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.
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
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 ·talk14:38, 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 Limamsg15:24, 13 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. Tiptoetytalk07:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
@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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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. --Herbytalk thyme12:17, 25 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)
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.
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)
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--118.71.133.10109:45, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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 notbusycallingpeoplenames. 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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 heatthan 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. 109.155.149.12821:47, 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)
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)
This is not helpful
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Considering the difficulty in getting rid of a bad admin at wikipedia, the likelihood of getting rid of one here is virtually nill. Your best bet is to make sure that any content you add here is ironclad, foolproof. And if all else fails, run it by the wikipedia user "Delta" (formerly "Betacommand") because if there's anyone who's an absolute stickler for the rules, it's him. If something passes the "Delta" test, it should be good to go. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Shall we not change the subject, again!?! We are talking about habitual, incorrigible, repetitious, extremely uncivil behavior here, not about content. In what horrendously unacceptable manner content is dealt with is the issue, whether or not there actually is anything wrong with that content. We are not discussing the quality of the content. Please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
"Considering the difficulty in getting rid of a bad admin..." - what? Pieter is not an admin. And your interjection about Delta/Beta is bizarrely irrelevant. Please don't make it worse by continuing this exchange. Rd232 (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The "brouhaha" is about behavior, Baseball Bugs. Behavior. I repeat again: behavior. Not about categories, not about content. Please do not try to change the subject!!! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 agree Pieter has agreed to the interaction ban proposed above, that would be which 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)
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 hate resentment 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)modified below
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)
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 --Herbytalk thyme16:16, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 rillkequestions?11:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Clearly he isn't a good judge of the content of the text either.
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 at20:45, 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 at21:52, 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 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, Rehman02:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, you already wasted our time by reverting others.
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. Fry1989eh?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)
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".
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After reviewing the discussion below, it is apparent that Fry1989 has exhausted the community's patience with heinous personal attacks, frequent assumption of bad faith, and inappropriate modification(s) of the attribution information of transwikied files. Fry1989 is reminded that such conduct is not going to be tolerated, and will result in removal of his editing privileges if he continues this behavior. -FASTILY(TALK)22:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This is going to get pretty lengthy, but please bear with me, because there is frankly a lot of disruptive editing coming from this user.
Removing upload information despite many many requests
I've asked him on three separate occasions (via four separate edits [24][25][26][27]) to stop removing the upload log from images. I explained that the upload logs help us trace who originally uploaded the content, and that this information is useful for ascertaining authorship (which is helpful and polite where not required - and sometimes it's necessary to know who to ask during copyright questions). The user's response has been:
Removing the request without so much as acknowledging it [28]
Ignoring the request and only addressing the other issue I brought up at the time [30].
His response? He continues to just remove the information anyway [31]. Also, it is logically impossible to assume good faith, because he does it on every single upload he inititates [32][33][34][35].
Personal attacks/rudeness against those disagree with him
Commons:Deletion requests/File:TSK-emblem.svg, where he posted a large bold text demanding that a user be banned... for the sole reason that he is trying to have copyrighted images deleted.
Reverting my {{Disputed}} tag without comment [36] and then rudely commenting that it was my "job to do [my] research" [37]. This behavior wouldn't be acceptable if he was correct about the license. But he isn't; he was completely wrong, it was copyrighted, as he now concedes [38].
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Dominica.png - "Learn to read more thoroughly before you keep nominating files", "Your ignorance of that is not a reason to delete the file". Again, called for a speedy keep on what was ultimately a speedy delete.
File talk:Coat of arms of Chile.svg - his very first contribution to the page: "Just thought I would add, that despite B1mbo's stubbornness on the issue..."
[40] - "I will NEVER agree with you based on pics alone, so STOP trying to convince me." This was after he just removed an editor's comments on the page. While removing comments on one's own talk page is OK, it fits the pattern that Fry is getting in vitriolic disputes over minutiae on a constant basis.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Comoros 2001Dec.svg - nothing blatantly rude here (although "God this is pathetic" is borderline), but again, disagreeing with Fry means the discussion devolving into name calling and personal attacks. Notice the user he is discussing with becomes so flustered that he just disengages from the conversation.
User talk:Fred the Oyster#Magog the Ogre - canvassing along with personal attacks against me personally. If you read above, you will see it was all completely unsubstantiated.
If you go through all of the discussions with him above, you will notice two major patterns:
Fry almost never listens to anybody else, even when it's blisteringly obvious the other person is correct. You will see a shitload of w:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT where he just ignores what the other person says and repeats his claims louder. This is very bad for the community; it means that rationale discussion on content and copyright cannot occur.
Vitriol and personal attacks against those who disagree with him. This too is very bad because it drives away good faith contributors and takes the time from our volunteers away from other areas.
In short, I believe this user is a net negative to the project. Many many attempts have been made to correct the behavior, but they are always met with him ignoring it (if we're lucky) or him edit warring and engaging in personal attacks against the person who brings it up (if we're unlucky).
Thus, I am proposing an outright indef block on this user. If he would agree to shape up, maybe he could stay. But I have my doubts; even if he should apologize, it will probably be a non-apology apology (in fact, I guarantee that Fry, should he respond below, will attack my character and bring up the previous deletion discussions despite the fact he was proven completely wrong there, and despite the fact they are only a small part of my case against him). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I actually though about starting a thread on this subject a few days ago, but decided that the examples I could bring from my own experience were not enough.
