Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcut: [[:]]

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page

This page is for any user to report a problem with a user. Please feel free to post a new request. Remember to sign and date all contributions, using "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp.

Admins: once you've dealt with a request, please make a note, so that other admins don't waste time responding to it.

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Usernames to be checked

Download A .SVG File?

moved to Commons:Village pump#Download A .SVG File? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Editor at Large (talk • contribs) at 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on categories

Here. Seems plain daft to me - I see not reason for such action by Pieter Kuiper however others should review I think. --Herby talk thyme 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And see the one above I guess. --Herby talk thyme 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page history - [User:Mbz1] refuses to listen to reason. And Herby wants to discard COM:CAT? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - I merely asked for other's to review this warring actually. You may be right, you may be wrong. However you do appear to be edit warring (on fp voting too). I'm sure others will give their views. --Herby talk thyme 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


 Comment For a change, how about attempting to find three other categories the picture could be in .. -- User:Docu at 18:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do this a lot, and this will my first block here in maybe three months but I have blocked both of the users for editwarring, this isn't the first time they where involved in a editwar, but I do hope its the last. Huib talk 18:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now we have to find those three categories ourselves, .. gee Huib. -- User:Docu at 19:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced Category:Surfers and Category:Surfing with Category:Surfing in California. COM:OVERCAT is clear on that. And Mbz1's removal of Pieter Kuiper's comment was certainly not going to resolve anything; an edit war can only be avoided if both parties agree to talk before taking action. –Tryphon☂ 20:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously nothing wrong with Surfing -> Surfing in California. However, I'm not sure about removing Category:Surfers as that is not a parent category to the California cat. Agree reversion of comments is far from a constructive start to discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, that's more subjective (does the image illustrate surfing, or focuses in this particular surfer). If we know anything about him, a subcat. of Category:Surfers would fit nicely. –Tryphon☂ 20:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I've just seen Pieter Kuiper's unblock request, and I support unblocking him. He shouldn't have edit warred, but at least he tried discussing it. If no one objects, I will lift the block. –Tryphon☂ 20:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now unblocked him. –Tryphon☂ 20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the removal of overcategorization was justified by Pieter, the edit comment one category is enough did not really explain the problem. The subsequent revert by Mbz1 denounced the previous edit as vandalism which was not really helpful. Next, the associated talk page was opened with an unnecessary personal comment that also pointed to COM:CAT but still did not explain the problem of overcategorization nor did it point to the relevant subsection of the policy. Shortly afterwards, Pieter restored his edit after which Mbz1 moved the image to a more general category, dropping the Californian cat. It is unfortunate that from neither side a real discussion about the problem was started. While Pieter is formally correct in enforcing policy, it would have been helpful to explain this edit. I guess that Mbz1 would like to see her recently uploaded surfing photographs in Category:Surfing as this is probably the first category to look for photographs of surfing activities. Other photographs were already in this category and Category:Surfing in California is deeply nested below Category:Surfing with two intermediate categories. It can also be argued that this photograph is more suited to illustrate surfing in general than surfing in California. But such a rationale was unfortunately not presented. Anyway, both were blocked and the block of Pieter was lifted somewhat later (see above). I suggest to unblock Mbz1 as well as both failed to communicate. Any objections? --AFBorchert (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary and sensible suggestion by AFBorchert IMO. I see IRC that the blocking admin. isn't online just now, and as he did not have any objections to Tryphon unblocking Pieter I find it reasonable to expect he will not mind if someone unblocks Mbz1 either - I suggest just go ahead and unblock. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Finn, I've just unblocked Mbz1. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a good solution to unblock both. I think both are now aware that dialog is better than "war". As expected Huib did not object. You did a great job all of you!!! --MGA73 (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose he already regrets it -- User:Docu at 21:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the message I left at Tryphon talk page. I also reverted his/her revert as you could see. I did the revert after my initial block time expiered because I would not have liked to let down AFBorchert, who unblocked me before that time. I am afraid I let him down anyway. Sorry about that, AFBorchert. If I am blocked again, please help me no more. I feel myself so much more free in my actions, if I am on my own, and do not have to think about letting down other people :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've decided to put here the real sequence of events :
  1. 12:00, 22 November 2009 kuiper is clening up category "Waves" and removes it from my image leaving all other categories alone. Fine with me.
  2. 16:21, 22 November 2009 (4 hours 21 minutes later) I add category "Water waves" (please notice not "waves", but "water waves") to the same image.At the same time kuiper is working on cleaning up an absolutely different category - "Physics".
  3. 16:23, 22 November 2009 (just 2 minutes after my edit) kuiper suddenly "remembers" that he has not finished cleaning up the categories from my image and removes every category, but one. The edit summary is "one category is enough"
  4. 16:41, 22 November 2009 I revert his edit with edit summary "reverted vandalism" and vandalism it was.
  5. I'll skip few steps here, but one. When kuiper is blocked he's crying wolf and telling lies in his unblock request
For info: Now the image has 6 categories (including "water waves" that I added at 16:21 and that was removed by kuiper. It is very
interesting how it could be explained why kuiper got back to the image 4 hours 23 minutes after his
first edit, but only 2 minutes later after my edit to remove valid categories from it.
I wrote the above info for the record and to establich character of kuiper.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After further investigation

Sadly I did not have the time to look at this further when I posted (and equally sadly others did not look further).

I have now had a chance to dig a little more and feel the conclusion should be here as a matter of record at least. It is fair to say I find this user (Pieter Kuiper) unpleasant and agressive, I should add that he finds me the same.

If you look here you will see the conclusion (which he does not deny) is that in his edit here he entered a field of Commons that he has no real experience in. He voted on an image which he did not understand, citing project scope which he equally fails to understand in this case (his view on project scope is personal, if he doesn't understand it it is out of scope). This was done to annoy/irritate someone he was engaged in edit warring with.

