Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 11

Disco mart (talk · contribs)

After being warned and having eight files deleted as copyright violations this user continues to upload copyvio photos. Benchill (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Blocked, deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Benchill (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Wappen von Alverdissen.svg

Hello Admin, Several times i've tried to upload Wappen von Alverdissen.svg, but it doesn't work. Now I've substituted the svg-file with Wappen von Alverdissen.png. Please delete the svg-file, for it's of no use. Greetings from Alverdissen --CatMan61 (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Just know that it's not possible (nor is it useful in this case) for Commons to display SVGs importing PNG files (simply because the PNG file is on your hard drive only). –Tryphon^☂ 09:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Maxy1992 uploading others' images as own work

I've just discovered that User:Maxy1992 has been uploading others' images as his/her own work and "releasing" them under the wrong licenses. Check File:Meridian Bridge.jpg and en:File:Meridian Bridge.jpg for an example: it's freely licensed at en:wp, but it's not under the CC-0 license and it's by a different photographer. The same goes for File:Coldwater Covered Bridge.jpg (en:File:ColdwaterCB.jpg) and File:Pere Marquette 1225.jpg (en:File:PM1225.jpg), and I'm sure that there are many others. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. Non of the images is used in any project. Local duplicates on Wikipedia not deleted, not even marked with NowCommons, so nothing lost. All self-created images have valid deletion requests. So simple sollution to save work: I will nuke the uploads and inform the uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. --Martin H. (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Duplication of images

Hello!

I come here to ask for assistance in a case of duplication of images. I found that the User:Jocelio created hundreds of duplicates of images of coats of arms and flags of Brazilian cities, all to standardize the names of the files in its own way. Please check the contributions of the user.

I propose the immediate deletion of all the duplicate images that the User:Jocelio created. Since we are dealing with so many images, I just thought it was better to ask for assistance here. Thank you for your attention. Agente Rolf (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User changing licensing info

Can somebody please take a look at Special:Contributions/87.250.34.20? This is obviously w:en:User:LukaP, who I notified earlier today that the "wikipedia-only" permissions he had obtained from the owner of some photographs wasn't sufficient; now he's making an addition to the licensing that is, of course, still not sufficient. Either he has made an admirable but unfortunately not too well-informed effort at hunting down the same contact person at the copyright owners once more (and surprisingly succeeded within a matter of four hours, outside normal office hours); or he is just making these licenses up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Lemuria.jpg

Hi. I have a conflict with this file File:Lemuria.jpg. It appears as a map in Commons (which I want) but as a album cover in English Wikipedia. Can anyone sort this out? Verne Equinox (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

de-wiki has yet another image with the same name. Looks like no one is using the current Commons image, so I'd suggest we move the commons image to File:Churchward Lemuria map.jpg. Anyone have a problem with that? - Jmabel ! talk 03:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and moved it to File:Lemuria map.jpg, but your suggested name is fine with me. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Martin H.

This user deleted all files I posted yesterday, and several other I've uploaded, claiming they all are copyright violations, though I had a history of abuse of copyright, I'm trying to fix it. First of all I shall explain what happened, a long time I started to upload some photos because I thought Wikimedia, instead of Wikipedia, was the right place to upload pictures to be used in wikipedia, but a user warned me that it was wrong, that here only free pictures are accepted, pictures that don't have copyright holder, or the copyright holder won't ask for any profit (thus making it free), sometime later I re-uploaded other picture, because I found it somewhere in the internet, and I thought it was free, an admin then deleted the picture because I needed the authorization from the author, so I made a bad mistake by uploading it into Flickr and doing what you call Flickrwashing, then User:Martin H. deleted it started to watch me, because of those actions I got a bad reputation, however I've changed my behavior, trying to clean my past, I've been uploading pictures of my own work, some pictures I also posted in TwitPic or Tweetphotos because either I collaborate or either I give them away (even in other sites), but yesterday I posted pictures from an event through my mobile directly into TwitPic, because someone in there asked me to do it so, then when I got home I took pictures from my phone and uploaded them on Flickr, one of the pics I didnt upload using bot, then it went through human review and Martin H. got in contact with it, and he went into madness thinking that I was repeating my last acts and deleted not only those, but every single photo I've uploaded so far, he claims that because the filenames are differents the sites I posted are the source, however Wikimedia didn't allow me to upload using original filenames because they are blacklisted (along with other unuseful claims from his part), we engaged a discussion and I proved him that in fact I owned those photos, however he didn't make a rollback stating that my entire conversation was a playground and some divergences in the different version of my editions were relevant for the end of the discussion. Even another editor interfered into the discussion, claiming that I gave enough proves. Not only he didnt rollback, but he made statements (with offensive intention) about me, and some silly jokes, not a good behavior for an Admin. Eduemoni (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Anything I said here can be viewed here User_talk:Martin_H.#Hello_Martin.2C_complain_about_deletion_of_several_images. Eduemoni (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As Eduemoni said the file history does not look good. But I looked at some of the images and the proof of copyvio. Flickrimages have no watermark but the ones on www.letoyanews.com does. Also the images on Flickr are uploaded before the ones on www.letoyanews.com. Eduemoni has uploaded a pic showing he does have a camera of the type that shot the disputed images. Well if you know how you probably could fake it all.

But it seems to me that Martin H does not trust or respect Eduemoni so no matter what Eduemoni says or does then Martin would not trust it. As long as users are not blocked/banned I think they should have a chance. I therefore suggest that some other and not involved admin checks the images that Eduemoni made/uploaded. I tried to look at it myself but I have no real experience as "this type of detective". --MGA73 (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I let Martin H. know about this discussion. Wknight94 ^talk 11:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It took me some time to find out the correct origin of the image, the source letoyanews.com was my first idea but it is not the original source. I agree to the suggestion by MGA73 that someone else have a second look at this flickr uploads and will only adress two arguments by Eduemoni here:
1. Eduemone says, he proved that the images on flickr are his images and that his flickr account is not created simply for flickrwashing. However, I found

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/32904136@N02/4073838344/ - http://tweetphoto.com/ymj9aca1 (Centric TV on twitter, Centric TV hosted this event)
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/32904136@N02/3954726452/ - "thefabempire" from September 1, dc fab made an interview with LeToya, the subject here.

In the following Eduemone served some stories that he is the "official photo collaborator" of LeToya and that he attendes her events and provides low quality images to other media. So he attendet the red carpet of the event "Soul Train Award" in Atlanta on November 3 2009. He uploaded, 6 hours after the beginning of the event, File:App12031491257291180.jpg here and included it in Wikipedia minutes later - from an Brazilian IP. I called this priceless because Eduemoni comes from Brazil.
2. He said I not give him a chance, well, I gave him a chance at some point - of course to reubild trust with me it needs something. The photostream on Flickr is a fan account. He should simply upload something other created in Atlanta on 11-03. The image he provided... there is an reflection on his monitor. --Martin H. (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the pic after I arrived at home, the picture I provided later is not a reflection of my monitor, it was shot few minutes later the other pictures, but it was distorted so I didnt upload it nor in commons, nor in flickr, so are you a professional image analyzer? And about this Eduemoni, this account in wikimedia is shared (what is not against the rules), although the wikipedia is not (in wikipedia sharing an account is against the rules w:en:WP:NOSHARE), I use this account because a brazilian guy told me this photo concern over LeToya's article, and the free community, LeToya has no free photos shared or posted into Commons. Eduemoni (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

@Eduemoni, in order to understand you correct: what you are saying is that en:User:Eduemoni is a shared account, correct? --Túrelio (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, this (talk) is not shared, this one (Eduemoni) used to be. Eduemoni (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Eduemoni account on en.wp is only one evidence for Eduemoni beeing from brazil, but thats not important. You included the image with an brazilian IP in Wikipedia, thats the point. --Martin H. (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an odd story, doesn't it? "Hi Eduemoni, this is LeToya. Can you come from Brazil to the awards show in Atlanta and take some low-quality blurry images for me, please? Just make sure they're really blurry and low-quality, because I can't find anyone else in Atlanta to take pictures as blurry as you do. Thanks!" Very odd. Wknight94 ^talk 12:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Eduemoni, you are claiming that LeToya asks you to attend events and take pictures? Can someone in her camp confirm this to COM:OTRS? Wknight94 ^talk 11:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I already contacted her, she knows the situation, I'll post details later. Eduemoni (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all. I suggest you do not share account anymore. You can get an account for free so no need to make things more complicated. --MGA73 (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I'll create a new account and leave this one, also I'll create another flickr account, maybe clean things up. Eduemoni (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The photo you uploaded to demonstrate that you attendet the event is a monitor photo of this youtube video, the corresponding blog entry is here, the authorship of the video is doubtlessly clear. There is nothing correct with any of your claims. So no, do not create a new account, do not again try to flickrwash, do not copy anymore or you will be blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your statement does not make sense at all, but I already asked LeToya to make an OTRS, so this may prove my acts. Eduemoni (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats & uncivil behavior

See User talk:Pauk#File:T64 21.jpg. User Pauk removed a copyright watermark from image made by Чобиток Василий. Чобиток Василий answered by making a legal threat, asking Pauk to submit his personal information so Чобиток Василий can sue him over copyright infringement. Also the behavior of Чобиток Василий is grossly incivil: derogatory statements and all that. Чобиток Василий was blocked indefinitly on ru-wiki for making legal threats, now the situation needs attention of Commons admins. --Grebenkov (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually can't find an explicit legal threat, but I'm using Google Translate. I think we need a ru speaking admin to take a look. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Translation: «In case you don't comply with request please e-mail to chobitok@gmail.com your personal details, address and postal address of the nearest to your local court of general jurisdiction. Please provide the requested information, in due time, you will be invited to the court, so you can explain your actions there». Original text: «В случае отказа прошу электронной почтой на адрес chobitok@gmail.com сообщить Ваши паспортные данные, почтовый адрес и почтовый адрес ближайшего к Вам местного суда общей юрисдикции... Сообщите, пожалуйста, требуемую информацию, пройдет время, Вас пригласят, и Вы популярно объясните суду...». --Grebenkov (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

He also tagged File:Allers 1894 Selbstportrait.jpg and File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir 127.jpg with {{Watermark}} just to prove a point. When he was constantly reverting File:T64 21.jpg, I opted for protecting the file instead of blocking him, hoping that he would just let it go. But if he keeps up with this behavior, a short block might be necessary. –Tryphon^☂ 15:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Someone should explain to him in his own language just what free licensing is all about. If he doesn't like to allow derivative works then he isn't welcome here. Also, I've nominated the file for deletion, the license was never really truly free and we shouldn't host it. -Nard the Bard 19:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Lichtgestalt (talk · contribs) - forced rename

Another user on de.wp, de:User:Lichtgestalt (no SUL, inactive user) is acting under his real name with disclosed identity. As the user on Commons is only uploading images of his penis I see possible confusions between this two persons and that the penis images of Commons User:Lichtgestalt denigrate de:User:Lichtgestalt. Is it covered by our policy to force a user rename? --Martin H. (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I don't think a forced rename is needed a user doesn't own a name and he is inactive so he doesn't need the name here on Commons.

As far as I can say it would be okay for every user to claim a username on every wiki as long as it isn't in use.

Best regards,

Huib talk 20:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Kikijaco (talk · contribs)

File:File0042.jpg and File:File0051.jpg (again). Please stop this edit war. It really sucks. -- Common Good (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It really sucks are nice words for those files, I openend them and didn't know what the files where all about, but now I know that it aren't really files that you can watch with your family on the couch.

I protected both the files for 2 weeks, and reverted them to the original state.

Best regards,

Huib talk 21:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Images in Category:SS Lurline

Found images not working in my browser (Firefox) in Category:SS Lurline. No idea how to solve this. Not my pictures, anyway. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Only the thumbs aren't working since it has more than 12.5 million pixels and the generator cant make a thumb. When you open the thumb as full screen it will work just fine :)

Best regards,

Huib talk 20:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone should really ask uploader to fix the image descriptions. "to be added" is not a valid source. -Nard the Bard 20:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Gabrielle Juan Rivers

I don't know who this nut is, but he's spewing biblical fire and brimstone on my talk page. No other edits other than to inadvertently create a talk page under the misspelling of my username. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

imposter?

Hector Caruncho (talk · contribs) is probably an imposter (same name) of the Prof. Héctor Caruncho (mentioned in this article). The user uploaded 1 copyviolating image and used it for an attack article on :es (es:Hector caruncho). Should we ban him as imposter? --Túrelio (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oirat's no-permission tags

Can someone revert the no-permission tags the Oirat (talk · contribs) has been spamming on random(?) images? There are also lots of inappropriate categorizations in his history. (Sorry, I do not have time now.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not all need to be reverted, I found one file so far that was okay to tag as needing permission, but I left him a note regarding this thread, and asking them to be more careful. Killiondude (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This user has reverted comments by affected uploaders on his talk page. His actions are strongly suggestive of vandalism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now they seem to be "misguided" more than "vandalizing". They did point out a couple of images that needed to be deleted, File:Boca 89-92.jpg and File:Ricky y sol.jpg. I've watchlisted their talk page. Hopefully they'll communicate. If they don't stop improperly adding "no permission" tags, then maybe they need a short block. Especially since I'm going to bed soon. Killiondude (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When he flagged my new image, I was worried about his empty talk page too, but it turns out it wasn't a revert, he moved it to his talk archive page: User_talk:Oirat/archive1. I agree that he's probably misguided - my username is not the same as my Author attribution name, so he might have thought I uploaded someone else's image. 99of9 (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not add any more no-permission tags to images. Oirat (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Eubulides

I am an admin over at the English Wikipedia. We have problems with Eubulides (talk · contribs). He is trying to do copyright infringement on a massive scale. The part that affects Commons is that he is uploading images here with the wrong licenses and without attribution.

He wants to unlink all icons used on enwp, for instance in different kinds of message boxes. His reason is to make the boxes more accessible to blind users, so that their image links aren't read out in screen readers. But as you guys know we are only allowed to unlink public domain images, since pretty much all other licenses require attribution and require that one can find out what license the image has. When we refuse him to unlink an image, he does this:

1. He draws a copy of the old image. That is, he paints a new very similar version.
2. He uploads it here (Commons).
3. He sets the license to "public domain".
4. He adds a description that he made the image entirely by himself. He does not attribute the author(s) of the image he copied.
5. He then comes back to enwp and tries to make people use his new "PD" image as icon, so it can be used without a link.

No matter how much we try to explain to him he shows a total disregard for copyright, attribution and procedures here at Commons and at enwp.