Certainly the behaviors Magog describes -- not listening and personal attacks -- have been my experience also. This sort of thing can be very wearing. I'm not sure I'd start with an indef -- perhaps a month off and then see if he had learned anything. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Some of the language in that one DR (there are 4 quotes from 2 DRs) is intemperate, but telling people who don't understand a copyright issue to go learn about it is sanctionable why? Rd232 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Leyo is a respected Admin who has a good understanding of copyright. Fry1989 did not (probably still does not) understand the particular issues in this case. It is one thing to politely say that the position that Leyo put forth was wrong (which it was not) -- that is a permissible attack on a position. The language in the two cites above is an impermissible personal attack. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's helpful to identify such things as "personal attacks". The spectrum of unpleasant behaviour is very broad, and making a big deal about such mildly intemperate remarks easily becomes a form of bullying, just as the remarks themselves can be. They're best just ignored, especially if they're accompanied by constructive remarks, rather than being a substitute. Spending lots of time debating the nature of discourse isn't helpful; we should just look past it for the substance, if that is possible. I mean, by all means point out that such comments are not ideal - but citing them in a ban discussion? Disproportionate much? PS I don't understand "Fry1989 did not (probably still does not) understand the particular issues in this case." given that in that DR you yourself said "Fry1989 is correct". Rd232 (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Fry has only a single 1-day block (for edit warring). I'm not going to get into whether the behavioural issues are accurately presented (I really have no idea), but it seems wrong to jump to an indefinite ban. A serious warning needs to be given first, by a block of the order of perhaps 2 weeks. Rd232 (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
CommentAs usual when there's a personality conflict between two editors, and one of them is an admin, the admin tries to 'win' the conflict by using his ban hammer (or his colleagues). Magog and Fry obviously don't hit it off and probably never will. An admin's word is not an entry on the tablets that came down from the mount, therefore it is not compulsory to listen to them, equally so it isn't a blocking offence to ignore them. Deleting previous upload log entry although a bot of a pain in the arse isn't against guidelines or policy so that in itself isn't a blocking offence, not responding to requests is not a blocking offence, not apologising is not a blockable offence. Having a straight-between-the-eyes method of communication is not in itself a blockable offence (so long as it doesn't cross the line into a personal attack). So from what I see Fry hasn't actually done anything that deserves a block. This is just a thin-skinned admin trying to use his tools to get rid of someone who annoys him
How about treating Fry like an adult instead of sending him to a "time-out chair" go get a admin who has a good relationship with him and see if he/she can make in-roads into easing Fry into the Path of the Light. Fry is too useful in the arena of illustration, Coats of Arms and flags to lose him to what is in effect a punitive indefinite block, especially for one this half-assed. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Leyo, and I are Admins who do not like Fry1989's behavior. Magog is a very experienced user, but not an Admin. None of us have blocked Fry1989 -- we have brought the situation here for discussion. Where do you get "the admin tries to 'win' the conflict by using his ban hammer (or his colleagues)" from that?
I would be delighted if someone -- you, perhaps -- could get Fry1989 to moderate his behavior. As I noted above, I think a long block is too much, but all I would really like is to get a change. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Magog is an admin on en, which is why I referred to him as one. It's the mindset which he brings with him to commons. That and the fact that he ignores the difference between punitive and preventative. Fry is not a problem to the project itself. He may piss off a few people, but it's very rare that a wiki editor, if they're doing the job right, won't piss off someone in their time here. I can't say I have ever had a problem with Fry and I'm well known (at least I was on en before I got my indefinite) for being somewhat brusque in my communications with people. There is no evidence I've seen at this kangaroo court that demonstrates to me that he has attacked anyone. Describing someone as "obstinate" is not an attack, calling them a "cunt" is. This is a worldwide project and the definition of civility is wide-ranging. I'm from the North of England and by-and-large we don't mince words. A thin-skinned yank from the bible belt or the west coast would die of apoplexy if he/she experienced how we talk to each other. Like on en the rules on civility here sucks donkey balls. It isn't defined, a "personal attack" isn't defined. Invariably it's a state of mind described by the loser of the argument. The majority of us are adults here, so they should act like adults and man up when someone calls them a name instead of the doing the equivalent of running to mummy when they call an admin or one of these "fuck over your enemy-fests". A mature person shrugs off the name calling and gets on with what we're here for, which this attempted star chamber most definitely isn't. If people spent less time with bollocks like this and more time indulging in what the project is here for then there would be improvements all round. Oh, and thanks for the offer, but I don't mentor and I most certainly don't do admin's jobs for them. Incidentally, blocking someone is the worst way possible of making sure people do what the rules say. It's an affront to any adult. And in case you wondered I have very little respect for most admins, not for who they are, but for the way they behave. In my view anyone who volunteers to be an admin shouldn't be allowed to be one. Most of the time the politics here makes me sick. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This is extraordinary. I don't have time to look at all the evidence presented here, but I'm extremely unimpressed with the characterisation of Fry's behaviour given in the two links I've examined:
comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:TSK-emblem.svg described as "where he posted a large bold text demanding that a user be banned... for the sole reason that he is trying to have copyrighted images deleted."
comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Comoros 2001Dec.svg described as "disagreeing with Fry means the discussion devolving into name calling and personal attacks. Notice the user he is discussing with becomes so flustered that he just disengages from the conversation."
