User talk:Pieter Kuiper/Archive2010b

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 2008 | 2009 | 2010a| 2010b

cat undeleted[edit]

Hi Pieter,
to avoid unnecessary bad feelings, just FYI, I've reversed my deletion of Category:Anwynd the Breaker (Bröt-Anund) after a direct request by a (somewhat concerned) user. I would recommend to leave it as it is for some time. If, lets say after a few weeks, the cat is still empty or really really unnecessary, deletion might be discussed again. --Túrelio (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User is using Commons for pushing his own terminology, see en:Talk:Anund. I just made an ordinary DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
There is another kind of POV-pushing going on here. It is ideological not linguistic, and it is not on my part. Anwynd is English for Anund. So much is clear to any native born Swede or Englishman with any knowledge of these things. SergeWoodzing (talk)

Teddy Bears[edit]

Please explain your DW of my teddy bears. RlevseTalk 10:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Valentine teddybear looks like a commercial product, unlikely to be own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
See responses at IFD too. If you're taking that extreme of an approach, you have A LOT of work cut out for you: Category:Toy animal. It's also mindboggling that Commons condones known pedophiles while worrying about generic not descript toys. RlevseTalk 13:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Here it was feared that an x-ray of a teddy bear might infringe copyright. I do not quite understand the connection that you are making, does it have anything to do with Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 6#Please_re-remove the pedolicious teddy bear? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing to do with that link. Also, you completely avoided the Cat:Toy animals question. Do you plan to take care of that or just pick on a select few? RlevseTalk 20:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
As an admin etcetera, you should be familiar with the sttement that en:WP:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument for keeping any copyright violating image. Eventually, other copyright violating images that you might have noticed on Commons will be spotted and deleted as well. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I am, but you need to not avoid the question. So answer this: What do you intend to do about the hundreds, by your interpretation, of images in Cat:Toy animals that are in vio? Are you going to ignore them and let someone else clean it up or are you going to clean it up yourself, since you insist so many are in vio, and be consistent? IE, is it just me and my teddys you are so interested in or are you truly interested in cleaning up the categories? And "eventually" doesn't suffice as an answer. RlevseTalk 22:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I have done a few more now, but see also File:Tischkante.jpg - had already been tagged as a copyvio. Why is it always admins that make such a fuss when their uploads are tagged for deletion? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's more like admins (and others) get upset when it looks like their files are being tagged in retaliation. You might take that under advisement as it's something you've been advised about before. ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Uh huh. Very interesting that this tagging occurred within hours of me posting in the Tyciol unblock thread when I contested Kameraad Pjotr's unblock of Tyciol. Let's see, Pjotr just happens to be one of the people who unblocked you in one of your many blocks. And oh by the way "a few more" isn't going to get you off the hook. RlevseTalk 00:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, it isn't just admins that get upset. Revenge is a spiteful accusation to make, so please retract that. Wknight94 talk 00:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My comment is just to explain the reason for that nomination without merit. It is disruptive, and a complete waste of everybody's time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I was feeling left out... not any more!. Pieter, knock it off. You are on very thin ice. ++Lar: t/c 10:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
An administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser and oversighter on Commons should not react like this to a deletion request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Lennart_Bernadotte,_Jan.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Wknight94 talk 22:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Olaf_Bull.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Wknight94 talk 22:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Bertil_Sigvard_Gustav_Adolf.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Wknight94 talk 22:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Clarence_von_rosen.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Wknight94 talk 02:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Ua-31_FOLKE_BERNADOTTE_VID_INVIGNINGEN_AV_HEDVIG_ELEONORAS_SCOUTSTUGA_I_PÅTA_1943.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Wknight94 talk 02:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a week[edit]

Stop x nuvola.svg This user has been blocked one week
The reason for the block is Revenge deletion requests. See [1] for more, but nominating files for deletion, while normally useful, is not acceptable when done out of pique.. The administrator listed in the block log can give you further information.

See also the contributions of this user or the upload log in order to find out why this user has been blocked.

