Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: [[:]]

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~142
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-06: ~103

Other:

• Duplicates: ~0
• Advertisements/spam: ~1
• Personal photos/selfies: ~10
• Other speedy deletions: ~135
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~1
• Undeletion requests: ~18

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~5
• Interface admin: ~18
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~35
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

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

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

Desysop of Rama

Yesterday user:Rama seems to have gone out of control, and apparently not for the first time.

First, in an apparent fit of anger for my disagreeing with him he threatened to sue me [1], which is grounds for blocking on WP, and I suspect is here on Commons also. His saying to me that "Casting unfounded accusations borders on libel..." is a clear warning that if I continued to disagree with him that he would, in fact, sue me for libel. Noticeboard talk pages should not be used for making personal threats and threats of legal action, and Rama doing so seems a misuse of administrative authority.

Then, he blocked Mbz1 for three days, although he was at that very moment involved in an editing dispute over the categorization of an image file with her. An involved administrator blocking an editing opponent is clearly a misuse of administrative authority, because that block served his personal interests.

I think it would be in the best interests of Commons if Rama is Desysoped for misuse of his administrative authority. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate saying this but the behaviour I have seen falls short of what I would like to see (& have seen) in Commons admins sadly. However I am unsure whether a desysop request is appropriate yet. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I will not comment on Rama's conduct, it is not my call. If it were only for my own blocks, that's OK, no desysop required, but his conduct with Malcolm Schosha, and even more so with Herby sadden me a lot. I came here mostly to comment on my own conduct and apologize for it. When yesterday I wrote what I did at this very board, I should have known Rama could block me for that. Although I stand behind my words, I admit I probably should not have said them, not because of my own block, but just to avoid putting other people under fire. The worst thing I've done was my outburst at my talk page last night. I had absolutely no rights to blame anybody for not lifting my unfair block right away or for not lifting it at all for that matter. So, here's my apology to you, AFBorchert, to you Herby, to you Huib, and to all other admins, who were offended by my last night comment. Herby, please forgive me that yet another time you found yourself under attack because of my conduct. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

At one point, inside this story, I understand arguments of Rama but I suffer the same rigid attitude, very despotic in reality. This user uses status and offense very easily and is clearly closed to discussion in fact.Old user Hcrepin in a desperate of complete removal from WikiCommons

I agree with Herby, while I hate behaviour like this I would need to think good about the vote I would give, I don't know what to vote right now. But when you make a desysop please make sure you have all the facts clear. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 14:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Huib, I claim expertise in only a few areas, and a desysop request is certainly not one of those areas. I did my best. I said what seems true, and the request is something that I think is in the best interests of Commons. This was (to the best of my recollection) my only encounter with Rama, and his misuse administrative authority in this instance seemed extraordinary. I have had plenty of disagreements with other administrators, but never had even the thought of making such a complaint against any of them. In my view, Rama's misuse of administrative authority is unacceptable, is harmful to the interests of Commons, and see no reason why action should be deferred to some other time. I understand that it can be very difficult for administrators to take action against another administrator, but I believe they should do what clearly needs to be done, and do it now. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see any threats to sue, but he did say "If you do not desist from such behaviour, you shall be blocked.". As for the block of Mbz1, the block was correct, but it should probably have been left to an uninvolved admin. So far nothing that actually warrents a desysop. // Liftarn (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is how can you vote against somebody able to block you or revoke your changes :-) Not the point that Rama is necessary all the time wrong but have regularly the same manner that's justifying a blocking and refuse any evolution if putting in cause his/her own value. - Hcrepin -

I also fail to see any legal threat, merely a threat to block someone for calling people hateful because of their opinions on categorisation. I'd probably have done the same. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mattbuck, could you show me where I called "people hateful because of their opinions on categorisation", as you said I did? My recollection is that I said no such thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I'm simply saying that's my interpretation of Rama's comment. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Without weighing in on any other aspect of this, saying something "borders on libel" is not a legal threat any more than saying something "borders on a copyright violation" or "borders on child pornography." - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Stating that Rama threatened to sue is a misunderstanding at best and a flat out lie at worst. --Dschwen (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I read it as a legal threat. If you disagree with my understanding of what Rama wrote, it might be better to say that you think I am wrong, rather than calling me a liar. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And you are doing it again. Is this a pattern? I merely give a range of possibilities. You being wrong is at one end of the spectrum. --Dschwen (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Then let me rephrase it: I read it as a legal threat, as I explain further below. If you disagree with my understanding of what Rama wrote, it might be better to stop with saying that you think I am wrong, rather than continuing on to also call me a liar. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to put my discussion with Rama into full sight, I wrote:

I understand perfectly well that antisemitism is a crime in some European countries. But it is not strongly enforced anywhere. For the most part its unenforced. The image is antisemitic, and the category is justified. What I see happening is a very selective concern for legal issues. I would like to see something from WMF lawyers saying that this is actually a problem for the Foundation. Otherwise, I will continue to consider this to be just one more excuse from those who do not want such images called antisemitic because of their own personal POV.

And Rama replied:

That has nothing to do with POV; I do not claim that this image is or is not antisemitic, and I do not give a damn. Casting unfounded accusations borders on libel, is disruptive and provocative, and will not be tolerated -- period. If you do not desist from such behaviour, you shall be blocked.

He was apparently saying, in response to my "Otherwise, I will continue to consider this to be just one more excuse from those who do not want such images called antisemitic because of their own personal POV", that my words were

1. Libelous to him (with an implied threat of a law suit for libel),
2. disruptive,
3. provocative, and
4. grounds for his blocking me.