For instance, one case involves his image File:Portal-puzzle.svg , which is his remake of File:Portal icon.svg / File:Portal.svg . When I added the {{No license}} tag and an explanation to the image page here at Commons he removed it and put it on the talk page of the image: File talk:Portal-puzzle.svg. He wants to use it in our portal box over at enwp, see w:Template talk:Portal#Remove link from image, for accessibility.

I have also reported to w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Eubulides.

I would appreciate if you guys investigated his image uploads here and do what ever your procedures say you should do with them and with him. I'm sorry that I'm not read up on the procedures regarding this, I was just made an admin at enwp since I handle high-risk templates. (The templates I code tend to become very popular, so they get protected.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that he has not started editing templates on Commons yet, see [1]. Sv1xv (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For the example you gave, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portal-puzzle.svg. I think you are misunderstanding what a derivative work is. Taking a picture of a copyrighted artwork is a derivative work, because it integrates copyrighted elements. Making an image all by yourself, inspired by a concept you saw in a copyrighted image, is not a derivative work, hence not a copyright violation of that image. You cannot copyright concepts such as keyhole in a puzzle piece. Think of Jerry and Mickey Mouse: they share the concept of being anthropomorphic mice, but are not a copyright infringement of one another. –Tryphon^☂ 09:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Karelj (talk · contribs)

On 15th November he made again tens of edits which consist in removing of geographic categories from images mostly. He has obsession that images of signs, city mobiliary, some architectural or technical details or natural scenes shouldn't be geographically categorized. I and others assert that all such objects and images have a direct relation to specific place and mostly are locally specific or unique.

Besides, in a several cases, he again marked as duplicates images which arent exact duplicates.

Both of these problems were discussed with him several times, however unsuccessfully – see here (16 September), here (8 July), here (26 October 2008) etc. --ŠJů (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Answer amd my statement:

1) There is obsession here, but it is Šjů´s obsession to give category to any trafic sign by the place, where he made photo of it. He is not able to understand such obvious fakt, that sheet of metal, which exists in milions copies almoast all over the word has nothing common with concrete street, where he made photo. The same photo could by made couple meters or thousand kilomeetrs form the first one and all the time, object will be the same. Just trafic sign. Could somebody be such kind and try to explain to him this. I have tried to do this, but with no effect.

2) There is no rule, that Duplicate should be exactly the same images - what he called exact duplicates. If I will take photo of some building, after that I shall made two steps to the left and make another photo - this photoes are duplicates. And that are cases, where I give mark duplicate and I can promise, that I will continue with that. On Commons in now over 5 000 000 images and if everybody will do, what is Šjů doing, Commons will collapse very, very soon! --Karel (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree on both cases. There is nothing at all wrong with categories of traffic sign by place. Do you have evidence of consensus for your opinion? Second, there is a rule that non-exact duplicates should not be marked with a speedy delete {{Duplicate}} tag. They should be brought to COM:DR. Third, where in the world is your evidence that Commons is going to "collapse"?! Is there some file number limit that I'm not aware of? Wknight94 ^talk 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely with User:Wknight94. In wikimedia software, nothing is really deleted, it is just no longer visible, so disputing about items and deletion procedures just take more space without any system space or load gain. Second, allowing personal subjective judgments about almost duplicates, better quality images, marginal quality images, ... opens the door for endless debates (as you demonstrated) without any gain for the project. --Foroa (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Karelj's first argument also assumes that every image only has one use, that of being an example of XYZ road sign etc. Of course that is not true, any single image may have multiple uses. While I personally would not bother to document the location of many things, that doesn't mean that it might not be useful to others for purposes that I have not considered. Having locations on things looses us nothing, and has possible gains in all cases.

There is much confusion about the deletion of images, and an obssession with many about deleting duplicates. Few understand that deletion gains us no space. We delete copyright-violations for obvious reasons. We delete duplicates simply to avoid the waste of time maintaining two identical image pages - the problem is not so much having two identical images, but having two identical image pages containing conflicting information about the same image! In this respect a very important element of deleting duplicates is to first merge the information from both pages (reconciling differences or documenting the different information presented). Of course dissuading people and bots from uploading identical images in the first place is much more useful!. I have just spent many hours preventing many images of old paintings etc from being deleted as 'duplicates'. Yes they are the same painting, but by different people at different time, different lighting, different colours, different licenses. Yes it is a waste of time people uploading almost identical images of the same thing, but it is an even greater waste of time and resources 'deleting' them! </soapbox :-> --Tony Wills (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tony Wills that there is a lot of confusion about applying {{Duplicate}} template, and I am one of the people often adding {{Duplicate}} template to old photographs or paintings in case I find an image which "is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of" another image (quote from {{Duplicate}}). While standardizing some categories containing old paintings and occasionally fixing their descriptions, I found it easier to tag multiple low-res copies of a painting with a {{Duplicate}} than fixing their descriptions and categories. See for example this low-res and high-res version of the same painting. Most of the time inferior copies are deleted but occasionally they are rejected as non-identical duplicates. I do not have strong opinions about keeping or deleting these kind of images, but if the preference is to keep them than text of {{Duplicate}} should be changed to remove reference about applying this template to scaled-down versions of the images. --Jarekt (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm getting way off topic here :-(. But those examples are not scaled up/down versions of the same image let alone exact duplicates. They are different photographs of the same painting. A completely different kettle of fish :-) - different exposures, different colours, different licensing. Exact duplicates are byte by byte identical files or where the file has been digitally scaled up or down - wiki software scales automatically so scaled versions are totally redundant. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly there are exceptions, but for pretty much anything that stays put I'd want location information in the description & category. - Jmabel ! talk 03:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Karelj made yesterday next 3 edits which consist in ungrounded removing of geographic categories from images (of house signs and a street sign). House signs and street signs have an evident and direct relation to specific place and area (city district): removing of geographic categories is almost a vandalism. --ŠJů (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Barkeeper of Sushi

User:Barkeeper of Sushi Vandalism on other user disks - please block and revert. thx. --4028mdk09 (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Handled by rama. Huib talk 13:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

mass deletion self-request User:Marku1988

In this self-rfd Commons:Deletion requests/Images by User:Marku1988, requested by Marku1988 (talk · contribs) who admitted that most of his uploads originally claimed as own work (not the ones where he did quite superb retouching work on images of others) the requester has escalated his request by writing "I will get a lot of trouble if I must invole the copyrightholder I work for. At the moment only my contact person knows. But he give me the deadline 2009-12-01. Please believe me."[2] Though there is still no independent proof for his claim of his not-ownership (and thereby justification of deletion as copyvios), I fear now we have no choice than deletion, in order to avoid harm for the uploader as claimed by himself. --Túrelio (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is against that, there where reasons given to believe its own work, so the right decussion would be keep, but both of us are to involved to make a good decission. Huib talk 13:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Therefore I posted this notice here. Anyway, consensus isn't (always) everything. However, the still unchallenged statement If they are cross at you for what you did to their images, that sounds like justice to me. in the present situation from a user on Commons, gives me the creeps and will surely convince User:Marku1988 to leave this project. --Túrelio (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't you be cross if someone claimed your images as his own, let alone uploading them to a website? I would. 99of9 (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have read the rfd discussion, as one should before commenting, you might have noted that the user rather clearly said (claimed, to be precise) that he is in a dependent situation (must involve the copyrightholder I work for). Would be really nice, if he looses his job/work because of that, but we on Commons (or at least some here) can self-righteously say "we stick to our principles", copyright/policy over people. --Túrelio (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

From your silence I will assume the answer to my question was yes. If that is the case, then my statement about the justice of the image owner being cross is simply what you yourself would do. Regarding possible subsequent consequences of being cross, that is for the owner and Marku to know, and for you to speculate, I do not claim to know. Regarding your question, yes I did read and think through the rfd discussion before commenting - if you would like to understand or challenge my opinions further, I would appreciate a less accusatory tone, especially from an administrator. --99of9 (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what you refer with "your silence" as my comment came only 10 minutes after yours. In case you refer to Wouldn't you be cross ..., well, that depends on your meaning of "being cross". In one of the many cases of copyviolating re-uses of my images, I requested remuneration (as it was a company's website). But even then, I did it in a manner that did not hurt or damage the person responsible or put her wilfully in a difficult situation. The unintended result was that I got a big Thank you from that person and even a bigger compensation than I had asked for. --Túrelio (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to you not answering the question I asked. Thank you for answering now. I stand by my original vote and comment, until such time as he provides further details of his claims, as requested: [3]. --99of9 (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Danifronter (talk · contribs)

... has posted an unblock request on his or her talk page. Could a Spanish-speaking admin take a look at this request? --AFBorchert (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I declined it. Now writing spanish is no fun.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 20:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations

User:Jofab and User:Jofab08 (probably the same person), keeps repeatedly uploading copyrighted photos to the commons, of a mall being renovated in Corpus Christi, Texas. The photos are being used in the en:La Palmera on English Wiki. Most of the photos have originated from the Mall's own website or the local Corpus Christi Caller-Times newspaper website. I have been nominating them for deletion for several days, but the user just keeps reuploading them to the commons, even after having been warned and notified about wiki copyright regulations. --Nsaum75 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nsaum75, thanks for the notice regarding this case. I've speedy deleted the remaining uploads and posted a notice on the two talk pages. Cheers, AFBorchert (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Sethinition, a "new user", has re-uploaded one of the same copyrighted images that were previously uploaded by User:Jofab and User:Jofab08. I plan to raise a SPI case on en:wiki, where the user(s) keep inserting the same images into the article. --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No need for SPI on en.wikipedia, Sockpuppetry by Jofab confirmed. Will block the 2 new accounts to restrict the user on his first account User:Jofab and will give him a final warning. --Martin H. (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper

This user has no understanding of the Israeli law, yet he insists on making changes in Commons:FOP, which contradict the Israeli law. This is after he ignored my question in the talk page about his sources. He is arguing with 2 Israeli layers, and this is impossible. I request any solution that will stop this situation. ברוקולי (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm gonna side with Peter on this one. A quote from some non-existent "Dr Presently" shouldn't go on a policy page, and even if he were real, his opinion is not settled law. -Nard the Bard 18:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It was just a typo. I know about her, and she is very real. Ill check the exact details soon. ברוקולי (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides, there is a discussion in the talk page which he ignores and doing what he wants. ברוקולי (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion you're referring to is not showing a clear consensus either way. I think the best we can conclude from it is that FOP is rather unclear regarding paintings and other 2D artwork in Israel, as even specialists seem to have different interpretations; COM:PRP should prevail. As for arguing with Israeli lawyers, I don't see why not; there's obviously something to discuss, otherwise scholars wouldn't be writing about it. And regarding those lawyers' credibility, I must say I'm quite surprised by their misinterpretation of German law, or constant misspelling of the scholar's name they're so eagerly citing.
I see nothing wrong with this debate taking place, and not being a lawyer doesn't mean you have to shut up and follow the lead. Pieter or anyone else is welcome to participate. –Tryphon^☂ 19:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. Sorry for that. Pieter is trying to understand the Knesset protocol with Google Translate, and that's the problem.

The problem is that there is nothing in the law or the court decisions, and Deror explained what happens in this situation. The discussion is purely academic (and interesting), but so far Pieter failed to give any source from the law or court decision that justifies his actions. Until any court in Israel has it's say, we can't give this minimal interpretation to the law. It's not our job to make. ברוקולי (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The law is not unclear. The British Mandate law was the same as all over the Commonwealth, and that was the law that Sarah Presenti wrote about in her book. Somehow Deror tries to pull a limitless FOP out of an isolated sentence in a book, but in long arguments he has been unable to present court decisions to back up his unconventional interpretation. Recently, I found a clear statement by Tamir Afori, who was the the copyright expert of the Israeli Department of Justice for the 2007 update of the law. Although several Knesset politicians wanted to restrict FOP to non-commercial use, Afori advised against changing the status quo. But Afori also made clear that FOP was not as wide as some of the politicians believed. He explained to them that paintings and drawings and photography were not included: לא ציור ולא צילום These are different categories, not listed as exempted from copyright protection in article 23.

Before making changes, I discussed this in Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Tamir Afori. Clearly, Deror avi disagrees with the expert, but that should not matter here. So I changed the text of COM:FOP#Israel, which Deror avi reverted, with an insulting accusation of vandalism. ברוקולי wants us to accept Deror avi's authority, but such is not the wiki way. A wikipedia wants references. And I presented a clear and unambigious statement by a real expert, on public record. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You are making the same mistakes again and again. In Israel you can do anything as long as it is reasonable and unless it is prohibited by law or by court decision. Please provide this reference. ברוקולי (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli law is clear: paintings and drawings are protected by copyright. The problem is that there is a crowd of Israeli users (Drork, Deror avi, ברוקולי), acting as if they know better than the expert of the Israeli Ministry of Justice. They are violating the copyright of Israeli artists. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not know Israeli lows, but I do know that Commons will be better off, if mr. kuiper let to handle that issue to somebody less involved.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1 admits that she does not now anything about the issue, but she is reverting me just because it is me. That should not be acceptible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's say a user made PA against an administrator. This administrator will not block the user himself because he is involved. Same here. you are involved in uploading anti-Israeli and anti-semitic garbage, and not even letting to put it to the right categories. That's why you ate too involved to touch Israeli images. It is as simple as that. There's plenty of other work to be done out there. How about cleaning up category "Waves" for example :) --Mbz1 (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Here he is making changes again without gaining consensus and understanding in the matter. Please do something. The law is very clear, and the things he is saying reflects his misunderstanding of the situation. He does not bother to bring any source to his absurd claims. ברוקולי (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I would like to see where in the Israeli law is the basis for Pieter Kuiper claims. And I'm speaking about the law itself and not some discussion in the Knesset. ברוקולי (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:JezzyBear

New account JezzyBear is repeatedly blanking Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by user DelaClaire and removing the deletion tags from the images. Since User:DelaClaire was recently banned on the English Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts, I suspect sockpuppetry is at play here. PC78 (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

JezzyBear (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Following the sockpuppet suspicion I checked the user and cared about - hopefully - the rest. --Martin H. (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Desysop?

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Speedy.27ed_files_with_.7Bmilitary_Insignia.7D .

