about and I assure you I have been doing my best. The Southerly Clubs chairman (by emailing Permissions) and I have also shown that we are happy to have civil constructive criticism and gladly will try to correct anything that may be wrong. But the gross exaggerations of the amount of problems and the constant stalking and hounding and incessant uncivil behavior by Kuiper has made the whole OTRS situation - which he initially got us into! - more of a nightmare that any kind of joy in having contributed valuable images (?) to Wikimedia Commons. I am privy to a large amount of information on file at the Southerly Clubs (maintained by their Ristesson division), and as time allows I will continue to do my best to fix whatever may need to be fixed to keep the second and better OTRS ticket (where Kuiper was not involved) valid and workable, as long as I am not exhausted in my good intentions by rudely worded attacks on the images which obviously are intended to irritate, ridicule, insult and offend us, rather than to protect Commons from damage. I assure you, everyone connected with the Southerly Clubs is interested in the latter. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Woodzing does not give difs for his accusations. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lars Jacob & Nina Natascha.jpg for the way Woodzing responds to a DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- If someone else had dealt with that image I would have had the energy and impetus to follow through, probably would have felt motivated. As it was I didn't bother to follow through on email being exchanged with that magazine then, because I just didn't want to deal with you again. A fine example of how Commons suffers from your vindictive stalking aimed at Lars Jacob and his organization, and at many others. That file was deleted because I didn't follow through, because of you. When you stop interacting with me, if you ever actually do (???!!!???), I might check on those emails and ask for the file to be specifically approved, like other newspaper things and items have been that you attacked earlier only because they were Southerly Clubs images. Please!!! LEAVE ME ALONE!!! SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Woodzing does not give difs for his accusations. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lars Jacob & Nina Natascha.jpg for the way Woodzing responds to a DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is what my assignment is all about and I assure you I have been doing my best. The Southerly Clubs chairman (by emailing Permissions) and I have also shown that we are happy to have civil constructive criticism and gladly will try to correct anything that may be wrong. But the gross exaggerations of the amount of problems and the constant stalking and hounding and incessant uncivil behavior by Kuiper has made the whole OTRS situation - which he initially got us into! - more of a nightmare that any kind of joy in having contributed valuable images (?) to Wikimedia Commons. I am privy to a large amount of information on file at the Southerly Clubs (maintained by their Ristesson division), and as time allows I will continue to do my best to fix whatever may need to be fixed to keep the second and better OTRS ticket (where Kuiper was not involved) valid and workable, as long as I am not exhausted in my good intentions by rudely worded attacks on the images which obviously are intended to irritate, ridicule, insult and offend us, rather than to protect Commons from damage. I assure you, everyone connected with the Southerly Clubs is interested in the latter. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose An indef ban is way over the top. Apart this recent issue, I see Pieter's behaviour as gradually improving. --99of9 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- b: for a year.
- As I had my first unpleasant encounter with Pieter I will not be so harsh. So considering his previous problems with other users and considering his previous blocks an one year block should be enough. --ALE! ¿…? 15:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose A year ban is also over the top. Apart this recent issue, I see Pieter's behaviour as gradually improving. --99of9 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- And what do you propose? So far I see only "oppose" from you. --ALE! ¿…? 08:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, I did not mean to indent that as a reply to you, sorry. I do not have time to do a detailed enough analysis to make a recommendation, but I wanted to oppose the ones I see as clearly over-the-top before anybody claimed consensus. --99of9 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- And what do you propose? So far I see only "oppose" from you. --ALE! ¿…? 08:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- c: for a month.
- Proposal: Kuiper is prohibited from engaging in deletion discussions and/or nominate files for deletion
- Proposal: Kuiper is prohibited from nominate files for deletion which was uploaded over a month ago
Oppose Pieter Kuiper is one of my least favorite Commons users. But I think that discord and disagreement is just a part of human life, and that nothing can be done here to change how things are everywhere. Trying to eliminate all those Commons editors who others consider disagreeable is both impossible, and harmful to Commons. (I do think, however, that administrators who misuse their administrative powers should be desysoped. But that is for another discussion.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
For the record, Pieter has been blocked twelve times in the last two years for bad behavior (the total is actually 18, but the other six were reblocks over the same incident). The 18 total blocks were applied by 11 different Admins:
- 9 October 2011 (brief) Vandalism: Disruptive editing, making a deletion request just to prove a point and then arguing to keep the file in question.
- 6 July 2011 (brief) Removing "problem" templates from images after warnings.
- 7 December 2010 (month) Intimidating behaviour/harassment:
- 4 October 2010 (week) continuing to edit war over Latuff image categorisation
- 25 August 2010 (ten days)Intimidating behaviour/harassment: User picked up exactly where he left off, with accusations of lying, threats of deadminship, etc, and that "wall of shame" still exists. We're better off without Pieter.
- 24 July 2010 (month) Continued issues after repeated warnings and blocks.
- 7 July 2010 (week) Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Revenge deletion:
- 9 June 2010 (brief) Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Uploading Latuff images again
- 6 May 2010 (day) disruption
- 6 April 2010 (day) Trolling file deletion pages to make a point about something he's already been warned about.
- 18 December 2009 (week) Disruption, particularly Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Latuff nazi camp 2.png
- 22 November 2009 (brief) editwarring
I don't think, therefore, that we're looking for a limited sanction. I think the question must be whether we are ready to say that enough is enough and that Commons would be better off without his disruptive behavior. I say that with the full knowledge that he has 91,000 global edits, including 56,000 on Commons and that we will miss most of his work here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, only the last two incidents are in 2011. Perhaps there is room for a last chance, possibly with a voluntary agreement to help Pieter avoid problem areas? Rd232 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Don't forget this one -- it's really three in 2011 -- and there's no evidence that he learns from being blocked. I'm not sure what problem areas you could lay out -- he creates problems wherever he works. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- The most recent block by Rosenzweig (talk · contribs) was really silly: I was blocked for following the (admittedly weird) instructions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- From what I see there were just 2 incorrect blocks of Pieter Kuiper in 2011, both of them were lifted in a matter of minutes. Of course some problems that should be solved are still present (mainly harassment of users via targeting of their contributions), but there is a serious progress since 2010. Trycatch (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- The most recent block by Rosenzweig (talk · contribs) was really silly: I was blocked for following the (admittedly weird) instructions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Don't forget this one -- it's really three in 2011 -- and there's no evidence that he learns from being blocked. I'm not sure what problem areas you could lay out -- he creates problems wherever he works. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Reference needed: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3APieter+Kuiper
- AdamCuerden (talk · contribs) is very prominent there. Almost all blocks were quickly overturned. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Eight of the twelve were a day or more and they total more than three months. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Vacations :) Anyway, block reasons were for example people getting upset about me expressing my opinions on admin decisions on my user page; yet User:Saibo "Censorship via the backdoor" seems perfectly fine. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- You can't just count block log entries. I created a system on en.wp for annotating the block log because of the errors that occur this way; we could consider importing it. Anyway, looking at the 9 Oct block/unblock, discussed here, I don't think you can count that as a strike against Pieter. The 6 July block should also be discounted, given that it was removed with the remark "incorrect block". I could go back further, but this already means that Pieter has not had a block stand in 2011, which is long enough that we shouldn't be rushing to shove him out of the door. Rd232 (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Eight of the twelve were a day or more and they total more than three months. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but why don't you people take a stand? Oppose or Support? Do you want Dr. Kuiper's incorrigible personal cruelty to continue or not? Because he is so valuable? Isn't that the issue? Stick to the issue, and stand up and be counted! Shall we be habitually civil or uncivil when trying to work together here? Set a clear, lasting precedent once and for all, please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- don't support a block - although I have not dug into the Southersomething case (therefore this is no oppose). I just comment here since Pieter's checking of my uploads was mentioned in the intro/start above. I(!) have no problem with this - if he thinks he should invest his time in checking my uploads where he will likely not find copyvios / DWs he should do it. Still, it would be nice if he could stay away from people who feel harassed. He does good research work - which I also often see in other DRs. --Saibo (Δ) 19:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment I find the layout of this discussion extremely confusing, and it's hard to know for sure if people are actually supporting/opposing the three options, or just the general idea of sanctions against Pieter.