I think it is a pity that he has not seen fit to apologise for this however after this passage of time I do not particularly see that a block is in order (blocks are to prevent current disruption). However his behaviour in this is unacceptable in a collaborative working environment. His relatively frequent appearance on these boards over a long period shows that this may well be a pattern of behaviour. I think any further provocative behaviour involving this user should have some close scrutiny by those uninvolved with the options of topic bans or blocks clearly available. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:AFBorchert

User:AFBorchert decided to delete an image based on one pseudo-legal advice from someone who is not a lawyer and is not acquainted with the relevant laws, norms and language. Furthermore, the questions raised about the legality of the upload had been answered elaborately by people who are acquainted with the law and relevant circumstances, so there was no room left for doubt. The fact that the person who requested the deletion refused to withdraw his request gave no right to any admin to back him up like this and question the good faith of the veteran users who made a genuine effort to soothe any doubt. Drork (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is a sequel of the discussion we had on my talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To have the file undeleted, please request it at Commons:Undeletion requests. -- User:Docu at 11:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been done. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two aspects to this incident: the unjustified deletion and the hasty decision of the admin based on one pseudo-legal advice. Drork (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¿? The request had been open for half a year! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it should have been rejected, as Pieter Kuiper was the only one who supported it, based on his own private interpretation of a law written in a language he does not understand, from a country he never visited. Drork (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note Kuiper has been doing some "non admin" closures too. While it is great that folk help out I am not sure that this user has the balance I would wish to see for such activity. --Herby talk thyme 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional - I object rather strongly to the fact that Mr Kuiper removed my previous note (since re-instated). It was not a personal attack. It was a comment related to this topic and one that admins here should - in my opinion - look at carefully. --Herby talk thyme 15:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how is Herbythyme's mental stability? And what does it have to do with this discussion? And why is not he closing the outstand DR's in Category:Deletion requests May 2009? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you implying about my mental stability Mr Kuiper - you are beginning to trouble me rather more?
Why would I close outstanding DRs please? --Herby talk thyme 15:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of pontificating here about my "balance", you could do som use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That I will take as the continuation of personal attacks by you. I ceased to be an admin here months ago due in part to the unpleasantness of people such as yourself. However I still like Commons a lot so while I do all I can to avoid you I remain a worker on Commons when time permits.

While I am sure that my judgements have not always been perfect I trust that they have usually been reasonably balanced. Others may or may not disagree. --Herby talk thyme 15:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter, you need to change your approach. That's a general admonishment, your name seems to come up here far far too often. It's also specific advice, lashing out at Herby is about as uncalled for an action as they come. His questioning your "balance" refers to your even handedness and general mellowness, not your mental stability, so that was an unwarranted inference. I hope this word to the wise is sufficient. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this edit was perceived as a personal attack by Pieter. So the this was merely a reply. Please don't threaten to block Pieter over this reply, this is just the language barrier acting up. Multichill (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how a comment (stated as such) about activity here can be construed as a personal attack.
I do see how words such as "pontificating" & "do som use" directed towards me and comments about my mental stabilty might seem to be attacks. I certainly took them as such. --Herby talk thyme 16:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retaliation is not a valid excuse for personal attacks, regardless of whether or not it is based on misinterpretation. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on the discussion, just on the actual complaint made by Drork against AFBorchert here. I can see no fault in AFB actions when closing a DR after half a year, AFB also explains his rationale here. Even if the undeletion request should bring forward new arguments/evidence leading to a decission to overturn AFBs closure and keep this image, I still see no reason to admonish him for his administrative actions here. A complaint against a deletion based on a DR properly closed is not something for COM:AN/U, but belongs on COM:UDEL. I strongly recommend that this case is closed, as there is no reason to take administrative action against AFBorchert. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pieter Kuiper

Pieter Kuiper rushed to open another deletion request for an image from Israel, while the debate regarding the legitimacy of uploading such images onto the Commons is still going on. In fact, Pieter Kuiper initiated the debate, and complicated it by raising more and more questions, many of which are based on irrelevant data. Now he tries to force his opinion by opening deletion requests. Drork (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with this request. Please explain how complicating things by raising questions, and giving his opinion is a problem? Tiptoety talk 02:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter Kuiper obsessively opens deletion requests for pictures coming from Israel. He thinks the Israeli users do not know their own country's laws, and started a long debate about it. He is not willing to wait until the discussion he himself opened is exhausted, and opens more deletion request. This behavior is practically violence. It's like putting a gun to the head and say: if you don't adopt my opinion I won't let you upload any image. Drork (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drork, it is perfectly ok to challenge the conclusions taken by others regarding a specialized question in law and it is also permitted to open deletion requests whereever there is from one point of view some serious doubt whether we can keep an image or not. And please put the blame on me as I had closed this deletion requestion with a deletion decision and thereby encouraged Pieter to look for other similar cases. Finally, I would like to ask you to restrain from personal attacks in deletion requests as this is not helpful. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had felt encouraged to nominate this sign because also Deror avi agrees that writing is not covered by FOP (see for example here Denmark square). The image in question was in yesterday's batch of uploads by Pikiwikisrael. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter Kuiper repeatedly and obsessively accuses the Israeli users on Commons of trying to violate their own country's laws. He opens deletion requests with arguments based on texts in a language he cannot read. He accuses Israeli users of bad faith. He conduct endless discussions in which he practically demand the veto right. His behavior here is despicable, and yet it is always the people who complain about him who are accused of personal attacks and misconduct. Is there something here I am not aware of? Drork (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all,Dror come down. and second, Pieter is right some times (or at least this is the first time). However Pieter does have some slanderous remarks in the talk page which are inappropreate (although this is his problem, and not ours nor the commons). I sugest that this discussion here will be ended (sorry for my bad English). Deror avi (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that WP:NPA does not apply on Commons? What wonderful news! Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, he is saying that jerk-like behaviour of a user does not automatically mean that everything he does is wrong. --Dschwen (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you calling him a "jerk", instead of discussing the issues? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss something with Pieter Kuiper, you'd better take a long leave from work, free yourself a year or a decade, and after you climb up Mt. Sinai and get the ultimate proof carved in stone, he'd tell you you are a crook who brings dubious evidences, and there is no legitimate opinion but his own. Drork (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. Dror, I believe that it is a good time to show that you are much more reasonable than kuiper is and admit that this time he was right, and you were wrong. Maybe it will help to make kuiper to admit that you were right and he was wrong in all other situations :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

