Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

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

^{Translate this page}

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

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~33
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• No license since 2 November 2024: ~6
• No permission since 2 November 2024: ~93
• No source since 2 November 2024: ~25
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-11: ~109

Other:

• Duplicates: ~4
• Advertisements/spam: ~3
• Personal photos/selfies: ~17
• Other speedy deletions: ~24
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~6

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~45
• Interface admin: ~19
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~14
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

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

Towards wiki-stalking/harassment

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After having discussed this with User:Multichill, and with his broad agreeance, I have reinstated file mover rights to User:とある白い猫 (otherwise known as White Cat). White Cat is reminded to take care using this right, and if objections are raised, to be responsive and enter into discussion with those raising concerns, and this is now happening. There is no reason to believe that White Cat was not acting in good faith when he renamed files based upon his understanding of Commons:FM#Which_files_should_be_renamed.3F. He can not, and should not, be held responsible for not knowing the background of #6. This needs to be clarified/rectified within the policy itself so that future misunderstandings by White Cat, and also other editors, do not occur. User:Pieter Kuiper for his part, is reminded to act civilly with other editors; if he is familiar with policies and the like, please take the time to explain why you believe something is wrong. User:とある白い猫 has noted that he would like to be referred to as either とある白い猫 or Cool Cat or White Cat; not kitten, tiger, pussy, or #€%&€##€; deviation from this will only be seen as trolling/harassment in future. Also note, when discussions are closed, they are usually done so for a reason; more often than not to reduce the drama and this is usually made clear. Please do not continue to edit on an issue when it's been closed off. Be nice, be cool, let's all get along, but be aware that blocks and/or revocation of any rights may occur in future if issues re-arise. No more drama!. When you are all ready, we're celebrating no drama in our life! russavia (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

---

• Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs)

This user has issued these posts to me today based on my renames. His entire contribution has been focusing on my contribution since.

He has also nominated three four five a lot of images I uploaded. Any user can question the copyright status of another or even nominate them for deletion however one does not do so right after issuing such a notification.

Is it normal for a user to go through the entire contribution of another user the second he or she is in a strong disagreement? It only serves to agonize others. I am particularly sensitive to this kind of treatment due to my past experience with a certain now globally locked user whom made it his vocation to monitor every edit I make for 5 years.

I'd like to note the main concern I have here is his tone. It is my belief that this kind of behavior should be discouraged as it only serves to create a hostile environment. Users should not seek out all of each others dirty laundry on first sign of conflict.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, when it's Pieter Kuiper. He does this routinely. And no, nothing will be done about it, just as it hasn't the past 50 times he's been reported here for the exact same thing. No consensus to, too many people support him. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of Mattbuck's understandable pessimism, thank you for correctly complaining on this noticeboard. The relevant policy that Pieter Kuiper has a long history of breaking is COM:BP which states that harassment is not acceptable - "Accounts and IP addresses which are used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked". The comment you received here is typical of his abusive behaviour and what appears to me to be a sustained pattern of disruptive and disturbing hounding of others. I hope that an administrator will be prepared to ensure Pieter Kuiper will improve his appalling behaviour by enforcing the blocking policy as a perfectly good representation of what was once consensus and a vision for how Commons ought to remain a welcoming environment for all contributors rather than a constant war zone. --Fæ (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope that is the case. I am currently writing my rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ethiopia African potrayal of Jesus.JPG explaining US-Copyright law and how Ethiopian copyright law is non binding inside the US. What is hilarious to me is I was the person that created Commons:L#Ethiopia section this week as well as prior to that all works from Ethiopia was considered in the public domain per US Copyright law. The user is currently nominating practically each and every image he can find that I have moved from en.wikipedia to commons based on policies back in 2008 which were more relaxed. Certainly a review in the normal course of time would be warmly welcome but that is not what is happening here. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

“

Stop feeling sorry for yourself. You only have yourself to blame for being so pushy. And I had more disputes with Saibo than with you. As for the issue: yes, Commons should change policy. Give it some time. There is no immediate hurry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

”

Also I'd like to use the quote of this users own post above from this very page and like to ask him why he is so pushy and why he is in such a hurry to review my entire contribution to commons. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You disregarded renaming policy. So I had a look at you uploads, if those were according to policy. And indeed, there were problems. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, it was vital for you to put File:Electric razor transparant.png (uploaded 5 June 2006) for deletion (this file was based as a derivative work of File:Electric razor.jpg which was deleted in 2 July 2007 - 4 years ago) based on my allegedly inappropriate file renames. On the bright side this is one less image with a copyright problem for me to worry about. I just hope Shave the Wales will not suffer over this. :) -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User has shifted focus on nominating images on my user page for deletion. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm really getting tired of seeing Pieter Kuiper's name on this board. I've seen it atleast 10 times in the last year or so, and that's just with glancing by, not actually looking for Kuiper reports. Clearly there is a problem, and the Community's patience is not infinite. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I am tired of them too. Pieter Kuiper identifies uploaders' copyright violations, and then the uploaders complain about him here. --JN466 13:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Really? Who is complaining about his nominations? I see no evidence about any complaint about his uploads in the entire thread. In fact the very first post acknowledges that any user can nominate images with copyright problems for deletion. The complaint here is something else. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 17:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is we don't want to prevent users making valid attempts to clean up copyright problems, and a common way for copyright problems to be found is for user X to come across a problem with user Y, and then to check user Y's contributions. That's a normal process, and if the DRs that result are reasonable, it's something we have to accept, even if it may feel unpleasant. If the DRs are not reasonable, then we have a problem, but that needs to be shown. As to tone: we can always ask people to try and be nicer or more helpful, but with Commons' multilingual (first language not English) and multicultural environment, you have to make allowances. Rd232 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well said, Rd232. I completely agree. While Pieter can be very irritating at times, there is nothing wrong with going through a user's contributions and tagging those that appear to have a problem, provided of course that you legitimately believe that there is a problem. I do it several times a week.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If you do it with persistently abusive comments whilst making fun of their foreign name, then it becomes a problem, particularly when you have a long history of user after user complaining on this noticeboard that you are making Commons a hostile environment for them. --Fæ (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• While we don't want to prevent users making valid attempts to clean up copyright problems, this task is not suitable for everyone. People actively going through someone elses contributions should give great care not to antagonize the other party and if necessary explain copyright and commons policy. It is just as important for us to educate newer users as it is to keep commons free of copyrighted content. I would argue the latter is more important as it helps reduce or possibly even share the commons workload by gaining new contributors.
• Also the problem and complain here is not because he is going through my contribution. Problem is he is doing so right after the first disagreement. In his own words: What is the hurry? You sort out one disagreement then deal with other problems. You do not pile problems in front of people and more importantly you do not threaten people. If a users conduct is really problematic, you take it to this very noticeboard and not take the matters to your own hands. This way a fair treatment is more likely as users conduct is reviewed by multiple people.
• All but one of his nominations addressed the wrong person. All of his nominations (except razor one, which was a derivative of someone else's work) was for content I moved from other wikis to commons more than half a decade ago when policy on commons was more relaxed and OTRS did not exist. The original uploaders were never contacted.
• Someone using English as a second language does not give them a free pass away from being polite or civil. I do not believe the consistent behavioral problems surrounding this user can be attributed to his English skills. To get examples you do not need to go far. Check comments posted by this user on this very page (including other threads), his talk page and village pump. I can pile up so many examples with trivial ease and have already quoted one and someone else linked to his reply to my notification of him of this thread. While we can remind people to be polite and civil, we do require it. You ask people to do what is optional. Users should NOT "be very irritating at times" and instead make an effort to avoid being just that. Furthermore this remark of his on villge pump is plainly racist and completely undermines the multi-cultural nature of the Commons project as a whole. Clearly this user is not JUST reviewing copyright problems.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 08:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat (User:White Cat) must stop accusing me of racism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