As for the topic at hand, my exposure to Pieter is relatively limited compared to some people. I find that in DRs he often latches onto theories, treats them as fact whether there is any evidence in support or not, and then is contemptuous of, and patronizing to, anyone who disagrees with him. He is perfectly entitled to his own opinions; it's the fact that he needs to put others down while expressing them that is the problem. It is so unnecessary, and is exhausting for everyone involved. And whether or not Jim's list appropriately includes the two 2011 incidents or not, that is a lot of blocks for a two-year period. I've come to the conclusion he is a bully. I don't think there is a better way to say it. I have no doubt he makes extremely valuable contributions, but dozens of contributors manage to do the same thing without creating the same negative tone.
I'm just not sure that generally being a bully, absent some particular inappropriate acts, justifies a block. I'd be open to creative solutions. Frankly, I'd be happy if Pieter would just take it down a notch or two when he disagrees with others. I suspect, however, that is an unrealistic expectation. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The accusation is difficult to understand. I don't have any power here. I cannot delete anybody's uploads. I cannot block anybody. I can understand if contributors like Gino il Pio (talk · contribs) or Veronika Pešková (talk · contribs) feel bullied by admins - look at their talk pages. I can understand that an admin might feel bullied by higher-ups in the wikimedia hierarchy. Maybe one could say that Jcb (talk · contribs) is being bullied now. But even that would be a somewhat hyperbolic metaphor compared to real-life bullying. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Much of bullying is in the eye of the recipient of actions, rather than of the actor. You may not at all intend to be bullying, but others may nonetheless feel bullied. Overall, it's clear that you've exhausted a lot of people's goodwill and patience despite having a good record of constructive contributions (apparently - I'm not familiar myself). Therefore you are doing something slightly wrong, and you really ought to try and figure out what it is and what you might do about it. I've seen many users in a similar situation who don't succeed in figuring it out; and end up leaving, voluntarily or otherwise. But some do. Good luck. You could start by asking people (perhaps by email, to emphasise that it's for your private learning, not public debate) for examples of incidents where they wish you'd acted differently, and how. Rd232 (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- The accusation is difficult to understand. I don't have any power here. I cannot delete anybody's uploads. I cannot block anybody. I can understand if contributors like Gino il Pio (talk · contribs) or Veronika Pešková (talk · contribs) feel bullied by admins - look at their talk pages. I can understand that an admin might feel bullied by higher-ups in the wikimedia hierarchy. Maybe one could say that Jcb (talk · contribs) is being bullied now. But even that would be a somewhat hyperbolic metaphor compared to real-life bullying. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Pieter, the fact that you assume that only admins can engage on bullying behaviour is part of the problem. Given Rd232's move to close below, I don't need to publicly rehash recent examples, but if you want to email me as Rd232 has suggested I would be happy to discuss with you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Move to close
I move to close this thread and give the interaction restriction that Pieter has agreed to a chance to work. Apart from anything else, the issue of the Southerly Clubs is overshadowing the discussion above. Let's give that interaction restriction a chance to work. Also, if Pieter has ongoing issues with any Southerly Clubs matters, I suggest he find a third party he can raise those concerns with by email, and then the third party can act appropriately based on that information. Finally, Pieter should take how close this has come to a ban as a warning that he needs to really think about how to reduce frictions with other users, or we may just end up back here.
Support as proposer Rd232 (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Support Agreed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
# modified below
Support hoping most sincerely that this works, and that some administrator who may be concerned that it does will email me some constructive advice on what to do if it doesn't. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose as original creator of this topic. The issue is not just about Southern Clubs, it is about the continued harrassment of people Kuiper has a disagreement with. This behaviour has continued unabated through countless AN/U threads and I think it's time we put an end to it. Kuiper should stay away from searching the contribs of people he has a vendetta against. All those people, not just Serge. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree fully - and if that's not what we're doing, how can I support it? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Support Interaction bans are normally bilateral. I assume that this one is bilateral and support making that explicit. Pieter Kuiper is already on notice regarding stalking/using DRs for retaliation. He should be aware that many will support an indefinite block to stop such behavior. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with mattbuck. --ALE! ¿…? 07:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
So what do you and he propose? Looks like we'll end up with nothing unless you support something, dosn't it? Do you want to make a
new proposal: that "Kuiper should stay away from searching the contribs of people he has a vendetta against."? Of sourse I woould supporet that, but how can such a thing be enforced? SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Support hoping most sincerely that this works, and that some administrator who may be concerned that it does will email me some constructive advice on what to do if it doesn't, and that any other user so mistreated be informed by an admin here and now how to get effective help if Kuiper continues to stalk h in this manner. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC) SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments on "Move to close"
I understand the issue is not just Southern Clubs, but that issue has totally taken over this discussion, and what's left is mostly people commenting based on their opinion, without presenting detailed or convincing evidence a neutral can evaluate. That's bad. That is one of the reason I suggest seeing if a resolution can be found for the Southern Clubs issue, because (a) that would be a start for solving other issues (b) if we come back here, we'll have a chance to examine the other issues better. Rd232 (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Matt - this got hijacked. It was actually about continuing stalking - in this case Saibo's uploads I think. --Herby talk thyme 15:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've tried to revisit the issue that opened this thread which was 3 deletion nominations. Saibo seemed to take them in his stride, and I can't see anything obviously wrong with them. Please respond in the section above (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Pieter_Kuiper_.28yes_again.2C_what_a_surprise.29) if you have anything to add about it. Rd232 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is not whether Saibo took it in his stride that bothers me. It is the fact that - again - the uploads of a user who PK disapproved of were targeted. PK does good work when he deals with copyright issues etc without regard for the user who uploaded them --Herby talk thyme 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- But were the DRs bad in themselves? I may take offense if a neighbour cleans my front garden because he's pissed off at me (as a message you should have done this yourself), but at the end of the day, if the cleaning is done properly, the garden is clean and the whole street is better off. Rd232 (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Such DR's have been disruptive in the past and will be in the future, I think. It is pointy behavior and should not be condoned, in my opinion. Pieter Kuiper can just as easily find problems in the contributions of those he is not fighting with and Commons will benefit more from such work. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- "pointy" refers to en:WP:POINT, an English Wikipedia guideline titled "Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". The reason I'm saying this is because it needs to be made clear how valid DRs can be disruptive. To some extent it may be with the manner of making such DRs (tone, personal attacks), but that doesn't easily translate into disruption. In specific instances (like Southerly Clubs) it may be that frictions between users merit special action (interaction ban), but in general, users ought to be able to cope with somebody looking through their uploads for files which breach copyright etc. It's not like copyright enforcement is some kind of optional extra, or something which is only a small part of Commons' work. Unlike Wikipedias, it's a very large part of what needs doing, and no-one is exempt from it. We might prefer Pieter to be gentler, but if the actions are correct (a reasonably high proportion of the time), then that's what really matters. Rd232 (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Pieter Kuiper has repeatedly used DR in a manner that increased the level of conflict and animosity. The middle of an argument is not a good time to comb through your opponent's contributions looking for licensing problems. Yet, Pieter Kuiper has done just that. It is that behavior that is unhelpful. But I agree with Herbythyme's comment above: "PK does good work when he deals with copyright issues etc without regard for the user who uploaded them." --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing that even valid DRs can be used "in a manner that increase[s] the level of conflict and animosity", and we should ask people to refrain from that in general. But that's very different from being disruptive. And anyway, if user X comes across a user Y he thinks may have issues with their uploads, and gets into a dispute over one thing, does that mean that they're permanently banned from checking user Y's uploads and dealing with any issues in the appropriate way? If not permanently, how long? Put another way, if user Y is breaching copyright in a number of cases, how long should that be allowed to continue just because they got into an argument with someone who has noticed or might notice? Rd232 (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I have seen, nobody has ever suggested that a user who "is breaching copyright in a number of cases" should get away with that, long-term or short-term. A behavioral problem user who sees such a thing, but cannot interact, can ask a non-problem user to address it. Isn't that what we've agreed to here? The fact that so many users in this debate think that grossly uncivil and retaliatory behavior (the issue at hand) needs to be curbed and prevented has renwed my faith in the debate process. But surely nobody thinks that Commons should suffer serious damage by anbody "breaching copyright in a number of cases"? SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- So... what, does that lead to a conclusion of some sort of mentorship? Someone who Pieter can ask for advice as needed, and someone who users who have issues with him can approach before things get out of hand, and/or Pieter can pass information to instead of acting himself. Basically, an extension of what's already been proposed. Rd232 (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- If a neutral admin would be willing to take on such a rôle, that would be an excellent idea. I'd like to have one myself. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- So... what, does that lead to a conclusion of some sort of mentorship? Someone who Pieter can ask for advice as needed, and someone who users who have issues with him can approach before things get out of hand, and/or Pieter can pass information to instead of acting himself. Basically, an extension of what's already been proposed. Rd232 (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I have seen, nobody has ever suggested that a user who "is breaching copyright in a number of cases" should get away with that, long-term or short-term. A behavioral problem user who sees such a thing, but cannot interact, can ask a non-problem user to address it. Isn't that what we've agreed to here? The fact that so many users in this debate think that grossly uncivil and retaliatory behavior (the issue at hand) needs to be curbed and prevented has renwed my faith in the debate process. But surely nobody thinks that Commons should suffer serious damage by anbody "breaching copyright in a number of cases"? SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing that even valid DRs can be used "in a manner that increase[s] the level of conflict and animosity", and we should ask people to refrain from that in general. But that's very different from being disruptive. And anyway, if user X comes across a user Y he thinks may have issues with their uploads, and gets into a dispute over one thing, does that mean that they're permanently banned from checking user Y's uploads and dealing with any issues in the appropriate way? If not permanently, how long? Put another way, if user Y is breaching copyright in a number of cases, how long should that be allowed to continue just because they got into an argument with someone who has noticed or might notice? Rd232 (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Pieter Kuiper has repeatedly used DR in a manner that increased the level of conflict and animosity. The middle of an argument is not a good time to comb through your opponent's contributions looking for licensing problems. Yet, Pieter Kuiper has done just that. It is that behavior that is unhelpful. But I agree with Herbythyme's comment above: "PK does good work when he deals with copyright issues etc without regard for the user who uploaded them." --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- "pointy" refers to en:WP:POINT, an English Wikipedia guideline titled "Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". The reason I'm saying this is because it needs to be made clear how valid DRs can be disruptive. To some extent it may be with the manner of making such DRs (tone, personal attacks), but that doesn't easily translate into disruption. In specific instances (like Southerly Clubs) it may be that frictions between users merit special action (interaction ban), but in general, users ought to be able to cope with somebody looking through their uploads for files which breach copyright etc. It's not like copyright enforcement is some kind of optional extra, or something which is only a small part of Commons' work. Unlike Wikipedias, it's a very large part of what needs doing, and no-one is exempt from it. We might prefer Pieter to be gentler, but if the actions are correct (a reasonably high proportion of the time), then that's what really matters. Rd232 (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Such DR's have been disruptive in the past and will be in the future, I think. It is pointy behavior and should not be condoned, in my opinion. Pieter Kuiper can just as easily find problems in the contributions of those he is not fighting with and Commons will benefit more from such work. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- But were the DRs bad in themselves? I may take offense if a neighbour cleans my front garden because he's pissed off at me (as a message you should have done this yourself), but at the end of the day, if the cleaning is done properly, the garden is clean and the whole street is better off. Rd232 (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is not whether Saibo took it in his stride that bothers me. It is the fact that - again - the uploads of a user who PK disapproved of were targeted. PK does good work when he deals with copyright issues etc without regard for the user who uploaded them --Herby talk thyme 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've tried to revisit the issue that opened this thread which was 3 deletion nominations. Saibo seemed to take them in his stride, and I can't see anything obviously wrong with them. Please respond in the section above (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Pieter_Kuiper_.28yes_again.2C_what_a_surprise.29) if you have anything to add about it. Rd232 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Repeat copyvios from User:Nfjb
Nfjb, already blocked once for uploading Volvo-related copyvios, apparently never understood why he was blocked. File:IrvGordon.jpg is a clear copyvio. Obviously Nfjb should just be blocked until he can explain (and in his own words, mind you) what kinds of images are available for him to upload. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked by Bidgee. Wknight94 talk 20:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Supreme Deliciousness, Incivility, Personal attacks, Deleting admin templates
This user, Supreme Deliciousness, called me a “disruptive editor,” a “sock[puppet]”[11] a “propand[ist]” who inserts “falsehoods and inaccuracy's(sic) and fiction” into commons[12]. And what did I do to deserve this slew of complements? I nominated a file for deletion due to copyright violations.[13] I should also note that the editor twice deleted[14][15] an admin template voicing concurrence for speedy delete of the file for copyvio. I am asking that some sanction be imposed on SupremeD for engaging in personal attacks as well as for vandalism for twice removing a copyvio template added by an admin.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Supreme Deliciousness should have changed the speedy delete into a normal DR rather than edit-warring over it. You, Jiujitsuguy, should only use a speedy delete tag for clear copyvios etc. Speedy delete isn't for things that, in your own words, "may be in violation of copyright laws" (emphasis added). --Kramer Associates (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I did change it to a normal delete. I removed the fair use delete twice, and I first pointed out that it was free, Jiujitsuguy re added it the same amount of times, the only difference is that he ignored that its free and he used an IP to remove it one time. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Kramer Associates, perhaps there could have been a better template but I acted in good faith as eveidenced by the advice I sought from an admin before adding the template[16][17] But assuming for the sake of argument that I was 100 percent wrong, does that give him the right to call me a sock puppet? A disruptive editor? A "propagand[ist]" who inserts "falsehoods and inaccuracy's(sic) and fiction" into Commons? What ever happened to civility and no personal attacks? Is that acceptable behavior and should it be condoned?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- You asked me here:[18] and I gave you a sincere reply of what I believe. Its not a personal attack in any way, its me explaining what you have done. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment You asked me. And I replied that you had made a mistake, and told you to stop warring.