Users can judge for themselves the accuracy of those descriptions; it is a shocking gulf between description and reality. Is the rest of the evidence any better? Rd232 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
+1: User_talk:Bidgee#File:UK_traffic_sign_602.svg does not provide any evidence of wrongdoing. There are 2 users complaining about overwriting without sourcing of changes, and Fry saying his changes are sourced. Fry may have been wrong (I don't know), but in itself this link is evidence of nothing. Rd232 (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
SupportPermanente Ban unfortunately User:Fry1989 is just not grasping the concept of compromise. If you don't do it his way, it's the highway. He has been a constant bother on many levels, he's been blocked twice here for edit warring, and twice on Wikipedia for similar offenses. Furthermore many of the illustrations he has such pride in are in many case incorrect with no sources and there is pointless arguing with him as seen here under Low Vis: Russia and Taiwan ...And if that's not enuff then just chk out his talk page, Oh but be sure to see his edit history, he blanks all the bad stuff Jetijones (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
He has been blocked once here for edit warring (block log) and 3 times on English Wikipedia for edit warring, which is irrelevant. If you have issues with some of his files, you know what to do. Under what part of Commons:Blocking policy do you justify a permanent ban? Rd232 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's my reply. If it's not the right place, please move it so it is. First off, Magog has a long way to go to justify me being permanently blocked. Let's go through the list. His first issue with me, is I remove discussions from my page instead of archiving them. Alot of users do this, and alot of others don't like it, but it's not disruptive, and I am completely within my right to control the content on my page. Next issue: Magog hates that I remove the original upload logs when I move files to Commons from Wikipedia. He hasn't given me any good reasons to keep them, and he's hardly in a position to boss me around about them. I'll keep them from now on if that's what the community wants, that's fine by me. Next issue, calling another user "obstinate" is hardly an attack, it's a valid description for a user who is pushing back against things for no reason. Next issue, Magog's disputes about files being free for Commons or not. That speaks for itself, as Magog has shown a lack of understanding for licenses. He has nominated files for deletion because he doesn't think "text" includes coats of arms. Yes, the coat of arms of Gambia and Dominica were deleted, but per my discussions with Zscout370, and the closures of those nominations, they were deleted because the files were from Vector Images (something I wasn't aware of), not because Magog was right that the coats of arms themselves can't be here. Infact, Zscout370 has proven that as long as we make our own version of the Gambian and Dominican coats of arms, my licenses which I chose when I moved them here woul be correct. So in closing for that matter, despite the arms being deleted, it wasn't for Magog's reasons, and he was wrong and I was right. Next issue, the Comoros flag. Let's see, I raised valid questions about why the file is here, and the other user who wanted ti kept couldn't answer them and called me a troll, twice. He is the one who acted badly, and I responded in klnd. That DR speaks for itself, and infact I held considerable restraint in that DR. Next issue, Commons:Deletion requests/File:TSK-emblem.svg, yes I used large bold text, but that's hardly a reason for a ban either, plenty of users do that. Why did I you ask? Because User:Takabeg has vandalized those files couuntless times, and has continuously failed to prove they're copyvios. He nominated them once already, and they were kept. Magog'sclaim above therefore that I am "attacking the poor Takabeg who only wants to get rid of copyrighted files" is patently false. There's no proof they're copyrighted, and plenty of proof they're actually free. Takabeg refuses to acknowledge this in any manner, and that's why I suggested he be blocked for a while. His constant vandalism needs to stop. Next issue, my harsh words. Yes, sometimes I get frustrated, and I get harsh, but I haven't personally attacked anyone, and have often been on the receiving end of attacks. I have shown incredible restraint here with other users attacking me because I don't go by their rules. Magog is certainly one, and he's only doing this as a vindictive punishment because I didn't keep the original upload logs. Fry1989eh?21:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's put this in bullets.
Magog The Ogre is vindictively trying to get rid of me because he doesn't like that I remove the original upload logs on file I move to Commons.
Magog the Ogre claims (falsely) that the coats fo arms of the Gambia and Dominica were deleted because I was wrong and he was right, and that the licenses I used don't cover those COA's as free for Commons. However, the DR closures clearly show that those two coats of arms were deleted for being from VectorImages, not for the reason Magog the Ogre nominated them. It also infact shows that the licenses I used are correct and do cover the coat of arms of Gambia and Dominica. So Magog the Ogre is wrong.
Magog the Ogre has brought up some past "discussions" I have had with others in attempt to use it as a weapon. Yes, I have used words such as "stubborn", "obstinate", and "doesn't know what they're talking about", but that hardly counts as a personal attack.
Magog the Ogre feels that just because I don't get along with some users, or refuse to agree with them, that's a reason to permablock me. Meanwhile, he never reads into my disputes, which usually deal with lack of sources, or contradicting sources.
Magog the Ogre is under the impression I have conceded that he is right and certain files he has nominated are copyrighted. But each time I have proven that not to be true. Let's go through them one by one. 1: File:Vice-Presidential Flag.jpg, per the DR on that file, and Zscout's talk page, the symbol isn't copyrighted. The problem is that this rendition has no source, so we don't know where it came from. However, per Zscout's talk page, he has found according to Philippine law, that if we make our own version on here, it's PD-old and we can keep that. 2: Coats of arms of Dominica. That file came from VectorImages, which copyrights all it's works. However, per PD-Dominica, and Zscout's talk page, once again I am right, if we make our own version per the blazon of the Dominican coat of arms, it is free for Commons. 3: Coat of arms of the Gambia. It's the same thing as #2, but with PD-Gambia applying. So no, I was right all along. The three files in question are PD, just not the renditions we currently host.
Magog the Ogre (as some other users) doesn't like that I don't keep discussions on my talk page for an amount of time that suits him, or that I don't archive them. Plenty of users do this, we are completely in our right to control the content of our talk page. That is far far away from being a reason for any sort of block.
Magog the Ogre deliberately tries to mislead everyone here by claiming that file DR's I'm involved in have been proven to be copyrighted all along. But when you you actually go to the DR pages, every time, I am vindicated.
Magog the Ogre claims I attacked a user in the DR for File:Flag of the Comoros 2001Dec.svg. But the fact is I held back, maintaining simple questions about the validity of the file. The other user in the DR however, couldn't answer them, so he got all flustered, and attacked me! twice!
Magog the Ogre accuses me of attacking the poor Takabeg. This is far from the truth. Takabeg has never been able to properly prove that the files he has DR'd are actually copyrighted. He has also shown not only a lack of understanding, but an unwillingness to understand how our copyright rules works. He claims that things are impossible, and that we are all wrong. He accuses us of not knowing anything about Turkish copyright or files because we are not Turks like him. He has repeatedly vandalized files, marking them as copyvios for speedy deletion, and removing file lecenses unilaterally because he doesn't like them.
Lastly, my words. Yes, I have been harsh many times. But I have tried to keep from personally attacking users. I may say things like they're obstinate, but I only use these terms when they're accurate. I have never made false lies or claims about other users, or called them names just for fun. I am willing to appologize for where the community considers I have crossed a line, but I don't believe I have done anything to deserve a permanent block. Fry1989eh?21:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The fact the Fry has been blocked more then once your say something about the editor's character, and again I can only stress that he has been more of a negitive then a positive. We have many illistrator on commons to fill the void. And if thats not enuff he keeps getting brought up here Editing Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems It's time for him to go Jetijones (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Fry agrees to leave the original upload logs intact when files are moved to Commons. It seems there are good reasons for keeping them, as described here by Magog [41]
Fry considers archiving his talk page instead of removing old comments. It just makes life easier in certain situations, and removing comments sometimes looks like an attempt to hide things. And it's covered by a guideline: Commons:Talk page guidelines#When_there_is_too_much_text.
Fry tries a bit harder to be nicer, kinder, more helpful - as we all should every day, because it's easy to get jaded and impatient.
Magog considers himself lucky to avoid a w:WP:BOOMERANG, for presenting evidence in a misleading way, and requesting a sanction out of all proportion to the problems claimed.