Mass deletion was way out of process. Deleter should be desysopped for the reasons discussed. this led me here. Issues such as "... The contributors who uploaded the images were (mis)guided to believe that {{tl:Military Insignia}} was a valid license. They thought that they were releasing their work in the public domain." were not considered properly, if at all. --Elvey (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1

I am fed up with stuff like this. Mbz1 (talk · contribs) is also making such personal attacks on this page, a page that admins are monitoring. But nobody is doing anything about it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to say about Mbz1 remarks. I don't know if they are legitimate or not according to the Common's code of conduct. What I do know is that Mr. Kuiper is way out of line here. He provides pseudo-legal advices with false interpretation of the Israeli law, and delete legitimate images from Israel based on these false interpretations. Mr. Kuiper does not speak a word in Hebrew, he is not a lawyer, he is has no authority to offer legal advices, let alone about the Israeli legal system. All of his claims were answered properly by Israeli veteran users, and there is no reason to question their good faith. Assuming good faith is a basic principle in all of the Wikimedia projects, and Mr. Kuiper violated this rule numerous time, especially with regards to users from Israel. I don't know what his motives are, and I don't want to know. I just beg this community to restrain him. Drork (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of antisemitism like this are way out of line and something I would have blocked for, probably indefinitely, without further warning. It is so unhelpful in resolving the issue at hand and fundamentally opposed to every principle of this collaborative project. Drork, your comment is off-topic here, but I'll just say that since there is no way of verifying people's self-proclaimed credentials on Commons, we run on the strength of presented arguments and references. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper implies over and over again that Israeli users here act in bad faith. He opens deletion requests for pictures coming from Israel based on false allegations about the Israeli law. All efforts to soothe his doubts were not good enough for him. I sincerely doubts there are impure motives here, and I am very concerned about this issue. You can think whatever you like about Mbz1 language, but the real problem here is Mr. Kuiper's conduct. He must be retrained. Drork (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Over quite a period of time I have found Pieter Kuiper's edits to have quite a bias and I see some of them as unpleasant. His approach is certainly one of the reasons I have curtailed my work on Commons. I would not dream of suggesting that Mbz1 is perfect however if Kuiper had harassed me directly I doubt I would have been as balanced. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's rather unhelpful, but I'm fed up of seeing the same names back here again and again with the same old battles - I'd probably just ban the lot of you for good. Except for the same reasons as Herby - I don't care enough anymore. Instead I'll just unwatch this page and let you get on with your handbagging in private. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the former was a much better idea. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrespective of Pieter's attitude to Israeli copyright law (and his apparent distrust of certain Israeli users) and his rather unpleasant interactions with Mbz recently, I urge Mbz1 to try to stay above it and not make personal attacks herself. These edits added nothing to the copyright issues that are under discussion there and make resolving that issue all the harder worse. Can I make a suggestion? Can Mbz1 and Pieter both try to avoid one another? Mbz's edits to Commons talk:Freedom of panorama are outside her normal area of activity. Pieters vote on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A surfer in the air.jpg is outside his. Likewise, I'd suggest Pieter avoids interaction with Mbz over categorisation of her images (like here). Get other people involved and avoid each other as much as possible!--Nilfanion (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Turning a blind eye won't help here. The discussion about the FOP issue in Israel has been going on for ages, simply because Pieter Kuiper won't give up on his arguments. Many people with very good reputation and relevant knowledge answered him and cleared his doubts, but he is very obsessive about the issue. While personal attacks are strongly discouraged, Pieter Kuiper has a habit of exhausting his debate partners by endless questions and numerous deletion requests based on far-fetched claims. This behavior must end now. Drork (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not going to comment here, because I kind of agree with mattbuck on the issue, but I would not like it to sound as I am retaliating to kuiper personally. Not at all. I have nothing against him personally or rather I cannot care less about him personally, I would not mind he continues "interacting" with me as much as he wants, even, if it means he removes all categories from all my images, opposes all my FP nominations, and nominates a bunch of my uploads to get deleted. I mean it. As a matter of fact I would like to encourage him to continue to do it to me because the more time he spends dealing with me the less time he would have to do something to the images from Israel.I could easily upload 40-50 images per day to keep kuiper busy dealing with me :) So, Nilfanion, I commented on the freedom of panorama because that issue is much more important to me than all my images combined, and absolutely not to retaliate to kuiper personally. I believe Commons will be so much better off, if kuiper is to exclude himself from dealing with Israeli images all together. After all Drork and me excluded ourselves from dealing with latuff. There are other users, but kuiper, who know copyrights lows and are much less biased than he is. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if a topic ban might be something to consider here. Pieter seems to get into trouble in certain topic areas, perhaps it would be best if the community told him to stay out of those areas. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea, Lar. Most of you remember how the things were around here, when Drork and me endlessly commented on latuff, and then I was banned on the topic and Drork stopped doing it. I believe it is a time that kuiper let handle Israel copyright lows to somebody else. I do not think that actual ban is needed. I believe kuiper loves Commons as much as I do, and will do the right thing that is the best for the Commons as Drork and me did. I propose to ban me on the same topic too that kuiper did not feel as he is singled out, as he usually does :) Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

@Lar - the issue here is that I am accused of being anti-Israel (and anti-semitic by mbz1). The accusation is baseless. The last few weeks I have insisted that commons listen to the Israeli law and to the expert of the Israeli Ministry of Justice instead of letting policy be determined by some copyright libertarians that do not respect the rights of Israeli artists. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper implies once again that Israeli users act in bad faith. This is way out of line. Pieter Kuiper pretends to be an expert of the Israeli legal system, even though he does not possess the necessary knowledge to pass judgment as to how this system works. For the record, Pieter Kuiper is not a lawyer and does not speak Hebrew (the language of Israel). I don't know what more should be said here. I never claimed Pieter Kuiper was anti-Israeli, but why does he claim I try to violate my own country's law? Drork (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on categories

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

And see the one above I guess. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't do this a lot, and this will my first block here in maybe three months but I have blocked both of the users for editwarring, this isn't the first time they where involved in a editwar, but I do hope its the last. Huib talk 18:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Now we have to find those three categories ourselves, .. gee Huib. -- User:Docu at 19:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Obviously nothing wrong with Surfing -> Surfing in California. However, I'm not sure about removing Category:Surfers as that is not a parent category to the California cat. Agree reversion of comments is far from a constructive start to discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

True, that's more subjective (does the image illustrate surfing, or focuses in this particular surfer). If we know anything about him, a subcat. of Category:Surfers would fit nicely. –Tryphon^☂ 20:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I've just seen Pieter Kuiper's unblock request, and I support unblocking him. He shouldn't have edit warred, but at least he tried discussing it. If no one objects, I will lift the block. –Tryphon^☂ 20:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now unblocked him. –Tryphon^☂ 20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Good summary and sensible suggestion by AFBorchert IMO. I see IRC that the blocking admin. isn't online just now, and as he did not have any objections to Tryphon unblocking Pieter I find it reasonable to expect he will not mind if someone unblocks Mbz1 either - I suggest just go ahead and unblock. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Finn, I've just unblocked Mbz1. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a good solution to unblock both. I think both are now aware that dialog is better than "war". As expected Huib did not object. You did a great job all of you!!! --MGA73 (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose he already regrets it -- User:Docu at 21:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the message I left at Tryphon talk page. I also reverted his/her revert as you could see. I did the revert after my initial block time expiered because I would not have liked to let down AFBorchert, who unblocked me before that time. I am afraid I let him down anyway. Sorry about that, AFBorchert. If I am blocked again, please help me no more. I feel myself so much more free in my actions, if I am on my own, and do not have to think about letting down other people :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've decided to put here the real sequence of events :
  

1. 12:00, 22 November 2009 kuiper is clening up category "Waves" and removes it from my image leaving all other categories alone. Fine with me.
2. 16:21, 22 November 2009 (4 hours 21 minutes later) I add category "Water waves" (please notice not "waves", but "water waves") to the same image.At the same time kuiper is working on cleaning up an absolutely different category - "Physics".
3. 16:23, 22 November 2009 (just 2 minutes after my edit) kuiper suddenly "remembers" that he has not finished cleaning up the categories from my image and removes every category, but one. The edit summary is "one category is enough"
4. 16:41, 22 November 2009 I revert his edit with edit summary "reverted vandalism" and vandalism it was.
5. I'll skip few steps here, but one. When kuiper is blocked he's crying wolf and telling lies in his unblock request

For info: Now the image has 6 categories (including "water waves" that I added at 16:21 and that was removed by kuiper. It is very

interesting how it could be explained why kuiper got back to the image 4 hours 23 minutes after his

first edit, but only 2 minutes later after my edit to remove valid categories from it.

I wrote the above info for the record and to establich character of kuiper.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

After further investigation

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

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

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

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

User:AFBorchert

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

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

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

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

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

¿? The request had been open for half a year! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So it should have been rejected, as Pieter Kuiper was the only one who supported it, based on his own private interpretation of a law written in a language he does not understand, from a country he never visited. Drork (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I note Kuiper has been doing some "non admin" closures too. While it is great that folk help out I am not sure that this user has the balance I would wish to see for such activity. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional - I object rather strongly to the fact that Mr Kuiper removed my previous note (since re-instated). It was not a personal attack. It was a comment related to this topic and one that admins here should - in my opinion - look at carefully. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, how is Herbythyme's mental stability? And what does it have to do with this discussion? And why is not he closing the outstand DR's in Category:Deletion requests May 2009? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you implying about my mental stability Mr Kuiper - you are beginning to trouble me rather more?

Why would I close outstanding DRs please? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of pontificating here about my "balance", you could do som use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Pieter, you need to change your approach. That's a general admonishment, your name seems to come up here far far too often. It's also specific advice, lashing out at Herby is about as uncalled for an action as they come. His questioning your "balance" refers to your even handedness and general mellowness, not your mental stability, so that was an unwarranted inference. I hope this word to the wise is sufficient. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this edit was perceived as a personal attack by Pieter. So the this was merely a reply. Please don't threaten to block Pieter over this reply, this is just the language barrier acting up. Multichill (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how a comment (stated as such) about activity here can be construed as a personal attack.

I do see how words such as "pontificating" & "do som use" directed towards me and comments about my mental stabilty might seem to be attacks. I certainly took them as such. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Retaliation is not a valid excuse for personal attacks, regardless of whether or not it is based on misinterpretation. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

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

• I agree with Finn Rindahl. There is nothing here that rises to the level of belonging on this board. - Jmabel ! talk 00:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• I do too. AFB case does not belong here. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Me too. (I feel tempted to do a non-admin closure here.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper

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

I see nothing wrong with this request. Please explain how complicating things by raising questions, and giving his opinion is a problem? Tiptoety ^talk 02:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper obsessively opens deletion requests for pictures coming from Israel. He thinks the Israeli users do not know their own country's laws, and started a long debate about it. He is not willing to wait until the discussion he himself opened is exhausted, and opens more deletion request. This behavior is practically violence. It's like putting a gun to the head and say: if you don't adopt my opinion I won't let you upload any image. Drork (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I had felt encouraged to nominate this sign because also Deror avi agrees that writing is not covered by FOP (see for example here Denmark square). The image in question was in yesterday's batch of uploads by Pikiwikisrael. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper repeatedly and obsessively accuses the Israeli users on Commons of trying to violate their own country's laws. He opens deletion requests with arguments based on texts in a language he cannot read. He accuses Israeli users of bad faith. He conduct endless discussions in which he practically demand the veto right. His behavior here is despicable, and yet it is always the people who complain about him who are accused of personal attacks and misconduct. Is there something here I am not aware of? Drork (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all,Dror come down. and second, Pieter is right some times (or at least this is the first time). However Pieter does have some slanderous remarks in the talk page which are inappropreate (although this is his problem, and not ours nor the commons). I sugest that this discussion here will be ended (sorry for my bad English). Deror avi (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that WP:NPA does not apply on Commons? What wonderful news! Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he is saying that jerk-like behaviour of a user does not automatically mean that everything he does is wrong. --Dschwen (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you calling him a "jerk", instead of discussing the issues? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss something with Pieter Kuiper, you'd better take a long leave from work, free yourself a year or a decade, and after you climb up Mt. Sinai and get the ultimate proof carved in stone, he'd tell you you are a crook who brings dubious evidences, and there is no legitimate opinion but his own. Drork (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. Dror, I believe that it is a good time to show that you are much more reasonable than kuiper is and admit that this time he was right, and you were wrong. Maybe it will help to make kuiper to admit that you were right and he was wrong in all other situations :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

account Erebus555 (talk · contribs) had been hacked

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

On his :en talkpage[6] the user has confirmed that he hasn't used his account for some time and didn't make those edits. However, he has now changed his password, so we can consider the account legitimately reconquered. --Túrelio (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ndonga Wikipedia

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

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

There's no need to ask, just go ahead and help! This is commons.wikimedia.org, so you definitely do not need to ask permission here. The good news is that Ndonga Wiki can use any picture from here. Also, do not worry about being the last hope. In the long term I am sure there will be other Ndonga help. But you are a rare find, so please do help. 99of9 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Pickbothmanlol (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's some disclosure, Pickbothmanlol has been blocked on several WMF wikis for disruption. There's a request on m:SRG to have his account globally locked/blocked. Killiondude (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems that Mike lifeguard has declined it for the time being. Killiondude (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your good intentions, but it isn't clear to me that your "help" will benefit Ndonga or Commons.[7] Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Charley Gallay (resolved)

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

Even without looking into it, I doubt it, because when giving away the image for free, how could Getty expect any money from their "copy". I've put a no-perm-tag on the image and left the uploader a note. --Túrelio (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Uploader asked for deletion, but will eventually try to get permission from Getty. --Túrelio (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That smells like a sockpuppet of User talk:Lucas Brígido. See Special:DeletedContributions/Randy-Gilmore: That sockpuppet (I ran a checkuser) impersonated the flickr user with the same name, he even faked a profile. At the moment User:Lucas Brígido is one of the worst users we have here, I immidiatly will check if this account is a sock again. --Martin H. (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Indefblocked, big surprise. --Martin H. (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just created a corporate page, and can't access it.

Good afternoon,

I have just created a web page for my company, however cannot find it when I search for the key heading "Peoplecare"

The page I created is at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Peoplecare

I would like it on wikipedia, not wikimedia.

Can you please help me?

