Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:14, 10 June 2012

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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.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
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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	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}

Note

Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User:Pieter Kuiper

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Last week, I've closed a couple of DR in an opposite way of Pieter Kuiper:

Pieter came to my talk page calling my closure absurd which is far from being cordial [1]
I was going to answer him, but 6 minutes later he was already notifying me of a DR on few of my pictures (and my answer got edit conflict with the notification): [2]
Therefore I told him to ask for a review on undeletion requests, Zscout370 restored the picture, after I closed few DR on the same topic as keep.
Now 7 days has passed since this. And After giving an opinion against Pieter, he starts again requesting deletion of my file a ferris wheel this time! and mocking the argument [3] I gave early today about COM:PRP.

Just to be clear I'm generally not really protective with my files, If I did a wrong upload or something that is borderline, I accept it quite well (an example here). However, I now don't really want to even put a simple comment on DR where Pieter has already commented, only result for me would be a new DR on my files. I think Pieter is behaving like this with more than just me, and it's time to say enought:

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_27#Towards wiki-stalking/harassment thread was in April
The word harassment appears 7 times in Pieter block log, and I think it's not a coincidence.

-- PierreSelim (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper has been warned and/or blocked several times about using DR's to retaliate against others. It is disruptive, petty and deplorable to search for mistakes in the contributions of editor you don't like. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 2 weeks. Pieter has been warned and blocked multiple times for the exact same disruptive, battleground behavior. He clearly he hasn't learned. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Pieter has done this often enough, and it always annoys people. But if the nominations are generally correct, then do we really want to prevent people identifying and dealing with copyvios, even if it's done in a retaliatory way? The first DR Pierre mentions has been closed delete, for example. Also, "mocking the argument" about COM:PRP? No evidence of that, it just looks like using the same argument. And in mentioning the block log we should also note that many of those blocks were reversed. However, I'm not opposing this block because the issue has been brought up so often, and Pieter needs to learn something. It's one thing to examine someone's contributions when you have a reason to think there may be a problem, and another to consistently go through people's contributions when you're annoyed with them. Rd232 (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, like many people, left Commons because of Pieter's harassment, and don't intend to come back while he's still around. So, yes, it does hurt the project. You want to prevent him doing it. 86.185.5.153 04:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest - what proportion of Pieter's DR nominations of your uploads were closed "keep"? Rd232 (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were very few, as it happens. 86.178.198.128 09:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"and Pieter needs to learn something" → Not to play with wolves? It's interesting that he was blocked for valid Deletion Requests and not for the insulations he made in the past by an admin he recently called a bot. -- RE rillke questions? 07:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm interesting indeed. I was actually wondering if that admin account was running some sort of script gone wild. The fact the account only reacts days after lengthy discussions about how to repair its damage across multiple Wikimedia sites only re-inforces that perception. -- Docu at 07:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter too consistently uses DRs in a retaliatory way. If the DRs were largely invalid, this would have been dealt with long ago. But even being largely valid, this behaviour pattern is bad for a collaborative environment. Rd232 (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He also has a tendency to use them where simple discussion would have sufficed. A lot of his cases are borderline, and a little talk would've clarified the license sufficiently. He basically uses it as a chance to attack his rivals as copyvio-uploaders, even if the copyvio is incredibly borderline, and the vast majority of what he finds is only deleted under the precautionary principle, e.g. "This might well be good, but we're not 100% sure, so delete." One might even ask if a lot of the stuff he nominates that does get deleted is at all valid; I suspect there'sa tendency where being nominated for deletion has a heavy assumption of guilt, which shuts down actual analysis. 86.178.198.128 09:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you guys blocked me for making an undeletion request and for reporting copyright violations. "Needs to learn something" - that is intimidation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you couldn't resist pointing out that you've learned absolutely nothing from the fact that one of the people who repeatedly spoke up for you in this area had had enough of your behaviour pattern. Well, if you can't learn why you shouldn't go through contributions in a retaliatory way (and using DR where a user talk note would be enough, at least as a first step), just learn not to. Failing that, see where repeating the same pattern of behaviour gets you. Rd232 (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, make a rule: admins are very sensitive and should first be contacted on their talk pages before making a DR. Otherwise you risk getting blocked. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Pierre Selim the first person you had this problem with? No. It's the pattern of behaviour that made me accept the block as necessary after having spoken up for you. But to end on a constructive note: yes, contacting people before doing a DR is always an option worth considering. If it's a potentially fixable problem, the uploader is often best placed to fix it, so if they're active, asking them can avoid an unnecessary DR. Rd232 (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a general pattern that admins feel entitled to be spared Deletion Requests. Nobody does that with ordinary mortals. They get lambasted with DRs. Did Russavia (talk · contribs) get blocked for the ignorant and disruptive Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:James Earle Fraser? He has not even withdrawn and closed it yet. And I did approach PierreSelim about an absurd deletion, and then he gave the standard admin response: take it to UNDEL. Which I did. Which seems to be held against me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I did approach PierreSelim about an absurd deletion, and then he gave the standard admin response: take it to UNDEL. Which I did. Which seems to be held against me. - hum. (i) what does challenging a DR have to do with a pattern of raising DRs in a retaliatory way? (ii) seems to be held against you? What evidence is there for that? And is this in fact your justification for the DRs you raised against Pierre? Rd232 (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Expo aeropostale Toulouse 2011 (3).jpg was obviously justified, as it resulted in deletion. But it was one of the things that are held against me by PierreSelim when he started this thread. Which he did before responding to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grande roue à Toulouse (coupée).jpg. He only responded after he had gotten me blocked. And then it was closed as kept while I was writing a response. Which shows that admins do not have much to fear from these allegedly intimiding DRs. It is you guys that have the power, and you are using it to intimidate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've skipped a bit; we were talking about you challenging a DR closure of PierreSelim's (not held against you), and you've jumped to the retaliatory DR against him (held against you for obvious reasons). Also, comparing a mass DR (like Russavia's you mentioned above) with a DR of a single image is silly - you've just thrown that in there as if it had any relevance to the retaliation issue, and it clearly doesn't. Rd232 (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That you look for copyvios is fine, but we all know that you do it as revenge for some imagined slight against you. This pattern has repeated again and again and again. Don't do it. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do this to educate admins. Assume good faith! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One can only assume good faith until evidence of bad faith is presented. Otherwise we'd just assume that everyone who uploads a copyvio was in fact the copyright holder. AGF does not mean we should stick our fingers in our ears. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an idea to instead of hunting down admins, you set up a Kuiper masterclass user subpage and let admins subscribe themselves to receive the benefits of your thoughts and opinions on their "absurd" mistakes. Most folks here are used to autodidact-ism rather than having indigestible unwelcome Pieter-pearls of wisdom forced upon them. --Fæ (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not learned that images like File:Graffiti on Dog Kennel Hill.jpg violate the copyright of artists? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, start your Kuiper master class on how to delete the world, and I might sign up. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And again ... is it some kind of bad joke, starting a DR for bad identification ... Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wild Hyacinth.jpg ? --PierreSelim (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy kept the file since it is not in Commons policy to delete files for a bad identification. Since I'm close to PierreSelim I will not give my opinion on this. Léna (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had informed PierreSelim, he responded, but did not do anything to correct his impossible identification of the plant. He just left the misleading description and category there. The image is totally useless here. Dubious that an admin close to PierreSelim uses admin powers to close the DR immediately, censoring discussion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any Commons admin who thinks it is censoring is free to re-open the DR. "Wrong name" is not a reason for deletion but for COM:File renaming and since Category:Unidentified plants exists, it means unidentified plants are in scope. Maybe I should have waited a week, we should wait for the opinion of other Commons admins :) Léna (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, if opened in good faith, I'd have said leave it open once it's there, in case it encourages someone to identify the plant - and because (as I keep saying!) policy doesn't provide for "speedy keep" closures. But Pieter knows far better than to use DR to handle a naming issue, so the DR was disruptive as well as part of a pattern of harassment, and closing it quickly was within policy as a means to tackle that. And a block in order too, since Pieter evidently has learned nothing whatsoever from the last one. Rd232 (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a pattern of here, considering he has raised this DR on one of my photographs as pointily referenced above? It appears that PK can't resist using deletion requests in a disruptive way even when there is an open AN/U reviewing his conduct. --Fæ (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern is people that know not what they are talking about complaining about legitimate requests for deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there are 13,000,000+ images on Wikimedia Commons. What exactly drew you to my recently uploaded photograph, apart from me having the temerity to take part in this review of your disruptive conduct? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started looking at you uploads when you applied for adminship. And I continue doing it, because you do not understand copyright. And you are teaching workshops for OTRS volunteers. Trying to educate, in accordance with the mission of the project. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being image stalked by you, all year, and having you openly declare a personal campaign against me in this discussion is serious concern for anyone who would like to make positive contributions to our project in a collegiate environment. Administrators I believe it is completely clear by now that Pieter Kuiper is determined to use his Commons account in a way that is "primarily to create a hostile environment for another user", in fact several users, this is fully within scope of the Blocking policy. --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ was made aware of the copyright problem with these images, but did not act. Nor did anybody else. I am protecting the rights of the children that painted the mural. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are self-elected as a hero of copyright, we did not nominate you, you will remain unable to even identify the purported copyright holders you claim to protect in this case. Your motivation seems clear based on your declaration of a personal campaign against me and other named editors; that is the issue here, not copyright. --Fæ (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appropriate the work of children. Just because they will not sue you or anybody else, does not mean that is allowed for you to claim "own work" and "attribution: Fæ" on a mural that you did not make. And in your position, such behaviour reflects poorly on the whole wikimedia UK. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a personal attack, especially your malicious edit comment "wikimedia UK boss is stealing the work of children". If you have a serious complaint about me as a charity trustee, please raise it with Jon Davies, the Chief Executive of Wikimedia UK, not on this noticeboard. If you have the evidence that I am committing crimes such stealing from children, take it to the police rather than making these claims on a public noticeboard. This page is not a forum for cyber-bullying. --Fæ (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You defended your appropriation of the artwork with the argument that the children would not sue. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are misquoting me, as anyone can read for themselves. I can only assume deliberately to create drama and to harass me. This conversation is at an end. --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators please do something to ensure Pieter Kuiper understands that it is not okay to make personal attacks of this type, including claims of criminal theft and bringing in irrelevant information about my (unpaid, voluntary and elected) trustee role in Wikimedia UK, any-time he finds it handy to bully me during his self-declared year long campaign of targeted hounding against me to ensure I can only volunteer on this project in a hostile environment. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again. We don't tolerate this kind of behavior on Commons. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the blocking rationale. Per COM:BP: "Tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is not harassment." If you want to block for this, you first need consensus to change the blocking policy. Pieter is not just nominating any image for deletion from specific users he was infights with. His nominations appear for me to be relevant, also for those which are kept. Personally, I would be grateful if a user as knowledgable as Pieter about copyright would use his spare time to actually trawl through my contributions to find potential copyvios, as I would want to have a clean sheet. I have sometimes DRed some of my own contributions in cases where I have had doubts about the copyright status, just to have the discussion in open, and check out my own understanding of the rules. I think that is a healthy process. I agree with Avenue and Herbys comments below. --Slaunger (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a need to keep this thread open for a long period of time, may I suggest that it be closed off in a couple of days if there are no objections. Leaving the thread open for the entire duration of Pieter's previous block may have led people, including Pieter, to assume that this an ongoing thread. In the interests of lessening dramuh, I would suggest that future conversation on this topic be closed off, so long as Pieter understands that the reason for his latest block (and unblock denial) is warranted, and that he should be channeling his energies towards more positive pursuits on Commons. russavia (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I object, user seems to be socking right now. Please wait a while before marking it for archive. Thanks. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Per Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#By-passing_a_block_using_IP_address which now includes an inflammatory reply that appears to fit the Quack principle rather neatly. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pieter Kuiper was filed. I have also closed all DR nominations by this IP 95.199.16.21 (talk · contribs) as speedy keep. I and evidently we as a community are sick of this conduct by Pieter Kuiper. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