If somebody would like to guide me in how to start an archive, I would be open to that. The biggest obstacle for me has been I don't know how. As for the original upload logs, fine, it's done. Fry1989eh?22:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Cool on the upload logs. On the archiving, as it happens I've just created the shortcut COM:ARCHIVE, which goes to a just-improved section on how to do it. If you need any help beyond that, let me know. Rd232 (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Change to "Fry tries harder to be nicer, kinder, more helpful, even in the face of users who are lacking in all of those things. Those of us with as many edits as he has here should set an example."
Delete this -- Magog may not have presented details exactly correctly, but, as my quotes above show, there is a real problem here of lack of mellow.
Support Fine by me on point 3, and I don't want to force people to endorse my point 4. But I do think Magog should consider himself lucky to escape sanction. Were I an admin, he might not. Rd232 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This makes a helluva lot more sense than the lynch-mob up above. I have no problems with the proffered suggestions, though I don't understand why someone should be pushed to create a talk page archive as it most certainly is not against the rules. In fact the rules even suggest that deleting a message demonstrates that it has been read. I totally understand why Fry loses his rag once in a while, there are some seriously deluded people (call that a euphemism shall we?) on this (and other projects) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Fred, lynch-mob is an appropriate title. Considering Mgog the Ogre and I have only interacted with each other for about 2 weeks at most, this would deffinately be premature, and for me it was absolutely vindictive. He asked me twice not to remove the original logs, and because I didn't oblige him, he pulled this out. Jetijones on the other hand, he and I have long been at odds about roundels, usually because of his selective hearing. He often supports one version of a roundel over the other because he thinks it's better, even when sources show there are multiple varieties out there. He loves to force himself on everything pertaining to roundels as if he is the sole expert. Fry1989eh?00:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
"deleting a message demonstrates that it has been read" is not an endorsement of deletion. Archiving is better. Deletion is not "against the rules", but over the years it has been gradually deprecated. Rd232 (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Another thing I want to have is if this user is to have a "mentor" or something along those lines, I want to be it. Sure, there are times me and Fry have disagreed in the above issues and more so, but a lot of the subject areas have to deal with symbols. Most of the time, I had to step in into those above discussions because of what knowledge I have about those symbols or able to get that information quickly. User:Zscout370(Return fire)00:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)On what grounds is archiving better? It's all in the history, and let's face it the majority of stuff being written on talkpages is either unimportant, uninteresting or trolling. Hardly worth archiving if you ask me, hence I don't do it either. It's not too bad if there's a bot to do it automatically but I'm buggered if I can be arsed to do it manually. But like I say, it's a shame that Fry is being pushed into it just to keep the lynch-mob at bay. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
It's better because it's much easier to find the occasional important past discussion or comment in a mass of other stuff (important or not) than by using the page history. It's also slightly more conducive to communication; swift deletion can feel quite rude and like it's intended to cut off communication (sometimes it is), in a way that swift archiving doesn't. (And also swift archiving happens less often.) Rd232 (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Question - where did I mischaracterize anyone's behavior? The examples you've given above aren't mischaracterizations at all. The first one: Speedy keep all of these and block Takabeg for a couple days - Fry calling for a block because someone nominated an image for deletion. No mischaracterization. The second one: You are the troll, trying to keep a file that isn't even in use Fry1989 eh? 20:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC) and I believe that the conversation above is no longer constructive, as such i will not participate in it. Beta M (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC). There is no mischaracterization whatsoever there, and your statement that there is a "shocking gulf between description and reality" is... in fact a mischaracterization. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Repeating the mischaracterisations does not improve the situation. "Fry calling for a block because someone nominated an image for deletion" - I defy anyone to read Fry's bolded comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:TSK-emblem.svg and consider that a fair description. And in the other case (Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Flag_of_the_Comoros_2001Dec.svg), you said "disagreeing with Fry means the discussion devolving into name calling and personal attacks. Notice the user he is discussing with becomes so flustered that he just disengages from the conversation." In actual fact it is the other user who twice accuses Fry of "trolling", and then disappears when he cannot prove the factual point at issue. [Fry eventually responds with "you are the troll..." which is not helpful, but in the context of the entire exchange can hardly be singled out as meriting sanction.] Bottom line: if it weren't so easy to show that your characterisations were very wrong, I would have grave doubts about your honesty. As it is, I'm just perplexed at your apparent inability to understand the difference between what you said and what happened, even after it's been pointed out to you that your description was wrong. Rd232 (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there is a problem with Magog the Ogre's actions I just became aware of. Apparently, on several of the seals I just transfered to Commons the other day (the same ones he is complaining about because I didn't keep the original upload logs on), Magog the Ogre, in what he claims is a "cleanup", deliebrately removed the authorship information. I have of course reverted it, but I would LOVE to hear an explanation for that, leaving the files blank in authorship, which could threaten their place here on Commons. Fry1989eh?04:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Even if you think that's true, it's not a particularly helpful thing to say. Two concrete problems were raised and solved (upload logs and archiving); there's unlikely to be much benefit in further examining the he-said-she-said, or speculating vaguely about whether there might be complaints in future (well-founded or otherwise). Let's just move on and get back to more constructive things. Rd232 (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
unhelpful tangent
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Fry1989 is actually less annoying than some other users, and does a fair amount of work, but unfortunately he "forgets nothing and learns nothing" (as they used to say about French royalists). Extremely simple matters covered by basic Commons policies (such as that categories are comprehensive while galleries are selective) become epic years-long struggles if Fry1989 happens not to like the facts. Also, there are many technical details about the SVG file format which Fry1989 doesn't understand, but that rarely gives him pause or inhibits him in any way from feeling perfectly free to overwrite an SVG with a lower-quality version... AnonMoos (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
And how many times have I asked you to simply fix it yourself if you don't like the way I do it? I can't do svg code like you, but that's not reason to not fix the problem yourself if you have a better way. Don't pretend you're not part of the problem yourself. Fry1989eh?20:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
And I'm still waiting for an explanation from Magog the Ogre for why he removed the authorship information on 10 of the seals I moved to Commons a couple days ago. If he can be so picky about my not keeping the original upload logs when I transfered the files, I think he should be forced to explain himself on this action. Fry1989eh?20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Whatever, dude -- I did the work of fixing the technical problems (conflicting color specifications, hairline cracks etc.) of File:Gay flag.svg, and your response was go apeshit into a frenzy of edit-warring, loudly and repeatedly denying that there was any problem (when the truth was that you weren't competent or qualified to understand what the problems were, as explained by Sarang), and frantically attempting (and succeeding) in efforts to get File:Gay-flag-thumbnails-magnified-hairline-cracks.gif (which clearly presented exemplification of one of the problems) deleted (apparently because the truth offended you). It really wasn't one of your finer hours, and incidents of that general nature probably explain why some people are growing increasingly tired of trying to work with you... AnonMoos (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh grow up. I wanted it deleted because you were loudly parading it on my talk page even after I asked you to leave me alone. You proudly carry around your smug superior attitude against me, and have almost from the begining when I first joined. You routinely attack me, call me names, suggest I'm stupid, and I got tired of it. You knew the time would come when I couldn't take it anymore, and you couldn't handle it. Fry1989eh?20:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm hatting this as unhelpful and not relevant to this thread. Whatever disagreements you've had in the past, there's nothing obvious to be done about them right now. And Fry, if you want to push Magog to answer that question, ask him directly. Rd232 (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