Thanks and kind regards,

Stefanie Myers Marketing Coordinator — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 117.120.16.131 (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Myers;

I deleted your contribution in accordance with the scope policy of Commons. The English Wikipedia has a number of policies and guidelines as well that you may wish to review. Among these are COI and SPAM. But, to answer your question, you may find contributing to Wikipedia helpful. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper - take 3

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

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

The problem with kuiper is that sometimes instead of doing what is right for Commons he retaliates to another users personally, which is a cause of disruption. Here's a good example. In his own words he uploads a hate propaganda image because he hopes " Drork will be pleased, because he is going on and on about it. " I am even not talking here about the image itself, and weather or not Commons could have lived without it. I am talking about the reason behind the upload because " Drork will be pleased, because he is going on and on about it." Few times he retaliated to me personally. It was noticed by other users. (I could provide examples per request). I believe that for Commons sake kuiper should be banned on all topics concerning Israel.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. He has shown relentless bias against everything Israeli, and maticulous attempts to target Israelis. Many users of Hebrew wikipedia refuse to upload pictures to the commons because of such behaviour, and his attempts to foil the piki wiki project has cause great damage to both Wikimedia Israel and the Wikimedia foundation (loss of cooperation in Israel). Deror avi (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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

There is no need for that. You just have to look at the recent discussions where he keeps disregarding opinions which contradict his desires. Kooritza (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an example of a non productive unti Israeli if not unti semitic remark against a living person who is not a party to the discusion (nor a commons user). Adv. Lichrenstien is a well respected attorney who specializes in copyright Law. Dr. Preseanti is the leading Israeli copyright expert. Kuiper blatently insults both. Deror avi (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing in that diff of any concern. Pieter is entitled to offer his opinion on what others have said. Perhaps you could assist by highlighting what exactly is the problem with Pieter's comment in that diff? Adambro (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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

The sentence "Lichtenstein is another appalling example of an Israeli lawyer stretching the law" is slander, and the sentence "With this the state of copyright in Israel being like this, one understands why the country is on the US Trade Department's priority watch list" in this context is just anti israel and should not be part of the discussion regarding the extent of the Law. His anti Israeli bias undemines all his actions - as you can see from the endless discussion here. Deror avi (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As for examples of a personal attacks - the inclusion of this image here as an image breaching the Law, after being given the expenation that the copyright holder allowed upload, is a personal attack, just to presure a participant in the discussion here. Deror avi (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is my understand that WP:BLP rules are not limited to the subjects of WP articles: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages.". See particularly [8]. There is no WP rule that is applied more strictly than WP:BLP, those rules apply to discussion of all living persons that occur on any of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, and those rules apply to the talk pages of Wikimedia Commons. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

To Malcolm Schosha - Commons is not Wikipedia and I am grateful for that. I am not aware that BLP applies to Commons in the same way as en wp hence the lack of drama generally in that area.

Herbythyme, I am quite sure you are wrong about that. The intent of the rule is to protect Wikimedia Foundation from law suite, and applies to all Wikimedia projects. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Point me to where it says that please - on Commons --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean to say that you think libelous comments are allowed on Commons? Amazing thinking, Herbythyme. If you an show me that such editing is allowed on Commons, I will give you an apology. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire - you said BLP applied here (nothing about libel). I asked you where. Libel is not allowed as far as I know as that would contravene state laws. That is not the same as BLP which you quoted. I am unsure who is harder to deal with PK or people such as yourself when it comes to pining something down for actual factual detail. This whole thread is not new. If/when it is then it will be dealt with. Until then you are not helping your cause in my eyes. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you think WP:BLP is but the rule dealing with issues of libel? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP is the rule that deals with issues of libel (and other related matters) on en.wikipedia. However, Commons is not Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy does not apply here. Commons has no policy about libel, but clearly it is not allowed (the legal issues Herby mentioned).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Nilfanion --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This insight into user thinking is both fascinating and depressing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

To others - I am no fan of PK but I see nothing fresh here. If/when there is come back - until then - IMO - leave it alone. You do yourselves no favours I'm afraid and you may regret that in time to come.

Whatever else is or is not permitted witch hunts are not a Commons thing not should they be. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Kuiper did come back, as a matter of fact he has never stopped.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Point to attacks as was asked which is what this thread is about. Personally I still see it as a witch hunt in its current form. I am loosing my patience with this. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Herby. Adambro (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You probably missed it, but his attacks on Presenti and Lichtenstein were mentioned above. Kooritza (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And if this page is not the right one to solve the problems his causing us, where else should I go? I'm open to suggestions. Kooritza (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The request was for evidence of personal attacks on other users. The edit re Lichtenstein is troubling, but is not harassing other users.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think there is a little miscommunication. I was complaining about those remarks and his behavior that keeps this discussion going on and on even though all his questions were given proper answers with appropriate references. Where should I go if not here? Kooritza (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

@Nilfanion. IMO kuiper behavior on Freedom of Panorama for Israel could be considered more as a disruption than as PA. @Herbythyme, disappointed with your comment. I am not doing "witch hunt", and btw I have never reported kuiper to AN/U, he reported me quite a few times.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

evidence ie diffs is what was asked for not a re-hash of past differences. I do object to much of PK tone/approach however for now I see little difference between warring parties. I have other things to do with my time sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I provided quite a few diffs to show he's going after me personally. I did it not because I am doing a "witch hunt" or because I wanted any actions taken against kuiper because he's targeting me personally. Not at all. The only reason was to establish character of kuiper as a person who will not hesitate to do disruptions on Commons in order to retaliate somebody personally. On the other hand :Deror avi provided few new diffs that some people do find troubling.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading the discussion at CT:FOP, it seems clear to me that Pieter Kuiper isn't constructive at all. It looks like trying to explain Israeli law to him is like talking to a wall. He should abstain from taking further part in discussions about FOP in Israel. --Kjetil_r 18:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

He is not constructive at times - neither is this. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Herbythyme, have you ever considered the possibility of not saying anything until you actually have something to say? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am on the verge of considering myself under attack here - given my dealing with PK I find this simply bizarre and will no longer participate in this madness. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

An awful lot has been said here but what this discussion lacks is a concise demonstration of non-constructive edits by Pieter Kuiper. I would have thought that if Pieter's actions deserve all the attention they receive (this being the third discussion about him on this page at the moment for example) it wouldn't be too difficult to provide a few select diffs to highlight the problems. In the absence of such concise evidence it is becoming hard to see these discussion as resulting in anything but another opportunity for those with a disliking of Pieter Kuiper to express their views, even if that wasn't the intention of the initiator of the discussion. If people want PK blocked, as I suspect is the case, make it easy for the admins to come to the conclusion that would be appropriate by a concise demonstration of disruptive editing. Adambro (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm don't know much about commons policies, but apart from his slander remarks on Israeli experts, he keeps dragging the discussion and almost every time refuses to accept the opinions of the leading Israeli scholar (i.e Presanti) and the basic rules of the Israeli legislative system. This is the problem, which can be seen through the last edits in CT:FOP (mainly this and this). This is what needs to be stopped. Kooritza (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "Kooritza" is just another new pseudonym for User:ברוקולי who came earlier with this nomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could respond to the issue the user raised, instead of replying with an accusation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

@Adambro,I would not comment for others, but I would not like pk blocked, not at all. I am only saying that he should avoid dealing with images from Israel because it is a cause of constant disruption. Deror avi is a copyright attorney. He knows the lows, he knows the language, and he already proved he is impartial. I believe Deror avi could handle the Israeli copyright low just fine, and there's plenty of other job to be done on Commons for pk.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

@kuiper. the user changed his/her signature for more convenient letters. What's wrong with that?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is confusing... here another example. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I actually agree with you on that one. It was confusing and not funny joke, yet it is not the point. The point is that it will be better for Commons and for everybody, if you allow to handle images from Israel to somebody else at least for few months, and we will see how it will go--Mbz1 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Adambro, there is the proof. Kuiper uses and practically says I'm using a sock puppet. This is crossing the red line. Kooritza (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Nilfanion makes a very good point. A edit war needs more than one editor. If people don't like what Pieter says then they don't have to respond. Adambro (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats true, but when we tried this he just went and changed Commons:FOP as he likes. What can we do in situation like this? Kooritza (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we are now getting somewhere. If PK repeatedly ignores consensus and makes changes anyway then he should be blocked. If you can demonstrate this by diffs then it might be possible to consider action. Adambro (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thats what I will do if he repeats this once more (you can see the last time when Commons:FOP was protected by an admin). Kooritza (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

On November 27, it was User:ברוקולי=Kooritza who reverted COM:FOP twice within 20 minutes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making any assumptions here Pieter, my comments about blocking those who choose to ignore consensus and edit war apply to anyone else just as much as they apply to you. The issue you highlight is exactly why it is inappropriate to single you out for action as if everyone else is blameless. There would be little point in blocking all those editors who have acted inappropriately in relation to this dispute only for the problems to remerge when the blocks expire. This issue will not be resolved by blocking anyone or everyone. It is much more complicated than that. Adambro (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper forgot to mention that he too made two reverts in a time gap of 6 hours on that day. Just for the record and so he could not claim to be tzadik tamim. Kooritza (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Adambro, it is good you remember it now, but just few months ago you blocked only me for edit war that in your own words "needs more than one editor" :) Once again it is not the point. Maybe my English is no good enough to explain what I mean. I will try one more time. Remember how I fought with latuff? I am 100% sure that everything I said on the subject was right, yet I excluded myself from the subject in order to stop disruption. Here we have a kind of similar situation (I am not saying that pk is right. I am sure Deror avi is right on that matter). IMO this situation should be dealt with in the same manner I dealt in my situation few months ago.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The following remark is a bit beside the issue here, but it relates to an issue that was addressed in the course of this discussion. The fact that the Commons as a project does not have a BLP policy is very disturbing. True, the Wikimedia Foundation does not impose rules and codes on the projects, but it does demand each and every project to adopt a BLP policy in order to avoid slander. This is not merely a legal issue. It is also a moral principle the Wikimedia Movement adheres to. Furthermore, the Wikimedia Commons are not the Engish Wikipedia, but all Wikimedia projects share the same basic values. Anyone who contributes to the Commons may and should expect this project to follow similar basic policies as the rest of the Wikimedia projects, despite the difference in nuances. This is especially important as the Commons are a project accessible from all other projects, and has, in fact, multiple purposes and functions.

As for the issue itself - I do hope that the FOP-Israel issue will serve as a lesson to all of us. The explanations of the Israeli users have been proven accurate per professional updated authorized sources. However, too much time and effort had been spent on getting all these proofs and debating them. Had other user assumed, as required, that the Israeli users acted in good faith, a lot of time, energy, anger and frustration would have been saved. Right now, FOP-Israel is the most credible principle published on the Commons, but it would be an absurd to go through this process for every country on the globe, or for any case about which there is a slight doubt. I don't see a point in taking actions now against Pieter Kuiper now. He needs to restrain himself, that's all. If he does, then everything is going to be alright. Drork (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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

•  Support per above--Mbz1 (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Has mentoring been tried with Pieter Kuiper? Perhaps Durova, or another user with mentoring experience, could prove helpful. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment As not much evidence has been provided of a general problem, the more restrictive measure below is preferable.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

•  Support It seems to me this much more limited measure would accomplish what is being asked for, while placing far less of a restriction on a generally good contributor. It is possible that this could be expanded to banning him for participating in such discussions when someone else has nominated, but I see no problem with him expressing his opinion: if I understand correctly, the perceived disruption comes from him nominating images that apparently no one else sees as raising a problem. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I certainly agree with such a measure for the time being, there would have been no harm in waiting for a result before opening this. If the vote running on CT:FOP can actually achieve some sort of result, then can reconsider this in light of whatever that result is.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There was consensus (at least between Deror avi and me) that writing is not covered by the Israeli FoP. There was also consensus that it cannot apply to stamps. See User:Nilfanion/Israel#Image summmary. That is why I also nominated Commons:Deletion requests/Stamps of Israel. I see no reason to forbid anybody to make nominations that agree with consensus. And I call upon Deror avi and Drork to give their opinion on those stamps. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually thinking about it (and the deletion request in particular), I'm inclined to request that you do not nominate for deletion any further files from Israel for the time being. The reason is there is no harm in waiting a few weeks (and keeping files which ought to go for that bit longer). You know what COM:DEL is like, something complex like the stamps request will typically take over a month before its closed in any case - even in the total absence of drama.

However there is a tangible benefit to not nominating more files: You restrict the current dispute between yourself and Deror/Drork/etc to just the FOP problem. You avoid adding additional places for conflict to occur, which improves the chances of a tangible result on the FOP dispute. Rightly or wrongly, Drork (and others) reacted strongly to that nomination. If you had not nominated that file at that time, he would not have reacted at all, and so this whole thread wouldn't have been started in the first place. Reduction of drama is good, especially if it increases the chance of the underlying dispute being fixed.