How would you classify the linked remark then? Seeing non-European languages here is a casual occurrence and should not be a problem for anyone. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 08:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You state clearly enough on your user page that you are gaijin, so it's clear that Kuiper's comment is not directed at your race, but rather your choice of using Japanese script in your username. You were at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Non_Latin_Alphabet_Usernames where there were discussions of why such usernames are frustrating and and advocating that at least users voluntarily add a transliteration to the signature; I see that you haven't bothered doing so. (Again, the issue has nothing to do with non-European languages; it has to do with non-European scripts which tend to be just visual babble to most of our users.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I do take great offense when people act in an offensive manner to other cultures, even ones that are not necessarily my own. I would also take offense when people classify the racial/ethnic profile of users based on their userpage. Also please take special care in using the term "gaijin" in the future bearing its etymology and history in mind as it can be seen as derogatory due to its xenophobic use to discriminate.

Please do not bring your irrelevant (perhaps controversial) claims attempting to regulate people's signatures to this user problem claim on Pieter Kuiper's conduct.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 09:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, you picked a username that would be needlessly complicated for most other users, not because it was your native tongue, but because it was cool. When someone called you on that, you can claim that you have the right to use that username, but instead you choose to cry racism, even though it had nothing to do with your race or anyone else's.

There's no reason for other cultures to take offense at what Kuiper said; in fact, IIRC, you would not be allowed to use a name with Han ideographs in Japan. It's always a risky thing to take offense, especially great offense, when people act in a way you consider offensive to other cultures; a lot of people have taken offense at things the culture in question in culture, such as people taking offense at the FSU Seminoles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm? In Japan most people have names consisting of only Chinese characters (what you called "Han ideographs"). Foreigners are not required to change their names (since a few years not even required for if you wish to change citizenship), but the option to use those characters still exists for those foreigners who wish to change their name into something more Japanese. To Aru Shiroi Neko would definitely be able to change to a Japanese name, were he to move to Japan (not sure where he currently lives – maybe he already lives there). --Stefan4 (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

“

Requests for name changes like these from User:White Cat or User:Cool Cat should not be done. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

”

Also I'd like to ask for someone to explain me how is it that this user is not targeting me site-wide given the above remark. It is also curious his post to that page came almost at the same time as Prosfilaes mentioned it here. Coincidences are interesting.

This section header was intentionally chosen as "Towards wiki-stalking/harassment" because I was uncertain if I was overreacting. I am however observing a pattern that leads to wiki-stalking/harassment even if it does not perhaps currently qualify.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 09:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Deliberately referring to users by nicknames that they have not agreed to or used themselves is foolish and easily read as intended to be offensive. Though とある白い猫 has mentioned an interpretation of their username on their user page, this not identical to the name that Pieter Kuiper has apparently made up one day. If alternative names are to be used, they must be agreed with the user or claims of deliberately causing offence must be taken seriously. I note that Pieter Kuiper has appears to have done nothing in response to these complaints but inflame and encourage drama rather than making any attempt to reconcile with とある白い猫 in the collegiate manner we would hope for on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Kuiper took a real issue and handled it in a rude and insulting manner.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is user "Pieter Kuiper" treated differently as other users? Anybody else can get problems here for not having such a long list of harassment/bad behaviour. --178.2.60.90 16:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

He's not; Pieter Kuiper is sui generis. Commons has a long history of tolerating bad behavior from contributors, and Pieter Kuiper has always stayed close enough to the lines that Commons has tolerated him. In particular, nominating files for deletion when they don't have proper licenses is a good thing, which means it's hard to object with Kuiper does it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? How far back does this history go because I lived it and do not remember tolerating bad behavior from contributors. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 17:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How long did it take for User:Ottava Rima to get blocked here? We have a lot of users who have gotten the boot from en.WP, like Ottava and Fred the Oyster, who either have not been permanently blocked or took a long time getting there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit confusing. There are complaints about tone and attitude, but aside from a fairly ludicrous complaint of a racist comment, it's not really substantiated as a problem. Nor has it been demonstrated that there are real problems with the DRs. The original poster said You do not pile problems in front of people and more importantly you do not threaten people. - implying threats, which are not evidenced. About the only conclusion I can get out of this so far is that the original poster might get more sympathy from non-Japanese speakers if he respected Commons:Signatures#Signatures_supporting_multilingualism, possibly by somehow linking to User:とある白い猫/In many languages... (not being able to easily put a name to a user is a real disincentive to engage). Beyond that, I suggest (i) providing more evidence of problems and (ii) suggesting some actions that can be taken. Rd232 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is substantial if you dismiss the irrelevant remarks from Prosfilaes regarding my signature. If my signature is that much of a problem, start a separate discussion.

My questions to you are: Is civility optional? Do we expect users to be polite? Is it OK to make intentional effort to cause other users stress? Pieter Kuiper is neither civil nor is he polite. Pieter Kuiper also makes an effort to cause others stress and does not attempt to resolve problems through consolidation. There is clear consensus that Pieter Kuiper "can be irritating at times".

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Civility and politeness are too a large extent subjective; and most people "can be irritating at times". For the rest, provide some diffs. As for the signature: it might be considered polite to follow the recommendation and make it easier for non-Japanese users to interact with you. That you apparently don't agree just goes to show how these things are subjective. Rd232 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How would you react if I replied to you with "Stop feeling sorry for yourself. You only have yourself to blame for being so pushy?" Indeed politeness is subjective but that doesn't mean people should act like complete dicks. It seems to me you are advocating the behavior of Pieter Kuiper and it seems like the only problem in this entire thread as far as you are concerned is my signature. I am actually going to propose the removal of this Commons:Signatures clause as it is clearly open to abuse. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