Why would you then bring him here?Why would you then mention here his correct template removal as though he did something wrong? I suggest you strike that part of your grievance claim. I apologize that I was a little slow, I am overseas on a conference. But I did reply before you started this section. --99of9 (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Kramer Associates, perhaps there could have been a better template but I acted in good faith as eveidenced by the advice I sought from an admin before adding the template[16][17] But assuming for the sake of argument that I was 100 percent wrong, does that give him the right to call me a sock puppet? A disruptive editor? A "propagand[ist]" who inserts "falsehoods and inaccuracy's(sic) and fiction" into Commons? What ever happened to civility and no personal attacks? Is that acceptable behavior and should it be condoned?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I did change it to a normal delete. I removed the fair use delete twice, and I first pointed out that it was free, Jiujitsuguy re added it the same amount of times, the only difference is that he ignored that its free and he used an IP to remove it one time. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The reversal at Commons:Deletion requests seems rather poor judgment. Especially since there is already a discussion referenced on the talk page. -- Docu at 06:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think Rehman just wasn't aware of an ongoing discussion and won't revert again. I know that you two aren't best friends but let's close this, please (and don't take the revert personally) Instead let's discuss the new wording on COM:VP. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 11:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly he isn't a good judge of the content of the text either.
- Anyways, if he agrees from refraining to revert other users in the future, this would be fine. -- Docu at 11:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps all involved could contribute to Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Add_more_guidance_at_Commons:Deletion_requests. PS raising "user problems" threads about such minor issues is probably not the best use of everyone's time. In future, remember that you should try to resolve disputes with the user first; you didn't contact Rehman about this, not even to notify of this discussion. Rd232 (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- There isn't really any dispute to be resolve. It's just about a problematic action by otherwise inactive administrator.
- As for the notification of the user, it's not clear if he actually wants to be discussing things with others or being notified by me.
- Other than that, given the ongoing discussion, his comment seems rather poor judgement about the current way of doing things. -- Docu at 20:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC) (edited)
- "There isn't really any dispute to be resolve." - then why post at a dispute resolution board? If you're not talking to the user and not asking for any action by an administrator, then this is such a complete waste of time that frankly it reflects "rather poor judgement", to echo a phrase. Rd232 (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's an administrator's conduct to discuss. This is why it's called "user problems" and not "disputes noticeboard". -- Docu at 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to play semantics, fine: "Problems" implies possible solutions, i.e. actions which address the problem(s). You're not asking for any actions, so you're just wasting everyone's time. Additionally, you haven't acknowledged that you should have talked to Rehman first. Rd232 (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I commented on that above. The solution is presented below. -- Docu at 16:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to play semantics, fine: "Problems" implies possible solutions, i.e. actions which address the problem(s). You're not asking for any actions, so you're just wasting everyone's time. Additionally, you haven't acknowledged that you should have talked to Rehman first. Rd232 (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's an administrator's conduct to discuss. This is why it's called "user problems" and not "disputes noticeboard". -- Docu at 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- "There isn't really any dispute to be resolve." - then why post at a dispute resolution board? If you're not talking to the user and not asking for any action by an administrator, then this is such a complete waste of time that frankly it reflects "rather poor judgement", to echo a phrase. Rd232 (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware on such a discussion at that time. And like RD232 stated, this thread is a waste of time; the issue at hand could've been solved in a few lines at my talkpage. Ps, thanks Rillke for the notification about this thread. Regards, Rehman 02:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunatly, you already wasted our time by reverting others.
- Now, can we count on you to refrain from such actions in the future? -- Docu at 06:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Mysterious IP 99.171.125.144
There is currently a "discussion" going on here. A mysterious IP 99.171.125.144[19] that has never contributed anything on Commons before suddenly shows up at the discussion and makes these contributions [20][21] It's obvious what's going on here (at the very least canvassing but probably sock puppetry and proxy editing) and I'm asking that the IP be blocked, or at the very least, prevented from partaking in the discussion. This type of "editing" corrupts the entire process and turns it into the law of the jungle.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Don't be a plonker. Unless you can prove this IP is a blocked or banned user then you are on a hiding to nothing. You certainly can't have them blocked for merely !voting against you. This isn't like running to Mummy you know. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- I actually think it should be blocked. It's highly suspicious that an anonymous IP's first ever action here would be in a DR. Fry1989 eh? 00:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I agree it is suspicious, no more so than the non-IP user who just joined the discussion. But as I said, if there's no more proof than merely !voting against Jiujitsuguy, then it ain't gonna happen. I certainly don't feel there's enough reason to checkuser the editor much less block them. Now what was that tenet of the Wikis? Oh yeah, Assume Good Faith and all that bollocks. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Fred the Oyster you voted in a manner consistent with the suspect IP so your opinion here is unsurprising. The difference between you and me is that I would argue that IP 99.171.125.144 should be discounted or blocked even if it had voted in my favor. Its vote (for or against) represents a clear subversion of the process. I have access to many terminals and IPs and the thought of using anyone of them to somehow skew the outcome would never cross my mind. If we allow this tainted IP to vote, then we revert to the law of the jungle.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- LMFAO. Paranoid or what? I couldn't care less which way he/she voted, hence my not complaining about the other SPA !voter, partly because I don't care and partly because if that one is a sock too then they cancel each other out. In any case surely you haven't forgotten that this isn't a count the numbers sorta thing, it's who gives the most cogent arguments. So far your arguments aren't so much cogent as raving paranoid. So why don't you put forward the best argument you can, leave out the conspiracy theories and sit back and enjoy the fun. After all this is supposed to be fun. It isn't supposed to get you certified. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Fred the Oyster you voted in a manner consistent with the suspect IP so your opinion here is unsurprising. The difference between you and me is that I would argue that IP 99.171.125.144 should be discounted or blocked even if it had voted in my favor. Its vote (for or against) represents a clear subversion of the process. I have access to many terminals and IPs and the thought of using anyone of them to somehow skew the outcome would never cross my mind. If we allow this tainted IP to vote, then we revert to the law of the jungle.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you say that? They probably just saw one of the bot notices at en:Talk:Six-Day War#File:Golan evacuation.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion, en:Talk:Syria#File:Golan evacuation.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion or en:Talk:Golan Heights#File:Golan evacuation.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion and felt inclined to comment. Is it any more suspicious than Special:Contributions/74.90.114.98? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I agree it is suspicious, no more so than the non-IP user who just joined the discussion. But as I said, if there's no more proof than merely !voting against Jiujitsuguy, then it ain't gonna happen. I certainly don't feel there's enough reason to checkuser the editor much less block them. Now what was that tenet of the Wikis? Oh yeah, Assume Good Faith and all that bollocks. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- I actually think it should be blocked. It's highly suspicious that an anonymous IP's first ever action here would be in a DR. Fry1989 eh? 00:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
If anyone should be blocked for being an obvious puppet its Stellarkid who hasn't made one single post at Commons for one year and then shows up to back up JJG. Steallarkid and JJG are part of an of-wiki canvassing email list that I can prove. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Another IP 99.154.151.161 has just showed up on the thread that geo-locates to Sacramento California[22] That is the same geolocate for 99.171.125.144[23]. It is now clear that the IP is using multiple accounts to buttress the same view.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- You do realise that not everyone has a static IP don't you? And you did notice that both IPs' ISP are AT&T didn't you? There is absolutely nothing suspicious about an IP editor using more than one IP address. At the moment your behaviour is creeping into the disruptive category. Please stop it. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
All uploads by this user are copyright violations, in file File:Leben_wiki_2.png for instance "Photo by Tracey Lee for Yahoo! Sports" can be seen at the bottom of the picture, file File:Ufc 138 wiki.jpg is clearly a corporate poster. All are claimed to be "Own work" and licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported".