Obviously keep on noting uploads that are troubling, but please don't act on them (on FOP grounds or worse project scope) for the time being until some sort of resolution to the FOP debate is acheived.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing especially complex about Israeli stamps. It is very simple: stamps are not permanently situated. But then, the Icelandic churches have also have been lingering since July. I do not understand why such easy decisions are not taken faster. But at least someone will need to make the nomination. I made that effort, tagging all those files, notifying the uploaders. I leave the rest to the community and its admins. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well glad to be proven wrong :) For what its worth, if images are nsd/nld/npd or outright speedies - don't hesitate to tag. If images have those problems they are should not be hosted here until they are fixed.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment It is difficult to consider the appropriateness of this proposal without analysing the results of previous deletion requests that Pieter Kuiper has made relating to FOP of Israel. Has Jmabel done such an analysis of the outcome of these deletion requests? If consensus emerged in support of Pieter Kuiper's nomination then that nomination couldn't be considered disruptive. Only if consensus rejects the nomination and Pieter Kuiper repeatedly nominates similar images with similar reasons which also fail could his nominations be described as disruptive. It has been suggested that the nomination of this image as premature whilst discussion about the wider FOP were ongoing. If it was the view of the community that those discussions should be the focus then surely a ban on anyone nominating images from Israel for deletion on grounds of FOP would be the appropriate action, not targeting a particular user who just happens to be one of the most active in this area. If it wouldn't be appropriate for Pieter Kuiper to nominate images for deletion whilst discussions are ongoing then surely it wouldn't be appropriate for anyone to do so. Adambro (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I haven't done a thorough analysis, but it is clear to me that at this point his work in this area is disruptive even if he is right. I'm glad to see him continue to participate in the general discussion of law and policy in this area, but when a number of different people begin to see a particular contributor's nominations for deletion in a particular area as personal (or ethnic) attacks, it's time for that particular contributor to step out of making nominations for deletion in that particular area. - Jmabel ! talk 00:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• • I really wish that words in general, and the word "consensus" in particular, would be used correctly. What Deror avi and Pieter Kuiper have is an agreement. Certainly, consensus requires making many agreements, but it is not found in any of the particular aqreements. Rather, consensus is found in the approach to making the agreements. If there are two sides (as in two teams) opposing eachother, the opposing sides may reach agreements, but never consensus. In a consensus situation everyone is playing on the same team, and working for the same goal. Members of the same team may have disagreements, but their shared goal makes reaching a consensus possible, because the only disagreements are over how to reach their shared goal. Opposing teams never have shared goals, and never have consensus. I think that any user with a normal level of intelligence will be able to apply this to the problems under discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• In response to Adambro: Singling out Pieter is probably inappropriate. That's why I have requested that he refrains from nominations at the time being (as a drama-reducing step). If he chooses to nominate further files anyway I don't think he should be sanctioned, but the absence of those nominations for the time being may reduce points of conflict. And Malcolm, the way to achieve (what approximates to) consensus in this sort of problem is to get input from a broader group of people. If you have an opinion on dispute itself, please give it at the vote?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• @Nilfanion, who's asking for "singling out Pieter"? It was Lar, who first suggested topic ban, and as soon as he did I asked to be banned on the same topics in order not to single out kuiper. With that latest proposal, I am sure Drork, Deror Avi and Jmabel will except the same ban :). One more point. You said half of the images that were nominated for the deletion were actually deleted, but it does not mean that the deletions were handled properly, doesn't it? --Mbz1 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• For what its worth, there is no particular reason to believe that any of those DRs were handled improperly in a procedural sense. The different results are troubling, but that results from the fact the project hasn't made its mind up, not that the closing admin mishandled the DR. When we get a resolution to the core debate I'll put in a mass deletion or undeletion request to sort out the discrepancy, depending on which way things go.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I did not mean that DR were handled improperly in a procedural sense. Sorry, if I sounded that way. I only meant that because there is still no agreement reached about the Israeli copyright low we cannot talk about the numbers of deleted and kept files simply because IMO it is not a good indicator to see what really is going on.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough - reason I brought it up in the first place is the fact the deletions are going both ways indicates there is no agreement at present. Statement of obvious of course that.. :) --Nilfanion (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oh and in reaction to your question about prior deletions: See User:Nilfanion/Israel#Past discussions. About half of the deletion requests there are FOP-related and some got deleted, some got kept and some got deleted and restored. That's indicative of no consensus on the matter...--Nilfanion (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Another remark that might explain the mistake made by a certain Israeli user about Israeli stamps - the Israeli Postal Services Statute was changed in 2004, and the paragraph related to State's copyrights on stamps was rephrased. I don't have access to the old phrasing, but the problem might have been reading the law in its obsolete version. I warned against this issue before, and I urge admins again to delete any Israeli stamp created less than 50 years ago. Drork (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments regarding Israeli stamps would probably be more appropriate at Commons:Deletion requests/Stamps of Israel where I'm sure your input would be appreciated. Adambro (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Drork (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Adambro (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Berichard repeatedly uploading misnamed Flickr duplicates

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

Given the number of files, it might be marginal. This could be a problem with file upload bot. It should check or at least warn if it uploads duplicates.

As for naming, is it intentional or just a result of an ambitious naming convention? -- User:Docu at 14:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

+1, File:Erithacus rubecula Juvenile1.jpg. It's not so much the quantity as the persistence that makes it more than marginal. This has been going on since October, it's utterly counterproductive, and it continues in spite of numerous requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As of his replies to your and to others' messages on his talkpage, he seems to be good-willing and to regret his mistakes. --Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted, but since it keeps happening in spite of the apologies, some assistance from a French-speaking user to help him figure out what he's doing to make it happen so that he can stop doing it would still be appreciated. I should also mention that I don't know whether this is the only affected image; it's just that this one keeps popping up like, well, mushrooms out of the ground in one of the categories i try to keep tidy. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Fry1989

This user has made some curious edits in and around flag topics. Some users tried to contact him about his bad activities but he is not willing to answer. His way of acting is quite unencyclopadic and has sometimes the character of spamming. Kilian 11:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

Consensus is that Kameraad Pjotr did not overtly abuse admin privileges, although Kameraad Pjotr may have demonstrated less than exemplary judgment. Specific extant issues should be handled on COM:UNDEL and User talk:Kameraad Pjotr. User:Kameraad Pjotr may want to engage other editors in discussion in the future regarding difficult closures to ensure that consensus is followed.

---

Fantasticfk (talk · contribs)

I found and tagged a whole bunch of copyright violations uploaded by this user. While I haven't been able to find where the rest come from, I don't see a need for a formal mass deletion request, because it is obvious that they are copyright violations, so please go ahead and delete all uploads by this user.

Since the uploader cropped out copyright notices from several files, it seems that they know what they're doing, so I think a block without prior warning would be reasonable. Also, if anyone recognises the MO as that of some previously blocked user, that information would be useful too. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion has been performed by High Contrast (talk · contribs). Thanks for that. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --High Contrast (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged abuse of admin privileges by User talk:Kameraad Pjotr

Admin User talk:Kameraad Pjotr has abused his privileges at least two times in recent days. In this case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 3577 Ramat-Gan City.JPG he ignored the explanation given to the legitimacy of the upload, and decided not to accept it without further satisfying explanation for his rejection, and in fact without any excuse, because the upload was perfectly legitimate. In this case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 3557 Gan-Shmuel sb14- 1.jpg he ignored two opinions and decided the image was out of scope without explaining why he thinks so and why he ignores other opinions. Drork (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You could at least have waited until the two undeletion requests you opened were resolved. And just because you disagree with an administrator's actions doesn't mean he abused his privileges. This is really ridiculous, and your constant recriminations and insinuations that Israeli users are treated differently are tiring and insulting, respectively. –Tryphon^☂ 15:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This complaint and the undeletion requests are two different things. I see a pattern here of very poor judgement regarding deletion of files and a problem of not assuming good faith. Drork (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The result of the undeletion requests, if successful, would at least give you an argument showing that this admin's judgment was not reflecting the community's opinion (although I still don't think actions would be required against him). But if unsuccessful, then your judgment would be in question. That's why I think you should have waited; right now, it's just you disagreeing with an admin, not an admin abusing his privileges. –Tryphon^☂ 15:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, in the case of the suggestion that there was a copyright violation, he was clearly wrong. He received a very good and ellaborated explanation and chose to ignore it. Secondly, unlike the undeletion request, this complaint is more about "how" than about "what". The way this admin handled the issue is characterized with very poor judgement. Drork (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

On Hold Suggest this discussion is put on hold pending the outcome of the undeletion requests. The complaint seems only to relate to the way the two deletion requests were closed so the result of the undeletion requests will provide an indication as to whether they were closed correctly or not. I'm sure he didn't ignore the comments made in the deletion requests but took them into account when coming to a decision, along with other factors. I'd agree with Tryphon here though that closing a couple of deletion request incorrectly doesn't mean this user has abused their admin rights, it just means they've made a mistake, something which even administrators aren't immune from doing. Adambro (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have to say that I have some doubts with his deletions also, like Commons:Deletion requests/File:SNK NeoGeo Pocket logo.png, it looks like a simple logo and the DR also gives a strong opinion for keep but it got deleted, I would have kept it and I will start a undel request also for this one.
• Or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chi-Ha 120mm.jpg that is closed as kept while there is no single evidance that this is taken by American militairy, and if it was gear from the U.S.A Army I could have believed that it could be ok but this is gear from the Japenese Army and no proof strongly suggest it would have been taken by a Japanese soldier, also the site doesn't mention a thing about it. As far as I know Commons doesn't keep things based on a opinion we always need proof.
• Also this Commons:Deletion requests/File:600px Giallo e Nero con pallone e stemma di Arhem.png is closed as deleted, but the DR makes it clear that it could be a trademark but it is build from 2 pd files so the file is PD.
• I have the feeling that we should check more files, and talk it over. Huib talk 21:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Kameraad Pjotr abused his admin powers here. In neither case was there a blatant violation of policy, such that consensus wouldn't matter; in both cases there was room for opinions and debate for and against deletion, which means that consensus must rule. And in both cases there was discussion resulting in a consensus for keeping the images. Rather than join that discussion Kameraad Pjotr simply stated his opinion and immediately deleted the images. It seems to me that he thinks his opinion is more privileged than that of others, just because he is an admin, and if that is so he must be corrected. If he disagreed with the consensus he should have joined the debate and explained why he thought the files should be deleted, and wait to see if he had persuaded anyone. As it is, it seems there's no point in having discussions, because an admin will just come along and do whatever he feels like doing, regardless of anything anyone says. -- Zsero (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy which requires an admin to suspend his or her decision when he or she dissents with the majority of all who participated in the discussion of a deletion request. Please read the policy which explicitly tells that consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. It is interesting to note that the whole debate was more focused on attacking the submitter of the DR than in contributing anything to the issue itself beside vague attempts to interpret law without any reference to case law or relevant publications. The general assumption that an installation is considered permanent because the lifetime of the artistic object does not exceed that of the installation is moot — at least in other jurisdictions. I want to refer here to the various installations by Christo and Jeanne-Claude including the Wrapped Reichstag which were not covered by freedom of panorama even if the art was disused after the installation (see the decision of the federal court of Germany, I ZR 102/99). I have no knowledge about the corresponding case law in Israel. However, as no evidence was presented during the discussion that this is indeed covered by FOP, the admin had no choice than to delete this image in accordance to our precautionary principle. Please also be refered to this quote from COM:DEL: Under the rules of evidence we apply here, the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept. Considering that this DR went on for four months without any convincing evidence, it was perfectly justified to close it with a decision for delete. I would have decided likewise. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the admin was given a very good explanation why there is no copyright violation. Furthermore, he was well aware of a discussion about a similar image that was kept. He chose to ignore the explanation and the precedence, and delete the image upon his own interpretation of a local law which he is not acquainted with. Why he did it? I don't know, but it was definitely a misconduct. Drork (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It may have been poor judgment, but it doesn't strike me as obvious misconduct. And there is a perfectly good process in place to appeal the particular deletions. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The misconduct is in acting on his opinion instead of participating in the discussion. Since in both cases it was a matter of opinion, not certainty, his opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's and therefore consensus must rule. This was especially so in the case where there was no question of copyright violation, but merely of project scope; whether something has educational value is inherently a matter of opinion, and an admin's opinion counts for no more than anyone else's. By ignoring the discussion and deleting because of his own opinion he was privileging his opinion, and acting as if he were the judge and the rest of us merely advisers whom he can listen to or ignore as he chooses; and that is the very definition of abuse. This is an important principle, because this is the only check we have on admin powers. If admins can do this with impunity then there is no reason to have discussions in the first place. -- Zsero (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Perhaps every admin needs to be reminded from time to time that they are not special, they are just ordinary editors who happen to have a few extra buttons at their disposal. -- Zsero (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Zsero, on what do you base the claim that the deletions were based on personal opinion rather than evaluation of the strengths of the arguments put forth? Is it your assumption, or has Kameraad Pjotr actually confirmed this?

Have you tried discussing asking Kameraad Pjotr directly about their reasoning when deleting? I see some messages here, but the questions you ask ("what gives you the right to decide on your own to close the discussion") seem quite accusatory and rhetorical, rather than intended to facilitate dialogue. For reference, Commons:Deletion policy is what gives administrators the right to close deletion requests ("In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days").

Commons runs on cooperation, so making demands and quickly resorting to accusations is not a very effective way to achieving your goals here. Realistically, how likely do you think it is that the average person addressed in this way would be persuaded to reconsider? For your own sake, I urge you to adopt a more civil tone. You'll find things much easier that way.

With that in mind, what is the aim of this ANB entry? The main purpose of these noticeboards is to allow non-administrators to request actions requiring administrative privileges. Complaining for the sake of complaining won't help the project along. If you would like to request an action requiring administrative privileges, please be direct about it. —LX (talk, contribs) 01:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree; I see no abuse of power here. Errors in judgment can and should be handled via COM:UNDEL. Kameraad Pjotr deleted 100 files so far this month; 98 were uncontested. That is a good record, I think. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Walter and others saying that no basis for the complaint has been shown. ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The aim is very simple: for Kameraad Pjotr to be reminded that his opinion has no more weight than anybody else's, and that he must stop high-handedly ignoring consensus and simply acting on his own opinion. LX, Commons:Deletion policy is what gives administrators the right to close deletion requests once consensus has been reached or the discussion has come to an end; it does not give them the right to privilege their own opinion over that of other people's. If they have an opinion on the matter they must join in the discussion and see what others think of it. In both of the cases above Kameraad Pjotr did not do this; he ignored the discussion completely, and decided on his own to delete. He had no right to do that, and I will not be bullied into submission here. It is not up to me to find out his reasoning, it's up to him to give them or stand accused. -- Zsero (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

So to sum up, you're not requesting any action requiring administrative privileges, you're assuming without basis that Kameraad Pjotr is acting in bad faith, as you have made no attempt to simply ask Kameraad Pjotr how he weighed the arguments presented to interpret the consensus before drawing your conclusions. "Present your reasoning or stand accused" is rather the opposite of assuming good faith. I say again: Commons runs on cooperation. I must insist that you moderate your current accusatory tone and adopt a more civil approach. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If the commons runs on cooperation, then it's KP who is clearly not cooperating, but riding roughshod over other people's opinions. Just look at the three closings under discussion, and explain how these constitute cooperation rather than dictatorship. The action I'm requesting is a formal reminder to KP by his admin peers that he must not privilege his own opinion over that of others, that he is just as much bound by consensus as any other editor, and that if he disagrees with the opinions expressed in a discussion the proper way to show that disagreement is to join the discussion and submit his contrary opinion for others to consider, rather than to act unilaterally on it. -- Zsero (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There were arguments both in favor and against deletion. Administrators, when closing deletion request, take arguments from all sides into account. A comment opposing deletion, or even several such comments, will not keep it from getting deleted if the administrator finds the arguments in favour of deletion to be more persuasive. That doesn't mean administrators' opinions are worth more than those of others, and it doesn't mean they think so. You continue to perpetuate your baseless assumption that Kameraad Pjotr has acted based on some preconceived opinion on this matter, yet I have not seen him express one.

Finally, please understand that administrators have no authority to issue any type of "formal reminders." They are simply regular users entrusted with some additional technical facilities. —LX (talk, contribs) 01:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to becoming the standard tactic: User does something we don't agree with -> ATTACK!!!

This behavior is very questionable and far worst than a maybe incorrectly closed deletion request, because it undermines the whole community. Multichill (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Attack is the best defense. Sv1xv (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The intention seems to be that everybody should leave all Pikiwikisrael uploads alone. This is just part of a "not-an-inch" defence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What a nasty remark directed against an entire national group of Commons editors! It would be good if Pieter Kuiper refactored that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if you take a look at the archives of the different noticeboards, that you'll see that this strategy was especially used a lot related to Pikiwiki files and Pieter Kuiper. Multichill (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What strategy is that? Could you explain what you mean little better?