IP socks

95.199.16.21 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log)
90.237.37.181 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log)
90.236.99.227 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log)
95.199.4.100 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log)
90.236.29.6 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log)

List last updated 13:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban Pieter Kuiper from Commons:Deletion requests for a duration of 1 year

I think it is time to consider this as the user actively ignores warnings. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Support considering he is now by-passing his block and blatantly editing from different IP addresses from the same location for the single purpose of creating "revenge" DRs. --Fæ (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as insufficient: my reading of things is that PK is using deletion requests as a tool for harassing users. Taking away the tool won't stop the harassment; at best, it will slow him down briefly while he looks for another tool to use. --Carnildo (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is fine. Then that tool will be axed. Alternatively, user can be indef blocked if you think he is salvageable. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Support, although in agreement with Carnildo that this alone is insufficient. --Claritas (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The underlying problem does not appear to be with the contributor but with the files being nominated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user is currently blocked (and is evading this block) for a month for this conduct, what are you talking about? User has been blocked many times before. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 01:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Support Incorrigible, in my well substantiated opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have you considered to stop uploading files with possible cr-problems? -- Lavallen 06:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that I have ever knowingly done that. All of us make honest mistakes at times (mine have proven to be relatively few) but none of us deserve to be treated with sarcasm, false accusations, insults and cruelty for that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose strongly. I doubt many users have the track record of finding copyvios in what have been considered acceptable files. It seems obvious that people suggesting this do not really care about copyright law. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about copyright, this is about creating a hostile environment for other good faith contributors. By the way, what does 'ffs' mean in your edit comment? --Fæ (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I imagine almost everyone knows what it stands for. What it means is that although some are on about personalities here I - as a working Commons admin with some experience - am simply interested in the copyright status of files. I am grateful to anyone who assists in clarifying/questioning validly the status of such files. It also means that, as a working Commons admin, I never have enough time to do the work that is required and I object to being diverted from the work that needs doing. Last contrib here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you suggesting I do not care about copyright law? I do CARE about copyright law. What do you think I did on commons to date? I however also CARE about the harassment of users. No one on commons should EVER disagree Pieter Kuiper as he will nominate your files for deletion even if it the files have no problems with them. He will not do this because he cares about copyright he does this to distress others. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Herby, such an implied comment on other editors is quite unacceptable. Would, "It seems obvious that people opposing this do not really care about attacks on other editors." be accepted? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Pieter Kuiper is quite good in finding copyvios. The cases he finds should be discussed and not suppressed. To my experience each DR by Pieter Kuiper had a point. Even if we at the end did not agree with him in our decisions, it was always worthwhile to discuss these cases. Pieter Kuiper's deletion requests may be seen as inconvient and some of them were even described as retaliatory. If this is seen as a problem, we should talk openly and calmly about this. As it currently stands, however, every outsider gets the impression that functionaries and Commons admins shall be excempted from deletion requests. This is something I would not like to see. I strongly suggest to reconsider the current block of Pieter Kuiper. This requires, in my opinion, wider consensus to be upheld. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter Kuiper is not blocked for one of his valid DR, but for nominating one of my file for deletion because it needed renaming (bad id of a plant). It means Pieter Kuiper prefers to start a DR with someone he is in conflict with rather than improving the quality of commons by asking for a rename and correcting the identification of the plant. I've checked my archives hard disk, the problem was that the description plate of the plant was wrong, it happens a lot with museums and I'm sorry for that (I've faced this problem a lot while working for Museum de Toulouse on Commons:Projet Phoebus). So yes I do agree with you on Pieter Kuiper being able to spot copyvios, however I have to disagree with him not being disruptive. IMO his 1 month block is justified, next time he'll try to improve commons instead of just harassing people. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wild Hyacinth.jpg was not constructive. Neither do I think that Pieter Kuiper's interaction with Fæ was helpful or collegial as it should be. But I still do not think that this warrants a month long block, not to mention any extension as requested below. And in each case we should take care that nobody gets frightened of filing DRs for possible copyvios. Hence, when a block is to be upheld, the message must be more clear than it is now. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your concern and share it. Nominating files to DR should not be a big deal. However this is only possible when people nominate DRs because of the files status (copyright, scommons scope, etc) and not as a means to distress the uploader over an unrelated disagreement. Pieter Kuiper frequently uses DR as an intimidation tool and goes as far as to avoid his current block to nominate more files for deletion from the user he was disagreeing with. Surely this is a problem. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, a one month block is enough. --Avenue (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The user is good at finding copyvios and Commons needs to delete copyvios. It is unfortunate that the deletion requests are annoying to some users, but annoying deletion requests are better than no deletion requests. If the files end up being deleted, it decreases legal risk for the uploaders, which I guess is positive for them. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Harassment is annoying users, not the actual nominations. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Herbythyme and AFBorchert. We've all been here before. --JN466 15:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pieter's contributions to valid deletions are recognised, but his tendency to also use DRs as a form of retaliation and bullying are too great a price. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Pieter Kuiper from Commons for a duration of 6 months