That extreme reaction to my words ("Otherwise, I will continue to consider this to be just one more excuse from those who do not want such images called antisemitic because of their own personal POV"), and his block of Mbz1 while he was involved in a dispute with her, is the reason I started this thread. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think Malcolm and Rama are perhaps mutually misunderstanding each other. I see no grounds for a desysop but would urge both parties to try to communicate better. ++Lar: t/c 10:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Rama and I understand each other pretty well. My proposal to desysop Rama is, in my view, justified; but I had no illusions that it would succeed. There is the tendency of many administrators to circle the wagons in defense of one of their own. That is understandable, but it may further reinforce the view that there is an element of favoritism at work, and that administrators sometimes place their own interests above the interests of Commons. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That last is a non-argument. It seems to me the discussion gets further and further out of scope. The scope is not about opinions or world visions. The scope is about: has there been misuse of admins rights, yes or no, and if yes, is that an unintentional misuse, incidental misuse or structural and intended misuse. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Havang, I have said what I think is correct, in a way I think makes some important points. I am not good at presenting a long arguments with multiple diffs, as is the norm arbcom cases. Perhaps this diff [2] will clarify my thinking, in the following two points:

1. In this diff I see that Rama is abusive: I don't care if it's true or not. You can add up truths and go anywhere you want just by ordering them as you want. I do not discuss whether Mbz1 was correct or not, I am discussing whether she was insulting and being a troll. Which she was., and
2. And in the same diff I see that Rama is attempting to use this site to promote views, and that he is actually trying to prevent the balanced use of categories, at least with the Latuff cartoons: Mbz1's sources are biased, scarce, and prove absolutely nothing. She bases (or rather excuses) her entire argumentation on a handful of editorials in Israeli newspapers. With that sort of sources, we could also take it as a fact that Iraq has nuclear weapons. On the other hand, there are very numerous sources, including the United Nations, that have declared the aggression against Iraq to be illegal; will you add "war crime" to the parent category, or shall I? Will we start digging Al Jazeera, anoter "WP:RS", for other idea of funny categorisations? Or will we drop the matter as needless fuel trolls? This was in a reply in which I linked to the WP article on Latuff, which has sources that are certainly WP:RS.

This ugly behavior shows, in my view, an administrator who is trying to use Commons, not for a balanced source of information, but for propaganda, and is using abusive methods to do that. Does that help with your request concerning "scope"? If not say so and I will try again to explain better. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The scope here is not about content, (discussing content is between users) but about an administrator in its administrator functions. Rama as administrator must stick to judge behavior, and not judge content. That is the meaning of his phrase <quote>I don't care if it's true or not. You can add up truths and go anywhere you want just by ordering them as you want. I do not discuss whether Mbz1 was correct or not, I am discussing whether she was insulting and being a troll. Which she was. </end of quote>. (1) I dont'care if its true or not = Rama as administrator is not judging content, correct. (2) I am discussing whether she was insulting and being a troll = Rama as administrator is judging behavoir, Ramna's task. (3) Which she was. = conclusion, basis for Rama's action as administrator. So, Rama spoke and acted correctly as adminstrator but you missed that point. I agree, it is not always possible to separate completely the administrator position and the user position, and you are focussed on content, so you bring that repeatedly in the discussion, but its out of scope. If you have a difference about content with Rama, that has to be discussed at the talk pages of the articles or categories. Here we must judge Rama as administrator. Which I do now by giving my vote:

•  Oppose desysop. --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Havang, that is absurd. What is the purpose of voting when I already said this morning that I know this will fail. I think I am right on the issue, but I knew from the beginning there was no chance. There is the usual tendency of many administrators to circle the wagons in defense of one of their own. That is understandable, but it may further reinforce the view that there is an element of favoritism at work, and that administrators sometimes place their own interests above the interests of Commons. Your vote is an absurdity. But thanks for your comments.

Tanto e inutile. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Inutile, but utile also. No desysos for the moment, but it does not mean that Rama was irreprochable. This discussion is for Rama an appeal to improve his functioning as administrator, notably that in the future in cases where he is involved in a conflict, he may leave the use of administrator tools to one of the other administrators. And for Malcolm: why not apply the principle of good faith also to administrators? They are watching each other severaly ... --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We are witnessing a disturbing pattern of people getting blocked for varieties of disruptions and claiming to have conflicts with the admins who inflict the blocks. Kuiper does that quite systematically, and Schosha has invented a conflict between me and Mbz1 to attack my block (to be fair, she did take on attacking me repeatedly afterwards to back that point, but it's one-sided and posterior).

I'd like to make a statement about this:

• I believe is very important that, in real life, law enforcement forces be held accountable and stick to procedures.
• Wikipedia and Commons are not real life: if someone doesn't like it here, he can just go somewhere else, which is not something you can reasonable expect about real life; on Wikimedia projects, we do not have the same time scale; etc.
• Nevertheless, I am rather favourable to having standards and accountability for the administrative corps and other corps that could be seen as invested with authority (I believe that the idea that admins are invested with particular authority is mostly mistaken, but still, Caesar's wife and all that jazz)
• BUT: if we are heading in that direction, it means that we do need to have standards, real ones -- not ad hoc complains from the very offenders and their meat puppets; they must be written clearly, firmly, and preferably not by known trolls to custom-tailor their needs; it means that admins must be able to know what they can and cannot do, and have confidence that they will be protected and defended efficiently when they stick by the book; it means that we do not tolerate offenders trying to generate artificial or a posteriori conflicts to disqualify the particular admins who deal with their offences. Police accountability cannot come without the possibility to make arrests for wasting police time. If "admin accountability" only means "backlash against admins", we'll simply give a free reign to trolls; I believe that this is an even less desirable situation than informally relying on the good judgement of selected trusted people.

Rama (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We have rather clear rules for editors, and that doesn't seem to help very much on any of the projects, so I'm not hopeful about adding clear rules for admins to be any different.