By the way, the word "strategy"[9] has several meanings or usages. I think the meaning you are implying is "the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal". Perhaps you could come out in the open about what you think my goal is, because your clear implication is that my goal is actually different than the goal I stated in my edit above. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you mistaken to interpret Multichill's comments are being directed at you. Adambro (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He referred exactly to the content of my edit. I would like to hear a reply, from him, to my questions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That was implied in your response, I just don't think he was suggesting you had any hidden agenda and I'm not clear how you came to that conclusion. Adambro (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If I have a question for you I will be sure to ask you, and not Multichill. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, you might want to continue this discussion on Multichill's talk page instead of a public noticeboard. This conversation is drifting away from the topic of this thread, and doesn't require admin attention. As a matter of fact, I'm inclined to close it now, as no one has suggested any solutions or expressed what actions were expected to solve this issue (just general complaints, and nothing good will come out of it). –Tryphon^☂ 16:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I would support a closure as I have nothing seen here beside dissenting opinions regarding deletion requests. For this we have COM:UDEL, not COM:AN/U. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

AFBorchert wrote "I have nothing seen here beside dissenting opinions regarding deletion requests". Perhaps you missed reading Pieter Kuiper insulting remark about an entire nationality, a group that many individuals in Commons and tries to make useful additions to this project. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: I just came across Commons:Deletion requests/File:Snow White and the Three Stooges-Promo1.JPG, where again it appears that Kameraad Pjotr completely ignored the discussion and decided on his own to delete the file, giving no explanation whatsoever for why the consensus that seemed to have emerged for retention was wrong. Simply saying "copyright violation" is not good enough; those discussion the matter seemed to have come to the conclusion that there was no violation, and KP is not entitled to decide on his own that there was. If he thinks the arguments given are not valid, let him argue against them in the discussion and try to disprove them. But once again it appears that he thinks his opinion is more privileged than other people's and he can act on it. He needs to be reminded that this is not so. -- Zsero (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

User::Blurpeace

This user has just deleted File:Jon_Murphy.OGV he gave notice of his intention to delete for CopyVio some 5 minutes after he had deleted? This is incredibly rude. Further more he sites Merseyside Polices FOI policy for his deletion. When the document was released by the North West Development Authority and under the Data Protection Act, so totally irrelevant on both fronts. I seriously think you should consider this users permission to delete files on the basis of competence.--JIrate (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If the authorship is correct, the Merseyside Police Authority is part of the UK Government and falls under Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright lasts for 50 years after creation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the video were taken by the "Northwest Development Agency", then we would need OTRS confirmation of the asserted license. Thanks, –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Police Authorities are not HMG, it is local government.--JIrate (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Blurpeace_talk I think you'll find that giving notice of an intended delete some 5 minutes adter the actual delete does count as very rude.--JIrate (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment here, I feel that User:Irate has been unnecessarily accusatory, calling Blurpeace "incredible rude, thuggish and incivil" and asking "Who requested this? Was it Tim Song‎ or his alias?" because that user had removed the video from the Wikipedia article (as it was a blatant BLP violation). The notification was also left about three minutes after the deletion, not "some 5 minutes", making his attacks unfounded. Fetchcomms (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the user who had first added that video says that he is not User:Irate. Fetchcomms (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to request undeletion of the file, do so at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than here, and please have the patience to let that discussion run its course before you consider alleging misconduct. Also keep in mind that even if the file is undeleted as a result of such a discussion, a single mistake made in good faith is not grounds for removal of adminship rights. According to Commons:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion, admins can remove obvious copyright violations on sight, and the upload form makes it clear that this may be done without prior notice, so as far as I can see, there's nothing special or rude about the application of policy in this particular case. As I mentioned in the second to last topic, quickly resorting to accusations is neither civil nor an effective way to achieve your goals here. If you can show that everything is in order, undeletion is very easy from a technical point of view, so there's really no need to make a spectacle out of it. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Ботик

Please explain User:PereslavlFoto, that does not need to create parallel categories in all languages, and that he did not believe me. Specifically, I ask to delete Category:Ботик, because already there is a category with a normal name Category:Historical Estate «Peter I Botic», except that this name is not individually, because there are other «Ботик»'s. Member of the talk refused: User talk:PereslavlFoto.--Berillium (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Прошу объяснить участнику User:PereslavlFoto, что не нужно создавать параллельные категории на всех языках, а то мне он не верит. Конкретно прошу удалить категорию Category:Ботик, т. к. уже есть категория с нормальным названием Category:Historical Estate «Peter I Botic», кроме того это название не индивидуально, так как есть и другие «Ботики». Участник от дискуссии отказался: User talk:PereslavlFoto.--Berillium (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Israel disputes

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.

Only one blockable policy violation occurred. That block expired on December 29. Further discussion at this board has been unproductive. A few of the 5 million images hosted at this website are controversial. Editors don't have to agree with each other on politics, but it's essential to interact collegially. Please respect consensus and refrain from insults in future interactions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durova (talk • contribs) 05:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

---

User:Liftarn

This remark by Liftarn [10]is way out of line. Also his edits here [11] and here [12] are highly inappropriate. Drork (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering Drork repeatedly removed the category despite several sources (including self description) of the group as terrorists what conclusion could you draw? // Liftarn (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion I would draw is that Drork is making judgments based on reason, while you are making judgments and trying to use reason to justify you preconceptions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please ses discussion at Commons:Village pump#Terrorists or freedom fighters. That the groups in question according to several reliable sources (as well as themselves!) was terrorist groups is entirely relevant. // Liftarn (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comment In this edit, it was Drork who accused me of calling for lethal violence. Glad to see that he now regards such comments as out of line. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comment ? @Pieter Kuiper. I don't see the comparison. Perhaps you could explain why you think there a parallel. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comment I find that comments such as claiming that the Nazis thought that caricatures of blood-sucking, fanged Jews as objective indicate a serious issue with partiality and objectivity. -- Avi (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course the Nazis thought that. Strange that that would shock you. Compare this image for a recent cartoon on that theme. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. They wanted to be graphically shocking and hyperbolic, not that Jews actually suck the blood out of the globe. Same with the image in the Tehran mural. I find your comments revealing, Dr. Kuiper. -- Avi (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand what it means that a caricature is objective. A caricature is not an image that also could be a photo. I find your innuendo distastefull. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Examples of objective cartoons/caricatures: File:Emma y bakunin.jpg, File:Suffrage universel.png, File:Auguste Maquet by Nadar.jpg, etc. -- Avi (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And now I see that Liftarn has added Category:Propaganda cartoons to all the files in Category:Barry Hunau. Very intriguing since he objected it in the Latuff case. Naturally he has been reverted. If it isn't qualifies as provocative, disruptive and collaborative behavior, than I don't what does. Kooritza (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for this discussion, but the Hunau images seem to qualify as propaganda per the commons definition too. -- Avi (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is so, than the category must be added to Latuff's images. But that is something to discussion and to single-sided decision. The subject here is Liftarn's provocative behavior. Kooritza (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already added it to the Latuff images that are appropriate (unless someone has reverted me in the interim). Certain Latuff images do not qualify, such as the "Forgiveness" sequence. -- Avi (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume good faith about your edits in the case of Barry Hunau, but since I disagree than discussion is the appropriate way to handle this. Kooritza (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but the forgiveness series promote peace so by your wide interpretation of propaganda they also should be included. Also notice that the category have started to disappear from some images.[13] // Liftarn (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

When you have something useful and not provocative to say, tell me. Kooritza (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

user:Drork

Drork (talk · contribs) have a history of removing relevant categories.[14][15][16][17][18][19] and so on. He also used edit comments to accuse me of spreading political propaganda[20] and trying to turn Commons into a blog[21][22][23] As well as directly.[24] He also hinted he have done some cyberstalking[25] and accused me of insanity.[26]

Of course I'm not the only person he has targeted[27] // Liftarn (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Liftarn wrote: Drork have a history of removing relevant categories. What you seem to mean is that he made changes you disagree with. Is this noticeboard really considered the right place to discuss editing disputes? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when a picture of Sigmund Freud gets removed from Category:Sigmund Freud I don't see how that can be considered a valid edit. You also failed to address the cyberstalking and accusations about promoting violence. // Liftarn (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It is disgusting to see Commons editors using whining, squealing and wiki-lawering in efforts to have editorial opponents blocked for the offense of disagreeing with them. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This message by Liftarn is a vindictive response to my complaint about his misconduct. I have the feeling that Liftarn mistakenly thinks that he owns this site. Drork (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1

Mbz1 (talk · contribs) yet again starts accusing people he disagree with of antisemitism.[28][29] // Liftarn (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

She has already been blocked for doing so. Adambro (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, missed that. Feel free to close this. // Liftarn (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• In those diffs she is criticizing content as antisemitic, and not at all discussing the editor. Why is Mbz1 being blocked for arguing a point in the proper way? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Block Malcolm Shosha for saying that Mbz1's comments about me are proper. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper, it seems to be your position that all Commons users who disagree with you should be blocked. Grow up. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This will be my only appearance here I promise. Too many unpleasant people by half on both sides. However I am intrigued... People accuse PK of being antisemitic and get blocked. However much of his work is anti isreali or anti jewish - is that inappropriate to be said? It is factual - examine much of his controversial work (sadly it is very lacking in anything collaborative as well). I await my block I guess. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The two diffs given above discuss content, not users. As for you nasty "Too many unpleasant people by half on both sides", what is it that makes you so superior when your own comment is certainly "unpleasant"? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Herby is a well respected member of Commons who has been around a long time and done a lot of very good work. He has held a variety of advanced permissions here, reflective of the trust that many other well respected members of Commons place in him. He's exceedingly mild mannered and soft spoken. So when he comments along the lines he did, it's a pretty valid observation. I find myself in agreement with it, there seems to be far more unpleasantness here than is necessary. Including some of your commentary, truth be told. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lar wrote: "...truth be told". Lar, you are telling me your opinion, which is certainly your right to do. I would prefer that you not label your opinions as "truth". I evaluate that with my own reason. (By the way, I do not much appreciate you implication that I have not contributed anything worthwhile to Commons.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Truth be told" is a turn of phrase to soften the words it's attached to, it's not a claim that an opinion is truth. I did not imply that you have contributed nothing worthwhile. Merely that Herby has contributed a lot, over the years, far more than you. But those are side issues. What I see you "contributing" here is discord. Your combative contributions are not helpful. You're not the only combative one here but most of the others have been around longer, contributed more and have managed not to be blocked on the wiki they came from. So, up your game please. ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lar, who gave you the right to evaluated the relative standing of users, and their relative right to speak on Commons noticeboards? If you think that is part of you administrative privileges, give me a link to the source. (By the way, I am quite familiar with the phrase "truth be told", and it does carry the implication I said.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Insiduous innuendo in an "only appearance". Why is explaining the position of the Isreali Ministry of Justice characterized as anti-Israel? Why is anti-jewish about trying to protect the copyrights of mainly Jewish artists? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The two diffs with this thread show discussion of content not users. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any real issue with the second diff but the first has Mbz1 describing PK as "anti-Semite and Israeli hater kuiper". These kinds of comments do absolutely nothing to contribute to a constructive atmosphere in which issues can be resolved. Mbz1 can't have it both ways. If she expects PK to be reprimanded for harassing her then she must expect the same when she harasses PK. Adambro (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Adambro, could you specify the Commons rule Mbz1 violated? I have had no luck finding any Commons rules. For instance, when you blocked her, you specified no rule that was broken, and that would always be specified on WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

w:WP:NPA I would guess. // Liftarn (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn, I was told on this noticeboard previously that WP:BLP does not apply on Commons because Commons is not WP. But now you say that WP:NPA (equally a WP rule that does not seem to exist here) does apply. Which is it? Do WP rules apply on Commons or not? What is absolutely not acceptable is the current situation in which administrators apply WP rules when they are in the mood for it, and do not apply WP rules when it would require acting against their personal POV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No Wikipedia policies apply here in for formal sense, including WP:BLP and WP:NPA. However, it is generally accepted that the rules of conduct established on Wikipedia are a good guide for what is expected here. Whilst NPA hasn't been formally declared a policy here, it would be very foolish to ignore the principles of that policy since maintaining a civil atmosphere should be quite obviously important. Equally, whilst WP:BLP doesn't apply here, the Foundation resolution on the issue does and the same principles of WP:BLP are valid here. That doesn't mean we delete images that aren't complimentary to indivudals though simply for that reason, just as properly sourced and justified quotes which are negative about individuals won't be removed from Wikipedia. You shouldn't try to look for a Commons rule for every occasion. We shouldn't need one and we'll never have a rule for everything. Adambro (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Adambro, what you say is very reasonable and I agree. The problem is that you answered a different question than the question that is being discussed in this part of the thread. The problem being discussed here is the rules (or the lack thereof) as they apply to blocks of users. In my view, the lack of clear Commons rules allows administrators to act as they choose, and to apply their own POV instead of rational and consistent policy. That is not good. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The rules are clear enough: I'd point out that the policy includes "After placing a block that may be controversial, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' noticeboard for peer review". In other words, admin actions are all theoretically reviewed. If an administrator acts completely out of line, it will be noticed and brought here (this has happened on several occasions). Admins are not above the law and cannot apply their tools in support of their own POV without expecting punishment. That's no different to en.wp. If you have an issue with this block of Mbz1 please say what it is. If you feel Commons policy on blocking is inadequate, make suggestions at Commons talk:Blocking policy?--Nilfanion (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Nilfanion wrote: "The rules are clear enough". Clearly we disagree on this point, and I have explained why in a few edits above. But to expand, Commons blocking policy says blocks may be applied for the following reasons:

1. Vandalism
2. Edit warring
3. Copyright violations
4. Harassment (It is interesting, reading this in full, to note that this says that good faith disputes are not grounds for a block, and instead should be brought to the Village Pump for outside input)
5. Unauthorized or non-responsive bot accounts
6. Approved bot accounts that are temporarily malfunctioning
7. Inappropriate usernames
8. Evasion of blocks