العربية | Català | Česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

++Lar: t/c 11:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How could I ever "intimidate" the high and mighty Lar? He tried to intimidate me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You can try to intimidate someone without actually succeeding of course, the crime is in the trying not succeeding. The fact you are a "normal" user and Lar is an admin (and all his other statuses) is neither here nor there. Lar warned you not to be disruptive - how is that a threat?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
He told me to leave his copyright violations alone. Under threat of being blocked. This is a problem that one never has with ordinary users. One can submit DR after DR, sometimes until all their uploads have been nuked. But Lar has the power to block me, or to checkuser me, or what else. And I refuse to budge for that kind of power language. Your condoning this kind of behaviour will have a chilling effect. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Pieter, if Lar had approached me I would have blocked you myself on the evidence of the warnings provided and your response to them. Any non-admin could have done the same (approached me and said this isn't on). The only reason you targeted Lar was because he warned you not to submit "revenge nominations", that is the inappropriate behaviour on your part.
If getting into dispute with someone causes you to comb through their contributions, make a list of the copyvios and submit it as a batch after the dispute has settled down. You know the pace of DR is glacial so the additional wait of a week will make no practical difference, but it means you don't inflame disputes further.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It would not make a difference. People like Cirt and Herby have memories much longer than a week. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually that would make a real difference, despite the long memories. The point is by waiting its not that people will "forget" about it, but that the dispute will have had a chance to settle down. That way you won't be submitting deletion requests against a user you are actively in dispute with, which are the so-called "revenge deletions". These inflame matters as the "targets" won't take them well given the context, or is the point of the DRs not to get rid of the copyvio but to make a point against the user? By waiting a bit so that the situation elsewhere has calmed down, you won't typically be perceived as attacking the user in question - and more to the point the other dispute will be able to settle down.
The consensus (which now appears to be forming at the AN) is that revenge deletions are not acceptable behaviour. If you persist in that practice (against any user, not just an admin) you will find yourself receiving further blocks of increasing duration.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
FWIW not just Lar's images but Wknight94's too. Further examples of a pattern of behaviour that has gone on over more than a year now. And I do not condone copyvios - I probably delete more than many other Commons admins. The issue is the revenge/provocation of folk you are in dispute with. --Herby talk thyme 12:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Then undo Yann's premature closing of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Croton Dam Muskegon River Dscn1100 cropped.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget my Teddy Bear and Santa pics, which he tagged within mere hours of me contesting KP's unblock of Tyciol. This long pattern of retaliatory tagging needs to stop once and for all. RlevseTalk 22:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, let's not forget that poor cute red little Valentine teddybear, the first image in your gallery of most recent uploads. After your rabble-rousing on COM:AN/P#Paedophile bans from en.wp and your insinuations on Kameraad Pjotr's talk page, I had a look at who you were - a boy scout. All these furry copyright violations were also prominently displayed at en:User:Dog The Teddy Bear. Could attract prepubescent Children. Do you see how easy it is to smear someone? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Please be more sarcastic here and in your edit summaries. RlevseTalk 23:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
At least I was shorter than the sermon that GMaxwell] gave you. His highlighting of your insinuative use of the word sickening points accurately to a problem with your attitude. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
So you want to talk about attitudes? Shall I point to all the places yours has been mentioned lately and the problems they mention with your attitude? I could indeed but at this point it's best for both of us if we go on our separate ways. RlevseTalk 23:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts[edit]

So. It's hard to accept when you're the one blocked... but I think you need to relax a bit (and perhaps that goes for other people too, but I'm addressing you now). The issues are meaningful, even important but tensions are high, and many people have said nasty things to each other. I fear that we can't make any progress when there is so much animosity and urgency in the air. I'd be more than willing to try to convince Lar and the rest of the community that your block should be removed/shortened (though, sadly, I don't really know enough of of the background to even _think_ of wheel-warring with Lar over this!) if you were willing to take a step back, be the bigger man, and try to work through the issues calmly. (and I'm sure the same is true of other people, even if they haven't offered it). It doesn't really matter how wrong the other side is, if you lose your temper— even if its justified— and end up blocked due to a silly outburst then you can not effectively push for change. In any case, my ears are open. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You can read the above: Lar blocked me because I had the nerve to post Commons:Deletion requests/File:CedarPoint Maverick TrackLayoutDSCN9523.JPG. I am not in the mood to participate when consensus is that that is a blockable offense, while at the other hand Rlevse is posting horrible links like these with impunity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

[I removed a comment added by Wknight94 which I believe was adding more heat than light]

I've reviewed the history now, and I think from my perspective it is certainly more complicated than you are making it out to be. Regardless of your intentions your actions have painted a somewhat different picture to a third party. As I agree that Rlvese's invocation of ED was somewhat inappropriate, but since that troll site appears to be the source of much of the substance of the claims regarding the user in question it isn't clear to me that it could have easily been avoided. I know you saw that I took up the issue of some of Rlvese's statements already. If you see other people doing wrong things, I am willing to take a look at them for you. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
According to the law in Sweden, such a page aimed at destroying someone's life would most likely be illegal. If it is not clear to you that linking to the disgusting crap could have been avoided, you have sunk just as low as the rest of large parts of the American crowd here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The subject of that page is, at least in part, one of its authors. A direct contributor to that wiki page, I'm not referring to the quotes. You make it sound so simple. Is it? --Gmaxwell (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring my permission to answer your question.
So Tyciol appears to be a troll, that Arbcom including Rlevse has taken seriously. This probably makes it difficult to say what Tyciol's stance on pedophilia really is. He could very well belong to the "anti-pedophilia-on-the-web" rabble-rouser camp. Anyway, it is an understatement to describe Rlevse's link to that page as "somewhat inappropriate". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

FPC - response to Nilfanion[edit]

To prevent another myth from being transformed into wikipedia-truth: this by Nilfanion is not true. I challenge him to give evidence, or retract.
And even if it was ... just like anybody uploading a copyvio should be prepared for a deletion request, people that propose featured-picture status for mediocre work should be prepared for an opposing vote. The problem with FPC is that its rules require motivation for opposing votes, where comments like "boring" are not accepted as a valid reason. The whole thing is stacked to be an instrument for mutual admiration of the regulars. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