The problem is that some people are just taking things WAY too personal and get way too attached to their viewpoints and their commitments to defend those viewpoints within the project, even when it is clearly not gonna become consensus. That is fine and everything, this is an open place, but at some point people are tipping towards becoming disruptive. Disruptive behavior is disruptive behavior and admins should block for it. Blocked people will complain, because that is what they do. That doesn't make the block incorrect. If you cannot understand that you are taking something from argumentative towards disruption, (which due to our rather liberal discussion places, where we let a lot slide, arguably can be a thin line), then that is where the problem lies. I really didn't see much of a problem in this specific block, though perhaps Rama should have distanced himself a bit more, but I know the feeling. Rama warned, someone figured he could be cute/provocative about it, people get hurt, people complain. Such is life. TheDJ (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is all beside the point, Rama, if you are not citing the policy, or "procedure" in your words, that exists when you do what you do. Trycatch's comment stamped 22:33 on 5 August 2010 cited some policy to justify another decision of yours. This is an example of what could be done. Instead you get talking about how other editors are "wasting your time" and engaging in "childish" behavior and this just antagonizes people. I don't think the "law enforcement" analogy is applicable here. Admins/sysops are more administrators and facilitators such that your references to "my judgement" should really be avoided since it really should just be acting on behalf of the community's judgement. Anyway, this desysop request is like asking for a doctor with a nasty bedside manner to be dismissed. It is not going to be seriously considered if the doctor is still competent in diagnosing and treating but it ought to be cause for a rethink about how to soothe instead of inflame.Bdell555 (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any comment made by Rama where they said they were going to "sue", nor do I see abuse of Admin tools that require desysop-ing. Fact is all I see if allegations which are from misunderstandings by two editors and I agree with TheDJ's comments. Life is too short. Bidgee (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee, even if I were to concede, just for the sake of this argument, that Rama did not intend a legal threat; what he obviously did say is still enough to justify that he be desysoped. The edit by Rama in question was as follows

That has nothing to do with POV; I do not claim that this image is or is not antisemitic, and I do not give a damn. Casting unfounded accusations borders on libel, is disruptive and provocative, and will not be tolerated -- period. If you do not desist from such behaviour, you shall be blocked.

So it is clear that he did threatened to block me. For what? There are only two possibilities, based on my comments that he was responding to he was threatening to block me either for saying

1. "The image is antisemitic, and the category is justified." Or,
2. "What I see happening is a very selective concern for legal issues. I would like to see something from WMF lawyers saying that this is actually a problem for the Foundation. Otherwise, I will continue to consider this to be just one more excuse from those who do not want such images called antisemitic because of their own personal POV."

If it was the first, it is clear from discussion on this page that (despite his claims to the contrary) he has argued throughout that the image must not be labeled antisemitic. In that case he was using his administrative authority to enforce his own editing goals. That is something that an administrator should do.

If the second, he was threatening to block me for saying that he has a POV. Is that a blockable offense? I think not. And if it is, would it be proper for the administrator involved to do the blocking? Again, I think not. The fact is that WP assumes that all editors have a POV [3], and that if an issue is controversial that balancing the various POVs will result in a neutral result. So if Rama was using threats to suppress a potentially balancing view point, then he was using his administrative authority to inforce his own editing goals. That, again, is something an editor should not do. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The best that could be said for Rama's edit (above), in which he excuses all of his problematic behavior, is that it is a revolting example of self glorification and excuse making. Particularly in the last paragraph I see a series accusations, apparently directed against me and Mbz1, that are supported by nothing. That paragraph includes a broad range of such accusations, such as

1. ad hoc complains from the very offenders and their meat puppets,
2. known trolls,
3. offenders trying to generate artificial or a posteriori conflicts to disqualify the particular admins who deal with their offences,
4. give a free reign to trolls.

Rama has completely ignored Havang's comment: "This discussion is for Rama an appeal to improve his functioning as administrator, notably that in the future in cases where he is involved in a conflict, he may leave the use of administrator tools to one of the other administrators." Instead he has placed all the blame on the user he offended the most, and none of the blame on himself. Considering that self-justification, there is no reason to expect that anything will change in Rama's behavior, at least not for the better. Rather more of the same, and worse seems likely. I think to regrettable that administrators refuse to desysop Rama now because he has made it clear in his comments above that he has no intention of changing.

I would appreciate it if Rama would either back up his accusation of "meat puppet" with something to support it, or apologize. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you take those points to be accusations towards yourself, says enough. They were points about what sysops have to deal with, and thus what such rules (that you were demanding) for sysops would have to deal with. They exemplify that having clear rules for sysops will have to provide some leeway for 'force' and 'authority', because an anonymous contributor with enough time on his hands will otherwise always have the advantage. Basically what Rama is saying, is that stricter and more clear rules for sysops will mean stricter and more clear rules for editors as well, or otherwise we will truly have wild west territory. TheDJ (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting example of administrators circling the wagons, going on defensive posture, instead of dealing with the problems. (I do not know why you made the comment about administrative rules here, because I have not said anything on the subject in this thread, or elsewhere. In fact I doubt that more rules will resolve problems such as this with Rama.)Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ready to support desysopping, but it does seem Rama causes quite a bit of trouble on the noticeboards. Similar to Herby I'd like to see some improvement in this user's on-wiki behavior. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Support desysop. Rama is prone to issuing arbitrary blocks on his own whim, see for example User:Hcrepin. He refuses to respect Foundation policy on {{PD-Art}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  Oh, what a surprise, having had Rama agree with your block, suddenly you reopen a dead request to see him desysopped. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  You apparently agree that Rama is using his blocking powers irresponsibly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  I grant that I felt the block was overzealous, but if it weren't for the fact I want Mbz1 to defend her image I'd have just left it there. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  In the evidence you showed, Rama replaced a license in one of his own pictures. He acted as a contributor and didn't use sysop tools. --Dereckson (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Support desysop. I have explained my reasons in this section, and more of my thinking on the subject can be found in other sections also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• It does not matter whether Malcolm Schosha's accusations of LEGAL were right or wrong. What I can clearly see from this diff is an irritation that borders with rudeness. Rama is obviously at the breaking point and that is why I support speedy desysop. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 16:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  Does Wikimedia Commons have to vocation to prevent breaking points? Is Commons a psychiatric hopital or a media repository? Are we psys or free media contributors? --Dereckson (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  At least Commons is not Sharashka, you know. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 19:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