As you can see, nothing on this list describes Adambro's block of Mbz1. Moreover, in this sort of 'make up your own block rules' situation, that administrators like so much because it gives rather unrestricted power, it is not likely that noticeboard complaints will prove effective. Not that I think any changes for the better will be made. In fact, it seems quite clear that such changes will not happen. Tanto è inutile. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Your quote is inaccurate as it misses: "Blocks may be applied for a number of reasons. The more common of these are detailed below". In other words, the list of reasons on that page is not exhaustive and therefore it is not a requirement to give one of those reasons to block. Also remember, admins can always do whatever they want as there is no technical measure that stops them from doing things that are out and out wrong. They are trusted not to misuse the powers, and these pages are primary recourse if that doesn't happen. Its not a "make up your own block reason", its "use your judgement, and if you are wrong expect to be penalised". In this case, my understanding is that Mbz was temporarily blocked due to concerns about civility to provide her with a cooling off period - and I'd say it was a reasonable block in the circumstances. I'll reiterate by previous point if you feel the blocking policy is inadequate, take that issue to the policy page and help us improve it. I'll also ask a more fundamental question: Was Adambro's block of Mbz an appropriate thing to do given the circumstances? That is not "does policy allow it" but was it "appropriate"? If not, why not?--Nilfanion (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the list is not exhaustive. I did not say there should be no rule that allows such blocks. But a little tighter policy, based on Commons overall goals, would be a good thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And I'd agree clearer policy is a good thing. If you have any suggestions on how to improve it, please make them at the policy page.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I will not go beyond this point, but am instead returning to my self-imposed Commons-exile. This seems a good place to stop. Sorry if my rough approach hurt the feelings of some users. Sometimes I get a little carried away. To all who celebrate tomorrow as a holiday: have a Good Year, Bon anno. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(<-)For what it is worth, Malcolm, there is an understanding that we need to respect our fellow commons editors, and regardless of personal feelings, outright calling someone a "anti-Semite and Israeli hater" does not help create the required atmosphere to edit collegialy. I can sympathize with how Mbz feels, but she, and all of us, need to rise above name calling on the commons. Also, the specific policy would be Commons:Blocking policy in the introduction: "…for behaviour that has the potential to damage the Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere." Of course, it is supposed to be used as a last resort and should be applied to all people who disrupt the atmosphere, but that is a different issue for Adambro and others to answer. -- Avi (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Avi, leaving aside the humorous ref to Commons collegiality, I looked at the list of reasons for Commons blocks, and can not find the one that applies to Mbz1. Could you be more specific in your support for her block? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not stating support or opposition for the block. I am saying that per the Commons, blocks may be used as a last resort to maintain the collegiality of the commons. I believe that is what Adambro was trying to maintain with his block, although I cannot speak for Adambro, of course. -- Avi (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Avi, I understand your POV, but I am trying to find the Commons rule that gives Adambro actual grounds for his block. Blocks can not be given out just on the basis of what some administrator feels like doing. There are supposed to be grounds, a rule that is being enforced. For instance, when I brought up the issue of BLP, Adambro said there is no Commons rule that gives grounds for enforcing BLP. OK. Well, what gave him grounds for blocking Mbz1? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I cannot speak for Adambro, but I too would interpret Commons:Blocking policy to allow blocking as an extreme measure to prevent harassment and disruption of the Commons atmosphere, so I am willing to extend to Adambro the benefit of the doubt that he truly felt that Mbz was acting in a manner that was going to cause more disruption of the Commons atmosphere if she were not temporarily stopped. My personal opinion on the matter may or may not be different from Adambro, but I cannot say he is guilty of abusing the admin bit in this instance. I would hope he would explain why he felt Mbz was acting more disruptively than others, but that is for him to do, and not us to surmise. -- Avi (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Avi has most elegantly explained what is my position. It isn't necessary to justify a block by referring to a specific rule and the block policy allows for this. Just as I don't need a specific rule to ask Malcolm not to make unnecessary sarcastic comments. It would be a dark day in the history of Commons if we had to formally write down the expectation that users will be civil towards each other.

The particular case of Mbz1 is different to those others that have been highlighted. I have talked to Mbz1 about issues such as this on a good few occasions and am much more familiar with her contributions and the recent incident with PK. Adambro (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looking for highly explicit rules is approaching this wiki incorrectly. It is collegial here, for the most part, because we all (or most of us anyway) work hard to get along, most of the time. Malcolm, do your part, please, and spare us the snarkiness. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lar, you have been highly involved in arguments with me from WP, although strangely those fights disappeared from my talk page after I was sent into wiki-exile. I really do not value your opinion, which amounts to: administrators can block anyone they want whenever they want and do not need to site any rule for that all. Nice. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessary that you value my opinion, or anyone else's. Merely that you edit in a non tendentious and collegial manner. Which you haven't been. That's not an opinion, it's a warning. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A "warning"? A warning of what? That I will get exiled from Commons? I can live with that, and can depart satisfied that I have behaved ethically....even if not to your liking. Of course there is the issue of your personal vendetta against me, and it might be better if you found another administrator (who has at least the appearance of being uninvolved) to do the dirty work for you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I could give you that warning if you would prefer. Demanding that every action on Commons must follow a written procedure somewhere is contrary to the spirit of this wiki. Adambro's block of Mbz was not an abuse of powers even though it did not follow the letter of the page on blocking policy.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nilfanion, giving warnings is from your preferences, not mine. Your actions are based on your choices, not mine, and it is your own ethical responsibility if you choose to act viciously.

As for the rest of your edit, you are saying, in effect, that Commons administrators are happy with the current situation where they give blocks as they choose, without any need to cite rational existing rules for those blocks, and anyone who is unhappy with that unchecked exercise of authority can push off. That is unsatisfactory. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you blocked Mbz for accusing people of antisemitism while you let Liftarn get away with accusing me of promoting terrorism? Am I the only one who sense something wrong here? Drork (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope you can appreciate that it is difficult now to know who should be blocked when the reality is that civility hasn't been a strong point of many of those involved. The argument for blocking Liftarn for such suggestions though appears strong. I need more time to consider the situation and would rather someone else dealt with it if I am completely honest. Not because I don't see the comments as inappropriate, but that this isn't an area of Commons life I particularly enjoy. Adambro (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am going to make a very frank statement here: I often feel people test my patience here. I took the task of reaching out to people, in Israel and elsewhere, and convince them to contribute to the Wikimedia projects. It would not take much to make our work (my colleagues' and mine) go in vain. Some unnecessary deletions due to misinterpretation of local laws, a veteran of a certain organization who sees it unjustly categorized under "terrorism", a person looking for images of Sigmund Freud and find an almost-antisemitic caricature on the category dedicated to this Jewish scholar. These are all things that would drive people away from here faster than a lightening. On top of all that, I have a strong feeling that certain users try to make this project their own and drive anyone who disagree with them away by repeatedly questioning their good faith, making unnecessary provocations, and engaging in endless debates. I tried to abandon this project in order to avoid any further conversation with these users, but Wikimedia Commons is a project that reflects on the entire activities of Wikimedia. If this project does not work well, I might as well abandon all outreach projects. Drork (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Drork, you know that your leaving would be exactly what people who test your patience would want. A break may be appropriate, but not leaving :) -- Avi (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So you do admit w:WP:CANVAS? Interesting... // Liftarn (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Liftarn. He has reached out to non-commons contributors, trying to get them to help contribute their work to the commons. Not only is that not canvassing, that is WONDERFUL. We WANT more commons contributors, not fewer. Please try and understand what is actually WRITTEN and not what you want to believe. -- Avi (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Avi. Whilst it is blatantly obvious that canvassing has gone on in relation to Israel/Latuff issues, it is somewhat creative to interpret Drork's comments as an admission of responsibility for canvassing. There should be no doubt that the efforts of those involved in the Pikiwiki project are examples of the kind of collaborations we should be encouraging. Adambro (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(Delurking)... Rather than debating the merits of Latuff, which is unlikely to gain agreement, how about balancing his views with quality material that show other perspectives? Here's a historic photograph of Viscount Herbert Samuel and a Zionist banner, taken 1920.[30] Although I'm backlogged with other commitments and won't be able to restore it myself (at least not in the near future), would gladly coach and assist anyone who'd like to work on it as a potential featured picture. With respect toward all, Durova (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We already have Category:Barry Hunau and Wikimedia Israel free image collection project and that don't appear to have worked. // Liftarn (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is a specific featured picture drive. Others are possible. Jaakobou ran this image from the Camp David accords as a featured picture candidate; it might pass with a different edit to the histogram. There's also a good resolution portrait of Golda Meir that's been donated to the public domain.[31] Durova (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the compliments for the Pikiwiki project. I really appreciate them. Nothing would make me more glad than seeing such projects in other countries, especially countries underrepresented on the Commons from the Arab world, Eastern Europe, Africa and S Asia. We gained a lot of experience from this outreach project, some of it the hard way, and we are eager to share it. Now, I'm not worried about how Israel is represented in the Commons. First of all, I'm not from the Foreign Ministry, secondly, there are many useful picture from Israel on the Commons. I often joke that if Israel were wiped-up by a tsunami wave from the Mediterranean, it would be easy to reconstruct it using the Commons. Having said that, I am very concerned about the treatment of political caricatures on the Commons. Most authors of caricatures keep their copyrights because this is what they make a living of. Naturally, those who give up their copyrights are the ones that have the most controversial views, because this is a way to disseminate their opinions. The Commons, like any other Wikimedia project, was never meant to be a political forum. The power of these projects results from their adherence to freedom of knowledge, not freedom of speech. Currently, I see certain users doing their best to promote caricatures that comply with their political views. This is not right. These caricatures are here only because the community thought they can contribute to knowledge. They should be available, not promoted. The fact that these caricatures represent highly controversial views, some of them even offensive to many people, make this issue very crucial. Unless these caricatures are presented and categorized with the utmost caution, we will loose contributors and become associated with politics in a way that will harm the project. Drork (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is probably getting beyond the scope of this section and the page more broadly but you make some good points. I think you've got to be very careful though to conclude that those involved in, for example, uploading, categorising, or voting to keep Latuff images are doing so because they share Latuff's views as I fear is a conclusion which is often quickly reached. Whilst that might be the motivation of some, it is difficult to make such a definitive conclusion, and it would of course be reasonable to assume that if users exist trying to promote certain work, there will equally exist users who seek to suppress it but similarly, we can't assume that is the motivation of everyone who votes to delete Latuff images. The point I am basically trying to make is that we should all avoid forming fixed opinions of others because they might not be accurate. The reality, as it will be in many cases, may simply be an intention to try to improve Commons but the precise idea of how that is achieved will differ significantly. There isn't always an ulterior motive. Adambro (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The political cartoonists who make their work freely available aren't quite always the most radical ones. Edmund S. Valtman was a Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist who donated his work to the public domain in his will. One of his works is a featured picture at en:wiki (haven't gotten around to nominating it here): File:Idi Amin caricature2.jpg. Regarding Pikiwiki, would love to gain access to historic photographs directly from Israeli archives. Or at least to have better contact with the Israeli editor community. Nearly a year ago I blogged about a restoration of a construction site in Tel Aviv.[32] That post includes links to six other similar photographs of other construction sites; if any of them are within the White City then they would be very important--it would be something special to have photography of a UNESCO World Heritage Site being built. Unfortunately the documentation isn't sufficiently detailed, and I've never set foot in Israel. But the Library of Congress staff is good about updating records when more information is available; could we collaborate? Durova (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My take on the block

The block was fair, and I'd say more than kind (one day only). Thank you, Adam for being so kind to me, and I do mean it! Only one thing. I have never expected kuiper to be reprimanded for harassing me, and never ever asked for that. I did call the office because I was soooo desperate, but the only thing I asked for was to remove my own message from his archive. As a matter of fact I hardly could speak at all because I was crying. It is how hurt I was, so although I do consider the block fair, I am not sorry for what I said to kuiper.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering this was not the first (or even second) time you have been blocked for verbally abusing other editors and you don't seem to show no remorse I think it is fair to wonder if you have learned anything or will you be back after a while again? // Liftarn (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I assure you, I have absolutely no remorse for anything I have ever said about latuff and about the editors, who're doing everything to promote it.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought that blocks are not a punishment but a method to stop disruptive behavior. Kooritza (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How do we handle cases where the editor in question obviously have the intention to continue the disruptive behaviour? // Liftarn (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1 hasn't said she intends to continue this behaviour, only that she isn't sorry for what she said, there is a difference. Clearly if Mbz1, or anyone else, continues behaviour for which they've previously been blocked they should expect more serious consequences. As Kooritza has said, blocks aren't about punishing people. Adambro (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

Are the users involved on both sides of this dispute willing to discuss a compromise in which both will get some of what they want, and live with some of what they do not want? To me the problem is less the categories that have been added to the image, and more the deletion of categories. If both sides would be willing to live with some unwanted categories, while having some wanted categories, there would be no further dispute. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

While your intentions seem well a horse-trade would mostly benefit the quarreling parties, not the users of commons (which hopefully are still the majority here) that rely on our category system to help them find appropriate media relating to their queries. --Dschwen (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I adheres to what Dschwen said above, and I do my best to consider the users first and foremost. I would like to see Carlos Latuff's cartoon categorized under "Carlos Latuff" or one of its subcategories. The controversial and polemic nature of these caricature demands pinpoint accurate categorization. I would not like to see a caricature of this kind categorized under "West Bank Barrier" just because the drawing shows a wall, under "Palestinian ambulances" just because a white van with red crescent is part of the drawing etc. As for the categorization under "antisemitism" I didn't suggested this category, and I am not sure whether it is appropriate or not. Some of the caricatures do include antisemitic motives, but it is not crucial to put them under that category. I strongly object the attempt by Liftarn to assign the category "Terrorism" to some pre-statehood militant Jewish organizations. This is way out of line, especially as it adds nothing to the users of this project, and seems like a pure provocation. I think Latuff's controversial work is represented here beyond its real value or impact. This results from his publication strategy of waiving copyrights. While Wikimedia in general, and Wikimedia Commons in particular, usually views such a strategy with favor, in this case it must be treated very cautiously because it draws this project into a political turmoil in one of the most sensitive conflicts on earth. Drork (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see images categoriesed acoring to creator (in this case Category:Carlos Latuff or suitable subcategory) as well as per what it shows. As for categorising self-proclaimed terrorists or where reliable sources back up that fact in Category:Terrorism should also be acceptable. As Drork may have missed I have not categoried militant organisation that did not carried out acts of terrorism as terrorists. // Liftarn (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is my suggestion, but I will not argue for it beyond this edit. I believe the best guideline is WP:NPOV, which "requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material"[33]. Of course, what is involved here is just adding proper categories, and not editing an article. But whatever the case, the options are either some compromise, or a continued winner take all fight over categories.