On a tangent... Amusingly, I agree that when I've looked at it, the FPC process has been "stacked to be an instrument for mutual admiration of the regulars", but I think for exactly the opposite reason that you seem to be suggesting. With so many possible critics and so many possible way to oppose (even with the requirement that a reason be provided!), that only certain types or work or certain contributors can reliably cut through the process— like peer review where you must satisfy 50 reviewers rather than something manageable like 3, and no one trying to remove conflicts of interest— so much of the time the determination of a generally good image seemed fairly random to me. I think that it would be fun to take a mixture of featured pictures and nearly passing but failed featured pictures and see if a third party rating showed any difference between the sets.
In any case, I would also like to see some of the specific examples that you've requested from Nilfanion. --Gmaxwell (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Not got the time now but this user has certainly used FPC to provoke folk (with minimal understanding initially of what it was actually about. Mbz1 has "enjoyed" some of his forays into this but I seem to recall others too (while not really disagreeing with the "mutual admiration" statement). Some of the talk archives here will have a few postings from me about it. One I seem to recall I got to the point where Kuiper no longer denied his motivation. --Herby talk thyme 11:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
What percentage of Mbz1's nominations have I opposed? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
As usual you play games with words. It is not the percentage that is relevant but your intentions in picking on people you are in dispute with. Been going on a long time. I think you have had a few final warnings from me over that time. --Herby talk thyme 11:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you have a habit of picking on me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You have a habit of ignoring what people say to you. You fail to understand that your actions here are frequently targeted at people you are in dispute with - you seek to provoke them. Sadly nothing that has been said on your talk page over a year or more has made you pay any attention to this. --Herby talk thyme 12:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've rephrased the FPC statement to better match the facts. Apologies there, as you have genuinely taken part in that process a bit recently, characterising all of your edits there as part of a dispute was wrong. However, your earlier contributions were against Mbz1's image while actively in dispute (over Latuff mostly), which was the thrust - use of FPC to further disputes in a similar manner to the disruptive use of DRs.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that I am held to different standards - look earlier on this page to a series of truly disruptive DR's by Wknight, totally without merit. Was this my first FPC vote? I was not the only one opposing. Was Mbz1's reaction to my vote an acceptable response? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
His noms were (in my view) retaliatory to your own retaliatory noms. "an eye for an eye... leaves both sides blinded". I don't support those nominations as appropriately timed (whatever the merits of the requests themselves) but I certainly understand his frustration. Commons has almost 7M files now. We have better things to do than get in DR wars. ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Mine were indeed in frustration - over the fact that Kuiper has been unblocked so many times despite his obvious retaliatory tactics. If the community is finally ready to see the light and realize that such behavior is poisonous, and take steps to stop his retaliation, then of course I will desist. Sorry for the POINT-making, but maybe it actually worked in this case. Wknight94 talk 13:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
@Lar: My DRs of Wknight's files were well in line with deletion policy on Commons, those by Wknight were entirely frivolous. Yet I am the one being blocked. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Not entirely frivolous - your use of blog sources as justification for the less stringent PD-Sweden rules is subject to legitimate scrutiny. But I closed all the DRs before your latest post above anyway (before I read your post at least). Wknight94 talk 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
@PK: the question is not whether the noms were in line with policy, the question is why they were done when they were done. They were retaliatory. You've been warned about retaliatory noms before. Time and again. I remain hopeful that you'll change, though. Wk being POINTy isn't acceptable, and if he does it again, there will be consequences. But we're talking about your behavior here, not his. "He did it too!" didn't work with my kids and won't work here either. ++Lar: t/c 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


Ok, here is a proposal. I will look at admin contributions dispassionately, entirely sine ira et studio, going through the Commons:List of administrators strictly by alphabet. If I see copyright violation, I will limit myself to a single DR, and wander on to the next person on the list. Not more than one admin a day or so, so the Z's can relax for a while. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you're targeting admins specifically but whatever... You can go further if you want - start a little project where you search the contributions of every admin and nominate all questionable ones in one day. That wouldn't bother me one bit. Get it out of your system. The point of contention is not that you are nom'ing admin files, it's that you are nom'ing files of people in retaliation for something you disagree with - adding a link you object to, or disagreeing with your POV, etc. Using DR as a weapon. If you feel better just nom'ing all questionable admin images in one huge wave - including admins you agree with and admins you disagree with - I have no objection at all. It won't change the fact that obvious retaliatory actions in the future will increase your likelihood of being blocked. Wknight94 talk 16:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Going through admins' contributions has one benefit: admins close deletion requests. Therefore, they should know their way around copyright law. If their own uploads contain copyvios, then those uploads indicate gaps in their knowledge. The project will benefit if those gaps are closed. --JN466 17:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, okay, sure. That is true. I don't know how any of this relates to what Pieter did before, but what you said is still true. What I would like to hear is that this somehow will stop him from retaliatory DRs ---- against anyone, not just admins ---- but I'll take this proposal as a positive step in some direction. Wknight94 talk 18:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW, if you want to start with me, go ahead. Drop a list here - if I agree I'll speedy delete them myself. Wknight94 talk 18:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you will have to wait until I get to the W. You should be able to do it yourself, as you so accurately pinpointed the problematic cases among Gmaxwell's uploads here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a fine proposal to me— and also a helpful service. Even people who know better sometimes make mistakes. Our standards of enforcement have also changed over time. But who bothers reviewing the copyright status of admin contributions? We will soon have an answer to that question. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paintings of Mark Shechtman[edit]

Where permission to use, for example, this image? I have something I do not understand. It may be a copyvio. Sorry for bad English. --Art-top (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Permission is clearly given, but if you disagree, you can make a DR. Do not tag these as copyright violations. As the template says, that is for obvious cases only. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation. The next time I'll be careful. --Art-top (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

the map of Wikimedia polska Conference[edit]

I don't think it is necessary for our map-drawers to explain details of their workshop. It completely does not matter, if they use GIMP or any other free software. It completely does not matter if they have drawn their maps using pencil, ruler, protractor or something else. It completely does not matter, what kind of map was used as a sample, because all maps of the same citiy show the same lines, angles and directions. The drawer of this map made it herself using her own colors, fonts, etc. Don't we treat simple drawings as works of art! Julo (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