*Support for anti-Semitic comment made on English wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• • You know, I'm a Jew, and I can't say his remarks there look so much anti-Semitic as clumsy and insensitive. In any case, though, even if I grant your accusation of anti-Semitism & say I probably wouldn't want to hang out with the guy, that is neither here nor there in terms of his qualifications as a Commons administrator. I'm sure that many Commons administrators hold opinions on one or another topic that I would find execrable. Normally, the only reason to remove someone as an administrator is that the person is abusing the admin tools. - Jmabel ! talk 05:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • No, I did not know you are a Jew. I believe the remark is anti-Semitic, and rama has abused the tools many times as it is seen from this thread. I also believe that all administrators should be neutral. So I believe he deserves to be desysoped, but you know what, who cares? I stricken my comment out. I believe rama is a bad administrator, but whatever....--Mbz1 (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cross-wiki sockpuppeteer

Hi. Just wanted to give you guys a heads up that you're being hit by a Wikipedia sockpuppeteer with a history of completely ignoring copyright policies: en:User:Amir.Hossein.7055. You've had your own problems with him (User talk:Amir.Hossein.7055), and I see that you've bagged one of his socks: DemocraticIranWeNeed. Verysomenotes (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) is still running around (CU confirmed at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055). I do not know, but would not be surprised if he has some Flickr-washing going on, but beyond that he's creating his own template (Template:PD-IRN) and using it to justify images like File:President Ahmadinejad in Qatar.jpg. The only thing I see about "national heritage" in the Iranian copyright law is "Original works based on folklore and national heritage of culture and arts." Is a photograph of some men "national heritage"? Who says so? His uploads and especially his rationales may bear some investigation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Amir.Hossein.7055 is stale, but all the rest are Confirmed socks of one another and have been  blocked. I will let others take a look at the accounts uploads. Tiptoety ^talk 17:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There's definite evidence of flickr washing, though I don't know if he's in on it or victimized by it. [4], uploaded to Flickr 9/7/2010, is pre-published (the tineye match is smaller, but includes elements cropped out of the final). We have it in three pieces: File:Estili.jpg; File:Ali Daie.jpg and File:Afshin Ghotbi.jpg. (It's also uploaded at File:Afshin-ghotbi-2.jpg by Milad Mosapoor (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions): coincidence, or undisclosed sock?) While cropped, this version of the image claims a news agency. (Other images uploaded at Flickr by that account are obviously flickr washing: [5]; possibly taken from this website; [6] was taken from [7].)

Some of his other images look legit, but worth checking out are File:Parliament of Iran2.jpg, File:Parliament of Iran1.jpg, and File:President Ahmadinejad in Qatar.jpg which he has declared with his very own template are PD because they are "expropriated as national heritage".

He's also uploaded a postage stamp (as GFDL/CC) and various images of money: File:QAR.jpg, File:500_QAR_reverse.gif, File:500 QAR obverse.jpg, File:100 QAR reverse.jpg, File:100 QAR obverse.jpg. Obviously the license on the stamp is wrong, but is the money PD?

Should I open a deletion discussion on these, or is there sufficient concern for a tool-user to take action? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could take a look at User:Nima.afroozi‎. Back on Sept 8 a user with the same user-name, en:User:Nima.afroozi‎ has been blocked on en-wiki as a sock en:User:Amir.Hossein.7055. Here, at Commons User:Nima.afroozi‎ yesterday uploaded File:Ghotbi.jpg. The file is an obvious copyvio - at the source flckpage[8] the license is specified as "All Rights Reserved". Nsk92 (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 06:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And another likely sock User:Amir hossein alvandi has just popped up and started uploading images of the same subjects that several previous socks did in the last few days. Nsk92 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked since it is clearly a duck. Bidgee (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed. --Martin H. (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper

Unblocked? Again? Seriously?

Are we just going to waste months and months more on a user who is actively dfriving away more productive people, just because the deletion review cabal isn't the ones being attacked, and don't care if people not involved in that get attacked?

Pieter is bad for Wikipedia. He's a rot in the system, who shows that some users are privileged, and can literally' get away with anything.

He's not even good at what he's praised for - deletions. I've reviewed many of his, and have found questionable logic, poor understanding of the law on copyright, and harassment to get an image clearly within scope and copyright permissions deleted despite being widely used. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't done anything to make you upset. What's your problem? ZooFari 20:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Except attack and harass me here and on Swedish Wikipedia because I blocked him for creating a wall of shame. Or did you just ignore his previous blocklog when you unblocked him, without bothering t talk to the admin who blocked him, as te unblock template says you must do? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty normal to be upset even when it's other people being harassed. He doesn't have to be a victim himself. DarkoNeko 21:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

With Pieter, ANYONE whose tried to enforce anything regarding him will be attacked, and have their reputation dragged through the mud, if he can pull it off. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A fine example of muddragging is here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's time you all apply from now on the principle of good faith to Peter Kuiper. --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

.

Good faith is a principle, but requires good faith in both directions. We don't allow copyvioers to stay around because we assume good faith - we agf, we get burned, we warn, we get burned, we see they're not going to change, we say thankyou and goodnight. I agree with Adam, and that is why I indefed Kuiper to begin with, and lookee here, here we are, at it again. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reason we are here is because the same part of the community against Pieter do not want to reconsider, even though nothing [after the unblock] has happened. Everything was peaceful proceeding the block lift, until Adam realized that Pieter was unblocked. I'm not going to waste my time dealing with Adam's hyperbole that's related to things that happened before the block. Some of you think all this is is rotten, bad, etc but I see valuable hand. This thread was unnecessary and not going to change anything. It's just redundant repetition that triggers drama. ZooFari 00:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. –Tryphon^☂ 01:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying who brought us here, or whether or not it was justified, merely that we are here again, on the same subject as ever, wasting our time. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's no reason to continue belittling Pieter. ZooFari 01:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper's name on this board? Again? Seriously? It's a good real life skill to learn to get along with people you don't like, especially when it's for the greater good (in this case, the project, as he does a lot of good work here). Unlike a habitual vandalizers or copyvio-uploaders, not everyone has issues with him (yes, even those with uploads he has targeted). That means the drama is not entirely his fault. Rocket000 (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And evidently, despite him continuing the exact behaviour for which he's gotten blocked over and over, with increasingly desperate rationales. Claims an American sculpture from 1924 - clearly in copyright - should be put through pointless procedure when it has literally zero chance of being out of copyright by the uploader's own statement! Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Very likely it's long time in PD, because copyright wasn't renewed on 28th year, or it was published w/o copyright notice. And it's quite troubling that you have speedily deleted the file w/o notification of the uploader. Trycatch (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's out of copyright. I'm 99.7% positive that that statue is out of copyright, and if I could see the photo and description, like I could if it had been DRed, I could probably add another .2% to that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban on "Pieter Kuiper" for Adam Cuerden?