account Erebus555 (talk · contribs) had been hacked

The account of this user might have been hacked. While the last edits of this account date back to July 10th, today "he" uploaded an explicite image of two naked men over this high-profile image File:Stockholm.jpg of Stockholm. A few minutes after I reverted this, deleted his 2 versions and left a comment on his talkpage, he repeated this behaviour. I reverted again and fully protected the image. In addition I left the (likely original) user a note on his talkpage on :en, where he had been active a few days ago. As I'm offline now, somebody should watch over this account. --Túrelio (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On his :en talkpage[1] the user has confirmed that he hasn't used his account for some time and didn't make those edits. However, he has now changed his password, so we can consider the account legitimately reconquered. --Túrelio (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foroa (talk · contribs)

Foroa used at least twice his sysop-rights to enforcement of his own opinion instead of constructive discussion.

Category:Districts of Prague contains cca 120 subcategories of Prague districts. All category names correspond to real district names (which are in Czech), only two districts deviate from this rule and are named by English translation (New Town and Old Town) . I acquiesced in this anomaly but I consider that the original (Czech) names should be findable in the alphabetical order of the category Districts of Prague as well. Categorizing of the appropriate category redirects with real district names (Nové Město and Staré Město) into the category Districts of Prague is considered as the most suitable treatment, in my opinion (so far as it isn't practicable to move the translated names to original names).

I implemented this solution with edit comment: "the official name should be searchable alphabetically in the category". Foroa reverted this step repeatedly with the objection: "redirected categories should not be categorised, they are searchable anyway" and locked both category pages "avoid double categories" and "against useless categorisation" purportedly.

Foroa incurred clearly that the district of "Staré Město" isn't findable in the category "Districts of Prague" under the letter "S" which is the expectable place. We can discuss whether this need and this way of its treatment is more or less important than "axiom" that category redirects mustn't (?) be categorized, we can discuss how much English exonyms should be preferred at the international project like Commons and whether original names should be hidden or specially treated. But I'm convinced, a misuse of a lock in order to enforce sysop's own opinion isn't the best argument in this discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remind that Foroa contravenes the Commons policy with regard to category redirects in the long term. By current instructions, some category redirects are considered to be useful tool to finding relevant category and mustn't be deleted. Foroa is known as systematic infringer and antagonist of this conception. --ŠJů (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ŠJů, could you please explain where exactly you assume a misuse of admin tools? --AFBorchert (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned twice above. He locked pages Nové Město and Staré Město to enforcement of his own opinion and his own idea that category redirects mustn't be categorized not even in cases where it is useful. --ŠJů (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ŠJů, this is not an opinion but policy. Did you note Foroa's comment redirected categories should not be categorised? See, I think I understand the original problem, i.e. that two district names of the whole set are not in Czech and that you wanted to support them. It would be a good idea to discuss this at the corresponding talk page or at COM:CFD. But putting soft category redirects into the superior category is not an acceptable approach to this issue as is indicated by Redirected categories should be empty and not categorised themselves in the redirect text itself. Hence, Foroa enforced just this policy but was otherwise not involved in this. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you read this "policy"? -- User:Docu at 16:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have read the text generated by the {{Seecat}} template, haven't you? --AFBorchert (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have, but I also noticed who wrote it (despite the fact that it was protected) and when it was written. -- User:Docu at 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foroa had no significant edits in the template and non of them is recent. Hence, I fail to understand your comment. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you looked at the wrong template, "seecat" is just a redirect. -- User:Docu at 17:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I looked at this history and I still fail to see your point. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the source of that page, you will notice that it doesn't contain that text either. -- User:Docu at 17:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nové Město, Praha is not locked. Foroa locked category names, with good reason. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter, it's Category:Nové Město (Praha), not Nové Město, Praha. -- User:Docu at 16:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the merits of categorizing the redirect or not, I think it's clear that Foroa should have requested another administrator to lock the category pages rather than doing it themselves. -- User:Docu at 16:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Docu, no it's not clear. Why shouldn't Foroa act as admin in this case? --AFBorchert (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because Foroa disagreed on this question with SJu. -- User:Docu at 16:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nearly all admin actions are in disagreement with someone. The question is whether an admin uses admin tools in a conflict situation where he or she was involved. I still fail to see this here. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but combined with the edit history of Category:Nové Město (Praha) it doesn't look like just a simple disagreement. -- User:Docu at 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the edit history but I still do not see your point. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Reset indent) I applied simply policy as documented in Commons:Rename a category and enforced it through the locking because ŠJů deliberately persisted in violating it. In fact, redirects are not part of the category system: just a translation aid. While I was more tolerant on that 18 months ago, mainly for items with several names such as wars and so, I noticed that people got badly trained, reverted the redirects all the time because they found the other "official" name better, made subcategories based on that names and started building complete parallel categorisation structures in their preferred style and language. The bots that convert hard redirects in soft redirects clean out all the parent categories too. Fact is that there is basically in the Commons category system only place for one single name and naming system, and that each injection of double namings in the categorisation system leads only to confusing and further misnaming. In this case, it is even more simple as the basic rule states that only English names should be used, so the categories in other languages should not be visible unless one accepts several parallel category systems in other languages and styles. And frankly speaking, I am a bit tired of being attacked by all sorts of people that try to bend the rules as it suits them. --Foroa (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is pointless to repeat once more that there is essential distinction between general concepts and proper names and other stable and expectable local designations. English exonyms are often problematic and is needed to apply them sensibly (but ad hoc transtations of local names are undesirable and absurd). How many maps of Prague in English contain 110 or more Czech district names, but 2 or 3 district names in English? Btw, for the district of Malá Strana exist two different English exonyms. English exonym can be used in informal texts, but maps, documents and encyclopedical works should be more consistent. As I mentioned above, I acquiesced in this anomaly but I consider that the original (Czech) names should be findable in the alphabetical order of the category Districts of Prague as well. Categorizing of the appropriate category redirects with real district names (Nové Město and Staré Město) into the category Districts of Prague is the most suitable treatment.
The thesis that "Redirected categories should be not categorised themselves" can be proposed and discussed and should be considered whether reasons of this thesis are more relevant than opinion that categorizing of some category redirects can be useful (as can be demonstrated in case of category Category:Staré Město (Praha)). The fact is that Foroa made the first revert of Category:Nové Město (Praha) on 19:11, 3 December, however this "rule" Foroa himself changed at 6:29, 4 December. Without any link to discussion and consensus, without any reasons, without any edit summary. Inasmuch as Foroa is known as systematic infringer and antagonist of stated policy about category redirects, he isn't the right person to change or codify rules about it without discussion. To enforce own opinion by locking of pages, by changing of locked templates, by changing rules without discussion etc. is clear abuse of sysop's rights. --ŠJů (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pieter Kuiper - take 3