  • PS. Of course, if don't agree with my decision, you can always re-open this Deletion Request and follow playing this game somehow long-time you want. My decision was rational, but do what you want.
    For your information this map is practicaly not necessary any more, beacause it was a helpful tool for our Conference im March 2010. Julo (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You were wrong by closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Konferencja Wikimedia Polska 2010 mapa.png in such an irregular way and it is your responsibility to undo your action. If I would do that, I would risk being blocked for disruption or something like that /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


You've been told not to troll me. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I made a DR, which you closed prematurely. You even deleted my response. Your approach is very heavyhanded, clamoring for eternal damnation just because I care about artist's rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I restored the deleted comment. I was about to make a similar observation, but the DR was already closed. I must say, if an artist agrees to a license requiring attribution, I would assume they mean crediting their own name, not the photographer's. –Tryphon 17:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Pieter, I apologize if I mis characterized your motivation. I don't want you commenting on my images or my talk page, because you have done some very underhanded things to me in the past, and I don't trust you or your motives. But perhaps this wasn't directed at me, and if that's the case, you have my sincerest apologies. Now you understand, stay off my images, and stay away from my talk page, and we'll be fine. Don't go to external websites and post derogatory or defamatory things about me and I might even learn to work with you some day. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 18:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
An admin should not claim special privileges. And I have freedom of speech. Also your stating that I have been defamatory without any support is problematic. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Any user is entitled to freedom from harassment. "Freedom from Pieter Kuiper" is not a special privilege, it's a right anyone on this project can demand. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 18:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

See [2]... that section of your user page is unacceptably combative, even with the wide latitude we grant. Please do not restore it. ++Lar: t/c 02:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As an example of wide latitude granted, see User:Mbz1. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
"Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" - Juvenal - translated as But who shall guard the guardians? Make of it what you will, I'm sure my interpretation will differ from yours but I thought of you. --Herby talk thyme 09:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Whatever interpretation, repression of dissent is a bad strategy for the ruling elite. As another example of wide latitude, see User:Max Rebo Band. On that user page, there is a gallery that accuses administrators of "vandalism". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
That's certainly concerning, but we're talking about you. "He did it too" doesn't work. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


You have been blocked for one month, primarily for your particularly egregious attempt to refight old battles; old battles for which you have been blocked before, but also for continuation of the same issues which have gotten you blocked over and over

You were pretty much on probation, but seem incapable or unwilling of changing in the light of widespread dissatisfaction at your behaviour.

I don't like the idea of an indefinite block or ban if it can be avoided, and it's hoped that a long, but not too long block will give you a chance to return and not seek to refight the same battles. But this must stop. Any future incidents are likely to result in indefinite blocking. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to this:
Your block rationale refers to Bastique's outburst on the admin board. That outburst was wrong. Bastique himself has even professed his sincerest apologies for that. And now you block me for it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I was first to question his actions on May 6 (archive is here). Initially, no admin stood up - could be bad for one's "career". The top brass does not like to be "disrespected". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Dit moet ophouden[edit]

Beste Pieter, jij bent in een moeras aan het wegzakken. Je het een aantal gebruikers zo voor het hoofd gestoten dat er assume good faith al lang geen sprake meer is. De enige manier om uit dit moeras te komen is om je de komende tijd heel erg op de vlakte te houden. Op deze manier ben je niet te handhaven binnen deze gemeenschap. Ik denk dat als je dat niet doet je volgende blok er eentje voor onbepaalde tijd zal zijn. Het is het aloude probleem van gelijk hebben en gelijk krijgen. Het is wellicht heel oneerlijk, maar ik denk toch dat je water bij de wijn moet doen. Er zijn genoeg leuke dingen die je op Commons kan doen waarbij je veel minder het risico loopt om met andere gebruikers in conflict te raken. Dit is mijn observatie puur ter kennisgeving. Je hoeft niet te reageren, denk er alleen over na. Multichill (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ik zie dit anders: Commons is een moeras, en de kikkers-met-de-lange-tenen kwaken in koor. Er zijn natuurlijk best leuke puzzels hier, zoals Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nikodemus.jpg, waar ik gisteren mee bezig was, maar eigenlijk moet ik mijn tijd aan andere dingen besteden. Een blokkering heeft als grootste nadeel dat ik hier geen foto's of figuren kan opladen. Nou, jammer dan. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia en commons zijn breed genoeg om dingen niet te forceren en je met andere dingen bezigte houden dan met wraak-prikacties die lijken op een balk in jouw oog vergeleken met de splinters die jij meent te zien in het oog van anderen. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Een speldeprik wordt op Commons gewroken met de voorhamer. Want wat is een DR in vergelijking met een blokkering? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Één DR op zich is het probleem niet; wel dat het de zoveelste prik was, wat als een attitude-probleem bij je ervaren is. Maar dat zul je intussen wel beseffen, lijkt me. Beter is een attitude van "avancer mais ne pas forcer" zoals men dat op zijn frans zegt. Groeten, --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Avant garde[edit]

There is a vote in progress at COM:AN/U to ban you. Part of your user page is being transcluded to permit you to defend yourself. Please use the area between the includeonly tags for this purpose. Please do not be offensive or make attacks, as this will only work against you. I still have faith you can remain a productive member of the community but I fear not many others have this faith. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]