One statement, from 2 weeks ago, not directed at you (at me, in fact). And whilst not particularly helpful or nice, not sanctionable. Rd232 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What is sanctionable? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Difficult to say in the abstract (context matters). The Fred the Oyster discussion on this page may be a useful reference for things people get upset about. Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"It seems to me you are advocating the behavior of Pieter Kuiper" - I asked you to provide evidence, and to suggest actions. You've failed to do either, but implicitly called Kuiper a dick, and implicitly accused me of abusing policy. In addition, you're being over-defensive about an issue you can easily deal with. It's ironic that you have problems with Kuiper's collegiality, but won't do a simple thing to support it yourself. Rd232 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Rd232) Presumably you consider it acceptable for Commons that contributors call each other's statements "bollocks" as Pieter Kuiper did in his edit comment on this page yesterday in direct reply to とある白い猫 (diff) in an apparent trolling attempt? How can my opinion that Pieter Kuiper's deliberate intention is to create a hostile environment and create drama be called subjective with this sort of evidence available? --Fæ (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence "available" is meaningless; a diff in the hand is worth a hundred in the bush. I've asked for diffs; that's just one, but it's a start. No, in general "bollocks" (in an edit summary especially) is not acceptable, but I would make an allowance for that particular example because it was a reaction to an unwarranted accusation of racism, which is liable to make most non-racists quite angry. Rd232 (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You consider calling a statement "bollocks" to be beyond the pale and yet calling a statement racist is not? Calling a statement "bollocks" or "bullshit" to me is just a short colorful way of assertively disagreeing with something. I don't see that Kuiper has any intention to create drama.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not said anything about とある白い猫's behaviour. The long term pattern attracting multiple complaints from multiple users on AN boards is Pieter Kuiper's. My response to complaints is to look at the complaint, not find a reason to boomerang on the complainant and dismiss it. If you believe that とある白い猫 has a long term problematic pattern of disruptive behaviour this would be useful to take into account but probably a reason to create a new thread. In practice I understand that this will be another cross on Pieter Kuiper's card without action, however I do believe we should encourage future complainants who genuinely feel that his behaviour is hampering their ability to make positive contributions to Commons. It is nice to see everyone here so forgiving of disruptive behaviour, however if Pieter Kuiper's name keeps on appearing here month after month, at some point a careful administrator will count these up, draw the line and judge the record as evidence for firm action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

if Pieter Kuiper's name keeps on appearing here month after month, at some point a careful administrator will count these up, draw the line and judge the record as evidence for firm action. - if an admin literally does that, they'll get their arse handed to them on a plate. Merely having a name pop up repeatedly is not evidence. For this incident, I keep asking for evidence, and what little there has been so far has been irrelevant or minor. If there really isn't any more, then that's quite a lot of discussion about very little. Rd232 (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct, it's written down but not literal, just as your threat to hand another admin their arse on a plate was not literal. I hope. --Fæ (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between a threat and a statement? Clue: if you forget your umbrella and it rains, you'll probably get wet is not a threat. Rd232 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you could argue that "I know where your children are right now" is a statement, but the police probably would not interpret it that way. Thanks for the education, but I quite like my OED. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Closer towards wiki-stalking/harassment

This person has shifted attention to interfere with activity he is not an involved party. This is clear harassment. I am growing very tired of this and am seriously considering retiring - for a few years at least. I have went on my 2 year break prior to this due to another stalker whom is indef blocked on all wikis for this behavior. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 08:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Propose block

This is the final straw for me. Not enough to butt into a conversation onto White Cat's talk page when there is still a thread at AN/U where White Cat made it clear that he felt harassed; not enough that he then starts an unnecessary thread at AN/U proposing the revocation of White Cat's filemover privileges for what is clearly a reasonable and good-faith interpretation of the relevant policy; no, when that thread is closed, he comes back with an evidenceless claim that But the evidence shows that とある白い猫 is quite unwilling to change his behaviour. This is clearly "disrupt[ing Commons'] collegial atmosphere", as COM:BLOCK has it. I propose blocking Pieter Kuiper for 3 days to send a clear message that this is not acceptable. Rd232 (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Another example of Rd232's heavy hand. I had objected to file move by White Cat, then HE took it here, made false accusations of racism, and kept on moving files against policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That's misleading at best. Yes, there was this discussion where you bluntly (you're one to complain of a "heavy hand"!) claimed moves were not allowed under Commons:File renaming #3; the AN/U discussion was largely about your nominating files for deletion; and the present file move dispute was about Commons:File renaming #6. Rd232 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So you want to block me because I nominated copyright violations for deletion? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No. If you've forgotten what I said in the original discussion, it's not far up the page. Rd232 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose I am not PK's biggest fan but this is simply an outbreak of disagreement between two users. The renaming is an issue and should be reviewed but blocks of either party are entirely inappropriate. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• You realise the file moving dispute was not with PK? He inserted himself into a discussion between White Cat and another user that wasn't to do with him and was going fine, and then came to AN/U to demand White Cat's filemover bit at a time when an admin (me) was already involved in that discussion. Rd232 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• In that case you are "involved" and I suggest you may not be the person to deal with this. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Um, if you look at the relevant talk page, I don't consider myself "involved" on that issue - I'm acting as a mediator. But it's moot as I've had enough dealing with PK that I wouldn't block him. That would be why I'm proposing a block (something people should do more often, perhaps). Rd232 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• What happened is...
  1. 17:35, 3 April 2012 - I made a few (about 20) file renames of Hungarian army rank insignia in an attempt to harmonize their filenames (per COM:FR #6) as I have been renaming other such insignia for some time now.
  2. 19:01, 3 April 2012 - The uploader came and objected on my talk page and I started a discussion with the uploader.
  3. 06:13, 4 April 2012 - I was trying to explain the uploader why I think the rename is necessary. Overall the discussion was pleasantly on going even though no conclusions were made.
  4. 07:09, 4 April 2012 - Before a consensus or compromise could be reached, Pieter Kuiper submitted his conclusion and demanded that I moved the file back to where it was.
  5. 15:28, 4 April 2012 - I have ignored his comment completely so he escalated into seeking to remove my file mover rights (as visible on this page).
• His presence in the discussion between me and Madboy74 is disruptive.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is perfectly clear that White Cat considers his irregular moves "necessary", and that he was not going to budge. See also his edit warring about the Norwegian case. He should not be permitted to move files. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion between Madboy74 and White Cat was going fine (considering language issues); there was no call for you to butt in. Still less for you to declare that he was not going to budge (are you a mind reader now?). I have asked that no more moves be done in either direction until there is a consensus, which hopefully will be resolved in the current COM:VP thread (and if not, we'll figure something else out - it may be slower than we'd like, but we'll get to a conclusion eventually). Finally, I must ask you to stop claiming that White Cat's actions were against policy. Whether it has consensus or not, it was well within a reasonable interpretation of File renaming policy. We can change policy or clarify it, but on the face of it, as written, it was reasonable. Rd232 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Support This proposal is not just about hounding with regard to file renaming. 3 days seems trivial and arbitrary, there is no reason to think that Peter Kuiper would be prepared to change his long term disruptive behaviour against any user he decides to pick on that week. I recommend an indef block until Peter Kuiper is prepared to convince an admin that he understands why his behaviour is not acceptable and what changes he needs to make in order to stop turning Commons into a hostile battleground for our valued contributors. I am glad to see that Rd232 is the one to draw the line and judge the record as evidence for firm action. --Fæ (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think an indef-block can realistically work in that way. I think a short block can make a point, and then block length can escalate if problems continue, and if that doesn't work, then indef. Rd232 (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Further, PK persists in making an issue of White Cat's Japanese username, despite knowing that a previous instance of this ([1]) was considered by White Cat to be racist in the original discussion in this thread. PK has done this twice this evening at File talk:Army-NOR-OR-01b.svg despite the fact that he's been involved in conversations (like this one) where the English version of White Cat's username has been regularly used. Whilst the original incident may not have been intended to be disparaging or hurtful, the uses this evening are clearly intended to be disparaging and/or hurtful. The second usage (%E3%81%A8%E3%81%82%E3%82%8B%E7%99%BD%E3%81%84%E7%8C%AB) is particularly clear; this is unicode for White Cat's Japanese username, and would have come from White Cat's user or user talk page URL - both of which include the English name. This must stop, and on the basis of this behaviour, I would ask that the proposed block be implemented immediately. Rd232 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To be fair "%E3%81%A8%E3%81%82%E3%82%8B%E7%99%BD%E3%81%84%E7%8C%AB" means "とある白い猫". It is just HTML encoded. I however still find the scrambled characters offensive. Also, his involvement with File:Army-NOR-OR-01b.svg is entirely unhelpful. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
    • To use changes that are likely to be interpreted as racist, to troll another contributor is blatantly hostile and unacceptable in any community. I repeat my call for an indefinite block until Peter Kuiper explains himself and makes a commitment that the community finds credible, permanently to change his long, long term disruptive and uncivil behaviour. He has an extensive track record of putting others in his sights and hounding them until they want to stop contributing to Commons, our community has sat back and let this unacceptable trolling go on far too long with endless equivocations of "if you did everything right this man would not be attacking you". Sorry, this has just encouraged a thoroughly unpleasant and obsessive troll to use Commons for sadistic sport for a ridiculously long time. The fact that he has some nice uploads, in no way is an excuse for tolerating this disruption. --Fæ (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• There is certainly no basis for a "conclusion" at that point in the conversation, and it seemed previously to be quite cordial, two people stating their concerns amicably (a minor bit of drama at the start, but that's hardly unusual). I don't have a problem with people "butting in" generally, so long as they are being helpful, but this act is not helpful at all, it is merely provocative. I  Support a temporary block, and frankly a not-so-temporary one, based on the fact that the same accusations against Pieter come up again and again, and there has been zero change in his attitude. He does good work, but that should not make us shy away from blocks where the behaviour warrants it. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Spirit of Commons:File renaming