- OK, all deleted, and user warned. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I am "officially warned" for what? If your complaint is over my saying: Telling users you disagree with to "fuck off" is just the same as saying that you are an ignorant fool, do you think that is an incorrect statement? In fact, the comment was directed at that user's behavior, which was problematic.
Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure your quoted statement is strictly correct, but it is certainly not calling the other user an "ignorant fool". I half-expected User:99of9 not to be a native English speaker... but according to his userpage he is. Rd232 (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- My mistake, when quoting myself above, was that there should have been a period, not a comma after the italicized quote. That was unintentional.
- Rd232, I am a native English speaker, and have lived for considerable periods in Australia, the USA, and England, so am also familiar with many differences in local usage. --99of9 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Malcolm, please note that the truth of a statement is orthogonal to whether it is a personal attack. If I say "User:... is stupid", that is a personal attack, irrespective of their IQ. I clearly acknowledge that your statement was in response to outrageous incivility, and that you were attempting to put a stop to it. Nevertheless, your comments were objectively both personal and insulting (see below), and so crossed the line into a personal attack. A civil and less inflammatory response would for example be "Telling users who disagree with you to "fuck off" does not help your argument and is clearly incivil". --99of9 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Rd232, I recognize that Malcolm's statement was couched in hypothetical reflective language, but when that is pared back, it is roughly equivalent to the propositions: "User:... did X. X is only done by ignorant fools." What is the obvious Aristotelian deduction from that pair of propositions? "User:... is an ignorant fool." So it seems clear to me that Malcolm was calling Fred an ignorant fool. [Even if it is not clear to you, you must recognize that it can be validly taken that way (and Fred did take it that way), so this kind of communication should be avoided, and hence my warning.] --99of9 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Um hum. Thanks for your clear explanation. Rereading it, I think I imagined quotes around you are an ignorant fool. Erm... So how about that Eurozone crisis, eh? <saunters off, hands in pockets, whistling/> Rd232 (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you review the discussion between me and User:Fred the Oyster you will see that his response to my view that one of his edits amounted to WP:LAWYER, was to make a sustained personal attack against me, both here and a separate discussion at the Village pump [47] [48]. Neither 99of9, nor any other administrator, had anything to say about User:Fred the Oyster's problematic attitude that I have no business saying anything here (or at the Village Pump) if he did not like it. As for my edit that 9of99 did not like, that was (if read as a whole) a suggestion to User:Fred the Oyster to refactor a comment that made him, not me, sound like an irrational fool. That is drawing a logical conclusion, not a personal attack, combined with a reasonable request. The personal attacks were not from me, but were all from User:Fred the Oyster; and if he disagree with me he should have used arguments the were rational. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ah yes, let us review it shall we? You entered a discussion with the accusation that I was wiki-lawyering, a discussion you were not a part of. A discussion you still haven't yet made an on-topic comment to. What you have done is totally distracted everything and everyone away from that discussion. Similarly you have increased the heat whilst simultaneously dimming the light. You've been arrogant, patronising and argumentative. You've been sneaking tangential personal attacks in under the radar yet you now post as a hard-done-by editor who's done nothing wrong. In all these posts you've not made anything that has the semblance of being productive yet you have no problem taking up everyone's time with your poor little hurt editor's persona. Presumably you have nothing else to do as you just keep popping back up like an ageing whack-a-mole. Give it a bloody rest, or are you attempting to go for the commons irritating editor 2011 award? I suggest you go do something useful, because what you are doing here is as far from that as it's possible to go. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fred the Oyster, how sweet of you to confirm everything I have said. Your whole argument is that I have no business here because you do not like what I have said, combined with a list of accusations against me supported by nothing...and which would be irreverent even if supported. All I said, in the first place, is that one edit you made here was wiki-lawering. Virtually all the discussion since consists of you saying (in one way or another) that I have no right to say that, or anything else you do not want to hear; and my replies saying that your arguments are mistaken. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- The comment you initially objected to as "wikilawyering" wasn't. In fact, whatever else you can say about Fred's comments in this topic, there's hasn't been any wikilawyering from him. Fred's summary above is unfortunately accurate; you have contributed nothing here, and mightily detracted from the topic and wasted people's time. Rd232 (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I do not agree, Rd232, or agree only in part. User:Fred the Oyster saying stuff like "If I recall correctly he didn't accuse you of being a sock, he accused you of using socks", is wikilawing. My comment on that edit by Fred the Oyster was very brief (two very short sentences), and when I made it I had no intention of saying more on this thread exactly because I have nothing to say about the files in dispute. It was not my intention to have an extend discussion here. Perhaps it would have been better to start another thread for User:Fred the Oyster, but I really have no interest in requesting sanctions against anyone, so I did not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- The comment you initially objected to as "wikilawyering" wasn't. In fact, whatever else you can say about Fred's comments in this topic, there's hasn't been any wikilawyering from him. Fred's summary above is unfortunately accurate; you have contributed nothing here, and mightily detracted from the topic and wasted people's time. Rd232 (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fred the Oyster, how sweet of you to confirm everything I have said. Your whole argument is that I have no business here because you do not like what I have said, combined with a list of accusations against me supported by nothing...and which would be irreverent even if supported. All I said, in the first place, is that one edit you made here was wiki-lawering. Virtually all the discussion since consists of you saying (in one way or another) that I have no right to say that, or anything else you do not want to hear; and my replies saying that your arguments are mistaken. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ah yes, let us review it shall we? You entered a discussion with the accusation that I was wiki-lawyering, a discussion you were not a part of. A discussion you still haven't yet made an on-topic comment to. What you have done is totally distracted everything and everyone away from that discussion. Similarly you have increased the heat whilst simultaneously dimming the light. You've been arrogant, patronising and argumentative. You've been sneaking tangential personal attacks in under the radar yet you now post as a hard-done-by editor who's done nothing wrong. In all these posts you've not made anything that has the semblance of being productive yet you have no problem taking up everyone's time with your poor little hurt editor's persona. Presumably you have nothing else to do as you just keep popping back up like an ageing whack-a-mole. Give it a bloody rest, or are you attempting to go for the commons irritating editor 2011 award? I suggest you go do something useful, because what you are doing here is as far from that as it's possible to go. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you review the discussion between me and User:Fred the Oyster you will see that his response to my view that one of his edits amounted to WP:LAWYER, was to make a sustained personal attack against me, both here and a separate discussion at the Village pump [47] [48]. Neither 99of9, nor any other administrator, had anything to say about User:Fred the Oyster's problematic attitude that I have no business saying anything here (or at the Village Pump) if he did not like it. As for my edit that 9of99 did not like, that was (if read as a whole) a suggestion to User:Fred the Oyster to refactor a comment that made him, not me, sound like an irrational fool. That is drawing a logical conclusion, not a personal attack, combined with a reasonable request. The personal attacks were not from me, but were all from User:Fred the Oyster; and if he disagree with me he should have used arguments the were rational. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Um hum. Thanks for your clear explanation. Rereading it, I think I imagined quotes around you are an ignorant fool. Erm... So how about that Eurozone crisis, eh? <saunters off, hands in pockets, whistling/> Rd232 (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Daniel sugden
Daniel sugden (talk · contribs) has continued uploading copyright violations today after receiving a warning on the 10th. January (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed and blocked - thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Personal attacks
The rule Commons:Talk page guidelines says: «Don't label or personally attack people or their edits». The commons user Бериллий (talk · contribs) has violated this rule with provocative and insulting phrases. [49] The same personal attack repeated then in deletion request. [50] Warning: all the discussion was in Russian.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should directly approach an admin who speaks Russian. --99of9 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Franz josef
- Franz josef (talk · contribs)
Every single one of this user's uploads is a rip-off. He claims to be the author despite many many warnings; even when it is not a copyright violation, he is taking them from third party sources. For example, File:Alfonso de Borbón Conde de Covadonga 8 años.jpg was taken from en:File:AlfonsoPrinceAsturias.jpg without attribution, and it may well be a copyright violation (the uploader at en.wp failed to list the author). A look at the uploader's log will confirm many ripoffs [51], including after his "last warning."