I have provided a summary of your links about me, I'd respectfully ask that you not bring third parties into this. Whatever problems I had with them in the past are not relevant to your issues with me, or my issues with you, and they do not deserve having long-settled issues brought up again. If you feel that more points need to be said, feel free to quote, but censor the name of the third party, and make it clear what was on-wiki and what was off-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue is your double standards. The history of your talk page and of your user page shows that in the recent past you used that space to offer unflattering information about a "third party" that you still say had been harassing you. Not very elegant, but I had supported your freedom of speech. In March, you started a blog page with a Skype conversation that you had in October. That "wall of shame" page is still up, but it is off-wiki, so you think it is ok as long as it is not mentioned here? Yet you block me for my gallery of questionable DR decisions. Are you sure that you are not blocking me out of spite, because you cannot stand that your previous block of me was lifted? (see here, and also here) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to accept you've upset a lot of people, are basically on probation for continuing here, and continuing to attack people really isn't going to help your case. If it takes blocks now to prevent you from being indef blocked after a couple more incidents, I'd rather block you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
As Bastique said, it was wrong to get upset and to call for me being blocked. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It was the Wall of Shame you were primarily blocked for. Bastique overreacted, and that was pretty clear from the start, and, although you certainly could have handled him better (For instance, you could have politely explained you were going through admins in alphabetical order, as you had proposed), you would not have been blocked for that. However, your Wall of Shame was not at all alright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


Note: In order to make an ironclad display of integrity and accountability, I shan't deny the above request myself and immediately, as I could be tempted to do. I shall, however, comment:

  1. This second request is a blatant case of Forum Shopping
  2. The block was cast by Adam Cuerden not for starting DRs or questionning administrative actions, but for "Continued issues after repeated warnings and blocks", with a link to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Pieter_Kuiper [3]. This issues in question are
    • [attempts to] "discredit other contributors who have previously pointed out his deficiencies"
    • "single-handedly created more tension and ill-will in the community"
  3. The "unclear reasons" that motivated my refusal are that Pieter Kuiper gives a very selective description of the reasons for his block. Starting DRs and questionning administrative actions are some of the means by which Pieter Kuiper achieves his poisonning of the community. They are indeed not inherently forbidden, but neither is "editing discussion pages"; that hasn't stopped from banning trolls in the past, and should not in the future.