A while ago file renaming was introduced. This is a very intrusive action: All wiki's using the file have to be updated and external usage breaks. We made Commons:File renaming because we only wanted people to rename files when it's really needed and to not have renames because it looks better. とある白い猫 is on or over the border of the guidelines and clearly not handling in the spirit of this page. Take for example File:Army-NOR-OR-01b.svg. This guideline was cited: "Harmonize file names of a set of images (so that only one part of all names differs) to ease their usage in templates (e.g. diagram symbols, scans of pages of a book, maps)", but that is just not true. No templates rely on the name of the file here. This rule was made for Commons:Icons for railway descriptions because the template uses the code which is embedded in the filename. This was pointed out by me and others on irc and here on Commons, but とある白い猫 just shrugged this off. In the list of renames I see good ones, but also a lot of questionable ones. At the moment とある白い猫 is not handling in the spirit of Commons:File renaming and is doing more harm than good. I've removed his move permission. Multichill (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Spirit of Commons:File renaming - the spirit of policy is important, but so is the letter. The policy doesn't specify that template harmonisation has to be for templates on Commons. Maybe that's obvious to you, but given that Commons exists to serve other projects, it isn't to me.
• This is a very intrusive action: All wiki's using the file have to be updated and external usage breaks. - does it now? I didn't realise file redirects had been abolished.
• This was pointed out by me and others on irc - you're citing IRC? I swear I told you by pigeon post not to do that.
• a lot of questionable ones - could be - who knows. Would you deign to tell us which ones, so we can discuss it? Rd232 (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If a file is moved twice (e.g. due to spelling errors) the usages are broken and CommonsDelinker isn't perfect. If とある白い猫 wants to help, he/she can look at the logs and replace the usages where CommonsDelinker failed manually. I swear I told you by pigeon post not to do that. is simply an offence against Marteen, Rd. He is one of the most trusted community members. -- RE rillke questions? 10:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I take it Marteen is Multichill? I didn't know. I know he is one of the most trusted community members, but that doesn't give him the right to jump into a situation under discussion and act without adequate explanation. The "pigeon post" remark was intended to be disparaging of IRC, which may have its uses but I firmly believe that if we're sanctioning people, it should be done, as far as possible, based on on-wiki discussion. Give a warning or advice by IRC - fine; but know that if it isn't followed, it's as if you didn't say anything. If you want to be able to rely on it later, say it on-wiki (in addition, or instead). Rd232 (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

PS I've created Help:File redirect to clarify how file redirects work (or don't...) and filed a bug for what I presume Multichill meant by "external usage breaks". Rd232 (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been handling file renames from the start in good faith. I have not been made aware of any problems by anyone aside from the hostile actions by Pieter Kuiper which were promptly disregarded as he was unable to provide a convincing argument and he has been quite dickish about it.

I find the removal of my access to be unfair as I have not had any real warnings and have so far been only harassed/stalked over my renames. I feel particularly distressed with the presence of the thread a few sections below where the removal of my access was declined. It seems to me Pieter Kuiper gets his way no matter what.

I'd be more than happy to go through logs to correct any problems. I am not aware of anything currently broken. I have made an effort to check file usage to correct possible problems.

As for local template use, I am working on English Wikipedia currently using the rank insignia images in templates. Once complete, I will copy this template to commons as well. I can copy it right away but I do not want to rush things. I also do not feel the template has been optimized fully as that would only happen if all filenames are harmonized like flag and/or coat of arms images. I do want to point out that I have not renamed any non-svg rank insignia files since I seek to svgify all jpg/png/gif files.