Withdrawn I talked to Adam on IRC. --MGA73 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC) It seems to me that Adam hates Pieter so much he will do anything to get Pieter blocked. He can not keep focused on the case when Pieter is involved. If Pieter brings up a possible error by Adam he does not focus on the subject but asumes that Pieter is trying to harass him. As I read it Adam has just told he is checking every edit Pieter is making just to find any bad edits. I think that is excactly what some users has told Pieter should be blocked for: Checking just to get revente.

And now Adam wants to waste our time here by starting this complaint (Pieter was indef banned recently for starting a complaint here recently). So perhaps we should make a topic for Adam (Ban him from topics related to Pieter Kupiter. --MGA73 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not just about me. Adam Cuerden speedily deleted a photo by Billy Hathorn without any notice on uploader's user page. Probably that image had not been tagged by anybody else. Cuerden thinks he understands American copyright (but he does not), and that something like this does not merit a response by the uploader, and that it does not need an extra pair of eyes by a different admin. He should not have the admin buttons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think he does good work in other areas. I expect him to learn from his mistakes so I do not support a deadmin yet. One step at a time. --MGA73 (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

He does not need admin buttons for that (just 238 admin actions in the last half year). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

But if he wasn't an admin, he couldn't block people who he's in a personal conflict with, edit war over the site notice where there's also a POV involved, and vandalize the main page. Rocket000 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose! Adam Cuerden (whom I do not know) is not at all alone in opposing Pieter Kuiper's renewed right to stalk, harass and alienate other good contributors. And I respect and admire Cuerden for not giving up. The work Kuiper does, whether perfect (always right) or not, is no reason to allow him to go on with what I consider to be extremely nasty behavior. It is very sad - repulsive in fact - that so many Commons users continue to want to enable Kuiper to carry on as usual, though he has shown us time and time again that he is incorrigible and will never change. He considers himself perfect (I have never seen anything else), has never once apologized to anyone for any of his cruelty, and will never stop it. Are you going to topic ban all of his intentionally targeted victims who object? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Adam speedied a file as a copyvio. Pieter told him it was wrong to speedy but Adam would not listen. He just kept talking about harrasment. Now it is on COM undel and only then Adam is trying to explain why he speedied. Admins should always explain why they delete files if someone asks. I think it sends a bad signal when admins speedy files and refuses to tell why.

As for the question regarding "topic ban all of his intentionally targeted victims who object" the answer is "NO". But the point is that Pieter did not attack Adam but Adam seems to have a problem to think clear when Pieter is involved. So I think it is better to topic ban Adam before he gets himself deadmins or blocked.--MGA73 (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose - you have got to be fucking kidding me. Adam says he disagrees with an unblock, and you want to topic ban HIM for harassment? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • When Kupier objected to one of Cuerden's deletions, for entirely valid reasons, Cuerden posts "And evidently, despite him continuing the exact behaviour for which he's gotten blocked over and over, with increasingly desperate rationales. Claims an American sculpture from 1924 - clearly in copyright - should be put through pointless procedure when it has literally zero chance of being out of copyright by the uploader's own statement!" Instead of paying attention to what Kupier was correctly pointing out, he choose to attack Kupier, claiming that it had no chance of being out of copyright when it was very likely out of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Just that ^ Also he said he blocked Pieter for a wall of shame. Except for Adam not many users thought it was a wall of shame. Adam is not neutral when it comes to Pieter and yet he used his admin rights to block him. Admins should not block users if they have strong feelings against a user. That is abuse of admin powers. When admin overruled that block he kept looking for another reason to get Pieter blocked. That is stalking and I think it is excactly that Adam said we should block Pieter for. So to prevent Adam from getting blocked I suggested a topic ban. --MGA73 (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose, I don't think a topic block is the answer (I'm very skeptical about topic blocks in general). Expressing his opinion is fine, as long as he doesn't use his admin powers against Pieter Kuiper. That being said, I would advise Adam to take a step back, breathe calmly, and maybe just take a few minutes of reflexion, instead of screaming "harassment" every time Pieter says or does anything. –Tryphon^☂ 19:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I have no urge to contribute to commons anymore. 86.160.167.80 20:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment If ^ is from Adam there is no need for this suggestion anymore. --MGA73 (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Yeah, I am sure it was from Adam, which means that Commons just lost a good contributor, but who cares? Right?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • He always "disappears" for a while when there is a problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Let me put it this way Pieter, go fuck yourself. You drive him from commons and now you fucking crow about it. You truly give scum a bad name. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
      • No, he drove himself away by crying about it instead of alternatively considering Pieter's analysis. Yet you decide to demonstrate ridiculousness in front of the community. Put some thought before you post. ZooFari 21:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Oh, I'm sorry, I simply said what I felt, which is that having been the cause of Adam leaving, Pieter felt the need to crow about it. I did think about it. I thought about what Pieter meant, and I considered it to be vindictive. I then called him out on that in a way which best suited my dismay at having a community here which not only tolerates but actively endoreses such behaviour. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I talked to him on IRC so I also think it was from him. If Adam takes a break (long or short) this suggestion is no longer needed. --MGA73 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, I find myself agreeing 100% with Mattbuck, even as to the specific terminology he just used. Kuiper deserves nothing less that that exclamation. Let's all quit Commons and let Kuiper and his dogged defenders run this project themselves, as rudely, cruelly, sarcastically and persecutively as they please! Those who keep supporting him, regardless of all his disruptive and obnoxious input, are likely to be the same kind of people. They'll have to bear that qualification now. How utterly repulsive! I only regret that my friends and I already have contributed over 1000 images that these people now are in charge of, to use and abuse as they please. Btw, Kuiper is the one who helped us get started making those contributions, then turned on us and began stalking and harassing us when he imagined (!) we had other political views than his. All that is in here if anyone ever wants to track and check it. That's what a creep he is. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I find Kuiper increasingly frustrating, but when an admin has one of his deletions questioned, the appropriate response is never to accuse that user of harassing you and loudly trumpet the obviousness of your deletion, especially wrongly. Kiuper opened a calm reasonable undeletion request, and it was Cuerden's responsibility to respond to that in a calm reasonable way like he would any unblocked user.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I conclude that the part of the community who are against Pieter do not take the time to educate themselves about what is going on, as I have not once seen a good reason nor a good objection to those who defend Pieter. Either that or people just decide to open their mouths simply on the basis because they do not like Pieter. ZooFari 21:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It only took a few minutes for an unleashed Kuiper (thank you all!) to retaliate against me with this sarcastic edit summary. Not only is the first part of it inaccurate (there are stars in the original coat or arms) but the second part is nothing but destructive, as usual. Defending Kuiper is defending hundreds if not thousands of actions like this on his part and enabling him to keep it up forever, polluting this project severely. So "not once seen a good reason nor a good objection" looks like an extremely subjective comment to me. Defending Kuiper is the main thing to many of these editors, with total disregard for all his nasty capers. He found and acted on this by immediately stalking me. That's what he does. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look at File talk:Blason Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte (1763-1844) Prince de Pontecorvo.svg. Someone else questioned the stars. Are they also stalking etc.? Perhaps Pieter is just trying to correct mistakes? --MGA73 (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And it actually is pretty "terrible" to derive a low quality JPG from a clean SVG. What is the point? --Dschwen (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrators are expected to be civil and to act to calm heated discussions, not to further inflame them. Perhaps this discussion could be tabled for a day or two to allow the dust to settle a bit? Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I do want to apologize for my tone. In my opinion there is no need for further discussion, since MGA73 withdrew his proposal. Not sure what would be the purpose if we let it continue, but if people have hope for Pieter to be reblocked, then let it proceed. I cease my participation in this discussion, I just don't like drama. ZooFari 23:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Pieter should be blocked if he deserves it an not just because some wants him blocked. Last time we had a vote there was not concensus to block so we need god arguments to overrule that. --MGA73 (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I gave it a try. I just can't argue with stuff like that:

ZooFari 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

'Pieter spent the last bloody month attacking me, then suddenly comes out with a comment about an obscure deleted image, and I'm not to presume he's once again using DR to attack me? You know what? Fuck this. I'm leaving commons. I resign as an admin, forget about uploads, have fun with your fucking troll: You just lost one of the most productive featured content contributors on Commons. I'm sure all those people who whined and complained about how we were losing Pieter's priceless DR contributions won't care a whit that I was the only damn person regularly providing high-quality historic media, because actual content contributors aren't valued, only trolls who do DRs. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment And these people blocked Kuiper for intimidating behavior and personal attacks? Ough, "Physician, heal yourself!". Trycatch (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What is your point Trycatch? That Commons will be better off loosing Adam Cuerden and keeping Pieter Kuiper? Or is it just you getting in a cheap shot? There are far too many users participating in this discussion who are advocating for a point of view and playing a Zero-sum game, which is contrary to what is good for Commons. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• My point is rather simple -- I've never have heard that Pieter Kuiper used such language & made so substanceless attacks as Adam Cuerden & Mattbuck on this page, so I wonder if these admins really have moral authority to block users for such laughable reasons as Pieter Kuiper has been blocked for. BTW you arrived slightly late, this chapter of drama is over, so I'm not going to discuss anything more in this thread. Trycatch (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  The problems involved here have nothing to do with language style, as you well know. The problem is users playing to get a win for the issues they advocate, and resulting (no matter who wins ) in a loss for Commons. Claims of having "moral authority" are frequently just a rhetorical tool, used by those who are using Commons to advocate for their issues. Please do not not play such word games. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, Malcom that is a very true insight you are having there. For this same reason a de-admin of Adam would surely fail right now. --Dschwen (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  I really don't see bad language as a problem here - it's sometimes necessary to use it to show depth of feeling. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