User:Bruxlee7157
Bruxlee7157 (talk·contribs) has added four (as of now) files which they claim are all their own work. I don't believe any of them are the user's work as two (of the same image) appear to be scans of an older photo, one is a popular (for now) image of Joe Frazier, and the last is watermarked with a company logo. Dismas (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
All marked as copyright violations. On one of the images the user couldn't even be arsed to give a valid description. On the bright side I did get to see some nice porn in the search for a couple of the images :) .--Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Magog the Ogre has a habitual practice of completely removing the original authorship information of files that I have transfered to Commons from Wikipedia English. The following 13 files have suffered this vandalism: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. He has been warned on his talk page to stop this, and shows absolutely no remorse, and infact shows a spirit of egging me on to report him.
Considering Magog the Ogre has not only purposefully attacked 13 separate files that I am involved in, but also agressively tried (via purposefully presenting facts in a false manner to favour his side) to get me permanently blocked (which practically everyone who weighed in felt was completely out of any proportion), I believe this user has a personal distaste in me, and is allowing it to enter into his edits. Also notice that he has personally attacked me, calling me an ass. As this is disruptive and unacceptable behaviour, I am seeking a 2 week block. Fry1989eh?04:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Wait a minute! Before getting into a whole "he said she said", is this just based on a misunderstanding/disagreement about how to display the original upload information? It seems like you're trying to display original upload information within the {{Information}} template instead of in a separate section. For instance with this edit Magog is restoring the upload log section (which has more detail). In restoring the logs by reverting, Magog is losing your {{Information}} content; but I think a separate section is the standard, and certainly removing it shouldn't result in a loss of information. I think (if I understand this correctly) that this issue is the source of the miscommunication here. Rd232 (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that Magog the Ogre, in what he considers a "cleanup", leaves the authorship area in the information template completely blank, which causes plenty of problems, the most significant being that if someone passes by and sees the file with the infobox displaying "This file is lacking author information", that could cause the file to be deleted. However, even if my concerns about a blank authorship section were moot, deliberately removing it again after I restored it, to provoke me into reporting him (which I had warned him multiple times I would do if he continued), and calling me an ass, are absolutely out of order. Fry1989eh?06:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I have asked Fry on countless occasions to stop removing the original upload information. You can read about it above; there is no chance in Hades that he hasn't heard them. And he's still doing it, so I've taken to just hitting the revert button when removes it. I don't have time to play around with his bullshit and work with the undo button - there's a backlog of files at en.wp for transfer, and I don't want to play around with the minutiae. If someone was ignoring your common sense requests, would you put up with it forever? And my requests started out as very very polite at first, so don't bother listening when he says that he's doing it because I've been impolite. He's had his chance.
Anyway, if Fry had even bothered to ask me why I'm removing the authorship information, I would have told him. But he didn't, he just popped on my page and issued me a warning about "reporting" me to the administrators. I even told him I'd discuss it with him, but he flatly refused to be polite. By all means read the read: User talk:Magog the Ogre#Do not remove Authorship information.
Anyway, my reasoning is quite simple: the original uploader at en.wp did not state himself to be the author. It's just that simple; when looking at the image on en.wp, the author field was left blank. Period. I was leaving the authorship field exactly as it was at en.wp, leaving the log exactly as it was. Fry, on the other hand, Fry is using guesswork. But there's no point in trying to reason with him; he just ignores everything people say to him.
And yes, I will continue to hit the revert button. I don't have time to play around with someone who acts like a 12 year old and can't form even the most bleedingly simple requests, when there is a backlog elsewhere. If that's a sanctionable offense, then I'm afraid you'll be sanctioning the wrong person. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I just emailed an administrator friend of mine to take a look at this thread and give his opinion. I don't want to say who it is, so he's free to take action against me or Fry should such action be reasonable. But for transparency, I'm putting that here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The fact that you've asked a friend who's an admin to have a look means that admin is now neither neutral nor uninvolved. It behooves you to name that admin to demonstrate transparency. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, so leaving aside some of the miscommunication and accusations, is the current issue that Fry wants to fill in the |author parameter of {{Information}} with statements like [42]|Author=Original uploader was Overpush at en.wikipedia? Because that seems a clear issue to focus on and resolve, since {{Information}}'s documentation explicitly states This field should not be used to specify the scanner, finder or uploader of the image; they are not the author. Does this help? Rd232 (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
As another editor who works mostly with cross-wiki transfers of files, I have to say that Magog is right and Fry is wrong. The "author" field is for the creator/copyright holder, not someone who happened simply to do the upload or transfer. Kelly (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not want the authorship section left blank, that is correct. Leaving it blank is dangerous. As for my warnings on Magog the Ogre's talkpage, whether he considers it polite or not is the least of my concerns. He just tried (via purposefully trying to mislead people by falsely presenting issues) to get me permanently banned, and he wants me to be polite and gracious???? I don't think so. In any case, I didn't attack him (which is more than we can say about him, calling me an ass), I merely stated "do not do such and such or I will have to report it", which he responded to by trying to egg me on further. Notice he also calls me a child, but yet he is the one contacting an anonymous admin (if his friend truly is one) to "take action" against me (a threat), but wont even say who that is. His attitude to this situation and to me is piss poor. Fry1989eh?19:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of PD situations where the author is unknown, but we know enough other facts about the image in question to comfortably ascertain that it is public domain. Such situations occur fairly frequently. But even there, one would not leave the author field blank -- one would use {{unknown|author}}. But I agree that the name of the uploader, scanner, etc. does not belong in the author field. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Another option I have used (but don't enjoy) in the past, is when the author who created the file itself is unknown, the the author of the work is, I put that in (example, some seal created by the Government of Hawaii, I would put in the author section "Government of Hawaii"). In any case, I find leaving the author section completely blank unacceptable. I have seen too many files deleted because the section was left blank. (edit conflict corrected) Fry1989eh?19:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, those were exactly the circumstances I was thinking of. My point is that Fry is definitely wrong to remove the upload history section and to use uploader information in place of creator information. Kelly (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kelly, I don't "use uploader information in place of creator information". That is how the file displays itself when it is transfered to Commons, it's something Magnus Manske does by itself. Please don't "put words in my mouth", so to speak. Fry1989eh?19:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
In any case, give me a solution so that the author section won't be left blank (either the one I mentioned above, or {{unknown|author}} as Skeezix1000 mentioned), and I will use it. That way, this matter will be resloved.