I also intend to incorporate rank insignia to all biographic articles on military individuals, particularly on the info boxes on multiple language editions of wikipedia.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 11:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I find this action rather inappropriate given the ongoing conversation about it above. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

sorry - what does "this action" refer to? Rd232 (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of とある白い猫's rights. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. The indenting confused me. Rd232 (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Just if you intend to give the rights back, you should also consider the "unjustified" removal of right on User:Americophile. There was also neither a warning nor File-moves against the policy. -- RE rillke questions? 14:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to bring up another case, you need to provide the background. I don't know anything about it, but the user rights log, for instance, says "Renamed files without following the policy (Commons:File naming)". Rd232 (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Logs can say a lot and only reflect the opinion of the one who performed the action. BTW: On top of the page there is a nice text-box. It's easy to use and when entering Americophile, the first entry is Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 32#Removal filemover right of Americophile. You are additionally free to check the performed file-moves, which are tracked themselves in a log instead of relaying on the rights log. -- RE rillke questions? 14:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Aguirrediego (talk · contribs) likely a sock of blocked Diegonahuelaguirre (talk · contribs)

Considering the uploads Aguirrediego (talk · contribs), this account which was opened a few hours ago, is likely a block-evading sock-puppet of Diegonahuelaguirre (talk · contribs), who was blocked yesterday for uploading the same type of out-of-scope copyvios. Recommend perm-block of new account. --Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Warned. All files deleted. Block pending other opinions, or check user confirmation. Yann (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. --Martin H. (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Maintaining a DR in original for record purpose (Deletion requests/File:IconEliminate.gif)

User:M0tty deleted the file. This was restored by Sreejith K following an undeletion request. Therefore, for record purpose, the original decision of the DR, "Deleted" need to be in place and not 'kept' with the edit summary 'You meant "Kept" M0tty, didn't you?' as done by User:Blackcat. The restoration of this DR to this point will have no bearing on the present status of the file. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC).

 Done by User:Blackcat.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC).

User:Cirt disruption of dispute resolution

Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly disrupted a thread at COM:AN, namely Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FPolandball. It has reached a point where a block is (apparently) required in order to prevent further disruption, both of that thread, and of future threads (if Cirt does not learn that this behaviour is unacceptable, he will presumably repeat it).

1. Begins by accusing me of deliberately abusing the rollback tool ("decided to inappropriately use the ROLLBACK tool"). If he'd bothered to check the relevant user's user talk page, he'd have seen that I immediately apologised for the error (I clicked in the wrong place - I was using my laptop in an awkward position, if you must know...). But this was irrelevant to the thread anyway; none of the accusations of misconduct on my part were relevant to that thread - they belonged on my talk page in the first place, and COM:AN/U if that did not satisfy. Introducing these issues there was disruptive.
2. When my apology to the user I accidentally rollbacked was pointed out (here), Cirt responded by describing it as a so-called "apology". He also claimed that I disrupted a closed deletion request (in fact, I re-opened an improperly closed deletion request, as had already been explained).
3. Furthermore, he placed that comment in the wrong subsection (that section was explicitly an attempt to refocus on the policy issues; these were completely ignored). This appears to have been deliberate, since it relates to the rollback exchange in the first subsection.
4. Again attempts to disrupt discussion with a 3-point volley. The first point echoes another user, without acknowledging the detailed reply I'd given to that user, rebutting the point made. (The rebuttal was the comment immediately above the volley.) The second point is Dragging on this issue further in attempts to suppress the information is certainly getting disruptive. This comment speaks for itself; besides the bad faith accusation, it demonstrates that the motivation for the disruption is the concern that a DR allowed to proceed might lead to a deletion. The third point is This certainly seems more like w:WP:FORUMSHOPPING because of an outcome in a deletion request due to w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This ignores the points I had already made about having stated in the first DR that the problem was wider than one file, and that that was why I raised a mass DR. It is also nonsensical, since there was no other forum at which I had raised the matter. Since both of these points had already been made clear, the sheer hypocrisy of making this claim in the light of Cirt's recent desperate attempts to get someone into a trouble over a minor bit of trolling (see point 3 here) made me comment on that.
5. Having done so much to make the thread ineffectual, Cirt asks for the thread [3] to be closed without resolution: Suggest an admin close and archive this thread as ineffectual. The original user that started the thread itself seems to wish to repeatedly respond via ad hominem. Again, Cirt sees fit to play the mind reader, and does not bother to specify what these ad hominem's are supposed to be. He also sees fit to spread these accusations of "ad hominem" here, on the talk page of Beria, the person whose actions I criticised in detail in the comment he was replying to. This action is an implicit acknowledgement that mention of "ad hominem" is a deliberate attempt to avoid engaging with the substance, since the only thing that can reasonably be called "ad hominem" is my remarks on Cirt's behaviour - point 3 here, and note that it's all backed up with diffs. The only reason to tell Beria about my comment is because it contains substantial comments about her action that she might wish to respond to.

Summary: Cirt made repeated accusations of bad faith, and repeated attempts to disrupt a COM:AN thread. This is not acceptable. If he does not look at the behaviour I've laid out here and realise this, then a block is required. Rd232 (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

So I finally read that thread. It's very typical Wikimedian behavior to focus on minute details rather than overall larger questions -- focusing on the rollback / reopening rather than the overall DR validity. I'll respond in order of your points.

1. People love to tout "rollback abuse" (whatever that means). It was probably poor form to assume, but I won't blame that entirely on Cirt as he probably learned that in Wikipedia's culture.
2. Agreed that calling it a "so-called 'apology'" was poor form, but not egregious.
3. Meh, nothing to say to that.
4. It was quite bold of Cirt to make accusations of forum shopping given his recent behavior. Quite glib, in fact.
5. I don't see much in the way of ad hominem by Rd. It would be nice if Cirt could "put up or shut up," so to speak.

All that having been said, sometimes it's just easier to ignore people around the wiki. I don't think right now it's enough to block Cirt, but if this behavior manifests similarly in other instances it could result in a block. Killiondude (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Comment - I thank Killiondude (talk · contribs) for the analysis. I can see that things are certainly going the way of getting heated over recent discussions, and I'm going to go ahead and take a break from further involvement in related issues for a while, and focus on contributions in other unrelated areas. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki95pedia

Wiki95pedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Another copyvio after block. Allan Aguilar • talk • 01:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done one month block. --PierreSelim (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Tarc – here to contribute

Saibo, It seems to me that reverting Mattbuck's preemptive closure of this discussion should be reverted. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Question: Could someone here please explain why Mattbuck's edit, which preemptively closed this discussion, was apparently oversited, and replaced with a closure by PierreSelim? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Oversited as in 'overcited' or oversited as in 'oversighted'? Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean this perfectly visible edit? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Double DR closure by Admin Bastique for File:Bahama fin Flash.svg

Admin Bastique has closed this DR twice. Therefore I am forced to take this here, as the file needs to go. For those not aware of this problem, here's some insight. Jetijones uploaded an augmented version of File:Naval Ensign of the Bahamas.svg, with a shortened ratio. This was one o several flags that Jetijones uploaded with an extra black border around them, for use as "fin flashes", the distinctive national marking on the tail of military aircraft. Jetijones and I argued about the border many times, especially because as photographic evidence proved, the borders were not part of the flash as aplied to aircraft. Most of these fin flash files, which were exact duplicates of "Flag of *country*" files we already (except with the addition of the borders) were deleted for that reason. This file is the last hold out. However, with this particular fin flash file, the problem is not only the addition of a border, but the different ratio from the SVG Naval Ensign file. I nominated Jetijones first upload of this augmented flag, We argued over it, but the photographic evidence doesn't lie, and proved not only that the border isn't part of the flag as a fin flash (except when it is painted on a white fuselage, so as to deifferentiate the white of the flag, and white of the plane), but that also the ratio of the flag is 1:2, same as the naval ensign. For that reason, the file was deleted. Jetijones then uploaded the file a second time, which I nominated here. It was subsequently deleted for the same reasoning. Jetijones then uploaded it to Wikipedia English, in an attempt to circumvent another DR, as Wiki-En's deletion process is more complicated. That file was then transfered to Commons, and is File:Bahama fin Flash.svg, under this third DR, which is forcing me to come here, because IDK where else to take it.

