Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

Administrator assistance
Vandalism (post | watch) To report vandalism	User problems (post | watch) To report problems with other users you cannot resolve yourself	Blocks & protections (post | watch) To discuss blocks and protections	Other (post | watch) To post messages that do not fit into any other category
To request an edit to a protected page: Add {{editprotected}} to your request on the talk page.	Have an idea or suggestion? Generic community discussion takes place at the Village pump.	CheckUser requests → COM:RFCU. Renames and other bureaucrat requests → COM:BN.	Other resources: Need help? Try the FAQ, or the Help desk.

Navigation Administrators' noticeboard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Vandalism archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Attention archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disputes archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C K User problems archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Blocks & protections archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Other links Talk +/-

Important discussion pages (index) Commons Help desk Community-wide general discussion Graphics: Graphics discussion Ask for image improvement Categories discussion Copyright questions OTRS noticeboard Contact administrators: Vandalism reports User problems Blocks & protections General (none of the above) CheckUser requests Disputes noticeboard IRC Mailing list

[graph/hist] Toolserver status Last update 05:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC) MySQL rosemary up MySQL daphne up MySQL yarrow up Replag s1 0h 0m 1s Replag s2 0h 0m 3s Replag s3 0h 0m 1s Replag s4 0h 0m 0s Replag s5 0h 0m 3s More information...

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.

Contents 1 Usernames to be checked 2 Download A .SVG File? 3 Karelj (talk · contributions) 4 mass deletion self-request User:Marku1988 5 User:Barkeeper of Sushi 6 Pieter Kuiper 7 Edit warring on categories 8 Repeated copyright violations 9 Danifronter (talk · contributions) 10 Concerns about Shustov 11 User:JezzyBear 12 Desysop? 13 Mbz1 14 User:AFBorchert

[edit] Usernames to be checked

The usernames below have been recognised by the Welcome log bot as possibly against policy. Please block the user or put a message on the user's talk page. Please remove the entry after your check.

[edit] Download A .SVG File?

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

[edit] Karelj (talk · contributions)

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

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

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

Answer amd my statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] mass deletion self-request User:Marku1988

In this self-rfd Commons:Deletion requests/Images by User:Marku1988, requested by Marku1988 (talk · contributions) who admitted that most of his uploads originally claimed as own work (not the ones where he did quite superb retouching work on images of others) the requester has escalated his request by writing "I will get a lot of trouble if I must invole the copyrightholder I work for. At the moment only my contact person knows. But he give me the deadline 2009-12-01. Please believe me."[1] Though there is still no independent proof for his claim of his not-ownership (and thereby justification of deletion as copyvios), I fear now we have no choice than deletion, in order to avoid harm for the uploader as claimed by himself. --Túrelio (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I was referring to you not answering the question I asked. Thank you for answering now. I stand by my original vote and comment, until such time as he provides further details of his claims, as requested: [2]. --99of9 (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Barkeeper of Sushi

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

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

[edit] Pieter Kuiper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Edit warring on categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Repeated copyright violations

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

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

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

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

[edit] Danifronter (talk · contributions)

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

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

[edit] Concerns about Shustov

[edit] User:JezzyBear

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

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

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

[edit] Desysop?

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

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

[edit] Mbz1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] User:AFBorchert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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