However, Magog the Ogre's behaviour still must be addressed. He has personally attacked me three times and threatened me once. That is not appropriate. Fry1989eh?20:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Did you remove the upload history information? That information can be crucial in tracing copyright information, particularly if file names end up being changed, as they often are. Also, the "transferred" info added by Magnus' bot is intended to supplement, not replace, the true creator information. That information is still required. Kelly (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
{{Unknown}} should only be used when the author cannot possibly be determined (for instance, with ancient works), not simply when the uploader has not bothered to determine the authorship of a work. Kelly (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The only one I have removed it from is File:Seal of the Minnesota National Guard.svg, and then, only because it said the exact same thing as the authorship section, and I saw no need for duplication. That's no excuse for Magog the Ogre to attack me. And as I said above, I always make sure the files I transfer are explicitly and lawfully PD, either due to age, simplicity, or exemption from eligibility for copyright. Fry1989eh?20:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Even if apparently "explicitly and lawfully PD" (in your opinion), the author information needs to be included. User {{Unknown}} if there is no possible way to determine the author, and {{Author missing}} if it is a modern work where authorship could be determined, but has not been. And please do not delete upload histories. Kelly (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kelly, I can and will leave the upload information alone, even when it's an exact duplicate of what the information template already says. And I will also find my own way of keeping the authorship section from being left blank, since you don't seem to have a solution yourself. But I can absolutely assure you that I am more careful than most, in making sure the files I transfer are acceptable under Commons rules. Let me give you two examples. 1:File:Florida Senate seal.png is a file I transfered to here. It is deffinately complicated enough to carry copyrights, however, it is safe here because Florida law explicitly forbids this design from being copyrighted. 2:File:Seal of the New Jersey Department of Transportation.svg is a file I transfered to Commons. It does not meet the threshold of originality to be copyrighted, it's basic shapes and text. I always makes sure, that even when the author is unknown (I am aware that authors can carry copyrights for their own versions), that is not an impediment to the file being allowed under Commons rules. Fry1989eh?20:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
So we're agreed on the practicalities then?
Always leave the upload log section (even if it's an exact duplicate)
For the author field, Use {{Unknown}} if there is no possible way to determine the author, and {{Author missing}} if it is a modern work where authorship could be determined, but has not been. (per User:Kelly above). Uploader has no place in the author field, and leaving it blank is undesirable.
Yes, we are agreed. But I want Magog the Ogre's personal attacks and threats dealt with. He was lucky not to get a w:WP:BOOMERANG for the AN/U he did against me. You yourself Rd232 didn't want to pursue one, but did feel it was close to warranting one, and I didn't feel it would be productive, so I didn't ask for one. But since then, he has called me names, and self-admittedly is trying to get an anonymous "admin friend" to take unilateral punitive action against me. That's not acceptable behaviour from anyone. It must be addressed. Fry1989eh?20:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Fry, if you simply correct the bad practices that instigated the whole dispute to begin with, you need not worry that some "admin" will swoop in and take action against you. And please, for the sake of the project, take care with copyrights - we want this to be a trusted repository of free images that anyone can use without fear of infringing copyrights. So it behooves us all to be extra careful. Remember that copyright information of our files has to be verifiable by anyone. Kelly (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not worried at all. I want Magog's actions addressed as I am sure he would if I had made them against him. I was willing to walk away after the AN/U, but he has made it clear that he isn't. He needs a cool down time, to realize that allowing his personal dislike of me to enter into his public edits is neither productive nor prudent. Fry1989eh?21:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
As I stated in my original post, a 2 week block. However, if Magog the Ogre is willing to appologize for calling me names, I would put aside my request for such action. Unlike him, I'm rather lenient in requesting punishments, rather than asking for a permanent ban just because I and another "don't get along". Fry1989eh?21:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that would be just a tad excessive, given the facts that Magog's contributions to the project are tremendously constructive and helpful, and that the problems seem to have been caused by your violations (intentional or unintentional) of Commons policy. Kelly (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You're actually going to try and justify calling people names, threatening them, and trying to get them permanently blocked (which practically everyone agreed was completely of out ANY sort of proportion to our disagreements) just because he and I don't get along? Fry1989eh?21:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the recent (inter)actions justify the effort involved in pursuing a sanction, even if it was merited, which I'm not convinced of. If you want to pursue a sanction, it should be in relation to the section above calling for a permanent block on flimsy evidence. Funnily enough, I think my proposal Commons:VPR#Requests_for_comment.2FUser_conduct is relevant, as if that were available it would be a way to explore these issues in an evidence-focussed way and see if there are wider issues. Rd232 (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The fact that he hasn't been willing to walk away after his flimsy AN/U failed, but rather has increased his hostility towards me is relevant and warranting in my opinion. And considering I'm willing to not even ask for a sanction of any sort as long has he simply apologizes for attacking and threatening me, I'd hardly call my request "harsh". Fry1989eh?22:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion going on concerning the deletion of a file. Thus far the conversation has been adversarial but civil. I previously brought an ANI against SD for calling me a sock and a propagandist, among other niceties. Apparrently, no one really cared that much so I was ignored. Now he says you have a long history of being a liar. I will refrain from responding in kind but I kindly ask that some sanction be imposed for engaging in personal attacks of the most odious sort.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a strong personal attack unless you can prove, to a reasonable standard, a "long history of being a liar". It is a very strong claim to make and you should not be making it without a lot of evidence. Rd232 (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