I do think that if it is wanted to add a category some WP:RS is needed to support the addition. That is important. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as one party is not willing to accept a compromise I am afraid there can be none. // Liftarn (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, Liftarn. Consensus does not require unanimity. -- Avi (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

But to be able to enforce it it is required. Otherwise we will have this problem again and again with the same persons involved. You may have missed it, but we had a compromise earlier, but it was broken. It reminds me of a story about a man wanting to buy a sell his used car. He had a buyer coming over. The buyer talked down the price from 40000 to 30000. After that he said he wasn't actually the buyer, but it was his friend that wanted to buy the car. The friend comes over and starts haggling over the price again while there is unspoken threats in the air and talks down the price to 20000. After they settled the price the buyer wants to trade in his old beater and says it's worth 10000. So in the end he lost his car worth 40000 and only got 10000 and an old car worth perhaps 2000. // Liftarn (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. If a consensus is achieved, edits that intentionally destroy the consensus may be considered disruptive and may result in sysops taking action to protect the project. While it must always be remembered that consensus can change, it should also always be remembered that disruptive editing is not an option on the Commons. -- Avi (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

May be, but isn't. // Liftarn (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn, what you do is manipulating the rules to comply with you personal views. You want to turn each image and each category into a kind of Wikipedian article by using the categorization system. You use this system, which was originally meant as a tool for arranging the images and facilitate search, in order to introduce views and opinions about certain organizations or to promote certain images by making them more visible. Now, on Wikipedia there are strict rules regarding the relevancy of views and opinions and on how to present them. Such rules do not exist here on the Commons, because on this project we do not write articles. On the one hand you demand that we let you "write" articles through category manipulations, and on the other you want to enjoy the lack of rules and restrictions. Most of your actions would be considered improper on most Wikipedias. Here, you find more room to game the system and introduce your views. I don't think it's fair. Drork (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Applying relevant categories to images it very much in line with the rules of Commons, especially COM:CAT. However removing valid categories to ensure the images are not visible is a type of censorship. // Liftarn (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying is Liftarn's categories=relevent categories. Louis XIV said "l'état c'est moi", you are saying: "Wikimedia Commons is I". Drork (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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

User:Aitor Agirregabiria and User:Xocolata1

I noticed that Aitor Agirregabiria (talk · contribs) had uploaded File:T1 Prat Aitor Agirregabiria.jpg and File:T1 Prat Aitor Agirregabiria2.jpg which are duplicates of File:Nueva T1 de Barcelona.jpg and File:El Prat T1 Sud.jpg. However, the ones uploaded by Aitor Agirregabiria contain copyright watermarks in them. After seeing this and this I realised that Xocolata1 (talk · contribs) had taken the two images from here and here. All four images should be deleted and someone should take a second look at the other uploads of Xocolata1. I had a look but couldn't find if any had been taken from elsewhere. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 14:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted the four files, since it is rather suspicious that the image are the Flickr free limitation res (1024*768) and just because User:Aitor Agirregabiria is the same name as the Flickr uploader doesn't mean that it is them. The file on Flickr is copyrighted, it is likely that the Flickr user deleted the original images that didn't have the watermaking and reuploaded them with the watermarking, but since they are copyrighted on the watermark and Flickr I have deleted them. I don't have time to look at the users uploads. Bidgee (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello I´m User:Aitor Agirregabiria same person of Flickr Aitor Agirregabiria, author of both photographs. When I realized that Xocolata1 (talk · contribs) take my photos from my Flickr which where without copyright watermarks but with copyrigth in "Additional Information" of the photo on flickr webpage, and upload them to wikipedia without my permision, I reupload both photos to wikipedia with copyright watermarks. I think there can be no doubt that I am the author of the photos as can be seen on my flickr that all photos I made of the airport were made with my Powershot SX200 camera the same day on myFlickr. And I have also lots of more photos on my computer taken that day in original resolution of the Airport. So, if it´s posible, I´m going to reupload both photos with the copyrigth watermarks. Thanks so much CambridgeBayWeather and Bidgee.

Uploads of the user Xocolata1 are suspicious. At least 3 different camera models were used for the uploaded images.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I emailed Aitor Agirregabiria at the address given on Flicker and he has replied indicating that they are the same person as Aitor Agirregabiria on Commons. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 19:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend that Aitor Agirregabiria send OTRS an email (See COM:OTRS on what you need to email and the address to send it to) if they don't which to change the Flickr license. Also watermarks really shouldn't be added as they can be cropped out (See: Commons:Watermarks, though this is not a guideline or policy) or an editor can add {{Watermark}} to the image page. Bidgee (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bidgee. I´ve change both images licenses, now they are both (CC-BY-SA) and I´ve taken out the watermarks. I think that now it´s everything ok.Thanks for help.Aitor Agirregabiria 01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I consider this as  Done, thanks Aitor for your help and clearification. Ill delete Xocolata1 who I suspect had done nothing but uploading copyright violations. I agree with Milas opinion about the camera EXIF, but im not interested to search for the rest (even though the flickr camera search is quite helpful here). --Martin H. (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As same as User:XocolataUnos images, 4 uploads, 3 cameras (2 compact, 1 lense reflex) --Martin H. (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Timeshifter (talk · contribs)

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take this anymore. Timeshifter has repeatedly called my edits mindless [34], [35], [36], [37] and insulted me in various other ways:

I don't know how templates work: [38] I don't speak sufficient English [39], [40], [41]. I have emotional problems: [42].

I warned him that I'm not going to take his insults anymore [43], he did it again [44].

If nobody takes any action about that, I'm going start insulting him in my edit comments as well. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought this might be coming here. I've noticed you two guys not getting along. Timeshifter please stop calling his edits "mindless" even if they appear that way to you. You don't know what's on his mind. Not everyone feels the same about edit summaries. Yes, they most definitely are encouraged as a courtesy to other editors, but it's not policy. Cwbm please try to explain your edits a little. At the very least, when you revert non-vandalism you should say why. That's just one of those things you do when collaborating on a wiki. Communication is essential to working together. Timeshifter, try to refrain from getting personal, ok? Rocket000 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that this dispute may stem from discussions on Template talk:MetaCat/en and Template talk:CatDiffuse/en last fall, as well as Template talk:CatDiffuse/layout that Cwbm cites. As time progressed, the discussion became more acrimonious. The advice of COM:MELLOW may be helpful. Also, someone with an interest in the above mentioned templates may wish to mediate. I endorse Rocket000's comments, and would ask Timeshifter to be more sensitive to those who may not speak English as a first language. Please try to explain why your wording is better. That may lead to more understanding and better wording. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cwbm started following me around and doing reversions for spite. All because of a feud way back with Template:MetaCat/en and Template:CatDiffuse/en. That was settled by agreeing to each of us working on one of them. I thought it was settled, but then Cwbm started with the wikihounding. Many people have pointed out to him his reversions without explanation. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way to accuse somebody of wikihounding is another personal attack. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AGF please. Would Timeshifter have any reason to suspect wikihounding? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jarocristian

Could someone administer some kind of minor boot upside the head to User:Jarocristian? He's not a major problem, but almost every single edit of his is either a vandalism edit or a pointlessly baffling / bafflingly pointless edit, and he doesn't respond in any useful way to any concerns expressed about his behavior. AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Foroa (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

Hi ŠJů, could you please explain where exactly you assume a misuse of admin tools? --AFBorchert (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned twice above. He locked pages Nové Město and Staré Město to enforcement of his own opinion and his own idea that category redirects mustn't be categorized not even in cases where it is useful. --ŠJů (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi ŠJů, this is not an opinion but policy. Did you note Foroa's comment redirected categories should not be categorised? See, I think I understand the original problem, i.e. that two district names of the whole set are not in Czech and that you wanted to support them. It would be a good idea to discuss this at the corresponding talk page or at COM:CFD. But putting soft category redirects into the superior category is not an acceptable approach to this issue as is indicated by Redirected categories should be empty and not categorised themselves in the redirect text itself. Hence, Foroa enforced just this policy but was otherwise not involved in this. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did you read this "policy"? -- User:Docu at 16:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You have read the text generated by the {{Seecat}} template, haven't you? --AFBorchert (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have, but I also noticed who wrote it (despite the fact that it was protected) and when it was written. -- User:Docu at 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Foroa had no significant edits in the template and non of them is recent. Hence, I fail to understand your comment. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you looked at the wrong template, "seecat" is just a redirect. -- User:Docu at 17:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I looked at this history and I still fail to see your point. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the source of that page, you will notice that it doesn't contain that text either. -- User:Docu at 17:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nové Město, Praha is not locked. Foroa locked category names, with good reason. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Pieter, it's Category:Nové Město (Praha), not Nové Město, Praha. -- User:Docu at 16:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of categorizing the redirect or not, I think it's clear that Foroa should have requested another administrator to lock the category pages rather than doing it themselves. -- User:Docu at 16:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Docu, no it's not clear. Why shouldn't Foroa act as admin in this case? --AFBorchert (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Because Foroa disagreed on this question with SJu. -- User:Docu at 16:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, nearly all admin actions are in disagreement with someone. The question is whether an admin uses admin tools in a conflict situation where he or she was involved. I still fail to see this here. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but combined with the edit history of Category:Nové Město (Praha) it doesn't look like just a simple disagreement. -- User:Docu at 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've looked through the edit history but I still do not see your point. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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

• Can you point us to the section in Commons:Rename a category that warranted your repeated reverts? -- User:Docu at 18:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is pointless to repeat once more that there is essential distinction between general concepts and proper names and other stable and expectable local designations. English exonyms are often problematic and is needed to apply them sensibly (but ad hoc transtations of local names are undesirable and absurd). How many maps of Prague in English contain 110 or more Czech district names, but 2 or 3 district names in English? Btw, for the district of Malá Strana exist two different English exonyms. English exonym can be used in informal texts, but maps, documents and encyclopedical works should be more consistent. As I mentioned above, I acquiesced in this anomaly but I consider that the original (Czech) names should be findable in the alphabetical order of the category Districts of Prague as well. Categorizing of the appropriate category redirects with real district names (Nové Město and Staré Město) into the category Districts of Prague is the most suitable treatment.

The thesis that "Redirected categories should be not categorised themselves" can be proposed and discussed and should be considered whether reasons of this thesis are more relevant than opinion that categorizing of some category redirects can be useful (as can be demonstrated in case of category Category:Staré Město (Praha)). The fact is that Foroa made the first revert of Category:Nové Město (Praha) on 19:11, 3 December, however this "rule" Foroa himself changed at 6:29, 4 December. Without any link to discussion and consensus, without any reasons, without any edit summary. Inasmuch as Foroa is known as systematic infringer and antagonist of stated policy about category redirects, he isn't the right person to change or codify rules about it without discussion. To enforce own opinion by locking of pages, by changing of locked templates, by changing rules without discussion etc. is clear abuse of sysop's rights. --ŠJů (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comment In the meantime, I hope everyone decided to cool down. Please both avoid reverting each other in the future without attempting to discuss it. As there are some other cases where Foroa used admin tools to impose his/her point of view, I asked Foroa on his/her talk page to confirm that in the future we can count on this not being done.

As Foroa couldn't point us to any existing policy pages and the change seems to have confused AFBorchert here, would an administrator undo the edit on Template:Category_redirect/en (diff), made by Foroa during this dispute between SJu and Foroa. -- User:Docu at 23:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• The edit of Template:Category_redirect/en still needs to be undone. -- User:Docu at 13:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Not needed, in line with Commons:Rename a category. --Foroa (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Independent from my confusion, I concur with Foroa's attempt to consolidate our policy in regard to category redirects. It is ok to boldly improve or clarify our policies and it would also ok to challenge this by a discussion on the corresponding talk pages. Hence, I do not see a need to revert Foroa's edit at Template:Category_redirect/en as long as we do not have a consensus in either direction. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that Foroa edit-warred over such a redirect and failed to answer the question of 18:14, 6 December 2009, there isn't really any reason to maintain the change. -- User:Docu at 04:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we do not have a consensus in either direction, as AFBorchert says. But why the template states the position of one side having no consensus about that position?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please take a user to any action, since such changes, when the category changed to redirect to a much more general category [45] [46], other than vandalism will not name. If you really want to rename - so rename, but so-why? Forgive machine text.--Berillium (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Lar and User:Malcolm Schosha

Moved from Village Pump by Adambro (talk)

I would like to get outside comment on a dispute I am having with Lar. I have been having a discussion with him here, and in my view his replies are not to the point. The discussion on his talk page is here. The disagreement has to do with my comments here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the link to the discussion on Lar's talk page does not seem to be working, but I do not understand why. If someone could fix that I would be grateful. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This actually belongs on COM:AN/UP as it's a problem with a user Malcolm Schosha, who has been warned repeatedly (and not just by me) that his approach is insufficiently collegial. This is the same general thing that got him indefinitely blocked at en:wp. As for the link to my talk, try User_talk:Lar#From_User_talk:Mbz1 which seems to work. Can someone move this thread there please? ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

NB: I have restored the thread to the Village Pump. What I am requesting is comment from users, not administrative action. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with many things Malcolm says including his post on my talk page the lead to that thread, yet IMO it is not right thing to say that his problem is "inability to get along with others". He cannot get along with users, who promote radical Islam, and I hardly could blame him for that. His initial block for edit warring on English Wikipedia was very unfair because the other editor involved was not blocked, and then the ban followed.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't recall seeing a single user here who promotes radical Islam.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Some people like to fight. Just like in the real word, what can you do. Rocket000 (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about English wikipedia and "promote radical Islam" were not the right words to use. Sorry. What I meant to say was that users, who involved in editing Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles often have a very heated debates (call them fights, if you want to) over the subjects, the debates that lead to ban on topics, and sometimes to indefinite blocks. Even very polite users are getting blocked and banned because the issue hurts so many, and in a different ways. I personally tried to edit those articles, but understood that I could not do it. Here's only one recent example of the debates I was talking about. There are many, many more like those. And, no Rocket000, it is not because "Some people like to fight", but rather because that the subjects themselves are very explosive, and sometimes the truth cannot be verified easily. Few weeks ago I talked by phone to my very best friend, who lives in Israel. Suddenly she yelled: "Rockets, we need to run". She has two kids, and it was not the first time we stopped talking like that. Do I like to fight,Rocket000? So, concerning Malcolm Schosha I only meant that he cannot and should not be judged only over his contributions on Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles in English Wikipedia. It is not a good indicator to judge a person behavior. On the other hand I believe Malcolm should try to avoid giving Lar a hard time. Lar is a good person, and a fair administrator. Sometimes administrators make mistakes, when they block users or decline unblock requests, but they are humans, and humans make mistakes besides many of them are overworked. IMO the best way to resolve such problems is talking to each other directly maybe even via private emails. I am sure many problems could be resolved that way. @Lar, please try to understand how the user feels, I know you could, you proved it quite a few times with myself. Sorry for a long post. I was not sure how to make it shorter. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you. Rocket000 (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)