This user keeps harassing everyone in CT:FOP, even after he was given all the explanations why he is wring. He repeatedly harassing with the same questions over and over again, and wastes the time of everyone who disagree with him. He is determined to enforce his wrong and unprofessional opinion about FOP in Israel.

I now call the Admin's of Commons to take the necessary actions in order to stop him. This has been going on for a very long time. Whether it is a general block, general ban or topic ban, you must do it in order to prevent a very big damage to Commons. His behavior is disrupting and causes people from Israel (me, for example) to refuse to upload original photos to commons because they have better things to do rather than wasting their time on pointless arguments with him. Kooritza (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with kuiper is that sometimes instead of doing what is right for Commons he retaliates to another users personally, which is a cause of disruption. Here's a good example. In his own words he uploads a hate propaganda image because he hopes " Drork will be pleased, because he is going on and on about it. " I am even not talking here about the image itself, and weather or not Commons could have lived without it. I am talking about the reason behind the upload because " Drork will be pleased, because he is going on and on about it." Few times he retaliated to me personally. It was noticed by other users. (I could provide examples per request). I believe that for Commons sake kuiper should be banned on all topics concerning Israel.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. He has shown relentless bias against everything Israeli, and maticulous attempts to target Israelis. Many users of Hebrew wikipedia refuse to upload pictures to the commons because of such behaviour, and his attempts to foil the piki wiki project has cause great damage to both Wikimedia Israel and the Wikimedia foundation (loss of cooperation in Israel). Deror avi (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The presented edit is from January 2009. Please provide recent difflinks which can be considered as harassing. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for that. You just have to look at the recent discussions where he keeps disregarding opinions which contradict his desires. Kooritza (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of a non productive unti Israeli if not unti semitic remark against a living person who is not a party to the discusion (nor a commons user). Adv. Lichrenstien is a well respected attorney who specializes in copyright Law. Dr. Preseanti is the leading Israeli copyright expert. Kuiper blatently insults both. Deror avi (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in that diff of any concern. Pieter is entitled to offer his opinion on what others have said. Perhaps you could assist by highlighting what exactly is the problem with Pieter's comment in that diff? Adambro (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@AFBorchert.I assume the request was addressed to me. The most recent case was kuiper removing all categories but one from few of my surfing images 4 hours after he edited the image first time , but only 2 minutes after I added an absolutely valid category.One more sample voting against one of my surfing images on FPC with the reason "out of scope". That behavior was noticed here. In the end of September I voted to keep one of the images from Israel that kuiper nominated to be deleted. After that kuiper spends around 3-4 hours going over my uploads and nominating few of my own images to be deleted. Here's one example. So far none of mine images he nominated for deletion was actually deleted. Once again maybe some of the deletion requests of my images were proper. It is not the point. The point is that the user spends few hours looking over my images in order to target me personally. In other words one never is sure, if kuiper does what he does because it is good for Commons or because he does not like a user or a state for that matter personally. I've already said that I have absolutely no problems with him harassing me personally. I do have problems with him harassing everything that comes from Israel.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Lichtenstein is another appalling example of an Israeli lawyer stretching the law" is slander, and the sentence "With this the state of copyright in Israel being like this, one understands why the country is on the US Trade Department's priority watch list" in this context is just anti israel and should not be part of the discussion regarding the extent of the Law. His anti Israeli bias undemines all his actions - as you can see from the endless discussion here. Deror avi (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for examples of a personal attacks - the inclusion of this image here as an image breaching the Law, after being given the expenation that the copyright holder allowed upload, is a personal attack, just to presure a participant in the discussion here. Deror avi (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understand that WP:BLP rules are not limited to the subjects of WP articles: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages.". See particularly [2]. There is no WP rule that is applied more strictly than WP:BLP, those rules apply to discussion of all living persons that occur on any of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, and those rules apply to the talk pages of Wikimedia Commons. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Malcolm Schosha - Commons is not Wikipedia and I am grateful for that. I am not aware that BLP applies to Commons in the same way as en wp hence the lack of drama generally in that area.
Herbythyme, I am quite sure you are wrong about that. The intent of the rule is to protect Wikimedia Foundation from law suite, and applies to all Wikimedia projects. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point me to where it says that please - on Commons --Herby talk thyme 18:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean to say that you think libelous comments are allowed on Commons? Amazing thinking, Herbythyme. If you an show me that such editing is allowed on Commons, I will give you an apology. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire - you said BLP applied here (nothing about libel). I asked you where. Libel is not allowed as far as I know as that would contravene state laws. That is not the same as BLP which you quoted. I am unsure who is harder to deal with PK or people such as yourself when it comes to pining something down for actual factual detail. This whole thread is not new. If/when it is then it will be dealt with. Until then you are not helping your cause in my eyes. --Herby talk thyme 18:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think WP:BLP is but the rule dealing with issues of libel? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is the rule that deals with issues of libel (and other related matters) on en.wikipedia. However, Commons is not Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy does not apply here. Commons has no policy about libel, but clearly it is not allowed (the legal issues Herby mentioned).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Nilfanion --Herby talk thyme 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This insight into user thinking is both fascinating and depressing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To others - I am no fan of PK but I see nothing fresh here. If/when there is come back - until then - IMO - leave it alone. You do yourselves no favours I'm afraid and you may regret that in time to come.
Whatever else is or is not permitted witch hunts are not a Commons thing not should they be. --Herby talk thyme 17:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kuiper did come back, as a matter of fact he has never stopped.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point to attacks as was asked which is what this thread is about. Personally I still see it as a witch hunt in its current form. I am loosing my patience with this. --Herby talk thyme 18:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Herby. Adambro (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You probably missed it, but his attacks on Presenti and Lichtenstein were mentioned above. Kooritza (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if this page is not the right one to solve the problems his causing us, where else should I go? I'm open to suggestions. Kooritza (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The request was for evidence of personal attacks on other users. The edit re Lichtenstein is troubling, but is not harassing other users.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think there is a little miscommunication. I was complaining about those remarks and his behavior that keeps this discussion going on and on even though all his questions were given proper answers with appropriate references. Where should I go if not here? Kooritza (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Nilfanion. IMO kuiper behavior on Freedom of Panorama for Israel could be considered more as a disruption than as PA. @Herbythyme, disappointed with your comment. I am not doing "witch hunt", and btw I have never reported kuiper to AN/U, he reported me quite a few times.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