That's very convenient SD hiding yourself behind some cryptic veil of secrecy. I have lots to say about you as well (much of it "personal" as you like to say) but I would not utter it in this forum because I'd like to think that we conduct ourselves civilly in our discussions. The conversation concerning the subject file was moving along rather civilly until you sledgehammered me with a vile personal attack. I was tempted to respond in kind but refuse to sully our forums with guttural, asinine personal attacks.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Why bothering. We all know that such blanket ad hominem statements say more about the accuser than anything else. --Foroa (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Calling someone a liar is not constructive, SD, even if you believe them to be a liar. Its inflammatory, creates ill feelings, and is disruptive to the project. Both you[43] and Jiujitsuguy[44] are under six-month topic bans on English Wikipedia because of disruptive editing in the Arab-Israeli topic area. I think its unwise for you both to import that conflict here to the commons. Take a step back and breathe; the world is not going to end just because an image or its description doesn't reflect your own beliefs. --nsaum75¡שיחת!08:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't topic banned for "disruptive editing in the Arab-Israeli topic area." I was topic banned because of an illegitimate "admin" who handled the arb case.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that your 6-month topic ban over at EN was primarily for "misrepresentation" I can see how your 'mortal enemy' could construe that as "lying". You both have a long history of back and forth edit warring, POVing and generally bad behaviour based on sectarian distrust/hatred (pick your adjective). You aren't doing yourself (either of you for that matter) any favours bringing it over here, especially for something so trivial as a single image. You are both looking at a forthcoming block/ban/topic ban if you keep it up. So why don't you play nice, keep away from each other and steer well clear (voluntarily) of Israel/Palestine topics? If you don't it's only going to end badly for one or both of you. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
@Fred. I don't consider him, or anybody for that matter, "my mortal enemy." But I expect a modicum of civility from those who I engage in discourse. Take for example you and I. Our differences are sharp and somewhat adversarial. Yet they've never transgressed to vile personal attacks. It appears however that SD simply can not contain himself and loses control quite easily.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything from either of you that could be considered "vile". I also haven't seen anything that could be considered a personal attack, though civility has been less than ideal on both sides. From my viewpoint it looks like you are being 'offended' as an excuse to drop SD in it. You two have a long history together so I'm pretty sure you've had worse said to you. Now, as I said above, "misrepresentation" can be considered to be "lying", so SD could be construed to be telling the truth. The fact that you have a history of it does have the effect of giving ammunition to your antagonists and possible mistrust to your editing colleagues. All this running around reporting SD at every opportunity will only bounce back on you. So why not just go back to doing whatever you do on Commons and/or Wikipedia and keep your head down and away from SD (and SD should do the same). This report is going nowhere so I suggest you quit before you drop yourself in it. There is nothing to be gained by continuing this waste of time. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me but calling someone a liar, a sock, a propagandist are unprovoked personal attacks. Stop defending bad behavior. I am asking that some sanction be imposed on SupremeD for making personal attacks and this is especially true given the fact that he's done it to me before, as noted above. Fred, everyone whose commented on this thread except for you (and naturally SupremeD) has acknowledged that it constitutes a personal attack so please don't say that this is going nowhere. It's a bit disingenuous.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It's like libel in that it's not an attack if what he says is true. The "liar" has been discussed above. If I recall correctly he didn't accuse you of being a sock, he accused you of using socks. As for the "propagandist", well that is a claim that could quite well be levelled at you based on the evidence of the arbitration ruling "persistent ideological POV-pushing". So that only leaves the sock usage claim. Would you agree to a sock puppet check to lay that claim to rest? And yes this report is going nowhere...day 2, 100s of words and not an admin in sight! So can you please leave middle-East dramas in the middle-East and chill...the pair of you. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
We're not on WP though are we? In any case it doesn't mean I'm wrong, it also doesn't mean I'm disrupting anything. Whereas your comment is merely trollish. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a reason for the negative evaluation of wiki-lawering. If you think that my pointing that out on this noticeboard is trolling, then you need to re-read WP:TROLL[45]. Your edits here are far closer to trolling that mine...in my view. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so let me see. I'm accused of being a wiki-lawyer, yet I haven't invoked any wiki 'laws', but in two short comments you've brought up two of them. So are you yourself a wiki-lawyer, or just a hypocrite? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, there is wiki-lawering that occurs on WP (and Commons), but there appears to be no such thing as a wiki-lawer in the sense that there are Administrators, CheckUsers, Bureaucrats, etc. It is a type of activity, but not a WP user category. Your argument, immediately above, appears to me to be just more wiki-lawering, and I wish you would change your method of argument; but I have no doubt that you think you are doing the right thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is two users (Jiujitsuguy, Supreme Deliciousness) topic-banned from Israel/Palestine on en.wp for 6 months+ (en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles, plus two users (User:Fred the Oyster, Malcolm Schosha) indefinitely banned from en.wp for socking. Put a sock in it, the lot of you. Don't import your en.wp battles to Commons, because as silly as they often are on en.wp, it's even worse when applied to things like the image that is the proximate cause of this dispute: it makes not one jot of difference in the I/P wiki-wars whether a particular image is deleted or not. It's war by force of habit. Quit it. Rd232 (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Just which edit do you want immortalized? You do not make that clear.