I personally don't think the 1 month block which Fastily instituted is enough. PK's ensuing block evasion shows that he is unwilling to accede to the wishes of the community. A six month ban will temporarily prevent disruption and demonstrate that his repeated misbehaviour is taken seriously. --Claritas (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree since he is already socking which by default should increase block length. If we double the length per evasion that computes to 2^3 = 8 months which would be better. Ban evasion should be taken VERY seriously - more so if the evasion is used for disruption. We need verification that the IPs are really his though. CU hasn't concluded yet. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose You're jumping to conclusions and no evidence of disruption has been provided.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing a mountain of evidence. Perhaps there is so much evidence that it is everywhere and you need to look it from a distance to notice it. You would be stoned so quickly if you had a drinking game over the total number of harassment related complaints and blocks Pieter Kuiper received. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 01:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course you see "a mountain of evidence" since you're the one who proposed this. I ain't seeing crap except hounding because the user (rightly) nominated some images for deletion uploaded by yourself or your friends. It's pettiness, all it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok man, make your !vote as you see fit, but please don't be a dick about it -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a good chunk of his nominations were wrong. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Support as above. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support overwhelming evidence of by-passing a block to harass other users and deliberately make this a hostile environment for everyone. --Fæ (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per my comment above - finding copyright violations can never be a reason for blocking someone --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bypassing a block is a reason to extend a block. This is not about copyright, it is about abusive behaviour. --Fæ (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. This is about how PK is shamelessly evading his block to continue the behaviour which got him blocked in the first place. --Claritas (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See my comments above. We should discuss first whether the current block was justified before we escalate this further. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 6 months is way too much. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose one month is enough IMO. --Avenue (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Finding copyvios is beneficial for the project and not a reason to block someone. 6 months is way too long. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Herbythyme and AFBorchert. --JN466 15:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since PK's response to being blocked appears to have been to log out and continue the actions that got him blocked. --Carnildo (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support long overdue. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-close bad-faith nominations by Pieter Kuiper or his socks/impersonators regardless of merit

I feel we should end this "gaming" of the system. Copyright is a serious issue but so is wikihounding. Pieter Kuiper's tactic of retaliation through DR nominations is well known and he was blocked for it numerous times. There are IP edits currently contiuing Pieter Kuiper's conduct. These are either socks or impersonators. Either way their intent is strictly to disrupt.
If Pieter Kuiper or his socks/impersonators make DR nominations with the intention to harass/stalk/distress other users they should be speedy closed regardless of merit.
If the files really have copyright problems a fresh, independent and untainted DR nomination can be conducted.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I approve. He didn't find any problem on my files, so he nominated to deletion a file I've reuploaded for another contributor. His behavior don't only annoy administrators but also other users, having absolutely no link with this case. --Dereckson (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Copyvios are copyvios, end of story. In all of these nominations it looks like the concerns are valid. In a way this is a round about admission that there is a real underlying problem here which is not being addressed - why should we punish the messenger?Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this. Since I disagree with you, I could go though all your uploads and bombard your talk page with as many files as I can find. I will do so only to distress you but will put "copyright" as the excuse. This is why Pieter Kuiper is blocked. This is what he is doing while avoiding the block. So the "messenger" here is really just trying to harass/stalk/distress users he disagrees with with hopes of alienating them from the site. Copyright can be handled in the natural course of time. Also user is known to make false claims when he cannot find a file with adequate copyright problems. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 01:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Consider this: Since I disagree with you, I could go though all your uploads and bombard your talk page with as many files as I can find. - go for it. Copyright is copyright and no, it "cannot be handled in the natural course of time". What actually happens is that the copyright violations of the "privileged few" (folks who hang out on IRC together) get tolerated and Commons admins turn a blind eye, while borderline questions of CV from those not in the inner circle get nominated. PK is not part of the inner circle, hence this hounding of the user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to the list of members of the inner circle, I would like to check if my name has been accepted yet? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of inner circles, it is possible that some might be encouraged by "piku's" post on Wikipediocracy to join these discussions. It would be really nice for those that do join us this way, to let everyone else know. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right to say what you want, you have the duty to prove it. --Dereckson (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support he can raise DRs when he is not blocked or under a restriction. If anyone else is concerned about copyright of a particular image, they should have the initiative to raise a DR for themselves rather than allowing disruptive behaviour and a block bypass to be rewarded. --Fæ (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply ludicrous. If a file's copyright status is questionable that Commons should not give a damn who creates the DR. Indeed speedy closure of such DR would leave me inclined to block the speedy closer - please take note of my words as I am completely serious in that. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a debate about copyright, you seem to be misunderstanding this thread. Blocked users should not bypass their block. --Fæ (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And no one should close valid DRs speedily. I don't give a damn about "who" - the legality of files hosted by Commons on behalf of the Foundation is at stake here. Anyone intentionally misunderstanding that is blockable by me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you would oppose deletion of the nominaiton pages and recreation of them by a different user? The idea is to filter the trolling off of the DR nominations. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Herbythyme, if legally sounded we should study the request. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't that be with a fresh discussion. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Speedy-close of valid deletion requests just because they have been posted by Pieter Kuiper? This is disrupting and surely not in the interest of this project. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Avoiding copyright violations is a core part of our mission. Avoiding hurt feelings, not so much. --Avenue (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Avoiding to harass other users is a core part of our mission. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  - No, it's important, as is working collegially in general, but copyright is more important. As COM:BP says: "Tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is not harassment." This proposal (especially the "regardless of merit" part) would reverse that principle. --Avenue (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Funky_chicken_graffiti_on_Dog_Kennel_Hill.jpg, which was closed as "speedy kept" but later reopened. The community feels that there are real concerns about File:Funky_chicken_graffiti_on_Dog_Kennel_Hill.jpg's copyright status. It isn't who's saying it that counts; it's what's being said that counts. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. The nomination can be deleted and recreated from scratch by a different user. This would reduce the bad faith. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Deletion requests with valid concerns should never be speedily closed. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - basically, this comes under not feeding the trolls. --Claritas (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion requests are better than cease-and-desist letters -- RE rillke questions? 07:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who oppose this gets a Pieter Kuiper-like treatment

All uploads of users that oppose or disagree with this proposal will get their uploads reviewed and mass nominated.
This may sound COM:POINTy but this is what users that disagree with Pieter Kuiper is dealing with. If this conduct is fine, then feel free to oppose this.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You really don't get this do you. Everyone here's contributions re up for scrutiny by any user. They must be - we must satisfy copyright. It is the uploads that need to satisfy copyright and it is nothing about the person doing the scrutiny. When I am not distracted by other issues I scrutinise closely the uploads of whoever I spot - I then follow them to the best of my ability. They will often get many copyvio messages from me and no doubt think I am a terrible person. I will continue doing that whenever I can (and my uploads are always available for scrutiny by anyone). Let's get on with the work - enough folk above seem to agree with my position so let's move on. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you expect us to move on when this is brought up here so frequently? Several people are refusing to address a problem others have brought up. This is a problem even if majority consensus is not reached.

The problem here isn't copyvios. Copyvios MUST be dealt with. The motivation behind nominating copyvios should be that they are copyvios not retaliation. Pieter Kuiper makes a non-controversial process controversial. Copyvio nominations should not be a weapon of retaliation. Should I feel intimidated to discuss anything with Pieter Kuiper? Disagreeing with him means your files will get mass nominated - almost like blackmail.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you see a check of your contributions as something negative. On the contrary, I see it as something positive: it removes legal risks for you. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I do not see it as a negative thing. It is however a problem when this action is used as a tool of retaliation. Pieter Kuiper avoided his block to DR uploads by the user he was disagreeing with. Just because someone is reviewing files of copyright should not make them exempt of all other policies. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If that were all it was, just a random check of contributions, I would have no problem with it at all. But that's not what it is. Pieter does not just go through random people's uploads looking for copyvios, he goes through the uploads of people who disagree with him, because they disagree with him. He's not in it to find copyvios, he's in it because he wants revenge on people. This has been shown again and again and again and again and again. In all the years I have been on Commons, this same issue with Pieter has kept coming up again and again and again.

We at Commons have problems with people like this. People who do some good work, but who completely poison the atmosphere. And every time it's really hard to get them blocked, because people defend them on the basis of the good work. But you have to ask, are they being a net benefit to Commons? Because I don't think Pieter is. We spend all these hours arguing about his behaviour, which is wasted time. Time we could be spending uploading pretty pictures or deleting stuff. Mutter Erde. Ottava Rima. There are many many more - all with consistent records of bad behaviour, and it took so so so much fighting before they were finally kicked out. The problem is that we develop a bunker mentality - we keep fighting because, originally, the behaviour wasn't too bad. It's like the frog and the boiling water - slowly heat the water, and the frog simply won't notice it's being cooked.