evidence ie diffs is what was asked for not a re-hash of past differences. I do object to much of PK tone/approach however for now I see little difference between warring parties. I have other things to do with my time sadly. --Herby talk thyme 19:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I provided quite a few diffs to show he's going after me personally. I did it not because I am doing a "witch hunt" or because I wanted any actions taken against kuiper because he's targeting me personally. Not at all. The only reason was to establish character of kuiper as a person who will not hesitate to do disruptions on Commons in order to retaliate somebody personally. On the other hand :Deror avi provided few new diffs that some people do find troubling.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the discussion at CT:FOP, it seems clear to me that Pieter Kuiper isn't constructive at all. It looks like trying to explain Israeli law to him is like talking to a wall. He should abstain from taking further part in discussions about FOP in Israel. --Kjetil_r 18:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is not constructive at times - neither is this. --Herby talk thyme 19:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Herbythyme, have you ever considered the possibility of not saying anything until you actually have something to say? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am on the verge of considering myself under attack here - given my dealing with PK I find this simply bizarre and will no longer participate in this madness. --Herby talk thyme 19:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An awful lot has been said here but what this discussion lacks is a concise demonstration of non-constructive edits by Pieter Kuiper. I would have thought that if Pieter's actions deserve all the attention they receive (this being the third discussion about him on this page at the moment for example) it wouldn't be too difficult to provide a few select diffs to highlight the problems. In the absence of such concise evidence it is becoming hard to see these discussion as resulting in anything but another opportunity for those with a disliking of Pieter Kuiper to express their views, even if that wasn't the intention of the initiator of the discussion. If people want PK blocked, as I suspect is the case, make it easy for the admins to come to the conclusion that would be appropriate by a concise demonstration of disruptive editing. Adambro (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm don't know much about commons policies, but apart from his slander remarks on Israeli experts, he keeps dragging the discussion and almost every time refuses to accept the opinions of the leading Israeli scholar (i.e Presanti) and the basic rules of the Israeli legislative system. This is the problem, which can be seen through the last edits in CT:FOP (mainly this and this). This is what needs to be stopped. Kooritza (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "Kooritza" is just another new pseudonym for User:ברוקולי who came earlier with this nomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could respond to the issue the user raised, instead of replying with an accusation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Adambro,I would not comment for others, but I would not like pk blocked, not at all. I am only saying that he should avoid dealing with images from Israel because it is a cause of constant disruption. Deror avi is a copyright attorney. He knows the lows, he knows the language, and he already proved he is impartial. I believe Deror avi could handle the Israeli copyright low just fine, and there's plenty of other job to be done on Commons for pk.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@kuiper. the user changed his/her signature for more convenient letters. What's wrong with that?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is confusing... here another example. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I actually agree with you on that one. It was confusing and not funny joke, yet it is not the point. The point is that it will be better for Commons and for everybody, if you allow to handle images from Israel to somebody else at least for few months, and we will see how it will go--Mbz1 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, there is the proof. Kuiper uses and practically says I'm using a sock puppet. This is crossing the red line. Kooritza (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to mention that I've given my interpretation of the facts at CT:FOP. I have also been investigating the conduct of all the users in this dispute - and I would not single Pieter out as being exceptionally guilty compared to the rest (or innocent for that matter). Can't really provide diffs at the moment though, but I am hunting for them.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Nilfanion with respect. IMO it is not the point, if kuiper is guilty or innocent. The point is that his presense on Freedom of panorama for Israel is a cause of edit warring and disruptions. IMO everybody will benfit, if he concentrates his efforts working on different areas on Commons.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nilfanion makes a very good point. A edit war needs more than one editor. If people don't like what Pieter says then they don't have to respond. Adambro (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats true, but when we tried this he just went and changed Commons:FOP as he likes. What can we do in situation like this? Kooritza (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we are now getting somewhere. If PK repeatedly ignores consensus and makes changes anyway then he should be blocked. If you can demonstrate this by diffs then it might be possible to consider action. Adambro (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thats what I will do if he repeats this once more (you can see the last time when Commons:FOP was protected by an admin). Kooritza (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On November 27, it was User:ברוקולי=Kooritza who reverted COM:FOP twice within 20 minutes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making any assumptions here Pieter, my comments about blocking those who choose to ignore consensus and edit war apply to anyone else just as much as they apply to you. The issue you highlight is exactly why it is inappropriate to single you out for action as if everyone else is blameless. There would be little point in blocking all those editors who have acted inappropriately in relation to this dispute only for the problems to remerge when the blocks expire. This issue will not be resolved by blocking anyone or everyone. It is much more complicated than that. Adambro (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter Kuiper forgot to mention that he too made two reverts in a time gap of 6 hours on that day. Just for the record and so he could not claim to be tzadik tamim. Kooritza (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, it is good you remember it now, but just few months ago you blocked only me for edit war that in your own words "needs more than one editor" :) Once again it is not the point. Maybe my English is no good enough to explain what I mean. I will try one more time. Remember how I fought with latuff? I am 100% sure that everything I said on the subject was right, yet I excluded myself from the subject in order to stop disruption. Here we have a kind of similar situation (I am not saying that pk is right. I am sure Deror avi is right on that matter). IMO this situation should be dealt with in the same manner I dealt in my situation few months ago.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following remark is a bit beside the issue here, but it relates to an issue that was addressed in the course of this discussion. The fact that the Commons as a project does not have a BLP policy is very disturbing. True, the Wikimedia Foundation does not impose rules and codes on the projects, but it does demand each and every project to adopt a BLP policy in order to avoid slander. This is not merely a legal issue. It is also a moral principle the Wikimedia Movement adheres to. Furthermore, the Wikimedia Commons are not the Engish Wikipedia, but all Wikimedia projects share the same basic values. Anyone who contributes to the Commons may and should expect this project to follow similar basic policies as the rest of the Wikimedia projects, despite the difference in nuances. This is especially important as the Commons are a project accessible from all other projects, and has, in fact, multiple purposes and functions.
As for the issue itself - I do hope that the FOP-Israel issue will serve as a lesson to all of us. The explanations of the Israeli users have been proven accurate per professional updated authorized sources. However, too much time and effort had been spent on getting all these proofs and debating them. Had other user assumed, as required, that the Israeli users acted in good faith, a lot of time, energy, anger and frustration would have been saved. Right now, FOP-Israel is the most credible principle published on the Commons, but it would be an absurd to go through this process for every country on the globe, or for any case about which there is a slight doubt. I don't see a point in taking actions now against Pieter Kuiper now. He needs to restrain himself, that's all. If he does, then everything is going to be alright. Drork (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Ban User:Pieter Kuiper on all the topics concerning images from Israel