These noticeboard discussions can generate a lot of emotional pressure, and not everyone is good at handling that kind of pressure. Sometimes those involved say or do things they regret. I remember one time on WP:AN/I someone who was taking a lot of flack got so frustrated he blanked all the articles he had been editing. Of course that was not a good idea, and it got him indeffed, but he snapped under pressure. I think plenty of allowance needs to be taken when frustration levels are high, and not blame people for occasional venting. Hopefully Adam Cuerden will reconsider his resignation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hope so too!! Amada44  ^{talk to me} 14:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"it's sometimes necessary to use it to show depth of feeling". I do not agree that bad language is needed. We block users that attacks others like that (perhaps except if admins attack Pieter it seems). My point is that if we accept personal attacks as a way to let feelings out then we should also allow Pieter to attack admins to get his feelings out. I think it is better to talk nice to other users and give warnings and blocks to those who can not controll themselves (or at least say "sorry" very short after if not). --MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, and I would like to apologise for my language, though not the sentiment it expressed. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that Adam Cuerden used some vulgar language, but I do not see any personal attack on Pieter Kuiper. As far as I can see, not a word of it was name calling directed at anyone. It was just Adam Cuerden venting, and I do not consider that to be anything like a big deal. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Support I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again. Pieter kuiper has done excellent. He’s reported images when they haven’t been completely safe with regards to copyrights so that the images can be further examined. This is one of the most crucial aspects for Common to keep good a high quality. Pieter Kuiper has always been detailed and taken his responsibilities as a user on Commons with the utmost seriousness. It isn’t stalking that you report images that may not be copy righted on, it’s necessary if we are to have a free imagecollection here. Adam Cuerden and other users have to learn not to take a deletion requests personally. If a picture one has uploaded here gets reported, one should put forth evidence that the picture has copy rights or plead for deletion. It is the person uploading the images that should show evidence and not the one who files the complaint. All these discussions and demands of blocking Pieter Kuiper create a very bad and tense situation here and it has to end. Learn to accept that every image that is uploaded here will be looked upon.I agree with MGA73 that Adam Cuerden must end his personal vendetta/campaign against Pieter Kuiper immediately. Obelix (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem side of his copyright work is that he tends to comb through the uploads of users who have crossed him. I have experience that myself, when I disagreed with him about something...I think it was over the issue of deleting porn files. That sort of targeted accounting, of selected users, brings to mind memories of Richard Nixon's enemies list. Its a very problematic approach, and if Pieter Kuiper is going to do that sort of crap, he should expect to get some negative reactions. La vita e cosi. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I unblocked Pieter Kuiper for a reason. I gave him a chance and since then he has not repeated his actions. I did not unblock Pieter because I disagreed with the problems he has done in the past. After I unblocked him, I wrote in the old thread above that I hoped the community would not have strong reactions. Unfortunately it happened, yet I regret having to raise my tone about Adam. I did not want it to escalate to resignation of users. I simply wished that the community would accept his secondlast chance, but my wish was crushed, and as his block lifter it makes me feel guilty. People still see Pieter from the past, and therefore it's no doubt that his little actions are still looked at no different. I will repeat again that this discussion is not going to go nowhere if Pieter has done nothing wrong after his block lift. It seems to me that people are upset because the block was removed. So we either we all agree and conclude this discussion, or change the topic to ZooFari is trippin', that unblock shouldn't have happened, so let's do something about it. ZooFari 22:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

done nothing wrong after his block lift??? How about stalking and targeting his same old self-appointed "enemies" just to annoy them? How about flouting at us all that he is never going to stop that and will never be forced to????? Just like slapping faces the minute you get out of prison!!!!! Is that "nothing wrong"????? I give up! ????????? SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And the sarcastic stalking continues, thanks to all of you who think Kuiper is such a defensible bloke. I have decided, after much soul searching, to subject myself to more gut wrenching cruelty at Wikimedia Commons and stick it out here, just to see how far y'all will let Kuiper go, and how long, if for nothing else. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing sarcastic in his post, unlike yours, where you misspelled a word in your haste to criticize him for a perfectly valid if unusual spelling. Considering you neither uploaded nor created the photo, I think you're taking this a little personally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no other alternative now than to ask for a permanent block of Kuiper, and have done so. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Celcruzaga

ResolvedRfCU filled --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 13:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Celcruzaga (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user appears to be yet another incarnation of the blocked sock Everything179 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Uploads of images of Fillipino/other Asian celebrities with claims of self creation of screen shots and studio shots. Active Banana (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

CU's informed. Thanks, --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 13:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of admin buttons by User:High Contrast

See file history - this admin is using his admin buttons to get his way in a conflict. I tried to discuss, but he thinks it is a waste of time. Of course, the file description is not a Very Important Issue, it is the abuse of power buttons that is the problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I was expecting you here. Your absurd reverts to get your way in a case about a redundant naming of the author of this photograph is really waste of community time. But that is not the first time, Kuiper. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As to the issue, File:US Marines in Operation Enduring Freedom.jpg has a size of 1,600 × 1,098 pixels (file size: 235 KB). The url that User:High Contrast absurdly wants to have listed as the source links to much smaller files - clearly that does not make much sense. The url is in the source field only because of the credit line, which justifies the US-Gov license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The url is in the source field only because of the credit line, which justifies the US-Gov license => Yes, exactly and it is good like this. If you have a better source, then feel free to insert it. If this should happen within the next 23 hours, please talk to me on my talk page - in a constructive way. Thanks for your attention and I hope we can continue our good cooperation. Thank you. Ragards, High Contrast (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not the source at all, High Contrast version is highly confusing. For my taste, better to move the URL to reference. Something like "United States Marine Corps<ref>URL</ref>". Trycatch (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Or simply to the Permission field, since it's basically there only to justify the license tag. –Tryphon^☂ 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the source field should link to the actual source. That is not the case here. There's no such thing as "a better source". Either it is or it isn't the source. Rocket000 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment, I'd really like to see more constructive suggestions for resolutions and less aimless whinging on this noticeboard. (By the way, that's a constructive suggestion, not a whinge.) I happen to like the original phrasing of the information template, and I did indeed phrase it that way for the reasons stated, but indeed, it's not an important issue, and you shouldn't edit war over unimportant issues. Also, a dickish heading and a link to a file does not a discussion make. Don't provoke, and don't be provoked – that goes for everyone. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Kuiper reverted High Contrast twice [9][10], High Contrast then protected the page [11] and restored his preferred version [12]. That's unacceptable use of the tools. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong or what the correct formating is. Admins should not be using tools when they're an involved party. Take the concern to a forum for broader discussion, then we can talk about genuine Commons issues for a change instead of this unnecessary and dramatic nonsense. Эlcobbola _talk 16:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that was proceeded by me was to remove a redundant naming of the author in the "source"-field and in the "author"-field of the template. Then the citation was changed from "[1]" to the "internetlink". I was aware of the fact that the stated source is not the original one where the image came from. Kuiper decided not to accept this. Instead of that he started an edit war which I ended by protecting this file due to save wiki server traffic from this useless editing. Kuiper did not start a discussion, he only stated nonsense on my talk page: "Please look at the files before you revert". Because it is a Kuiper-typical provocation, I have reverted this nonsense from my talk page because such not very productive comments are not appreciated. That's all. Sadly Kuiper made it back to waste time again. Greetings to all, High Contrast (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