Pieter should not be on Commons. Not for now anyway. He is banned for a month, and he is evading that ban. That should result in greater punishment. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter is blocked not banned, and blocks are not intended for punishment, but to avoid further disruption. I am surprised to see these confusions of terms from an admin. --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, banned, it's the same damn thing and we both know it so cut the crap. As for not as punishment? They're not solely as punishment, but again, it's pretty much semantics - we block someone for time X, they continue to be disruptive, we block them for longer on the basis that they clearly have not learned their lesson. That is punishment for bad behaviour, pure and simple. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding a block should lengthen its period. Pieter Kuiper is only symbolically blocked currently as he continues to edit commons regardless. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, banned, it's the same damn thing and we both know it so cut the crap. (i) they are not the same thing. A ban is a community decision to exclude a person from editing all or part of a project; a block is a technical measure to prevent any editing from a specific source (which may be a user account, IP address, or extensive IP range). See en:Wikipedia:Banning policy. (ii) apart from sharing Slaunger's surprise at your lack of understanding of this, your "cut the crap" remark is rude and entirely unwarranted given the preceding comments from him. Rd232 (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Establish a process where users can volunteer for a copyright review

This a common problem where established users past uploads are in need of a review.
Status of uploads may change or older uploads may be during a more relaxed time period.
To limit incorrect nominations and not to overwhelm DR, each file should be reviewed bu at least two people.
Users may be asked to volunteer
The person asking user to volunteer should not be a reviewer for that users contribution.
This does not limit or hinder anyone from nominating copyright violations like how it is currently.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Creates a lot of bureaucracy which removes time from copyvio reviews so that fewer copyvios are spotted. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. You can still nominate files on the spot if you see them. This in no way changes that. It is a pre-process for those whom choose to volunteer. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) This is getting very silly. A copyright violation is just that, a suspect copyright violation is just that. Files must be legal period. There is no time period, no acceptable users to do it, no "volunteering" - all uploads are always up for scrutiny by anyone. There will always be the playful/idiot who noms stuff badly - they will be dealt with but all legit uploaders must be just that - legit. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if I want to seek help for my older uploads, your response is this is something silly to ask? To be blunt you want Pieter Kuiper to retain his intimidation tool. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want them reviewed that is fine - however they are always open to review. You cannot be "exempted" in some way from having your contributions reviewed. All files must be correctly licensed. While I would prefer PK to behave differently if folk upload questionable files they must expect people to review them. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but I would prefer someone other than Pieter Kuiper. I would want the review to be conducted as a review of copyright of files rather than as an act of retaliation. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per herby; this would be a superfluous attempt for super-bureaucratisation. --High Contrast (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, as long as it's done in a way that is minimally bureaucratic. Perhaps en:Wikipedia:Editor review could be a model - just a noticeboard where users can request review. That's pretty simple, doesn't interfere with existing processes, and if it doesn't work, it's harmless. The key component of the idea is, I think, that users request review, and therefore don't feel attacked when people go through their contributions and find (possible) problems. Rd232 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the intended idea, yes. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - If there is a copyright problem or suspicion, a DR will do. If the uploads of a specific user need review, but do not yet need a DR, we do have this very noticeboard available. No need to add procedures on this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is broken though because DR is an intimidation tool for some. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, like a television is broken because some people may use it to smash their neighbours windows. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worthwhile to regulate areal use of televisions in such a case. Is this a problem concerning commons? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's just a comparison. Thanks for your answer, showing that you understand abuse of DRs should be dealt with, instead of blaming the process in general. I'm happy you don't propose to use plush televisions in order to protect windows of innocent neighbours. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper abuses the DR process to intimidate though. This proposal is more in the lines of establishing a way for neighbors to ask their windows to be reviewed to make sure they are Television set proof. Since we have at least one person with a history of areal transportation of Television sets through neighbors' windows. Either such a person shouldn't be allowed to own Television sets at all OR neighbors be given the option to avoid damage from the barrage of Television sets. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Pieter Kuiper now

I find the current block of Pieter Kuiper unfortunate as the blocking reason is, in my opinion, at best ambiguous and thereby possibly intimidating in itself to all who are going through contributions of functionaries and Commons admins. One of the strengths of this project is its aim to respect international copyright law even if this is at times inconvenient and time-consuming. To me Commons appears to be one of the best online resources in regard to international copyright law of images and all this is the work of our community where we have among us quite some expertise and users who succeedingly grew familiar with these topics. Pieter Kuiper is one among of them. While some may possibly find some of his interactions at times irritating or objectionable, I got also at times the impression that some found it at times more convenient to join in the complaints against Pieter Kuiper than to take his deletion requests seriously. The unwarranted speedy closures along with the block send in my opinion the wrong message that some user's contributions are not to be touched and/or Pieter Kuiper's deletion requests to be brushed aside.

This does not mean that I support everything Pieter Kuiper does. I find some of his recent edit comments quite unhelpful like [4] and [5]. Nor do I think that this DR keeps up with his other DRs (but please note also this and this). If you are going to block Pieter Kuiper because of such or similar interactions, please refer to that and not to the fact that he dared to file a deletion request.

Some of his deletion requests have been described as retaliatory now and in the past. But I think that this is too easily claimed. There exists also different explanations. Pieter Kuiper has over a long period taken a focus on the contributions of functionaries, admins, and admin candidates. This should surprise no one and this should not be something objectionable in itself. And, once he found something, he continues to walk through the contributions of a particular user. This is something many of us in their function as admin do on the contributions of regular user's where we have some reason to believe that more questionable cases can be found. All this may be found unpleasant and inconvenient when we are hit by such a series of deletion requests but at the end it helps the project and, we should not forget that, helps also the uploader as it is surely preferable to get a deletion request by Pieter Kuiper than finding yourself in a legal dispute. And it gives the opportunity to learn something about an aspect of copyright law. We all make mistakes and we should be grateful to have the opportunity to fix them within our community. The point is, in my opinion, not whether a justified deletion request is filed or not but how it is done which includes the subsequent interactions. Here we can and should expect Pieter Kuiper like any other contributor to stay cooperative and helpful. The same, BTW, is to be expected from the uploader whose file is under discussion.

If you still want to restrict Pieter Kuiper's ability to file deletion requests, then please go and find a consensus to create an entry at Commons:Editing restrictions. (I would not support that, though.) For now, however, I suggest to unblock Pieter Kuiper. Some days have been served for inappropriate edit comments (see above) but a month long block does not appear justified for this in my opinion. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do understand people's frustation with PK - I have encountered some less than charming interactions with him myself and can't really call myself a fan of his. However in looking through established files for possible copyright violations he is doing Commons a very useful service. Files must be legally licensed for us to host them so while I understand that people take offence because "their files" are found to be questionable I honestly do not understand why. We all make mistakes - it is what we do about that which is the issue. I've made them here and elsewhere and will continue to do so. When that happens I apologise and do my best to put it right. It would be good if both PK (who is not always right) and those he interacts with would do the same. I am uncertain of my actual vote on this for now but will reflect (& watch when I get the time while dealing with what continues to need doing). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that he could be useful to commons immensely with the type of work he is capable. However that does not exempt him from other policies such as the one on harassment. He uses DR as a retaliation tool and refused to stop doing this. Currently I am his target for retaliation because I dared to make a remark here not in his favor. He is currently avoiding his existing block to continue this behavior as well. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose User is evading block and continuing behavior he was told to stop. When you are blocked and told to stop, you stop even if you do not agree with the person blocking. Chances are they are considering your actions disruptive and you should discuss matters first rather than continue the behavior. Again this has more to do with the intent than DR nominations. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The user for instance requested deletion of a file I transwikied from another wiki to here. He then went to comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Artwork for Wrights Biscuits.jpg, a file uploaded by User:Fæ. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portal Africa logo.png was deleted at the so called source; we neither know the author nor whether is "own work" of the uploader. -- RE rillke questions? 13:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I asked it to be deleted locally as I transwikied it. This is common practice. If you see a problem, you can just ask the uploader. The IP (Pieter Kuiper) decided to nominate it for speedy deletion instead. As you can see, it was deleted by a commons admin/global sysop Zscout370 whom verified that information. You can ask a global sysop to verify. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And it turned out that plenty information was missing. I am still not sure where the cat comes from. For example in en:File:Eltiempo1.jpg, the same uploader "this image has been scanned by myself and it has free license" Also, 95.199.4.100 tagged the file as no source. 7 days are not speedy-deletion, IMHO. You were notified while you were active on Commons and had time to act. But is going to be off-topic as this thread is about Mr. P. Kuiper. -- RE rillke questions? 15:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP IS Pieter Kuiper trying to intimidate me by nominating my uploads for deletion despite being blocked for a month. What part of it is off topic? Nomination for speedy deletion by Pieter Kuiper and by you was greatly inappropriate. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose if this is about very very very well documented unacceptable behavior for years and years, not about valuable work that makes any behavior by this particular person acceptable forever and ever. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reporting policy violations is not a valid reason to block someone. The block violates the blocking policy. Besides, he is needed here due to his great ability to find copyright violations. It might have been better to ask とある白い猫 to fill in an {{Original upload log}} instead of tagging {{subst:nsd}}, but his overall contributions look good to me. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Pieter is using, and always has used, DRs as a weapon to "get back" at people he feels wronged him in some way. It has been documented on this board over and over and over. I agree, finding copyvios is a good thing, but the way he does it makes people feel harrassed and victimised. He has been warned again and again about this behaviour, and he's always got away with it because "he finds copyvios". I say enough. Again and again, we see people who have frankly awful interaction with people excused because they do good work - Mbz1, Ottava, etc etc etc. They get banned, someone else unbans them immediately. This is not right. Lessons need to be learned. Keep the block in place so that we can have some time when the name pieter Kuiper is not the subject of a complaint here. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never had "awful interaction with people" only with some abusive admins and other ...On the other hand you should be watching your language. Using the word "crap" while describing a comment made by another user as you have done here is frankly awful and frankly unacceptable, and it is not the first time you're using unacceptable language. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bypassing a block by (openly) using IP addresses instead and thereby sticking a finger up at the entire Wikimedia Commons community cannot be brushed aside as just being "irritating". Using Commons processes to create a hostile environment for other users over a period of years is a clearly demonstrated pattern of disruptions that required sanctions and is fully and unambiguously supported by Blocking policy. --Fæ (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's obviously a much better way of dealing with whatever personal problems some people have with Pieter - railroading him, and abusing him is probably not the best way. Some of AFBorchert's suggestions above are much more reasonable. It's hard to escape the feeling that there's a lot of vindictiveness and cabalism going on here, not to mention unwarranted sanctimony about "lessons (that) need to be learned".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of problematic DR participation