Because Admin Bastique has closed the DR on this third file twice, overlooking the precedent of the two previous deletions listed at the top of the DR, and the facts made by the arguements within all 3 DRs, I am now forced to list the evidence here, for all to see, so this matter can be closed once and for all.

• 1: The ratio of the flag can clearly be seen in the following five photographs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) with the ratio of 1:2, the same as File:Naval Ensign of the Bahamas.svg, NOT the shortened ratio used by Jetijones on his version.
• 2: The border. It is clearly seen in this photograph that the added border by Jetijones is non-existant. That's because the fuselage is painted a different colour from the flag, so there is no need to differentiate. Infact, Jetijones later acknowledged that he was wrong about the border, when he removed it from the third version he uploaded to Wiki-En.
• 3:Jetijones has not been able to provide a single photograph of proof that the fin flash was ever applied in his shortened ratio. Infact, two of these photos, are Jetijones own sources, which he added to the file discription, and even his our sources contradicted him.
• 4 Jetijones uploaded several duplicates of national flags (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), some with added borders and some with odd unsourced ratios, which are used as the national fin flash, for his "fin flashes". They were all deleted, and it was agreed by other users that when the national flag is used as the fin flash, to just use the national flag file we already have. This is infact currrently being done on the Wiki-En article for fin flashes. As we can see there, the majority of the files there illustrating the national flag's use as the fin flash, are our Commons files "Flag of *country*". The only one sticking out is Jetijones odd and unsourced-ratio Bahamian file.
• 5 This file isn't even in use, because Jetijones uploaded the same thing to Wiki-En, to bypass Commons discussion of the matter. So why have it if it's not in use, and not being defended actively by it's uploader anymore in face of all the evidence?

As the evidence proves that the Bahamian fin flash is the same as the naval ensign, this file needs to be deleted, and the naval ensign file used in it's place. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you talk with him before opening the DR for a second time ? Would you agree that other sysops give you their opinion on the first closing and we try to figure out a solution based on that ? --PierreSelim (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not contact Bastique before renominating. If that was a mistake, I own up to up. However, I felt that the overwhelming photographic evidence, 2 preceding DRs for the same file being uploaded before, and the arguments made in all 3 DRs together, as more than enough proof that this is wrong. I don't like taking it here, and I know to some it looks silly to bring a dispute like this to AN/U, but I don't knwo where else to go. I can't delete it myself, and I can't nominate the file again as that would be fruitless. I need everyone to see the facts, so this matter can be done with, and even after that, I'm still gonna have to go up to Wiki-En and talk to everyone there to get the one hosted up there deleted as well. Jetijones claims he cares only about accuracy, he has said that many times on several take pages, but his insistance on this one file is ubsurd. I just want it over with, and the correct file used, proper ratio and all. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Bastique closing this the second time (as speedy) was wrong. And the first closing was wrong too, according to previous deletions. Ask for undelete, do not just reupload deleted files. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you must not have looked at the previous DRs, or else you would have seen that neither of them had any bearing on this one--the first was inappropriately closed as "per nom" despite a subsequent debate and the second was a completely different image altogether. But I expect you saw my name on this discussion and it is your natural impulse to assume that I'm wrong. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 16:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Comment I thought we just established at Commons:AN#Back_to_the_questions that (i) DRs should only be closed "speedy keep" in exceptional circumstances (ii) it's a bad idea for an admin to repeatedly close the same or related DRs (iii) the correct way to appeal a "keep" is in fact to renominate it, after discussion with the closing admin. Fry seems to have omitted the discussion to appeal the first DR closure, but that's not a justification in itself to speedy keep. ... I wonder if in fact we need a better way to appeal "keep" decisions than renominating; maybe we should repurpose COM:UDEL as "deletion review" so it covers "keep" decisions as well. Rd232 (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I closed the deletion request "speedy" because it is not a deletion request. The user in question has every right to upload a wrong file. The previous deletions were done incorrectly. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 15:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

it is not a deletion request. - what? I don't get that at all. Rd232 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification, what I meant was that a deletion request is not the appropriate forum for this dispute. This file is not out of scope, it is not illegally licensed, it is not inappropriate for Commons in any way. It is not, actually, a duplicate file of another. It is, in one user's opinion, "wrong". Even if it is a "wrong rendering" of some kind, it is still not necessarily eligible for deletion. Their problems do not belong at DR. They belong somewhere else, where all interested parties can participate. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 01:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(as a side note, I am not sure I understand why that same user can speedy reopen but I cannot speedy close? Maybe I used incorrect terminology? inappropriate reopen? Perhaps it should have been done differently from the start?) Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 15:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Reopened. Enjoy. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 16:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no dispute, because Jetijones will not even defend it anymore. All the facts prove this is wrong, and it must be deleted. Look at the facts! If you do insist on calling it a "dispute", it must be the most one-sided dispute I have ever seen here. Jetijones has not been able to provide one shred of evidence to back up his version, no pics, no sources, NOTHING. EVERYTHING says the opposite. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires verifiability rather than truth. We at Commons require neither, merely a free licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Under that claim, anybody can upload anything as long as it has a good license. However, all the time we delete files for being wrong. All the time we correct flags according to new official sources. All the time we universally replace one file with a more accurate one. So respectfully, that's bullshit. Also, considering it's not in use, what possibly reason could there be to keep it here? Fry1989 ^eh? 01:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons requires realistic usefulness for an educational purpose. --JN466 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Uploaders of maps, flags, coats-of-arms etc often seem to work under the illusion that there is one one "correct" version of anything and are determined to rid Commons of all alternatives. This is at variance with standard Commons practice where all revisions are kept. From your comments it is perhaps time we enforced that standard practice on that sub-community, there is no need to eliminate all previous revisions, just mark them as superceded. As for possible reasons for keeping 'wrong' versions, the first is that just because one group of people think that they are wrong versions, does not mean that they are. Also consider that this project does not just service other wikimedia projects, it is a project that makes available media to the whole internet - so 'not in use' only means not currently included on any wiki page. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

There is an editor called Pedro Aguiar who has been repeatly uploading a misleading version of two maps I created for a Featured Article I wrote at the English Wikipedia: . The two maps are:

• File:Brazil provinces 1825.PNG ---> Correct version: here.
• File:Brazil provinces 1889 new.png ---> Correct version: here.