I ask for a block of this user until he does things the way he's supposed to and communicates with us. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked for a month as he has gaps between contributions and should notice the block. If he promises to do better this block can naturally be lifted earlier. -- Cecil (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Except the last uploads most pictures are from a period where they could be PD-old. Two of them I now marked as PD, two of them are DR as the author died 1948. For the rest I gave up as most of them are bad quality anyway. It makes it nearly impossible to read the author watermark and Google while resulting in hits usually leads to pages without the needed information. That needs a lot of time or an expert in royal photography who knows where to search. -- Cecil (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Lifthandsalute
Lifthandsalute (talk · contribs) appear to don't like me very much.[52] // Liftarn (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Personal attacks, incivility and slanderous accusations
User:Beta_M at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greater Israel Map.png called User:Oren neu dag a "genocidal maniak" and then uses a string of unrepeatable obscenities, one directed at the uploader. Later Beta M states "Israel's official position, on the other hand, is that Palestinians are vermin and not people", which strikes me as anti-Semitic, as he uses a well-known Nazi description of Jews to slander Israel. He then goes on to talk of the "horror of the genocidal practices of Zionists." User: AnonMoos correctly described Beta M’s comments as "racist." I am disgusted by Beta M’s use of gratuitous coarse language and intimidating comments at commons. Chesdovi (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Chesdovi, you say that User:Beta_M
- 1. called User:Oren neu dag a "genocidal maniak",
- 2. said "Israel's official position....is that Palestinians are vermin and not people",
- 3. uses a well-known Nazi description of Jews to slander Israel, and
- 4 describes Zionists as "genocidal".
- Good luck with finding a Commons administrator who sees anything wrong with any of that. Just be careful not to say anything that even implies that User:Beta_M might be antisemitic or you will get blocked in a second. That is just how things usually work on this wonderful web site. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- One can be antizionist without being antisemitic, but I agree, Beta M clearly crossed the line here with his personal attacks. I'm reluctant to impose an outright ban, but I think maybe a topic ban would be appropriate.
- And as for you Malcolm, please stop with your little game of admin-baiting, it's quite tiresome. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Is it your view that vicious, and insulting, anti-Zionism is ok, as long as it can be pretended to be aimed at Zionists, not Jews? Actually, it seems to me that Beta M was over the line even if it could be argued that he just hates Zionists (who accidentally happen to be Jews). But, hey, what do I know. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- My, my, you do have the proverbial Jewish chip on your shoulder don't you? How about if he said he hated diamond merchants would that be anti-Semitic too? After all we know there are a lot of Jews who are diamond merchants. Much as you'd like it to be I'm sure, it isn't always about the Jews you know. There are lots of other things to hate in the world, or am I not allowed to dislike brisket now? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm not arguing that, I'm simply commenting that it is possible to be antizionist without being antisemitic. Maybe I phrased it badly, but regardless of anything else, Beta M was over the line and I have told him not to do anything more in I/P areas since he cannot remain calm. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- The comment is completely unacceptable. Analyzing it beyond that is giving it more attention than it deserves, I think. Block the offender, remove the attack, and move on. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- LX, I agree. But what you suggest has not happened. The offender has not been blocked, but given a rather mild request to "please" not contribute more to I/P Dispute discussions [53]. The attacks made by Beta_M have not been (as far as I can see) removed, as you suggested. And also notice the length of time it took to get even pathetically limp response to the complaint, over 12 hours...although administrators dealt with other problems during that time. It is my experience here that administrators do not consider users making antisemitic statements on Commons a big deal, but they do consider accusing users of antisemitism (no matter how much evidence there is to support that) a very big deal. So there it is. Nothing has been done about Beta_M, but I was once blocked for two weeks when I said that Rama is antisemitic, even with a diff to prove it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Like anything on Commons, it depends when people look at stuff. Not everyone is online 24/7 or in a mood to read about people complaining. Sometimes we just want to do other stuff. If someone wants to do a real block of Beta M, fine, go ahead, I figured we'd maybe give the guy a chance to change before blocking. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, Mattbuck, there were administrators around to deal with other problems during that 12hr+ time. It is pretty obvious how much priority Commons administrators give to complaints like the one here. On the other hand, when Liftarn complained that someone accused him of antisemitism (in a thread below), that offender got blocked in less than an hour. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Vandalism only account. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, Mattbuck, there were administrators around to deal with other problems during that 12hr+ time. It is pretty obvious how much priority Commons administrators give to complaints like the one here. On the other hand, when Liftarn complained that someone accused him of antisemitism (in a thread below), that offender got blocked in less than an hour. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Like anything on Commons, it depends when people look at stuff. Not everyone is online 24/7 or in a mood to read about people complaining. Sometimes we just want to do other stuff. If someone wants to do a real block of Beta M, fine, go ahead, I figured we'd maybe give the guy a chance to change before blocking. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- LX, I agree. But what you suggest has not happened. The offender has not been blocked, but given a rather mild request to "please" not contribute more to I/P Dispute discussions [53]. The attacks made by Beta_M have not been (as far as I can see) removed, as you suggested. And also notice the length of time it took to get even pathetically limp response to the complaint, over 12 hours...although administrators dealt with other problems during that time. It is my experience here that administrators do not consider users making antisemitic statements on Commons a big deal, but they do consider accusing users of antisemitism (no matter how much evidence there is to support that) a very big deal. So there it is. Nothing has been done about Beta_M, but I was once blocked for two weeks when I said that Rama is antisemitic, even with a diff to prove it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Is it your view that vicious, and insulting, anti-Zionism is ok, as long as it can be pretended to be aimed at Zionists, not Jews? Actually, it seems to me that Beta M was over the line even if it could be argued that he just hates Zionists (who accidentally happen to be Jews). But, hey, what do I know. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
NB: Mattbuck, you have not respond to a single point I made in my two edits above, nor has any other administrator. Thanks you all for your bullshit replies, or non-answers, or silence. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I said please because I see no point in being rude myself. I would say it was an implied command, rather than a refusable request. As for why did I not block, because Beta M does not appear to be a vandalism only account: Liftandwhatever made one edit, which was to vandalise, therefore vandalism-only account, therefore block. Beta M made a series of bad/rude edits which I agree we should not tolerate, but as best I can see only on this one page, and has made useful contributions elsewhere. I can't speak for why other admins didn't come to it sooner, I for one didn't look at it, but maybe it's because you've taken it as your latest soapbox to berate the admins and so people have a good reason not to reply. You are a troll Malcolm, and frankly we don't want to feed you. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's funny, Mattbuck. You did not want to be rude to Beta M, but you call me a troll. Please review WP:TROLL?[54]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, Mattbuck, I understand you. I just wanted to be sure it is agreed that anti-Zionism can also become unacceptable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Weren't yousupposed to be going to pastures new, never to return again? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, Mattbuck, I understand you. I just wanted to be sure it is agreed that anti-Zionism can also become unacceptable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I've never crossed paths with "Fred the Oyster" before, but isn't "you do have the proverbial Jewish chip on your shoulder" a bit beyond the pale as well? I'm not asking for a block on him. I am asking him to mind his rhetoric. - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Despite repeated warnings, and despite such uncontested mass deletions as the one resulting from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Caracazo1989, Caracazo1989 (talk · contribs) continues to upload files that are almost certainly not his own and claim them as his own work (File:ItaloCondItalia2.jpg, File:ItaloCondItalia.jpg). This casts strong doubts even on images that I would otherwise presume were legitimate.