Proposal: Ban User:Pieter Kuiper from nominating images from Israel for deletion on grounds of FOP

  •  Support It seems to me this much more limited measure would accomplish what is being asked for, while placing far less of a restriction on a generally good contributor. It is possible that this could be expanded to banning him for participating in such discussions when someone else has nominated, but I see no problem with him expressing his opinion: if I understand correctly, the perceived disruption comes from him nominating images that apparently no one else sees as raising a problem. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I certainly agree with such a measure for the time being, there would have been no harm in waiting for a result before opening this. If the vote running on CT:FOP can actually achieve some sort of result, then can reconsider this in light of whatever that result is.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus (at least between Deror avi and me) that writing is not covered by the Israeli FoP. There was also consensus that it cannot apply to stamps. See User:Nilfanion/Israel#Image summmary. That is why I also nominated Commons:Deletion requests/Stamps of Israel. I see no reason to forbid anybody to make nominations that agree with consensus. And I call upon Deror avi and Drork to give their opinion on those stamps. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually thinking about it (and the deletion request in particular), I'm inclined to request that you do not nominate for deletion any further files from Israel for the time being. The reason is there is no harm in waiting a few weeks (and keeping files which ought to go for that bit longer). You know what COM:DEL is like, something complex like the stamps request will typically take over a month before its closed in any case - even in the total absence of drama.
However there is a tangible benefit to not nominating more files: You restrict the current dispute between yourself and Deror/Drork/etc to just the FOP problem. You avoid adding additional places for conflict to occur, which improves the chances of a tangible result on the FOP dispute. Rightly or wrongly, Drork (and others) reacted strongly to that nomination. If you had not nominated that file at that time, he would not have reacted at all, and so this whole thread wouldn't have been started in the first place. Reduction of drama is good, especially if it increases the chance of the underlying dispute being fixed.
Obviously keep on noting uploads that are troubling, but please don't act on them (on FOP grounds or worse project scope) for the time being until some sort of resolution to the FOP debate is acheived.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing especially complex about Israeli stamps. It is very simple: stamps are not permanently situated. But then, the Icelandic churches have also have been lingering since July. I do not understand why such easy decisions are not taken faster. But at least someone will need to make the nomination. I made that effort, tagging all those files, notifying the uploaders. I leave the rest to the community and its admins. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well glad to be proven wrong :) For what its worth, if images are nsd/nld/npd or outright speedies - don't hesitate to tag. If images have those problems they are should not be hosted here until they are fixed.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is difficult to consider the appropriateness of this proposal without analysing the results of previous deletion requests that Pieter Kuiper has made relating to FOP of Israel. Has Jmabel done such an analysis of the outcome of these deletion requests? If consensus emerged in support of Pieter Kuiper's nomination then that nomination couldn't be considered disruptive. Only if consensus rejects the nomination and Pieter Kuiper repeatedly nominates similar images with similar reasons which also fail could his nominations be described as disruptive. It has been suggested that the nomination of this image as premature whilst discussion about the wider FOP were ongoing. If it was the view of the community that those discussions should be the focus then surely a ban on anyone nominating images from Israel for deletion on grounds of FOP would be the appropriate action, not targeting a particular user who just happens to be one of the most active in this area. If it wouldn't be appropriate for Pieter Kuiper to nominate images for deletion whilst discussions are ongoing then surely it wouldn't be appropriate for anyone to do so. Adambro (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really wish that words in general, and the word "consensus" in particular, would be used correctly. What Deror avi and Pieter Kuiper have is an agreement. Certainly, consensus requires making many agreements, but it is not found in any of the particular aqreements. Rather, consensus is found in the approach to making the agreements. If there are two sides (as in two teams) opposing eachother, the opposing sides may reach agreements, but never consensus. In a consensus situation everyone is playing on the same team, and working for the same goal. Members of the same team may have disagreements, but their shared goal makes reaching a consensus possible, because the only disagreements are over how to reach their shared goal. Opposing teams never have shared goals, and never have consensus. I think that any user with a normal level of intelligence will be able to apply this to the problems under discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Adambro: Singling out Pieter is probably inappropriate. That's why I have requested that he refrains from nominations at the time being (as a drama-reducing step). If he chooses to nominate further files anyway I don't think he should be sanctioned, but the absence of those nominations for the time being may reduce points of conflict. And Malcolm, the way to achieve (what approximates to) consensus in this sort of problem is to get input from a broader group of people. If you have an opinion on dispute itself, please give it at the vote?