In fact, I am unaware of the situation of either Jiujitsuguy or Supreme Deliciousness on WP regarding blocks etc. I no longer follow, or have any interest in, the ongoing I/P conflicts on WP, or even here on Commons. I have no interest in the image(s) involved in the argument, or the justifications. Also, Rd232, you are no more neutral on I/P conflict issues than I am, but I assume that your involvement here is a good faith effort to resolve a user disagreement, and not an effort to have one side 'win'. (By the way, although it is true that I am banned from WP, but not for socking. Moreover, my recollection is that it is considered less than good etiquette to bring up past WP problems unless there is some good reason to do that.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
1. Your comment of 15:37 9 Nov is the one. 2. A partisan's opinion of neutrality isn't really worth much... and my neutrality is hardly at issue since I'm not taking sides here. 3. The fact that past WP partisanship is the driving factor in these discussions seems highly relevant. 4. At the end of the day, though, my comment was intended primarily to get people to go off and do something more sensible, not add more fuel to the discussion fire. Rd232 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Point of order m'lud. Fred the Oyster wasn't banned for socking, he/it/she was banned for being a sock of WebHamster. A fact I've never hidden on Commons. I'll put my position forth though, I'm not Israeli, I'm not Palestinian, I'm not Jewish, I'm not Moslem. What I am is an atheistic hedonist who thinks the little spat in the middle-East is rather silly with both sides being fuckwits for doing what they are doing, but I digress. Initially my adventure into images of the Golan Heights was simply as keep. Then I saw JJG and SD making total wallys of themselves so made the mistake of trying to instill some sanity into the situation. What a fuck-up that was eh? It makes me ashamed to be circumcised. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Well your first point is a wikilawyerish one :P ... but OK, good luck with "instilling some sanity" - you'll need it. Rd232 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
NB: I asked a question about indenting edits on noticeboards at the Village Pump[46].
@Rd232.
1.It was intended as humorous, although what I think is funny about it may not be the same as what you think is.
2&3. I have not even looked at the images, and know nothing about the editing history of those involved in the disagreement. My comments were directed at another issue. Unless you have reason to think otherwise, you may need to to review WP:Assume Good Faith.
4.Since you have been actively involved in disputes related to the I/P conflicts on WP, you telling me to put a sock in my mouth might be problematic. You are telling everyone that they should assume your good faith (and I agree), and saying that they should assume the opposite about me (to which disagree). Do you see my point? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Rd232, what you wrote to me, above, is: "A partisan's opinion of neutrality isn't really worth much... and my neutrality is hardly at issue since I'm not taking sides here." So what you said, as I understand it, is that I am a "partisan" and so my opinion is "not worth much". On the other hand, although you are as much a partisan as I am, your say that your opinion can be trusted. That is certainly an issue of WP:ASG. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
And given that you have alleged neutrality and have not made any comments pertinent to the topic of this discussion the question arises about what are you doing here exactly? Other than increasing the signal to noise ratio of course. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
My comment was only concerned with your wiki-lawering approach in a particular edit. That does not mean I think you are either right, or wrong, in the disagreement over the files. I have not looked, and do not think my getting involved in that would be a help. I do think that a change in your style of argument would make it easier to find a solution better than an administrator ending the discussion by banging some heads together. That could happen. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
So in other words you had nothing pertinent to say about the topic in hand and still don't? So all you've really done is muddy the waters and distract those of us who are on topic. Way to go Malcolm. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
What I said is that wiki-lawering is not helpful. Did that "muddy the waters" for you?
In my view, many arguments on WP and Commons are fed more by users using Commons as a sort of Mud than by actual content problems. It is users assuming a role, and then having a good time dramatizing their part the game. I think that is pretty well known, and it is always necessary for users to try to avoid doing that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
So the answer is that you don't have anything pertinent to say. Off and on I've been on WP and commons since 2003 and have a cumulative edit count of more than 30,000. I know what I'm doing here. You obviously don't, given how many cock-ups you've made in this thread and the one at the Pump. So I suggest that you are not the best-placed person to lecture me on what to do and what not to do. So if you aren't going make pertinent comments may I politely suggest that you fuck off and go do something more useful, somewhere else. Have a good evening. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Tres charmant. I hope that you will eventually have something better to offer to this discussion than that every one you happen to disagree with, or that for one reason or another you do not like, "fuck off". Ci vediamo. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with disagreement and everything to do with patience running out. You have nothing I want to hear. You are totally off-topic and dragging the discussion further that way. So unless you have something useful to impart with regard to SD or JJG then you are wasting mine, and everyone else's time. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Your patience is running out? Then you may need to work on that. A lot of things require patience. Blurting out "fuck off" is unhelpful, and you might want to refactor that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Suite yourself. Telling users you disagree with to "fuck off" is just the same as saying that you are an ignorant fool. You may think that is "direct talk", but to me it just sounds silly. My suggestion that you refactor that comment would benefit you, not me. I have no reason to care what you say about me, or about anything else, because telling me to "fuck off" is not an indicator of rationality. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"Ignorant fool" - choosing the most efficient words for the job is neither ignorance nor irrational. Unfortunately the fool is the one who fails to heed a clear message. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Supreme Deliciousness is officially warned not to make w:WP:Personal attacks. That includes statements which you believe to be true that you cannot produce evidence for. In deletion discussions you should even avoid personal statements that are widely known to be true, because that is not what deletion requests are for. Stick to the topic: copyright of an image.
Allegations of sockpuppetry should be taken to checkusers. Nowhere else.
Fred the Oyster is officially warned to be w:WP:CIVIL. Telling another party to a discussion to "fuck off" is gross incivility, no matter what the context. I almost blocked you on sight - you should know better, and being exasperated is not an excuse.
Malcolm Schoscha is officially warned not to make w:WP:Personal attacks like calling another user "ignorant fool". I realise you were doing it in the context of discussing incivility, but it is and inflammatory and personal barb nonetheless.
Now, I hope you can all see that this was not worth the aggro. Nsaum75, Rd232, and Mattbuck are right, quit fighting and get on with helping build a repository in a civil and collective manner (with your enemies). If any of you cannot do that, there's not much point continuing at commons. This discussion is closed. --99of9 (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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.
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)
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."
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)
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.
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)
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)
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 ! talk04:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
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 ! talk00:54, 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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
"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. Fry1989eh?05:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
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. -ELEKHHT06:39, 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.
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).
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. --ELEKHHT01:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
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.
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). 88.196.241.24914:55, 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. --ELEKHHT09:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
ResolvedBlocked by an admin
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)
ResolvedBlocked by an adminSupport. 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)
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,