It will be quite easy to anyone see what is the main difference between the map I created and the newer versions he uploaded (take a look at Brazil' limits to the northwest). Here is a map of Brazil in the 1850s taken from Brazil: the Forging of a Nation so that you may see which one is the correct version. You can also see a hand drawn map on this English written Emperor Pedro I's biography. Or if you prefer, you may see a 19th century map of Brazil on this other book. Either way, you'll notice that the entire area removed by that editor is present on all three maps. I'd like someone to tell him to stop disrupting the files and warn him about this kind of behavior, please. --Lecen (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons is not able to decide disputes of this sort. The Lecen version of this map should be in one file -- with the original file name -- and the Pedro Aguiar version should be in another file. Then all the users can decide which file they want to use.

I note that Lecen did not notify User:Pedro Aguiar of this posting -- that is a violation of our normal way of working together.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Both maps are used on a Featured Article. I can't force editors from the English Wikipedia to come to Commons to share their thoughts about it. Pedro Aguiar has no right, even more when he is wrong, to upload a newer version without bothering to discuss first and do it over and over when he is told to stop. And here is a map from 1883 of Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted them to Lecen's version and warned Pedro Aguiar to upload under a new filename and shift this discussion to the enwp talk page. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dcoetzee. Now other editors interested on the subject will be able to learn about what's going on. --Lecen (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall not discuss here about the accuracy of the maps. I understand the Commons policy (of which I was not aware) to keep contradictory versions of image files, but it is intriguing how it can be useful to users when it comes to a situation where there is no "subjectivity" involved (i.e., there are no "two truths" possible). Maps represent reality. Since the two versions are different, (at least) one of them is evidently wrong. In this case, what is a justification for two file versions to coexist in the Commons directory? One of them will misinform Wiki users, such as students and researchers.

Also, I do not agree that the discussion must occur only in the discussion page at the English Wikipedia. The most "neutral" place should be the discussion page at Commons itself. The en.wiki is not privileged in any sense in relation to others.--Pedro 01:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC), the derogatively and unfairly called "disruptive editor"

I don't know about this case, but in general there is not necessarily one 'right' version of a map. Maps usually represent a political point of view, and another faction/nation may see things differently. The best we can really say is that a particular map represents a particular set of data (eg a copy of an "official" map) and cite the source. In map disputes our best strategy (and I believe best for the projects where they are used) is to split contested revisions into seperate files, the projects can use whichever version they want. Later when things have cooled down, maps with no supporting evidence can be nominated for deletion - it is not one map vs another, it is whether each can cite reasonable sources (ie not totally imaginary). We can also add {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} to warn others that a map is contested. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of historical maps with the Louisiana Purchase marked on them, like File:National-atlas-1970-1810-loupurchase.png. This sale from France to the US included most of the central (what is now the) US. While these maps represent reality in the eyes of the US and France, those lands were filled with people who didn't recognize French claims to the land they were living on, and didn't suddenly start to recognize US claims. I understand the maps of Brazil you posted had similar issues; whatever the agreements on the national levels were, those maps indicated claims over great swaths of land whose people did not believe that Brazil had any legitimate claim over their land.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Maps, and the reality they represent, are subjective.

Think about the region known as Kashmir: there are at least four "truths" about it: the borders as claimed by India, the borders as claimed by Pakistan, the borders as claimed by China, and the actual lines of military control. Or for an older example, how about the 1835 border between the territory of Michigan and the state of Ohio? It had even more "truths": the border defined by the Ohio Constitution, the border defined in the Northwest Ordinance, the border as surveyed by William Harris (the Harris Line, based on but not identical to the border defined by the Ohio constitution), the border as surveyed by John Fulton (the Fulton Line, based on, but not identical to, the border defined by the Northwest Ordinance), and the actual zones of control (fuzzy, based on recognized governments and tax collection rather than on lines on the ground). Incidentally, the 1915 border survey followed none of these "truths".

If there's more than one version of a map of something, upload the different versions as different files, explain the differences in the image description pages, and let individual projects decide which one represents the "truth" they want to present. Maps, like anything else, should only be deleted if they have no educational value. --Carnildo (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with fellow editors that maps can (and will) represent political point of views, which is not an exact synonym for subjectivity. Let me rectify what I said, then, in that there can be more than one "truth", although facts in situ may not vary (and enough for Aristotelic ratio for the time being :o) ). However, the case here is not analogous to the mentioned examples of Louisiana, Kashmir or Michigan/Ohio border disputes. talk and I are both Brazilian users, quoting both Brazilian references from the same political perspective. The difference is that I've chosen to base my work on sources which are contemporary to the time represented, while he is basing upon modern non-canon or amateur sources (whose graphic accuracy is strongly questioned among Historians).

I had previously made maps on the historical administrative division of Brazil, based on the aforementioned sources (you can see some examples here), which user Lecen himself replaced within the article, without previous consultation to the community, nor referencing his work - which is, undoubtedly, of a higher aesthetical quality than mine, but nevertheless flawed in several factual aspects. His maps were simply made by taking a current map of the 21st century and altering only minor differences, ignoring or perhaps neglecting a large number of other border changes in the past 180 years. It reflects mostly current borders, not historical ones.

I contacted Lecen in his discussion page exposing these problems and I was ignored, and later insulted in public by him. I've been contributing to Wikipedia (and its sister projects) for more than 10 years and I'm used to work through dialogue, respect and partnership, besides accuracy. This is what I understand from reading the principles of Wikimedia and I will keep contributing that way only. --Pedro 19:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Shubham182 ‎

Shubham182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user seems to be an ardent fan of the Kashmiri painter Dina Nath Walli. He has posted his paintings, pics, etc from the internet in clear copyright violation. I suggest a ban on him and deletion of all his uploads except his own photo. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC).

 Not done, sorry before blocking a user for uploading unfree files he must get a clear warning. I've warned him. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably you've done the right thing. My only view was keeping in line with the fact that this user is consistently only uploading from the internet with no regard for copyvio. Regards,Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC).

User:SnacksIndia

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

only contributions are advertisements...--Trex2001 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Uploads nuked and user warned. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Saibo

•  Comment I have no sympathy either for user's Saibo cause, or for the way he tried to reach it, but mattbuck should not have been the one to block the user, not after this comment by saibo [7], in which the user accused mattbuck in "vandalizing" his user page. This post made mattbuck an involved admin.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  Moved from Tarc section by mattbuck

  I blocked Saibo because I consider him a friend, and sometimes friends need to say that you're being a bit of an ass. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  [8], [9], [10] – I would consider Mattbuck to be an involved sysop as well. Did you try speaking to Saibo and asking him or her to cool down before making the block? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Already when Saibo started to go "rogue", quite a number of well-meaning users from different "camps" encouraged him to cool-down or to take a break. --Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

Saibo wasn't involved in any edit wars, and the undeletion warring doesn't appear to be all that serious. I don't agree with the block. Blocks shouldn't be used to force individuals to modify their behavior. en:WP:COOLDOWN – "Cool down" blocks are also discouraged on enwiki. The block by Mattbuck could simply be providing Saibo with another reason to dislike Wikimedia. Saibo has been quiet (both here and on dewiki) since being blocked (although the autoblock might've played a role in that), so he or she should be considered "cooled down"; therefore, Saibo should be unblocked. Does Saibo really have to wait an entire week? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem not to have realized (or don't want to) that this was a friendly block (yes!) in order to protect Saibo (somewhat from himself and from a beginning de-sysop, see above). As he hadn't cooled-down in the weeks after Beta-M's gobal lock, 1 week may even be too short, though I hope he'll come to terms with it in that time. --Túrelio (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Saibo has been running roughshod over this project ever since his friend Beta M was kicked out. Overturning porn deletions with no valid rationale, threatening to ban users while citing no policy-based reason to do so, and the constant badgering of WMF staff to either overturn Beta's ban or disclose private info on why they will not. This is conduct quite unbecoming of an admin. Also, abject silence does not equate to "time off for good behavior"; absent Saibo actually addressing the reason he was blocked in the first place, it should run for the duration. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Mattbuck

Admin Mattbuck blocked me a few days ago because of this announcement. This is very strange and biased because of some points I will conduct now.