High Contrast's claim that he "was aware of the fact that the stated source is not the original one where the image came from" does not fit well with his edit summary here. So I asked him in a friendly way to look at the files. He just removed that attempt to discuss the issue, and protected the file. This is just heavy-handed behaviour - an ordinary user needs to discuss, an admin presses his power buttons. And the ordinary user is told he is editing uselessly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You follow always the same scheme: accusing others "friendlyly" with nonsense. Such heavy-handed behaviour is not purposeful. Keep it Kuiper, we all must keep up good work. There is nothing more to be said. Every word more would be wasting community time - something I do not appreciate. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I concluded from your edit summary that you were uninformed, so I tried to ask you to compare the files. How was that "heavy-handed"? But you used your power buttons... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe he asked you to take a look at the photo on the linked to page so you can see that it's not the source. Maybe that was unclear but I wouldn't call it nonsense (maybe because you judged the speaker instead of what was spoken?) Rocket000 (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not judge people beforehand. I was aware of the fact that the stated source is not the original one where the image came from. I just removed a redundant naming of the photographer - as can be seen easily. --High Contrast (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

But can you see now what Pieter was trying to do? And would you consider unprotecting the file, so that one of the solutions suggested here can be implemented? I think it would waste much less community time than continuing arguing about who was right or which of the two version is correct. Maybe a third version can make everyone happy and we can move on to something less futile. –Tryphon^☂ 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In my view, this thread appears to be more, than anything else, an effective move by Pieter to regain ground that he lost in some of the other threads involving him that can be found above this one. Doing this is probably an effective strategy, even if not an effective use of noticeboard time and effort. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This thread is about High Contrast and the question if it is ok for an admin to protect a file to win an edit conflict. Since you do not commont on that I would like to remind you that there is a section or two above where it is possible to make complaint about Pieter.

As for High Contrast and the protection I prefer that users talk about it instead of reverting over and over. I would not expect "old" users to waste time doing that. I also think that admins should be careful not to use their tools "to win" a dispute. We have Commons:Administrators' noticeboard with different subpages (+ IRC if you know how to use that) so it is easy to ask an uninvolved admin to have a look.

But I think that Tryphon is on to something - a third option that makes both happy? --MGA73 (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire. I am talking about what, in my view, is the actual purpose of this thread. The real purpose and the stated purpose are not always the same, and that is what I want to point out. Feel free to disagree with me if you think that justified, but please do not tell me that I can not say what I think this thread is actually about, or that I can not say that where I think it best to say that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, maybe not, we'll never know. I just think it's a pity we're letting this blow out of proportion, when it would have been so easy to defuse it. Even if people think there's an ulterior motive, by treating it as nothing more as a small disagreement it won't escalate. Just pretend. –Tryphon^☂ 22:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Small thing or WP:CIRCUS? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In my view, this thread appears to be more... isn't off-topic. Or if it is, so is a comment about that comment (and so is this). @Malcolm Schosha: Am I a meatpuppet for defending you? Rocket000 (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Rocket000, I can not actually understand your point, which may just be too subtle for me.

The issues of "meatpuppet", or even "sockpuppet", as usually formulated, are rather meaningless issues to me. What concerns me is the misuse of WP and Commons by editors (single or in groups) who want to use WP or Commons as a soapbox to advocate for a cause. Doing that is harmful to the core principle of the project WP:NPOV, and is behind some of the most difficult cases of edit warring.

Sockpuppets are editors who are wiki-illegal aliens. But some wiki-illegals make more constructive contributions than others who are legal inhabitants. I have tried to word this in a way that makes parallels to the issues many nations have with residents who are there without permission, but who may do good in all other respects. How you stand on this range of issues is entirely up to you.

Concerning meatpuppets, if you mean by that editors working in groups to achieve anything but WP:NPOV and inclusiveness, that is always harmful. As far as I know you are not involved anything that would undermine WP:NPOV and inclusiveness. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I was unfamiliar with the acronym WP:CIRCUS, and a quick glance at the page gave me the impression it was about meatpuppetry. Rocket000 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Skrunyak

This user uploads images with copyright-problems and removes the deletion requests.--Avron (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted his edits and warned the user not to remove the deletion requests tags until the debate has been closed. Images looks like copyvios so I'll be investigating them too. If anyone wants to help, it is welcome to do so. Thanks, --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 20:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

After being warned not to remove legitimate warnings and not to remove deletion requests tags from pages; the user still persists in his disruptive actitude by blanking again his talk page and continued removing deletion requests tags from his images. I have previously rollbacked all his DR tag removals. Because the user is accusing me of being a vandal I prefer to request his block here rather to do it myself. Please stop this user. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 22:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 day. Bidgee (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 06:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Sannita/sandbox

This user have a user/sandbox with more file in copionviol and more file empty.This is a bad vandalism ! And other this User:Sannita is a really sysop-problems for me and for many user on it.wiki ,such as he need a blok now for many vandalism ! Please esecute it now-thanks --Alpha30 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

thaks for your assistance in it ! bye--Alpha30 (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Alpha30 was a real problem in it.wiki, actually. --Pequod76 (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This hasn't to do with your request, is it? --Demart81 (Qualcuno mi cerca?) 23:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

User:CGPGrey

He is using categories like in connection with protests against the actual visit of the pope. Nonsense in my opinion. I gave a hint on his discussion page. Please have a look if he will stopp it. --4028mdk09 (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just the Flickr tool. No need to report the user here. Multichill (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Alpha30

This user has been blocked indefinitely on it.wikipedia for massive copyvio both from book and internet sources.

He committed massive copyvio also on Commons: if you look here and open the first box, you'll see how many files he uploaded on Commons and which was the original source. All these files has been deleted by Otourly. There are three more images - not stated there, but in his Commons talk - that were subsequently deleted.

Since he wasn't blocked on Commons, he decided to hide my copyvio advices, to vandalize my sandbox and to accuse me to be "a really sysop-problems" - whatever it means.

I ask you to block him and I suggest to control his new uploads too. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see he's ignoring multiple copyvio warnings. Alpha30, please consider to change your behaviour! axp_de^Hello! 13:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't shout on other users like that, it's not nice to them. Heymid (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)