Pieter, and some of those supporting him above, make out that Pieter has a knack for identifying copyright violations (some of which he will undoubtedly find in my contribs after I post this), but it has been my experience that Pieter also has the potential to act in a way in DRs which defy this.

Take for example Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parliament of Georgia and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhukov victory parade.ogg; in which Pieter argues to keep files which are clear copyright violations as laws stand now.

Unfortunately, Pieter tends to engage in personal attacks on other editors, calling them a raft of various things, but the above would show there is a problem with Pieter here that needs to be dealt with. And I am certain that there are other examples of DRs which Pieter has participated in, in which he has clearly "trolled" -- because i can't see any reasonable explanation other than this for such things from a self-proclaimed copyright expert. russavia (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper has been blocked indefinitely

An IP dared to file a deletion request and the uploader not just speedily closed the case by deleting the file but also by blocking Pieter Kuiper indefinitely. If you consider Pieter Kuiper's deletion requests as possibly retaliatory, this should be seen similarly. While there was no much support for my request for an unblock there was neither support for an extended blocking period above at a time where these IP activities were already well known. There was no rush in turning the month-long block into an indefinite block. There was a time at Commons where we acted in consensus. We should return to this. A consensus sends a much clearer message and gives the necessary support for the blocking admin. Such bad blocks as this are, however, much worse than any possibly perceived annoyance when Pieter Kuiper filed deletion requests.

Hence, I suggest to return to the previous month-long block and then to consider in consensus how to proceed with Pieter Kuiper. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Indef is not eternal. Until the discussion here is complete and Peiter Kuiper is seen to stop using IP addresses to continue his disruptive behaviour, there seems no benefit in changing an indef into a specific block period. --Fæ (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Fae. I take your point, AFBorchert, but Pieter's continuing block evasion merits a response, and turning the block into an indefinite (not permanent) one is a reasonable response to the nature and extent of the socking. It means he'll need to file a successful unblock request, instead of merely wait until the block expires whilst continuing via IP the behaviour he was blocked for. In a sense, this may even help Pieter by taking away the illusion that the course he has adopted is a remotely sustainable one. Rd232 (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Indef is not the correct outcome however I would like to see some indication of change in the way PK does things - the approach is not good though I still say the work is valid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Herby - most certainly NOT the proper way to proceed. Also, block/desysop the person who extended the block to indef after having their copyvios pointed out for abusing admin tools. Duh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ottava Rima

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.

This has been open long enough, and consensus here supports unblocking Ottava Rima with the conditions detailed by AFBorchert below. The restrictions will be listed at Commons:Editing restrictions and on the user's talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ottava Rima was blocked indefinitely in January as a result of this long discussion. In his rationale for this block, 99of9 wrote

On the other hand, if there is a willingness to admit to the disruption, I think a one month block is entirely sufficient.

This and the conditions for an unblock appear now to be adressed by Ottava Rima:

I am sorry and I deeply regret my actions in late December/early January where I entered into an excessive combative interaction with multiple admin which detracted from the over all prosperity of the community and disrupted honest discussion about important issues. I resolve that if I am allowed back I would focus primarily on uploading images and not participate in or create "drama."

To me personally this sounds as if Ottava Rima is indeed acknowledging the problems that lead to that block and promising to focus on the upload of archival material of Fort Benning he has been working on in January and which was interrupted by the block. Given this statement, I would suggest to lift this block as I have no reason to doubt his word. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - No, just no. I don't believe this. I don't believe Ottava has changed, and I can't believe we have admins naïve enough to trust him. The guy has a history of trolling, and even a month ago was immediately accusing an admin who declined an unblock request. He is a troll, has always been a troll, and will forever be a troll. See also the "my statement" section in that link: nothing but bile. Keep him indefed. Remove talkpage access. Ban from IRC. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Mattbuck. He showed/shows the same behavior on EN and Meta; getting constantly blocked for personal attacks, apologizes a month later, gets unblocked and repeats the same procedure again. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 09:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I always want to think the best of people, and that they can change. If this statement had been the first we'd heard of Ottava since the January block, I'd seriously consider under what sort of upload-focussed edit restrictions we might conceivably unblock (though I'd want some more discussion with Ottava about past actions). However, given the way the unblock request of a month ago went - well, sorry, I don't believe that Ottava is really ready to avoid drama, even if he is totally sincere in his current statement. If he has files he would like to contribute to Commons, maybe someone else can upload them for him; if he's willing to do that, it would certainly count in his favour for a future unblock request. Rd232 (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, folks. Do you really want to prove Ottava Rimas claim to be correct where he stated that It is pretty obvious that it doesn't matter what I say or do. The case was closed in January with the rationale that the block can be lifted after a month when the problems are acknowledged. Exactly this is the case now. I do not think that this statement came easily nor do I think that he issues such a statement without taking it honestly. Finally, there is no real risk if we unblock him as we can reinstate the block any time. But we hadn't a deal like this before with him, hence we should proceed per AGF and give him the opportunity to complete his interesting Fort Benning project. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it certainly does matter what he says and does. It matters what he said a month ago, it matters what he says now, and it matters what he might be willing to do if he's not unblocked now (in particular, if he's willing to provide files to a third party to upload for him). If he were to engage more extensively and deeply with this discussion, in a really constructive way, that would also help demonstrate that he's both willing and able to put drama behind, and hasn't just wrung an apologetic paragraph out of himself in the hope that everything will be forgiven and forgotten. Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rd232, what do you expect? He acknowledged that he had entered into an excessive combative interaction and he promises now to focus primarily on uploading images and not participate in or create "drama." What do you expect more? Pages of text elaborating this? Rd232, the WMF projects live from putting trust into its editors despite all odds, even if there were unfortunate encounters before. AGF is one of the pillars. We did not went before with Ottava Rima through a cycle at Commons where he after an infinite block acknowledged the drama and promised to avoid this in the future. Please remember also that there were quite a number of voices at the last discussion opposing a block. 99of9s block was obviously an attempt to signal that this must not continue but that there is a path open to return after at least a month has passed. Hence, we are obliged to risk it. He has also a project he wishes to continue and as far as I know he had set his heart on this. If the drama should repeat, it is very likely that an infinite block would be not just reinstated but upheld. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do agree with AFBorchert. If the contributions are positive (& maybe exclude admin board stuff) then all is well, if not then I doubt there would be any real issues with another block. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - AGF is not a suicide pact. A while back Ottava agreed to be unblocked subject to an edit restriction restricting him to the File namespace; this was later repudiated without consequence - see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_32#Breach_of_previous_restrictions. And now you're happy to unblock without even a formal edit restriction, just a mere promise to focus primarily on uploading images and not participate in or create "drama."? Even though just a month ago Ottava was demonstrating some of the same behaviour that got him blocked? Basically, we're expected to believe that from January to April Ottava didn't change one bit, but from April to May, he had an epiphany, and is now New Ottava (TM)? Possible, but unlikely (there's a reason en:Wikipedia:Standard offer refers to 6 months without problems). I'm willing to believe it's the beginning of a change for the better, but not that it's the end - that's just not credible. That's why I'm suggesting he contribute files via someone else uploading, as a demonstration that he is still genuinely interested in contributing, and not just in being vindicated by virtue of unblock (and once vindicated, will soon revert to the old norms). ... Well, if you really want to craft an edit restriction and take responsibility for enforcing it, and Ottava clearly and explicitly accepts it, maybe I'll change my vote. Otherwise, no. Rd232 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, would be for you a restriction sufficient that Ottava Rima must not edit any of the administrative boards at COM:AN and its subpages, much like the other current restriction at Commons:Editing restrictions? --AFBorchert (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, using the same terms as that existing one has an attractive simplicity, I suppose. And I in designing that restriction I did try to make it as practical as possible (to permit DR and user talk discussion especially, because if you're allowing uploads that's probably necessary)... So with some misgivings about the chances of this working out, if you're willing to support such a restriction, and to take responsibility for enforcing it (especially in the sense of mentoring Ottava on how to respect it, if that proves necessary), I can live with that. I'd say offer it to Ottava and see what he says - a public response to that should go some way to showing whether he's ready to turn over a new leaf or not. Rd232 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's a step, but this seems to avoid addressing a lot of the issues that he was blocked for. Most of the people [6] was directed at were not admins, and this response leads me to believe that he thinks that statement unpolitic, not wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OR will probably say I not should contribute to this thread however despite his opinion of me I am quite relaxed about an unblock. It seems that he will either contribute positively to the project - a net plus for everyone, or not in which case another block will occur. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the community wanted unblock him subject to an ironclad upload-focussed edit restriction (something like the current example at Commons:Editing restrictions, but more closely restricted to File: namespace, at least initially), I could live with that. But the likelihood of problems arising again is much too high for comfort - and the amount of time, effort and drama involved if a reblock is necessary is also too high for comfort. I'd be more willing to take the risk with more demonstration of commitment to change than one short paragraph just one month after showing the same old problems. Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support If he causes further discontent, he can be easily reblocked. He gets too much into nitanoid arguments but so do a lot of people on the Wiki, including those opposers who just want to make him crawl.TCO (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "he can be easily reblocked" - doubtful. Very doubtful. Reblock (if it were to prove necessary) would surely be time-consuming and drama-filled, which is why an unblock should not be done lightly (so that hopefully a reblock wouldn't become necessary). Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock per Herby and per TCO. I agree he could be easily reblocked, if necessary. Besides I'd like to point out that admin mattbuck repeatedly has been attacking a blocked editor. Such practice is unexceptable because a blocked editor cannot respond such attacks.
I'd also like to bring up a post one editor left at his English wikipedia page:

"The problem here, is not with the WMF, site rules, or individual editors, but with the contagious witch-hunt mentality of the community. I know, it's easy, and perhaps even fun to ostracize and single an editor out, seduce the masses with promises of drama, and freely harass and attack that poor soul without fear of retribution. During such times, and even in general, we have a tendency to focus on the negative and overlook the positive; stellar contributions are rewarded with silence, and mistakes, regardless of how minute or well-intentioned, are met with aggressive complaints and/or trips to AN/ANI.The thing most people fail to understand is that there is a real person reading all these insults on the other side. Throughout my tenure here, I have seen countless editors, from IPs to Admins, to Arbs, say things or insult others in ways that they would dare not in real life. Such has only become more apparent to me during my break from Wikipedia. I have been actively watching, no, desperately reading and watching various talk pages, discussion boards, and noticeboards, searching for something to wholly prove me wrong. I have not been met with success in my search. Given the current state of things, I believe that Wikipedia is going to destroy itself through mob-mentality and infighting. This project is ill, very ill, and I fear for its future."

Although the above was said about English wikipedia, commons is getting there too.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get it; how does an attack on mattbuck avoid what you're complaining about? In any case, we aren't complaining about OR's mistakes; going back to the original block request and as I mentioned above, even after he was blocked, he consistently engaged in behavior where he turned any discussion into an attack on the other user, often accusing them of willful intent to damage the project. And this half-assed statement dragged out of him after a multiple-month block, doesn't say he was wrong in making accusations; it says that he was wrong in causing drama with admins.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the last months I never saw a constructive collaboration of this user but only barefaced and provocative activity's. If this user wants really to contribute in a positive way he should start with a new account. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wladyslaw, in the last months Ottava has been blocked, so you possibly could not have seen any contributions of the user. Besides he may not open a new account. He's blocked, and opening a new account calls "socking" in wikipedia's language, and make no mistake some users will go after that new account as a pack of rabid dogs as soon as it is discovered, and it will be rather sooner than later even if his behavior will be absolutely perfect. Trust me on that, I know.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of course I meant the months before he was blocked, which one else? If he starts a new account without droping back in his old habits no one will discover him. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wladyslaw, have you read what I quoted above? Here's one more time: "During such times, and even in general, we have a tendency to focus on the negative and overlook the positive". Let's please focus at Ottava's positive contributions, shall we? Anyway what I was trying to say is that: nothing horrible will happen, if Ottava is unblocked. Even, if Ottava is again to engage in the behavior that lead to the block, he could be reblocked. Nothing bad will happen to Commons. It will go on with all its free unfiltered porno and hate propaganda images that are not even added to the right categories, which are the the real problems. So let's give Ottava another chance please. He could be unblocked with restrictions. How about unblock with 2 months ban on all drama boards?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(after EC) Maybe you didn't read what I has written above. I didn't say that he never do positive work, I said that I never perceived that. His agitation was so huge that his positive work became a minor point. As I realized that he also apologiesed at en.wp and after a while nothing has changed I don't understand why this should be different here at commons. Maybe this point I didn't get. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm a bit tired of the argument that just because someone does good work, they're entitled to abuse everyone around them. Perhaps we can set up a fee schedule, this many personal attacks for each 100 pictures uploaded or something?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock subject to edit restriction

Subheader added to clearly distinguish proposals: above, unblock without conditions; below, unblock subject to edit restriction. Rd232 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima has agreed to following restrictions which would be added to Commons:Editing restrictions:

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

These restrictions follow a precedent and were worked out in cooperation with Herbythyme and Rd232 (see above). Hence, I would ask all of you to support an unblock of Ottava Rima under these editing restrictions he agreed to. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Rd232 suggested that I should act as an informal mentor for Ottava Rima. We both accept that. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - maybe I've just missed something, but I never saw the point of the block in the first place. Commons is full of users who are equally or more disruptive (hell, one of our 'crats - Russavia - is banned for a year on en.wp, and Fry1989 ~~engages~~ used to engage in a personal attack ~~almost every time he opens~~ frequently and he ~~doesn't~~ didn't even apologize for it). Besides, I would totally support the idea that, if he has even a hint of a personal attack from now on, anyone can ban him on sight. w:WP:ROPE applies here perfectly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've been holding back on this one for 3 days. First night I saw this, I thought "oh hell no". The next day after thinking about it more, I came to the conclusion of a cautious support for an unblock, and now I'm not so sure again. However, I would like to ask Magog the Ogre to stick to factually correct statements when he chooses to include other users as a comparison. If he can link even ONE actual personal attack I've made inthe last 3 months (a broad enough period of time I would think), I will personally apologize to both the person I attacked and to Magog. But considering I only get in disputes with other users about 1/9th of the time of all my edits here, and my 3 years on Commons is littered with "please" and "thank you", I'd suggest that statements like "Fry1989 engages in a personal attack almost every time he opens his mouth" should be kept out of this. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've changed it to past tense and toned it down. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The user claims that he won't repeat the issues from the past. I think that we should generally try to AGF when a user makes such a statement. If issues occur, it is easy to block the user again. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most of my interctions with Ottava have been negative, and I'm not really sure a leopard can change its spots, however I think he deserves a single last chance, that he be unblocked with a short tight leash, and that the indef block becomes permanent for any trangression at all.--KTo288 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as Ottava Riema him-/herself assumes good faith, does not take each little disagreement for a large disruption of the work flow of Commons and refrains from misinterpreting what the other party said (just to make it explicit), maybe. Uploading good, free files is no problem and seldom requires interaction with other contributors. -- RE rillke questions? 15:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We are only human. I agree to give Ottava Rima second chances under conditions. Geagea (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock subject to edit restrictions as specified. I sincerely hope that this works out, and we don't end up regretting this. Best of luck to all of us... Rd232 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for clarity - I do support this. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support He has talked the right talk, now we need to see him walk the right walk. Ottava, please note that although the restrictions may be lifted after three months, I take your statement as a long term commitment. --99of9 (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. seems a reasonable approach. --Túrelio (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated discussion on the meaning of the word "indefinite"