I hope that my comment will make it easier and quicker for my peers to judge this second request. Rama (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I'd just like to add, Pieter has been unblocked many times in the past, and his demeanor has not improved. His block isn't necessarily about behavior, it's about attitude and cooperative editing. He began his deletion spree when his favorite image was deleted, not because he cares about the project. I think serving a full sentence would do him some good. Maybe he will cool off and realize the deletions process is not meant to be a combat. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 10:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
What "favourite image"? And "deletion spree"? I have not deleted one single file, but see this "wall of shame". "Does not care about the project"? Sure, I don't give a damn. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding the diff, but you posted once at (I believe Village Pump) complaining about a DR you did not like and bemoaning the fact you would have to become a policy buff now. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This one? Should be undeleted, the fundamentalists can put a {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} on it if they must. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
What do you consider a fundamentalist? Someone trying too hard to get things deleted? How about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Croton Dam Muskegon River Dscn1100 cropped.jpg? Who do you figure is going to come suing us over a billboard that a child could have designed? This is what Rama has referred to recently - your varying standards that no one can figure out. You want to keep a genuinely dangerous image that has high potential value and copyright status so murky, even User:Carl Lindberg is unsure - but you think a harmless picture of some billboard that no one in the world would ever claim ownership of, and that is so simple that no one probably could ever claim copyright - that one should be deleted? I cannot figure out your philosophy at all. Wknight94 talk 18:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It is copyright paranoia to delete images that are out of copyright, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-03#Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg for more details (photo published 80 years ago without a name). But File:Croton Dam Muskegon River Dscn1100 cropped.jpg is clearly copyrighted by the standards of the Copyright Office, it even tells a story in images. Many coats-of-arms that are much simpler get deleted here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Not by me. If you don't like simple coats-of-arms getting deleted, complain about it - don't nominate almost-as-simple images for DR. Wknight94 talk 20:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
As I have pointed out above, Pieter misrepresents the reason for his block: He had created a wall of shame, and placed on it every example of a dispute with a user over DR he had had in the last few months, many of which he had gotten blocked over due to using them to harass. Bastique's complaint would never have resulted in a block if it hadn't led to his Wall of Shame attempt to refight old battles being noticed.
Pieter does a fair amount of good on Wikipedia, but we must weigh against that the good work lost to his actions, both directly through the bad atmosphere created, and indirectly, since, in the time spent dealing with the constant problems he causes, users could be doing much more productive things. The poisonous atmosphere he created led to Bastique's overreaction.
Further, the constant acceptance of his requests to unblock has both emboldened him - the Wall of Shame is, after all, an attack on anyone he's lost a DR to for any reason in the last few months, which is far more egregious than his previous actions - and increased the poisonous atmosphere, since his victims are basically being told that he has a right to harass them. This can't go on. Please talk with me before any unblock. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
If the reason for the block is the "wall of shame" does it not matter that Pieter Kupiter was right that the admins that closed DR's on their own files should be ashamed? Pieter has more than once tried to point out that admins should not close DR's about own files but it was first after the "wall of shame" that the admins made a clear statement that admins should not close own DR's. And as far as I know there has been no actions taken against the admins that Pieter "caught red handed". I start to think that the real reason you blocked Pieter is because you do not like him and this is just an excuse to block him. Perhaps some revenge because your earlier block was reverted.
I started a vote on COM/AN to get Pieter banned or if not to send a signal that perhaps admins should leave Pieter alone and the vote shows that community thinks that Pieter should not be banned. Pieter also linked to en:WP:HA#NOT (tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is not considered harassment on enwp) which shows that earlier warnings and blocks are based on a wrong asumption if we choose to follow same guidelines as enwiki. So the question is if the blocks of Pieter should not stop and admins should stop the complaints of Pieters DR's. It seems that that a handfull of admins do not like Pieter and "take turns" on blocking and warning Pieter and keeps refering back to old warnings even if there was no concensus that the warnings was right. I think that should stop. If the admins do not like that I suggest they start a new vote and stay away from the block button untill they have some consensus telling that it is OK to block Pieter for whatever he does. I suggest that if Pieter starts DR's they are treated just like any other DR. --MGA73 (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
These DRs are a red herring. It's not about the DRs. Never been. It's about the DRs, and the inflamatory images, and the targetting of individuals, and the double standards, and the tone, and etc. None of these things should be problematic in themselves, but for some reason we always find Pieter Kuiper at the centre of a time-wasting, energy-consuming row. He is demonstrably of bad faith, and costs more energy to the project than what he brings. Why is he still here? Rama (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: as to the notion that the policy of not closing DRs on one's own images is an achievement of Pieter's, I have to disagree. It's common sense not to close DRs on one's own images, and if you did not have people like Pieter instrumentalising DRs for their own petty retaliations, it wouldn't have happened at all. I wouldn't even have believed it possible to have Cary fly off his handle like Pieter had him do. Crediting Pieter for that policy is like thanking pest for antibiotics. Rama (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, Rama speaks rarely, but when he does, he says it all! Agree with Rama!kuiper, please respond mine one simple question: Do you agree that your nomination of quite a few images uploaded by Rama to be deleted was done to retaliate to him for blocking you? Do you agree it was wrong of you? --Mbz1 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
After this I looked at how careful Rama was with derivatives. I noted that those portraits had been noted as very questionable before (also on enwp), but that everybody was pussyfooting around them. I nominated. And Commons got rid of copyvios. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
And Rama blocking me for uploading a free image was abuse of admin buttons, which should have lead to deadminship. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
@Rama Well it seems to me that you compare Pieter with pest and normally that would lead to a block for unacceptable behavior. I'm sure if it was Pieter that has used that argument about others that would have have been used against him. And now that you mention Carys reactions do you think that that was appropiate? I doubt it it the first time he has been acting "hot". But again nothing happns when admins acts inappropiate.
To me it is also clear that you have a "personal war" with Pieter and I doubt you would be concidered unbiased and still you closed his unblock request. Admins should not close own DR's and admins should not block or close unblock request of users they have a dispute with. But they do and I bet nothing happens unless Pieter starts a new wall of shame.
I agree that Pieter sometimes act like "a dick" and that it would be nice if he would try not to piss of other users. But to me it seems that someone gets pissed to easy.
I think that your block reason tells what the problem is. The problem is that he has pissed of some users and he gets blocked for things others would not be blocked for. And because it is not "one thing" he does wrong it is very hard to discuss because there is alwayse someone who can think of a new argument why he should be blocked. ::::: Oh and the reason why he is still here is because he does a lot of good work and because the arguments to block and ban him has not been good enough so far. Perhaps if the right arguments had been used from the start this debate would not have taken place. So the way I see it Pieter should not be blocked and he should be allowed to work for a month or so and if someone feels he has been a pain in the arse in that time they should start a new complaint and if the arguments is good I would be willing to block him myself. But if they complaint about small issues and too soon they will probably ruin the chance to get a clear result. --MGA73 (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I honestly cannot understand the language (English) here so I'm not 100% sure what to reply to. But the gist of it seems to be (1) that even though we know that Kuiper intentionally "pisses people off" he should not be blocked for being uncivil because that was not what got him blocked; and (2) that the people that get pissed off (by Kuiper's extremely uncivil and incorrigible behavior) are in the wrong and should be blocled if they call him a pest (see English language meaning of the noun in this context); and (3) that people who do a considerable amount of good work (that again!) should be allowed to be extremely and incorrigibly uncivil. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you've gotten the gist well. I just want to add (4) Most of the people who did silly things like call Pieter names and close DRs for their own images did so only because Pieter enraged them so they were blinded to what they were really doing. Whose fault is that? Is it the people working on the project for not having infinite patience, or is it the person who goaded them into this state? Nothing excuses this behavior from these individuals and yes policies will have to be shifted to prevent this from happening again and I'm sure all involved have had a talking to from their peers. In fact, I know Bastique has been talked to, I did some of it myself. However, I have seen no indication from Pieter that he acknowledges the human toll of his actions. He has offered to change behaviors but what must happen is he must change demeanor and attitude. Until that happens he does not deserve an unblock. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Few people on Commons are concerned about the "human toll" that DR's have on newbies, but the clubby "collegiality" here has lead to pussyfooting around known copyvios of admins. Admins and (soon to be ex-) Foundation employees should be expected to conduct themselves professionally. And no matter what, got blocked because of Cary's outburst. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not know why Pieter does what he does but the fact that Pieter "gets spanked" in public but other users (admins) get spanked secret (?) may be a part of the problem. And arguments like "the others only did that because Pieter did..." gives Pieter ALL the blame and doing that I would not be surprised if he would not admit he has done anything wrong. If he did that would probably be used as an argument to block him. The argument is that Pieter is the reason to all the problems. But what if we looked at it the other way. What if the persons has NOT uploaded (possible) copyvios and had NOT reacted by complainting would Pieter continue? And if admins had not closed DR's themselves how could he make a "wall of shame"?
And then there is the question what should stop and what is ok? As you can see above it is unclear how big a problem starting DR's are. If he nominates a copyvio for deletion and that pisses someone off is that really a problem? Should he say "I'm sorry" for that?
In court you lose a trial if you does a bad job explaining why someone is guilty and I think that is the case here. There might have been evidence to get Pieter blocked and banned but there was a screw up and evidence was rejected. So what we end up with is that we do not have evidence but we do not like Pieter and therefore we put him in jail anyway? I do not like the idea of doing that. Especially not if community has decided not to ban Pieter.
That is why I suggested to unblock and start again and after a month look at "the evidence" and if it is good we can block. But we need to know what the problem really is. I would also like to remind everyone that a topic ban is also possible if it is a specific erea that is causing the problems. --MGA73 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you really think your actions here are going to help? He's completely unrepentant, and you're just handing him permission to continue on unrepentant, harassing users. A couple of the entries on the Wall of Shame were admins closing their own DRs. However, Pieter also called for equal shame to be heaped upon admins who, after the scheduled time had passed, accepted the consensus of the discussion, which provided evidence and arguments that went against his rationale. For one of those admins, said admin asked for himself to be left out of it and removed it, then Pieter restored it with a little jab about him wanting to be left out of Pieter's shaming.
This was not a mistake. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, compare Cuerden's page history. He is unrepentant. The blog of shame is still up. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Because I no longer remember the password to the blog. Also, psst. On wiki. Off wiki. Learn the difference. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
@ Adam Cuerden. Tell me did your blocks of Pieter help? You block Pieter using bad reasons for doing it and you do it without concensus. I started a discussion if we should ban him and the answer was "no". You and other admins should respect that. And if you do not like the result feel free to start a new descussion. But I really think you should stay away from the block button untill you have concensus. The only reason you do not face a desysop discussion for your abuse of admin tools is that many admins think that Pieter should "be taught a lesson" but that would not excuse your abuse forever if you do not stop. Just as dirty cops hate Internal affairs many admins hate Pieter for showing their dirty underware. Pieter might be guilty but the evidence pressented in his "trials" was screwed up and not enough to get him convicted. You should respect that. If admins start to say "To hell with community we do as we like" then this project is not worth fighting for. --MGA73 (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
@MGA73: "it seems to me that you compare Pieter with pest": I said no such thing. I merely state that it is absurd to command Kuiper for remedies that he made necessary in the first place.
Cary is an impeccable user for whom I have the utmost respect, and he falling something as gross as closing a DR on one of his own images says more on how nefarious and corrosive Kuipers actions are than on anything else.
Kuiper doesn't "sometimes act like "a dick"", his has become a master of provocation through a long practice of that art. He may do "a lot of good work", but that can't possibly outweight the work of the people he disgusts out of Commons; Kuiper is much more toxic than useful to our project.
As for what my "personal war" and "bias":
  • I am not at war; one of the reasons I think Kuiper should quit Commons for good is that it will make it less likely for him to get an ulcer.
  • it's not personal, it's about the project. Kuiper is toxic to Commons, I want to remove him from Commons. Many people do.
  • Kuiper is persecuting Commons admins, both as a class and by picking them one by one. If we start disqualifying all whom Kuiper aggresses as "biased", there will simply be nobody to block him. I doubt that this is an acceptable tactic.
Rama (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
impeccable user??? Any normal user would have been warned, if not blocked, for uploading images without source or author information. And Bastique did it repeatedly. And if another admin dares to use his tools in a dispute, Bastique is the first to complain, but when he does it, he doesn't even apologize. I completely agree with MGA73 here, but it seems once again that Some pigs are more equal than others. You should all be ashamed. Kameraad Pjotr 07:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
How dare you claim that Bastique did not apologise, after [4]? Lacking perspective on Kuiper's and Bastique's behaviours is one thing, but here you're completely departing from the realm of reality. Rama (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Strange apology, followed by new accusations; just words - he did not unblock me. It breathes entitlement. I, a "newcomer from another project", am not supposed to nominate contributions by regular users in a position of authority. Sounds utterly disgusting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. When I read "he doesn't even apologize", I should understand "he doesn't even apologize enough", by Kuiper's standards. Tell me, Kuiper, when was the last time you apologised for anything? Is it that your standards for excuses are as inpenetrable as for image licences, or is it simply because you are incapable of error? Rama (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You should apologize for calling me "a pest", "somehow sick or possessed" etcetera, or such abuse should be another reason for your deadminship. What am I supposed to apologize for? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I ahve never called you a pest, and you are indeed possessed by an unhealthy obsession for corruption and hatred of authority, that would be charming from a 15-year old, but which becomes quite a bit of a nuisance when a grown-up like you starts thinking of himself as some sort of Internet Robin Hood, set to bring justice to the Middle East by pestering people on Commons, of all places.
You could recognise that your intuition for deletion rational is often misguided . You could apologise for gratuitously uploading controversial images, and especially for flying them in the face of people whom you know they will irritate. You might excuse yourself for your blatant POINTs and double standards (if copyright was actually your concern, why on Earth did you stop in the middle of my drawings made from a single photograph to start ridiculous arguments about camouflage patterns on Lachelier's uniform ?). You could renounce attempting to shape the politics of Commons and your militancy for Fair Use here.
As for my deadminship, by all means do request it. If you insist on further alienation and humiliation, be my guest. Rama (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Apologize for uploading a free image? As I said before, you should face deadminship for giving me a week's block for that.
Commons:Image casebook#Drawings based on photographs still says: "Drawings based on several photos are derivative works of all of them, and permission from the authors of all copyrighted photos would be needed." User:Rama/Personalities drawings#Multiple source is in blatant violation of that statement. Yet your admin colleague closed the DR as kept. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Rama "Kuiper is toxic to Commons, I want to remove him from Commons" So you admit you are not neutral and still you close an unblock request. You closed as "Not done" because you want the result to be that he is blocked. Just as I said. --MGA73 (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to remove toxic people from Commons, whoever they are. I do not want Kuiper blocked, I want him either having a positive output on Commons, or gotten rid of. My judgement that sooner and later (sooner than later, even) he will be banned -- look at his behaviour right now with Havang -- but I'd be fine with him going through a complete personality overhaul. It's not the man I have problem with, it's him effect on Commons.
In any case, I'd find MGA73's contentions problematic: it comes down to saying that any negative opinion on a fellow user, whatever his behaviour, makes one immediately biased and therefore unfit to render a decision. In other terms it becomes inherently impossible to block people or deny unblock request; surely that's not the intended state of affairs. Rama (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The way forward[edit]