(1) Mattbuck was obviously not able to follow circumstance because he assumed me for thinks that never happend. See here.

(2) Maybe it was a misunderstanding or disinterest of mattbuck so he threatened me not to commend QI/FP-statements which he reputed to be personal assaults by me. I never insulted one person because he or she is voting against me pictures. But I surly question the voting if it is smelling like a revenge. And I never did this because of a disagreement which is some months back (like mattbuck tries to imply). But if my behaviour should be culpable than for sure the behaviour of others acting same like Jebulon did should be penaled in the same way. But curiously mattbuck did not noticed this although I pointed this out.

(3) Just a few minutes before he posted his threat at my discussion page he voted at a highly controversial candidature against my picture. Because I considered his acting as a provocation I asked him if I could take him seriously if he is joining a candidature, gives dubiously contra-reason and wants to play a neutral troubleshooter. This gives me strong misgivings - until now.

(4) The high point of this infamy was that mattbuck published without my agreement my mail I have send to him. This infringement of protection of privacy is an ignoble behaviour for an administrator.

(5) Conclusion: I detected now and then that mattbuck is not a very confident and calm admin. But this behaviour is not tolerable that he is blocking me although he is involved because, in fact he conscious get himself involved.

So I request to revoke his rights of admins because he did not expound to handle this rights with care but only for his one conception that has nothing in common with defence of this project. I contributed thousands of pictures to this project, concern other user with respect and await the same to me. Nothing more, but also nothing less. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This related to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_27#Taxiarchos228. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You repeatedly claimed people were voting at QI/FP as revenge against you for some imagined slight that those people did not even remember. I warned you not to. Yes, I voted against your image at QI, because I did not think it was worthy of QI. As anyone who watches my edits there (none for past week, bad connection) can tell you, I tend to consider any overexposure to be an immediate reason for decline. Your image had overexposure, and was in my mind badly composed, so I voted against it. Your response to this was to send me an email in which you accused me of voting against you as revenge - the exact thing I had just told you not to do. Therefore I blocked you for 3 days. You did not appeal this block through use of {{Unblock}}, and so were unbanned 9 days ago. I see nothing more to discuss. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(after EC) Comprehension of you was not to await. Please do not repeat untrue myths like some imagined slight that those people did not even remember. You obviously acted biased because you self involved, it was not up to you to make here a decision. It is totaly beside the point how many days this ban is ago because here is a hard aberration and exceeding of your authority. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the original discussion about you, you here and here accused people of voting in revenge. Then in that very topic about you, you did it again and again. Finally after I warned you, and after Walter Siegmund warned you, you did it again, this time via email. Your behaviour was to my mind unacceptable so I banned you. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

And don't forgott this. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A very wrong block. Abuse of admin buttons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Taxiarchos228; You are welcome to discuss Mattbuck's behavior here, but to remove his admin bit, you must follow the process of COM:DESYSOP. Please note that "this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal". --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Between expiration of the block (9 days ago) and the start of this topic, I see no Taxiarchos228 edits to User talk:Mattbuck. Taxiarchos228, could you try to resolve this with Mattbuck, before you involve the community and propose excessive measures like a desysop? Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What would that be good for? He would clearly risk a new block by Mattbuck! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

...Your opinion of me is that low? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

He sent you a wikimail, and you blocked him for that. The other day, I was blocked because I posted on someone's userpage by another admin. It is dangerous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Was it you, who recently said: "Stop to feel sorry about yourself"? BTW, I thought you know that we use we use this great utilety? -- RE rillke questions? 23:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I created that you know, because Saibo is my sockpuppet and Niabot is Saibo's sockpuppet. I, for the record, am Whitecat's sockpuppet, and I think he's Niabot's sockpuppet. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's such a pity that I can't be your sockpuppet. *cry* So who’s my sockpuppetmaster now? --Geitost ^diskusjon 00:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think that a block of Taxiarchos228 at the time was justified, as his repeated claims regarding the revenge votes were unwarranted, uncollegial and poisonous to the review atmosphere. But I agree that such a block should not have been done by mattbuck. In my opinion he was clearly involved. I also resent quoting private communications on-wiki, unless there is a clear agreement between the two parties users, that this is acceptable. I would be upset about that, if another user quoted email communications without my explicit acceptance. If I were mattbuck, I would apologize. --Slaunger (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

User:JBarta and File:Biographies of living persons.jpg

User:Dardan007 has uploaded the file:Biographies of living persons.jpg. The name and the English description are rather confusing considering that what we see is just a person with sleepy eyes. Does the image represent a biography cover, biographer or a person's picture from a book with biographical chapters? In this context, I placed a note at the talkpage of the file and User:Jeff G. ツ placed a talkback note at the uploader's talkpage. Since the file was uncategorised, I had added Category:Biographies because of the description. In this context, user:Jbarta has been tagging this file for rename without any target. He has also used derogatory language on my talkpage. I request the admins to help me with the rename issue.

Also, I wonder how a user can call a filemover "silly" (see:User_talk:Hindustanilanguage#rename)when he himself has tagged another file File:Pussy close to orgasm.jpg for deletion citing Commons:Nudity#New_uploads when the clear guideline is available on this very page:
If a file depicts some phenomenon or circumstance which we do not already have representations of (for example, diseases or body modifications) then it should be kept, as it adds to the educational content of Commons. Wikimedia Commons should have media depicting human anatomy in all its variety and diversity.

IS THIS AN ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR ON COMMONS? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC).

The real issue here (the one that caused this noticeboard posting) is over the proper use of the rename tag. While a completely and properly filled out rename tag is a wonderful thing, the tag is designed in such a way to allow simply placing {{rename}} which then calls rename needs target and lets other users see that a rename is requested and then possibly suggest a more proper name. This usage is perfectly acceptable and noted in the template instructions. Hindustanilanguage is resisting this and insists that the only way the tag can be used is to fill it out completely. – JBarta (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope admins will carefully look into the matter and also the language used in the communication. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC).

User:Tarc

What do we have here? [11] I see a personal attack and deformation of Saibo in this comment ("...since his friend Beta M..."), considering previous comments including the words "enabler" and of such kind by Tarc. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 13:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)