*

Comment I don't know nothing about this history, don't know that user, and what he did, but if he was blocked indefinitely, maybe Admins had some reasons for that, and, I guess, decide this after a long evaluation process (discussions, debates, votes, warnings, short blocks etc)... And now, as for me, poor anonymous user, what means "indefinitely" in "Commons" english ? Nothing but "temporary", I'm afraid... Please remain constant in your decisions if you want to remain credible. Only my opinion, and nothing personal against the user himself nor the administrators. Thank you. --Jebulon (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Please be refered to this qualification by the blocking admin 99of9 which concluded the long discussion. This qualification started with This block is listed as indefinite, but can be lifted any time after 1 month if it is agreed in a public discussion that Ottava meets the following conditions, followed by some conditions. We are currently discussing here whether they are met or not. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, thanks for explanations. One of you gave me the same in french on my talk page. I understand better now. My issue was with the use of the word "indefinite"...--Jebulon (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are not alone, Jebulon. It took me years on Commons to finally realize that indefinite means something like "not clearly defined or determined" in the context of blocks. Initially, I thought it meant forever or for an inifite amount of time. Nowadays I think about it like "a block until it is likely that the circumstances which caused the disruptions leading to the block will not happen again". It is these nuances which are sometimes so hard to grasp for us non-native English speaking users, and which can cause confusion and misunderstandings. --Slaunger (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Rodrigo Mayared

Uploading copyright violations only. feydey ^(talk) 20:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads nuked, let's see what comes next. --Denniss (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joaquotv

Uploading not free images. feydey ^(talk) 20:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads nuked, final warning issued. The next copyvio will result in a block. --Denniss (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magideleon

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

Once again, Magideleon is uploading non-free images, and insults others, as can be seen on File:Cuarta.jpg file description. Ralgis 21:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked - I actually did that before I saw this topic, after I noticed your copyvio messages. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr. Anannt Sharma

Moved from Commons talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Rd232 (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Anannt Sharma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) i nominated his uploads for deletion since they are out of project scope. After all, we are not a file hosting service...--Trex2001 (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:LucasHammar

LucasHammar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Severeal of his uploads have been nominated for deletion. He continues to remove DRs from the files (like here) and ignores any warnings on his talkpage by just deleting them.

See also the discussion on his files here.

--Trex2001 (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

Comment The notices on his talkpage have only informed him that files have been proposed for deletion. COM:TALK#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page? suggests that it is fine (but not recommended) to remove text from your own page, and there wasn't really any discussion going on there anyway; the discussion takes place elsewhere. He hasn't been asked to stop removing {{Delete}} templates from file information pages. Maybe he just doesn't know how the process works. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

would Template:Dont remove warnings be appropriate then?--Trex2001 (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

forget it, user has been warned now--Trex2001 (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you you are looking for autotranslated user messages: Help:Gadget-UserMessages -- RE rillke questions? 13:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a Swedish user. English is then normally not a problem. The name is also typical Swedish. -- Lavallen 13:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Rillke for the heads up--Trex2001 (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User continues uploading logos, issued final warning.--Trex2001 (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Satvik Varma

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

userpage is a complete resume, only upload is a profile picture of the user. In total, i would consider this an advertisement, so i warned him.--Trex2001 (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, user even tries/tried to install another promotional article in en wiki. --Denniss (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr roy

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

several of his uploads got deleted already because out of project scope. Warning issued. There are at least 20 or so images left.--Trex2001 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rest have now been deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 14:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pz3190

Pz3190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user insists in uploading a non-free logo: File:CNT EP IMAGE.svg besides warnings. Ralgis 22:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RossTheBoss

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

Could you please keep an eye on him? He has recently uploaded pictures of celebrities and singers, most likely to have all rights reserved. One of his sources may be a flickr washing account (pictures with Copyright watermarks released under creative Commons licence). Thanks!--Ileana n (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Wpedzich MorganKevinJ^(talk) 01:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user uploads his files with his real name Peter van der Sluijs

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.

Mass DR is now closed, nothing more to be done here. russavia (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Almost all his uploads are pictures of women from behind with the same description that walking or jogging is good for constipation. Others are pencil sketches of women sitting in the toilet. No {{Copyvio}} issues here but I guess the uploads are mostly {{Out of scope}}. His talk page is full of deletion requests. Does this require a user warning? --Sreejith K (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user uses the account Dodoman on the Dutch Wikipedia. Trijnstel_talk 20:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a warning to this user, we shouldn't accept such an attitude toward women. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using file names like these for such images is indeed curious. Yesterday I aked him on his talk page if he wants to write different file descriptions. After that he used different file names of images with jogging women. --High Contrast (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like his uploads have been nominated for mass deletion. Kaldari (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by his talk page, it looks like he's had dozens of files previously deleted, but has never responded to any of the deletion nominations or comments on his talk page. I'm having a hard time believing this user is contributing in good faith. Kaldari (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a warning on their talk page. Kaldari (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only nominated from about the last month, actually already too much for a manageable DR. But an administrator should feel welcome to deleted the older files as well. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No idea if it's important, but he did reply on my user talk page on nlwiki a few months ago. Perhaps he doesn't speak English? Trijnstel_talk 11:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does he write captions to his image uploads in English?? This user comes across as ultra-creepy, which is not in itself against Commons policies (though some of the concrete manifestations and realizations of such generalized creepiness may be). AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the NL message I think English may not be the main problem. He seems to have severe difficulties understanding the Wiki system. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He says that he suffers from autism due to birth complications in his interview to kunstzinnig.nl, and obviously he really has communication problems -- could you simply leave that guy alone? Yes, he uploaded bunch of out of scope pictures, but also he uploaded a lot of great in scope photos (some of them were grabbed by external sites already), he obviously has good intentions about Commons, he really can help and helps to Commons. He messes some things up, but not that much more than some admins and some developers, not enough to assume his bad faith. I agree, it's cool to be a 20-year old without any health or any other problem, but could you all try to tolerate other people who do not fit in that category? --Trycatch (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if he has problems in life, but he consistently refused to engage in any form of communication about a series of small problems, until all the small problems had built up into a medium-large problem, which other people then had to deal with. AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ольга Тихонова

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

Copyvio after the last warning. Kobac (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. - A.Savin 08:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Epsylob

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

user has been warned about copyvios(uploads from non-free software screenshots, images found on the net....)--Trex2001 (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and continues to do so.--Trex2001 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Herbythyme for 1 week. Trijnstel_talk 11:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Supermæn & his bot User:OnBot

This user and bot committed vandalism here (this four letter words by OnBot) and here (militan slogan by Supermæn). I asked him about these edits in Turkish Wikipedia and I understood that these edits were done by intentionally. Takabeg (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits reverted, user warned. Thanks for reporting. Jafeluv (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Min2winit (talk · contribs)

Almost all of his uploads are the result of copyright infringement (check his talk page). Please either block him or restrict him from uploading any further files on Commons.—Bill william compton^Talk 12:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warned MorganKevinJ^(talk) 01:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bengt Nyman (talk · contribs)

User at will and intentionally creates duplicate categories such as Category:Kronprinsessan Victoria and Category:Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden (see talk pages there). I have fixed the first one and feel h/s should be asked to fix the other one h-self. No use posting anything (other that a tag about this thread) on h talk page, it seems, since h/s removes everything there. Potential big and expanding problem if it continues. User uploads valuable photos h/s takes h-self, but needs guidance rather urgently. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't how to handle the user, but for the categories of the crown princess, a {{Category redirect}} to Category:Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden where most of the pictures are? --MagnusA (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but shouldn't the images be adjusted first so there are no images attached to the redirect? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Doesn't a bot move them automatically if {{Category redirect}} is added? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind, all moved manually using Hotcat, since they needed another fix too. They listed the generic Category:Royalty of Sweden which is superfluous since the Crown Princess category already belongs to that category (if you go up a few levels in the category tree). On the other hand, all of the photos show Category:Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland, but his category wasn't listed at all. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zscout370

Zscout370 (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes)

I realize commons community is incapable of reacting to problematic behaviour but... Zscout370 seems to have a serious problem in restraint on using Sysop tools as visible in File:Flag of Israel.svg. He not only reverted my introduction of information template (only to revert himself (kinda)) but also protected the page. Afterwards he blocked me for a day. Zscout370 did not notify me on my talk page and I noticed the warning on his talk page after I had already made my edit and would have willingly stop prior.