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nilfanion, who's asking for "singling out Pieter"? It was Lar, who first suggested topic ban, and as soon as he did I asked to be banned on the same topics in order not to single out kuiper. With that latest proposal, I am sure Drork, Deror Avi and Jmabel will except the same ban :). One more point. You said half of the images that were nominated for the deletion were actually deleted, but it does not mean that the deletions were handled properly, doesn't it? --Mbz1 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what its worth, there is no particular reason to believe that any of those DRs were handled improperly in a procedural sense. The different results are troubling, but that results from the fact the project hasn't made its mind up, not that the closing admin mishandled the DR. When we get a resolution to the core debate I'll put in a mass deletion or undeletion request to sort out the discrepancy, depending on which way things go.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not mean that DR were handled improperly in a procedural sense. Sorry, if I sounded that way. I only meant that because there is still no agreement reached about the Israeli copyright low we cannot talk about the numbers of deleted and kept files simply because IMO it is not a good indicator to see what really is going on.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough - reason I brought it up in the first place is the fact the deletions are going both ways indicates there is no agreement at present. Statement of obvious of course that.. :) --Nilfanion (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper should be blocked immediately because he is damaging the project. He is toying with other users, doubting their good faith, trying to harass them (in a very elegant way, but these are still harassments). His attitude made other Wikimedia projects ban him. He should be banned here too. He is not here to contribute, he is here to harass. Drork (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make one thing clear: uploading Israeli stamps to the Commons was indeed a regrettable mistake by one Israeli user. I told him it was wrong on his talk page, but for some reason nothing was done about the matter. There is an explicit paragraph in the Israeli Postal Service Statute that grant all copyrights on Israeli stamps to the State of Israel. Since the State holds copyrights only for 50 years, any Israeli stamp created before 1 JAN 1959 is okay (to be updated in three weeks). Other stamps should be deleted. There is nothing new about this, we've discussed it before, and it is indeed time we did something about it. I also checked the state of affairs regarding Israeli coins and banknotes, and found out that the Bank of Israel reserved the rights on the designs, but allowed using them in a way compatible with the Commons' demands. I am giving you this information in order to show how much effort I, as well as other Israeli users, pay in order to bring all relevant information and make everything as "kosher" as possible. Regrettable mistakes do happen, but considering the effort we make, we can be trusted. Regarding the issue of FoP we've been asked so many questions, and checked the issue from all possible angles, so the risk of an error is very slim. It is a pity that some people don't value these efforts, and do not cooperate for the benefit of the whole project. Drork (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another remark that might explain the mistake made by a certain Israeli user about Israeli stamps - the Israeli Postal Services Statute was changed in 2004, and the paragraph related to State's copyrights on stamps was rephrased. I don't have access to the old phrasing, but the problem might have been reading the law in its obsolete version. I warned against this issue before, and I urge admins again to delete any Israeli stamp created less than 50 years ago. Drork (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments regarding Israeli stamps would probably be more appropriate at Commons:Deletion requests/Stamps of Israel where I'm sure your input would be appreciated. Adambro (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Drork (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Adambro (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ndonga Wikipedia

Hello, I am Pickbothmanlol from the English Wikipedia project and I have recently gained thoughts of helping a project on the verge of death which is at ng.wikipedia.org that no translator exists for. Normally I would not ask the Administrators' noticeboard for a few reasons that are obvious to a lurker but I feel that I am the last hope that the Ndonga Wikipedia project has.

If this is being asked on the wrong project or noticeboard then please tell me. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to ask, just go ahead and help! This is commons.wikimedia.org, so you definitely do not need to ask permission here. The good news is that Ndonga Wiki can use any picture from here. Also, do not worry about being the last hope. In the long term I am sure there will be other Ndonga help. But you are a rare find, so please do help. 99of9 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Pickbothmanlol (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some disclosure, Pickbothmanlol has been blocked on several WMF wikis for disruption. There's a request on m:SRG to have his account globally locked/blocked. Killiondude (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it seems that Mike lifeguard has declined it for the time being. Killiondude (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your good intentions, but it isn't clear to me that your "help" will benefit Ndonga or Commons.[3] Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trojan

I don't know if the six months have expired, but I think this is long enough for him. Please unblock Trojan.

He promises you to:

  • stop with screenshots
  • stop with vandalism
  • upload good images

Please give him that chance, he deserves it!