In the past, I have tried contacting the user in Spanish on his user talk page. Since he did not bother to respond, this time I didn't bother to do so, and left a note in English to let him know I am bringing the matter here. Someone else is welcome to go there and translate. And if anyone thinks that there is anything to salvage here, please take on the situation, because my gut at this point would be to delete all his images on a precautionary basis and to block the account. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure if you noticed the user's recent comments at User_talk:Denniss#So.2C_can_you_explain_why_did_you_erase_this_file_twice.3F. They do suggest to me that all the user's uploads should be considered suspect and deleted. Rd232 (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I nuked all of the images and djvus that were obviously false claims of "own work". I left a large number of ribbons and military insignia which are probably copyvios, but not obviously so. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- I nuked many, perhaps all, of the same copyvios for the second time today and blocked him for a week. He either does not understand the concept of copyright, or, more likely, I think, believes that he can thumb his nose at us all and get away with copyvio uploads. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- I nuked all of the images and djvus that were obviously false claims of "own work". I left a large number of ribbons and military insignia which are probably copyvios, but not obviously so. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Fry1989 again
User removed comments only with his POV. A, B, C, D. and personally attack user (me). We can read my comment in this DR.
I understand that he doesn't want to read the Turkish copyright law. But he has no authority to remove uses' comments. Unfortunately, user forgot warning.
Takabeg (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Takabeg, it is not good practice to renominate a file for deletion less than one month after it was closed as keep.That said, it in no way justifies the behavior of Fry1989 to remove another editors comments that seem to satisfy COM:TALK, to call him/her ignorant, to assume bad faith by another editor,and to close a discussion that s/he has a strong opinion regarding,especially after being warned against similar behavior. I blocked Fry1989 for two hours, but a longer block may be appropriate in light of his/her response.[55] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Clarifications: 1. Takabeg didn't renominate the file, User:Reality006 did, and there's no overly obvious reason to suspect socking. 2. Fry didn't close the discussion (as far as I can see) - Jcb closed the original discussion and there's been no close or attempted close since. That said, an experienced user should know far better than to remove good faith comments from a DR, however much they disagree with them. Given the related issues and history, I'd be inclined more to a block of 2 weeks than of 2 hours. Copyright is very often intricate, and even if you do have a full understanding, there's no reason to go around treating everyone who hasn't understood all the nuances as if they are idiots or trolls. PS I've restored Takabeg's inappropriately removed comment. Rd232 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- I endorse a further block, simply on the basis he says he'll do it again in 2hrs. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- ? I can't see where he said that, and this most recent comment explicitly says the opposite. Rd232 (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- The exact words Blocked for two hours: I don't care, I'll be back in two hours, and will adress the user problems page, pointing out the complete ignorance Takabeg has of copyright law see her. I agree with Mattbuck, two hours are too short. He was already blocked for one day before and keep the bad attitude. Geagea (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- I extended the block to three days.[56] Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- The exact words Blocked for two hours: I don't care, I'll be back in two hours, and will adress the user problems page, pointing out the complete ignorance Takabeg has of copyright law see her. I agree with Mattbuck, two hours are too short. He was already blocked for one day before and keep the bad attitude. Geagea (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- ? I can't see where he said that, and this most recent comment explicitly says the opposite. Rd232 (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Rd232 is correct. Takabeg did not renominate. I was wrong about the speedy close by Fry 1989. S/he only suggested a speedy close albeit with unnecessary bolding. I'm sorry for both errors. Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- But the nomination was done on Takabeg's behalf, in fact User talk:Reality006 contains a whole list of files Takabeg is asking to be deleted on his behalf. If that isn't meat puppetry I don't know what is. --Fred the Oyster 15:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- "a whole list of files Takabeg is asking to be deleted on his behalf." - no, it's a list of suspect files: note the questionmarks. Asking for a second opinion before nominating files for deletion is supposed to be a bad thing now? There are a couple of files Takabeg repeatedly nominated for some form of deletion but most of these are first time "what about these" (Şunlar nasıl ?) or doubting of "own work" claim (Gerçekten o kullanıcı mı çekti ?). Rd232 (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- If it's not legitimate then why isn't he putting them up for deletion review himself, instead of asking an editor who is less experienced than himself to do the honours? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- A valid question indeed. Notice how every single image Takabeg listed, Reality006 nominated? Takabeg knew Reality006 would do it, and by asking him to after a failed DR by Takabeg himself only about a week before, it sounds like Takabeg didn't believe he would get anywhere with a second nomination by himself, and would need "moral support", and he used someone else to further his motive. Meat puppetry is an accurate definition for this. Fry1989 eh? 05:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- If it's not legitimate then why isn't he putting them up for deletion review himself, instead of asking an editor who is less experienced than himself to do the honours? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- "a whole list of files Takabeg is asking to be deleted on his behalf." - no, it's a list of suspect files: note the questionmarks. Asking for a second opinion before nominating files for deletion is supposed to be a bad thing now? There are a couple of files Takabeg repeatedly nominated for some form of deletion but most of these are first time "what about these" (Şunlar nasıl ?) or doubting of "own work" claim (Gerçekten o kullanıcı mı çekti ?). Rd232 (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- But the nomination was done on Takabeg's behalf, in fact User talk:Reality006 contains a whole list of files Takabeg is asking to be deleted on his behalf. If that isn't meat puppetry I don't know what is. --Fred the Oyster 15:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I endorse a further block, simply on the basis he says he'll do it again in 2hrs. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Daniel sugden (2)
Daniel sugden (talk · contribs) has resumed uploading copyright violations now that his previous 1-week block has expired. January (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked for 2 weeks a minute ago. --Túrelio (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Look2See1 - 4th
Previous incidents: Commons:Disputes noticeboard#Are courtyards gardens?, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 19#Look2See1 and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 19#User:Look2See1 (2nd)
I don't understand why this user is autoconfirmed again, as is continuing to create mess within categories and waste everybody's time. It systematically continues to ignore community feedback as evident on the user's talk page.