My edit to the page that got me blocked: 18:56, 8 June 2012
When I noticed the warning on Zscout370's talk page: 18:58, 8 June 2012

I was replacing a few instances of {{Ku}} with {{Ckb}} on pages where the text is entirely in Arabic script. Both templates read the same thing but ckb properly sorts text in rtl and displays a matching script. Both templates display the same word.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You been told at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Discussion to not make the changes, you been told on my talk page to not make changes, and yet you still did it. You were only blocked for maybe an hour or so. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[7] 19:00, 8 June 2012 Zscout370 (talk | contribs) blocked とある白い猫 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation blocked) (Edit warring after warnings: You been told to stop with the Kurdish changes; you still did it.)

Your block was for a day and that discussion had nothing to do with ckb language code replacement.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It does. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Toaru-whatever -- I realize that you feel extremely passionate about this issue (for whatever reason), but there seems to be very little point in setting up structures on Commons which contradict the decisions which have been arrived at concerning already-established Wikipedias... AnonMoos (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anon-whatever. I am not passionate. I just see a technical problem that has a negative impact on commons. The current commons template structure contradicts existing structure of said wikipedias as we do have a w:ckb that separated from w:ku in 2010. We are banning the use of language codes for ckb as users will be blocked for using {{Ckb}} in place of {{Ku}} when appropriate. There was no consensus to ban the use of {{Ckb}} on commons and any user can update language codes to something more appropriate. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 21:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a matter of ku vs ckb. One is problematic. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Users will not be blocked for using ckb in place of ku where appropriate. If someone is translating descriptions or writing original ones and uses ckb, nobody is going to second-guess them. But you started a discussion on the Village Pump, and when nobody, including the Kurdish speakers, responded positively, you went ahead with your changes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for that reason. Those replacements were appropriate. The idea was to generate a few examples on how little was going to change should the updates were made. It was for demonstration purposes. I was going to stop after 10 examples even if I was not blocked for it. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you were blocked for replacing ku with ckb, not for using ckb.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? There is no point in using ku for text that is in ckb. This is like insisting on tagging something as Chinese when you know the text is in Japanese. Japanese uses Chinese characters but it shouldn't be tagged as Chinese. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads

Dukes85 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

I think all of his uploads are copyvio (some are already deleted/nominated), but I'm not sure. Could someone else take a look at it please? Thanks. Trijnstel_talk 21:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All either npd or nsd. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fastily

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

Fastily uploaded a presentation from UCSD, claiming it to be his own work. Pieter Kuiper emailed his colleage at UCSD and received apparently a response according to which no permission was given by the presenters. Pieter Kuiper filed then a deletion request as IP which was subsequently speedily closed with delete by Fastily with the comment fair enough. But Fastily went on by blocking not just the IP but also Pieter Kuiper indefinitely for block evasion. I find this very troublesome. It is bad enough to have apparently uploaded a copyvio but to block the messenger indefinitely for telling this is something which surely should have left to other admins or some consensus finding process at this board. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For better or for worse, DR reason adjusted. Do what you will with the blocks (which I believe, involved or not, are inherently correct in terms of policy), but with the understanding that I shall be abstaining from any further contributions to this messy affair. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very very bad block indeed in that situation --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, regarding your DR reason adjustment: How do you come to the conclusion that a speech is in the public domain or can be happily derived from just because it has been held at a public place? --AFBorchert (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly, I was mistaken, and I am quite happy to admit that error. Of course, in my defense, I've only been uploading videos since the beginning of May of this year, and am by no means an expert on that subject matter. I'll be reading up on those policies in the meantime. On a related note, I wish to make it clear that I don't have any issues with the editors currently combing through the several thousand of files I've contributed to this project. Being human, I will inevitably err (in good faith of course) with some of my uploads, and I would definitely like to be notified, in a friendly manner, about questionable uploads. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes, Fastily, and we should indeed take the opportunity to learn something from it. What me admittedly upset here is that you blocked the messenger. I know that PK is no saint but I think that this was the wrong block by the wrong admin at the wrong time. Would it be an option for you to revert the indefinite block such that your previous block would be reinstantiated (which would expire on July 7th)? Then we could close this here, I think. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, if I may, I wish to recuse myself from making any new block-related decisions pertaining to PK and delegate that matter to be resolved by the community. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think any administrator should not need to be remembered by others never to use the block buttons if you are an involved party. Please refrain from such a doubtful usage of your tools. Blocks like this are far from helpful in gaining community trust. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my recusal from further administrative action. Quite fair, no? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you will therefore revert your block under the circumstances. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, and nor will I be taking any further action. The fact of the matter is, I'm done with this fiasco, and plan on returning to quietly developing bots and contributing files in the background. I have little interest in petty drama, and more than enough has been instigated on my behalf. I'm removing myself from this toxic equation, so that perhaps others will follow suite, allowing more reasonably minded individuals more room to quickly resolve the matter at hand. Last I checked, the one thing that differentiates en.wikipedia from commons is the atmosphere of collegiality we possess here. I would like to think that it still exists and that we should all be doing something productive with our time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 12:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And so the witch hunt begins. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no intention of witch hunting anyone but a block such as this was utterly wrong under the circumstances - I am sure you would not place such a block when you were is what appears to be a rather unpleasant dispute with a user? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 492: / Line 492: @@
 :::::::Hence my recusal from further administrative action.  Quite fair, no? -'''[[User:Fastily|<span style='font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; color:#4B0082'><big>F</big><small>ASTILY</small></span>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Fastily|<span style = 'color:#4B0082'>(TALK)</span>]]</small></sup> 11:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 ::::::::I assume you will therefore revert your block under the circumstances. --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 12:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
+:::::::::Nope, and nor will I be taking any further action. The fact of the matter is, I'm done with this fiasco, and plan on returning to quietly developing bots and contributing files in the background.  I have little interest in petty drama, and more than enough has been instigated on my behalf.  I'm removing myself from this toxic equation, so that perhaps others will follow suite, allowing more reasonably minded individuals more room to quickly resolve the matter at hand.  Last I checked, the one thing that differentiates en.wikipedia from commons is the atmosphere of collegiality we possess here.  I would like to think that it still exists and that we should all be doing something productive with our time.  -'''[[User:Fastily|<span style='font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; color:#4B0082'><big>F</big><small>ASTILY</small></span>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Fastily|<span style = 'color:#4B0082'>(TALK)</span>]]</small></sup> 12:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 :And so the witch hunt begins. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 12:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 ::I've no intention of witch hunting anyone but a block such as this was utterly wrong under the circumstances - I am sure you would not place such a block when you were is what appears to be a rather unpleasant dispute with a user? --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 12:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:14, 10 June 2012

Contents

User:Pieter Kuiper

IP socks

Ban Pieter Kuiper from Commons:Deletion requests for a duration of 1 year

Ban Pieter Kuiper from Commons for a duration of 6 months

Speedy-close bad-faith nominations by Pieter Kuiper or his socks/impersonators regardless of merit

Anyone who oppose this gets a Pieter Kuiper-like treatment

Establish a process where users can volunteer for a copyright review

Unblock Pieter Kuiper now

Examples of problematic DR participation

Pieter Kuiper has been blocked indefinitely

User:Ottava Rima

Unblock subject to edit restriction

User:Rodrigo Mayared

User:Joaquotv

Magideleon

User:Dr. Anannt Sharma

User:LucasHammar

User:Satvik Varma

User:Mr roy

Pz3190

RossTheBoss

This user uploads his files with his real name Peter van der Sluijs

User:Ольга Тихонова

User:Epsylob

User:Supermæn & his bot User:OnBot

Min2winit (talk · contribs)

Bengt Nyman (talk · contribs)

Zscout370

Copyvio uploads

User:Fastily

Navigation menu

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:14, 10 June 2012

IP socks

Ban Pieter Kuiper from Commons:Deletion requests for a duration of 1 year

Ban Pieter Kuiper from Commons for a duration of 6 months

Speedy-close bad-faith nominations by Pieter Kuiper or his socks/impersonators regardless of merit

Anyone who oppose this gets a Pieter Kuiper-like treatment

Establish a process where users can volunteer for a copyright review

Unblock Pieter Kuiper now

Examples of problematic DR participation

Pieter Kuiper has been blocked indefinitely

Unblock subject to edit restriction

Magideleon

Pz3190

RossTheBoss

This user uploads his files with his real name Peter van der Sluijs

User:Supermæn & his bot User:OnBot

Min2winit (talk · contribs)

Bengt Nyman (talk · contribs)

Zscout370

Copyvio uploads

Navigation menu

Search