Dear Pieter!

I hope you do not enjoy what is going on right now. As you can see I do not think there is consensus to ban or block you for your actions. However, that does not mean that I agree with everything you do.

I think that most users agree that you do a lot of good work and that you are often right when you nominate images for deletion or vote in deletion requests. That is good and personally I think that you get to little credit for the things that you do good.

You are not always right but that is ok since everyone is allowed to make mistakes. I think that we should forgive you when you make mistakes and I hope that you can/will also forgive others when they make mistakes (ofcourse only the few times). We are here because we have a common goal and not because we want to "win" over other users.

As you have been told before you pisses many users off. Mostly because of the way you do it and not because of what you do. You may be right but I and many other users would be very happy if you started to think more about how the thing you plan to do could be done without annoying others more than needed.

If you see a mother and her child and you think that the child looks ugly I doubt that you would go to her and say "What an ugly kid you have." Then it is better to shut up and hope that she do not ask about the child.

So if you see an admin or a user with a bad image why not choose to try to fix the problem in a nice way? Instead of starting a DR you could leave a nice note on the uploader’s talk page. "Hi, could you have a look at this image and tell who the author is?" (or whatever the problem might be) or perhaps wait a few days. And if you have a discussion with someone and they have missed a point try not to "pull someone’s pants off" as the first reaction. Give them a gentle push in the right direction but try to leave them chance to get out of the corner.

So if you want to stay on Commons and do what is best for Commons please try to work with us and not against us.

I think that the best way out of this is that you admit that your actions have hurt a lot of users (and more than really was needed) and that you promise to think of a better way to achieve the purpose. --MGA73 (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. Commons has hurt the feelings of several pensioners that tried to contribute cherished images from the family album. Only some people here worry about that. What is wrong with serving admins the standard templates that are considered sufficiently friendly for newbies? A general discussion has several advantages. The uploader does not even need to defend his upload. In case the image gets deleted, the projects where the image was in use can see why it was deleted, otherwise the reasons why it was kept can be easily found on the file talk page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
[Edit conflict reply to MGA73:] :This is a very nice effort and sentiment, but as one of the many victims of Kuiper's relentless stalking, persecution and gut-wrenching cruelty, only because I disagreed with him a few times, I honestly and strongly feel that he is not the slightest bit interested in this kind of thing. I wish I was wrong. But has he ever shown any interest in any such thing? Has he ever apologized to anyone about anything? As I see it, he is very interested in getting back in business with his power plays, selective topic dominance and nasty insults. It's all an integral part of his work here and his attitude about it. That is my firm belief. So sorry. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note that Kuiper did not reply in any way to MAG73's kind advice, par for the Kuiper course. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
@Pieter Kuiper, who are some of the "pensioners" you refer to? Wknight94 talk 16:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to help user Venturian (I was not the only one), and she also wrote to me by email. She is 82 years old. For some harassment by templates, see User talk:CPPC. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I've seen admins dump a deletion template on a completely new user's page, with the explanation field reading in whole "COM:DW". I don't really see why an admin deserves more.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To Pieter. I agree that admins should be "gentle" when talking to new users - I do not see why you feel the need to comment on that topic. What we discuss here is your actions and just because some admins might have been "to hostile" to some new users does not mean that you or anyone else could or should behave any way you feel like.
If an admin makes a "bad welcome" to a new user the proper response is to 1) try to give the user a better welcome and reason to what the problem is and 2) to tell the admin that it was a bad start the new user got. You should NOT use the opportunity to "pay back" or "haunt" a user.
You are also an "old user" here on Commons so it would be really nice if you used your wisdom and experience to set a good example. --MGA73 (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

[Deleted section][edit]


  • While you are right, I don't really understand this your action. You just give a trump card to the block proponents. Trycatch (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
How did this guy become an admin? He has good reasons to avoid some scrutiny. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Due to this, you no longer have the right to edit your talk page for the remainder of this block. This was an egregious, obvious breaching experiment, intended to show you can get away with anything. You can't. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, Pieter, that was just stupid of you. Read en:Wikipedia:POINT. If you pull this trick again, I'm sure plenty of admins have no problem of blocking you forever. Multichill (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I have just read through most of the Kuiper debate and I must say that the actions taken against Kuiper makes me sick and if I didn't think the project in itself was a good thing I probably never would have wanted to upload another image here ever again. I am one of those who have got several deletion requests rightly slapped onto my talk page, and I don't see why anyone else should be treated differently. /grillo (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC) (regular user on svwp since 2004, been uploading onto commons since it started, and was among the first who started transferring files from svwp to commons)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, Pieter Kuiper!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:


2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)