The latest edit also confirms that does not understand feedback even when explained multiple times, in this case insisting that courtyards are gardens, and patios are gardens as well as claiming that "Patios [...] are not courtyards").
As I received only limited support from the community in the previous notifications, I tried to ignore and stay away from this user but unfortunately it intersects with categories I still care about. -ELEKHHT 06:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Response:
- The editor above (Elekhh) seems to be misunderstanding/misreading what is said/done, and hastily jumping to an incorrect conclusion again. There has been no "insistence" that all courtyards are landscape design/garden elements, since my 23 June 2011 response at [57], and pasted to my talk page said:
- "I will hereon follow the editors' consensus, and only add, on an image basis, [Category:Gardens of place] to [Category:Courtyards of place] for images that have a significant landscape component. The warm climate regional and cultural considerations used for several subcategories into category inclusions, such as [Category:Courtyards in California], do make sense on the 'local vernacular' level - but wikimedia is global. I'm sorry for any distress or problems my perceptions caused. Thank you—Look2See1" (23:26, 23 June 2011).
- That has been carefully followed. I had been making a mistake, listened when the editing community explained why it was one, and changed. That is called learning, and per a Jimmy Wales interview, courage to risk making mistakes and then learn is encouraged in the wiki projects to broaden the diversity of editors.
- With my recent edit patios/garden features/Spain, I replaced Category:Gardens in Spain with the more specific Category:Garden features and elements in Spain. The parent cat of Category:Patios of Spain, Category:Courtyards in Spain, was not edited. Images of courtyards (or Category:Terraces) located in Spain, that are also a landscape architecture/garden element, are in [Category:Patios of Spain] - and so the [Category:Garden features and elements in Spain] (restored today) is appropriate in my current (as landscape architect and editor) understanding.
- In looking at the Commons:Disputes noticeboard#Are courtyards gardens? link above today, I was startled and realized that I made a mistake yesterday, when thinking I was still on my own talk page, and had edited it. I will not revert that, as not sure what is best to do, and apologize for the action and casual wording not befitting a community noticeboard.
- In my experience ELEKHH predominantly 'talks at' and does not 'discuss/converse with' me when they have a different opinion. When their reasoning is clear it is applied. However, since I do not know their credentials, their authoritarian judgements are not blindly accepted. This seems to provoke a 'bad editor' response from them on my talk page, Village Pump, here, and elsewhere. I have respectfully asked them many times to actually discuss with me an edit that's problematical for them, or to please respond to a specific question, but almost exclusively receive more 'Elekhh's opinon is fact' pronouncements instead. That does not support learning. In addition, they have used phrasing on my talk page and edit summaries that feels a variation of cyber-bullying. Ironically, I was reflecting yesterday on posting that problem here soon (but am not here).
- I have learned much (and applied it) from other editors/administrators that take a moment to explain why an edit needs reconsideration or is just wrong, and appreciate the opportunity to learn. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, as for my note about "Flora of <country>" categories it took you three months to reply to my arguments after I had gatherd some other opinions to prove your approach is if not plain wrong then at least clearly controversial. In a meanwhile you ignored my argumentation and reverted the edits (and still revert).
- Autopatroller seems too much here indeed. Nothing personal, thanks for all the good and non-controversial edits. 88.196.241.249 20:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry but I can't follow your argument. You state that you accept that courtyards are not gardens but than you go on and add again patios to garden features? Nevertheless the problem is not a specific one here, and is not a personal one either, but a general one. It has been explained by many editors in different words how categorisation works, and why overcategorization can be a problem (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... and many more of the same on en.wiki). Yet you continue to carry out overcategorizations and categorizations based on loose connections. Often this is followed by sort of admitting mistake, but without correcting it and go on as usual. --ELEKHHT 01:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- And here one example of hundreds to illustrate insistence: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. --ELEKHHT 01:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Patios response
- On the patios/courtyards/terraces categories: My current understanding is that patio images (in [category:patios] under [category:garden features]) only sometimes are also courtyard and/or terrace images (in [category:courtyards] & [category:terraces] under [category:architectural elements]). Therefore images of courtyards and/or terraces sometimes are a [category:garden features] (specific image basis), but [category:courtyards] & [category:terraces] never are under [category:garden features]. Patio images are always a [category:garden features], but not always a full garden example ([category:gardens]). So [category:patios] is under parent [category:garden features], but never under [category:gardens] (or [category:architectural elements]). I've only seen one editor's opinion differ from this standard landscape architecture term usage. If Wikimedia uses a different definition I will certainly honor and use it hereon. Is there a current posted specific policy that can clarify this for me and all Patio editors?
- Flora - Distribution response
- On the Category:Thymus serpyllum edits and restorations linked in Elekhh's post just above, they are simple range & horticulture categories, with the last restoration just sub-continental regions and no country floras. In the Tree of Life discussions, my second post there (done after my above Thymus restoration edits) asked for specific clarification of the Scope of Wikimedia, per Walter Siegmund's questions on my first post there. I'm unclear now if even 'simple range categories' are within the project's scope, or only used in Wikipedia. If they are out of project scope for plant species, when are they ever correct to use? Where can one find the current posted specific policy on images of plant species and distribution/range - biogeographic and/or political information cats?
- Elekhh, you've said above "And here one example of hundreds to illustrate insistence," with Thymus serpyllum - meanwhile you are the one repeatedly reverting my initial Thymus serpyllum cat edit, revert examples that illustrate your insistence (and edit-war responsibility?) on an opinion without backup via current written Flora policy, or an editors' community agreed discussion conclusion/consensus. You do not have the singular authority to decide that issue and declare other's actions incorrect. My cat restoration edits are not petty impulses nor authoritarian, but providing distribution information (from cited references in wikipedia species articles) that any other printed or online 'Flora' provides.
- I recently learned (Tree of Life/Walter Siegmund post) the Scope of Wikimedia may define its 'Flora' differently from any others. If the Tree of Life editors' community determines distribution information is to be eliminated, or very narrowly used, to remain within the Scope of Wikimedia, I will honor and abide by that. I've read the discussions to date and seen no conclusions yet, but if I'm missing a determination that already has consensus I'm sorry and need help finding it. A current/updated posted specific Flora policy would help all editors.
- Thank you, -Look2See1 (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're severely misinterpreting Walter's comment. The categories aren't out of scope. Walter considered your use of categories out of scope as you don't use "Flora of <country>" categories to categorize images. Rather you've used these to describe the range of a species in an ambiguous way and also forgot what images plain species categories as subcats of "Nature of <country>" exactly consist. I repeat, it's definitely correct to categorize images by location and there is little if any support to categorizing plain species categories by location (according to links on your talk page). 88.196.241.249 14:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Look2See1: this also has been explained many times: patios are automatically gardens only in your understanding. There is no need for any policy to clarify the generally accepted meaning of words. Regarding flora, if you can't see your four reverts as insistence, and contrary to consensus, than I have nothing further to add. --ELEKHHT 09:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)