83.163.51.128 09:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this user is talking about (probably this user is blocked), but if he/she promises that he/she will be a good user, it might be the best option to lift his/her block. --OentOent (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not a good idea to 1) propose unblock per IP and to back the request up with a sockpuppet 2) to reactivate older sockpuppets. As I noted before here and here Trojan is using other accounts in other projects. Trojan is an account of user Ischa1 (although Ischa1 is not SULed it is evidently a sockpuppet in all projects), Ischa1 (talk · contribs) now turned active again on Commons, OentOent (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet too. I so far not disclosed the Ischa1 sockpuppetry, but that request here is too shameless to simply ignore it. I expect better behaviour from such an experienced user. --Martin H. (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.s.: The Quality images nomination of Trojanbackoncommons (talk · contribs) SUL images makes it a blatant and easy sockpuppet - damn, I realy spent time on my investigation and I really thought Im telling something new ;) --Martin H. (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like this user has stopped with the sockpuppets, so its rather difficult to believe their other promises :( Shell babelfish 01:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan, you do realize that my last statement regarding your unblock has been on September 15, which is not even 3 months ago, right? Voting for "speedy close" on this issue, this user has already taken plenty of contributors' time, had several chances and shown no inclination to adjust his problematic behaviour. Last block is way too fresh to consider giving him yet another ride. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I see no reason to discuss this further at this time. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I do see. He is blocked for about 4 months now and I think it'll be good to give him one more chance. I discovered Ischa1, which is Trojan on Commons, has uploaded about 20 images on another Wiki yesterday, which are all converted to Commons. He really knew what he did wrong with the screenshots last summer, but not why he did it wrong, he didn't realised fair use is not permitted on Commons.

I saw his images from yesterday and I'm really sure it's worth it to give him one last chance, but that'll be the only chance he will get in the rest of his life!

83.163.51.128 12:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ban evasion and disruptive sockpuppetry is also not permitted on Commons. What part of last chance is unclear? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That last chance was not unclear, the only unclear thing was why I spilled my last chance. The screenshots I've uploaded were fair use images, but I didn't understand why fair use is not permitted on Commons. After someone said my images were not permitted, I thought I was joked, because it is allowed to upload them on the other English wiki's, so I really thought Commons was also permitted. So actually it was not vandalism, but miscommunication. So actually I'm now blocked for 4 months because of miscommunication.

And I used my sockpops to proof I am really a good user with nice images. My plan was to upload an image and several weeks later a sockpop would place it on the QI-page and another would promote it. If my plan was succeeded, it was a QI-image and on that way I really can upload good images! I realised it is not fair at all and my plan also failed.

But I also uploaded about 20 images two days ago and those where all own work, no fair use and no vandalism. Someone on the Dutch wikipedia even asked me why I didn't convert them to Commons. I'm blocked!

Can my block be lifted now?

94.209.17.22 08:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance means last chance to read the instructions. You chose to ignore the instructions and dismiss the warnings as jokes. If that's miscommunication, it's entirely by your own choosing. Evading a ban by using sockpuppets is not a very good strategy to prove that you are a good user, because it actually constitutes proof to the contrary. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second the other admins in this case as even in August 2009 (after myriads of warnings) Trojan continued to upload images on Commons just to make them smaller (see here for an example) and told us in his upload comment quite frankly: sometimes I have to make a PNG-image smaller, like now. After I've done that, the image can be deleted. Given all this, I support to keep him banned from Commons forever. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. I uploaded them to make them smaller. By using the wiki-software the quality is higher than by using Paint. And I asked to delete them after that, because it will not be used in any articles, maybe on TV-articles on the English wikipedia, but that's all. It was no vandalism, so I see no reason to ban my Trojan-account any longer. I only used Ischa1 and OentOent for some sort of vandalism, so I agree if you keep those accounts block forever, but in this case I didn't use my Trojan-account for vandalism, so there is no reason to keep that account blocked.
Please! You saw my last images, I'm really a good user, and I don't lie when I say this. I stopped with the screenshots (because I now understand why it was wrong), and I'm really sorry for my sockpops. I really want to upload my official signature (I have an image scanner) and place it here as an official declare of my improvement, but I have to be logged in to upload files and all my accounts are blocked. 94.209.17.22 11:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you insist that it is not vandalism to misappropriate Wikimedia media resources (storage, processing, and people) by knowingly uploading files here in violation of copyright laws and in violation of Commons' policies in order to do something that you could easily do yourself with freely available software. I think you've just demonstrated quite clearly why there is no doubt whatsoever that the ban is appropriate. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay... but please lift my block. I can demonstrate more things. I can help all wiki's worldwide with pictures and other images, and once again none of them are screenshots or vandalism, it's all own work which I've taken with my camera. [Special:Contributions/94.209.17.22|94.209.17.22]] 18:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Charley Gallay (resolved)

Came across an image and I'm hoping to get some advice from others before taking the next step. Image I spotted while going through the new stuff is File:Wraven.jpg, uploaded by User:Charley Gallay. Image seemed to be a lil' too good for a casual upload, so I did some digging around and found this page which has the exact same image with credits as "Charley Gallay/Getty Images". And I've also gone and confirmed it at the Getty website - see here. Now, if the uploader is indeed Mr. Gallay (and for now I'll assume good faith and say he is), then he is the photographer... but the image is copyright now to Getty, so can Gallay upload the image here??? Help please... Tabercil (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even without looking into it, I doubt it, because when giving away the image for free, how could Getty expect any money from their "copy". I've put a no-perm-tag on the image and left the uploader a note. --Túrelio (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader asked for deletion, but will eventually try to get permission from Getty. --Túrelio (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That smells like a sockpuppet of User talk:Lucas Brígido. See Special:DeletedContributions/Randy-Gilmore: That sockpuppet (I ran a checkuser) impersonated the flickr user with the same name, he even faked a profile. At the moment User:Lucas Brígido is one of the worst users we have here, I immidiatly will check if this account is a sock again. --Martin H. (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Indefblocked, big surprise. --Martin H. (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Berichard repeatedly uploading misnamed Flickr duplicates

I've now asked Berichard three times to stop using File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) to upload severely misnamed duplicates (seven in total so far) of File:Macrolepiota procera by Per Ola Wiberg.jpg (which depicts a mushroom and not a cicada, green tree python, wader bird, Scottish lighthouse, butterfly, elk or cuckoo bird) from Flickr. I'm obviously not getting the message through. Could an administrator, preferably a French-speaking one, look into this? It's getting a bit disruptive. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of files, it might be marginal. This could be a problem with file upload bot. It should check or at least warn if it uploads duplicates.
As for naming, is it intentional or just a result of an ambitious naming convention? -- User:Docu at 14:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=33000743"