Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Pieter Kuiper: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 681: Line 681:


*'''Comment'''. The mere fact that an editor does good work helping to ferret out copyright violations may not excuse sufficient bad conduct in other regards. (I'm not familiar enough with this case to say if that applies here) ''But'', those making this decision must understand that the average man on the street is ''not'' going to tolerate people being blocked ''for'' reporting genuine copyright violations, even if the reports are "retaliatory". As you well know some folks over at [[w:User talk:Jimbo Wales]] have long been agitating against you for upholding good principles - don't let them have a legitimate complaint! And some of those comments above could be presented as evidence that they might. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. The mere fact that an editor does good work helping to ferret out copyright violations may not excuse sufficient bad conduct in other regards. (I'm not familiar enough with this case to say if that applies here) ''But'', those making this decision must understand that the average man on the street is ''not'' going to tolerate people being blocked ''for'' reporting genuine copyright violations, even if the reports are "retaliatory". As you well know some folks over at [[w:User talk:Jimbo Wales]] have long been agitating against you for upholding good principles - don't let them have a legitimate complaint! And some of those comments above could be presented as evidence that they might. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

*{{s}}. Copyright is much more important than butthurtness. Those involved in this disgraceful kangaroo court should be ashamed of themselves. <small>Disclaimer: I arrived here as this issue is being discussed on Jimbo's talk page. </small> [[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio giuliano]] ([[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


==Let's not try to manipulate the vote==
==Let's not try to manipulate the vote==

Revision as of 12:29, 22 June 2012

User:Pieter Kuiper

I decided to move the discussion from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems as the tread is getting far too long. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Last week, I've closed a couple of DR in an opposite way of Pieter Kuiper:

  • Pieter came to my talk page calling my closure absurd which is far from being cordial [1]
  • I was going to answer him, but 6 minutes later he was already notifying me of a DR on few of my pictures (and my answer got edit conflict with the notification): [2]
  • Therefore I told him to ask for a review on undeletion requests, Zscout370 restored the picture, after I closed few DR on the same topic as keep.
  • Now 7 days has passed since this. And After giving an opinion against Pieter, he starts again requesting deletion of my file a ferris wheel this time! and mocking the argument [3] I gave early today about COM:PRP.

Just to be clear I'm generally not really protective with my files, If I did a wrong upload or something that is borderline, I accept it quite well (an example here). However, I now don't really want to even put a simple comment on DR where Pieter has already commented, only result for me would be a new DR on my files. I think Pieter is behaving like this with more than just me, and it's time to say enought:

-- PierreSelim (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper has been warned and/or blocked several times about using DR's to retaliate against others. It is disruptive, petty and deplorable to search for mistakes in the contributions of editor you don't like. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked 2 weeks. Pieter has been warned and blocked multiple times for the exact same disruptive, battleground behavior. He clearly he hasn't learned. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Pieter has done this often enough, and it always annoys people. But if the nominations are generally correct, then do we really want to prevent people identifying and dealing with copyvios, even if it's done in a retaliatory way? The first DR Pierre mentions has been closed delete, for example. Also, "mocking the argument" about COM:PRP? No evidence of that, it just looks like using the same argument. And in mentioning the block log we should also note that many of those blocks were reversed. However, I'm not opposing this block because the issue has been brought up so often, and Pieter needs to learn something. It's one thing to examine someone's contributions when you have a reason to think there may be a problem, and another to consistently go through people's contributions when you're annoyed with them. Rd232 (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, like many people, left Commons because of Pieter's harassment, and don't intend to come back while he's still around. So, yes, it does hurt the project. You want to prevent him doing it. 86.185.5.153 04:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest - what proportion of Pieter's DR nominations of your uploads were closed "keep"? Rd232 (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were very few, as it happens. 86.178.198.128 09:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and Pieter needs to learn something" → Not to play with wolves? It's interesting that he was blocked for valid Deletion Requests and not for the insulations he made in the past by an admin he recently called a bot. -- RE rillke questions? 07:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm interesting indeed. I was actually wondering if that admin account was running some sort of script gone wild. The fact the account only reacts days after lengthy discussions about how to repair its damage across multiple Wikimedia sites only re-inforces that perception. --  Docu  at 07:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter too consistently uses DRs in a retaliatory way. If the DRs were largely invalid, this would have been dealt with long ago. But even being largely valid, this behaviour pattern is bad for a collaborative environment. Rd232 (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He also has a tendency to use them where simple discussion would have sufficed. A lot of his cases are borderline, and a little talk would've clarified the license sufficiently. He basically uses it as a chance to attack his rivals as copyvio-uploaders, even if the copyvio is incredibly borderline, and the vast majority of what he finds is only deleted under the precautionary principle, e.g. "This might well be good, but we're not 100% sure, so delete." One might even ask if a lot of the stuff he nominates that does get deleted is at all valid; I suspect there'sa tendency where being nominated for deletion has a heavy assumption of guilt, which shuts down actual analysis. 86.178.198.128 09:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you guys blocked me for making an undeletion request and for reporting copyright violations. "Needs to learn something" - that is intimidation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you couldn't resist pointing out that you've learned absolutely nothing from the fact that one of the people who repeatedly spoke up for you in this area had had enough of your behaviour pattern. Well, if you can't learn why you shouldn't go through contributions in a retaliatory way (and using DR where a user talk note would be enough, at least as a first step), just learn not to. Failing that, see where repeating the same pattern of behaviour gets you. Rd232 (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, make a rule: admins are very sensitive and should first be contacted on their talk pages before making a DR. Otherwise you risk getting blocked. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is Pierre Selim the first person you had this problem with? No. It's the pattern of behaviour that made me accept the block as necessary after having spoken up for you. But to end on a constructive note: yes, contacting people before doing a DR is always an option worth considering. If it's a potentially fixable problem, the uploader is often best placed to fix it, so if they're active, asking them can avoid an unnecessary DR. Rd232 (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a general pattern that admins feel entitled to be spared Deletion Requests. Nobody does that with ordinary mortals. They get lambasted with DRs. Did Russavia (talk · contribs) get blocked for the ignorant and disruptive Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:James Earle Fraser? He has not even withdrawn and closed it yet. And I did approach PierreSelim about an absurd deletion, and then he gave the standard admin response: take it to UNDEL. Which I did. Which seems to be held against me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I did approach PierreSelim about an absurd deletion, and then he gave the standard admin response: take it to UNDEL. Which I did. Which seems to be held against me. - hum. (i) what does challenging a DR have to do with a pattern of raising DRs in a retaliatory way? (ii) seems to be held against you? What evidence is there for that? And is this in fact your justification for the DRs you raised against Pierre? Rd232 (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Expo aeropostale Toulouse 2011 (3).jpg was obviously justified, as it resulted in deletion. But it was one of the things that are held against me by PierreSelim when he started this thread. Which he did before responding to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grande roue à Toulouse (coupée).jpg. He only responded after he had gotten me blocked. And then it was closed as kept while I was writing a response. Which shows that admins do not have much to fear from these allegedly intimiding DRs. It is you guys that have the power, and you are using it to intimidate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've skipped a bit; we were talking about you challenging a DR closure of PierreSelim's (not held against you), and you've jumped to the retaliatory DR against him (held against you for obvious reasons). Also, comparing a mass DR (like Russavia's you mentioned above) with a DR of a single image is silly - you've just thrown that in there as if it had any relevance to the retaliation issue, and it clearly doesn't. Rd232 (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That you look for copyvios is fine, but we all know that you do it as revenge for some imagined slight against you. This pattern has repeated again and again and again. Don't do it. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do this to educate admins. Assume good faith! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One can only assume good faith until evidence of bad faith is presented. Otherwise we'd just assume that everyone who uploads a copyvio was in fact the copyright holder. AGF does not mean we should stick our fingers in our ears. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be an idea to instead of hunting down admins, you set up a Kuiper masterclass user subpage and let admins subscribe themselves to receive the benefits of your thoughts and opinions on their "absurd" mistakes. Most folks here are used to autodidact-ism rather than having indigestible unwelcome Pieter-pearls of wisdom forced upon them. --Fæ (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not learned that images like File:Graffiti on Dog Kennel Hill.jpg violate the copyright of artists? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, start your Kuiper master class on how to delete the world, and I might sign up. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And again ... is it some kind of bad joke, starting a DR for bad identification ... Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wild Hyacinth.jpg ? --PierreSelim (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy kept the file since it is not in Commons policy to delete files for a bad identification. Since I'm close to PierreSelim I will not give my opinion on this. Léna (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had informed PierreSelim, he responded, but did not do anything to correct his impossible identification of the plant. He just left the misleading description and category there. The image is totally useless here. Dubious that an admin close to PierreSelim uses admin powers to close the DR immediately, censoring discussion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any Commons admin who thinks it is censoring is free to re-open the DR. "Wrong name" is not a reason for deletion but for COM:File renaming and since Category:Unidentified plants exists, it means unidentified plants are in scope. Maybe I should have waited a week, we should wait for the opinion of other Commons admins :) Léna (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, if opened in good faith, I'd have said leave it open once it's there, in case it encourages someone to identify the plant - and because (as I keep saying!) policy doesn't provide for "speedy keep" closures. But Pieter knows far better than to use DR to handle a naming issue, so the DR was disruptive as well as part of a pattern of harassment, and closing it quickly was within policy as a means to tackle that. And a block in order too, since Pieter evidently has learned nothing whatsoever from the last one. Rd232 (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a pattern of here, considering he has raised this DR on one of my photographs as pointily referenced above? It appears that PK can't resist using deletion requests in a disruptive way even when there is an open AN/U reviewing his conduct. --Fæ (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern is people that know not what they are talking about complaining about legitimate requests for deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand there are 13,000,000+ images on Wikimedia Commons. What exactly drew you to my recently uploaded photograph, apart from me having the temerity to take part in this review of your disruptive conduct? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started looking at you uploads when you applied for adminship. And I continue doing it, because you do not understand copyright. And you are teaching workshops for OTRS volunteers. Trying to educate, in accordance with the mission of the project. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being image stalked by you, all year, and having you openly declare a personal campaign against me in this discussion is serious concern for anyone who would like to make positive contributions to our project in a collegiate environment. Administrators I believe it is completely clear by now that Pieter Kuiper is determined to use his Commons account in a way that is "primarily to create a hostile environment for another user", in fact several users, this is fully within scope of the Blocking policy. --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fæ was made aware of the copyright problem with these images, but did not act. Nor did anybody else. I am protecting the rights of the children that painted the mural. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are self-elected as a hero of copyright, we did not nominate you, you will remain unable to even identify the purported copyright holders you claim to protect in this case. Your motivation seems clear based on your declaration of a personal campaign against me and other named editors; that is the issue here, not copyright. --Fæ (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You appropriate the work of children. Just because they will not sue you or anybody else, does not mean that is allowed for you to claim "own work" and "attribution: Fæ" on a mural that you did not make. And in your position, such behaviour reflects poorly on the whole wikimedia UK. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a personal attack, especially your malicious edit comment "wikimedia UK boss is stealing the work of children". If you have a serious complaint about me as a charity trustee, please raise it with Jon Davies, the Chief Executive of Wikimedia UK, not on this noticeboard. If you have the evidence that I am committing crimes such stealing from children, take it to the police rather than making these claims on a public noticeboard. This page is not a forum for cyber-bullying. --Fæ (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You defended your appropriation of the artwork with the argument that the children would not sue. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are misquoting me, as anyone can read for themselves. I can only assume deliberately to create drama and to harass me. This conversation is at an end. --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators please do something to ensure Pieter Kuiper understands that it is not okay to make personal attacks of this type, including claims of criminal theft and bringing in irrelevant information about my (unpaid, voluntary and elected) trustee role in Wikimedia UK, any-time he finds it handy to bully me during his self-declared year long campaign of targeted hounding against me to ensure I can only volunteer on this project in a hostile environment. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again. We don't tolerate this kind of behavior on Commons. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the blocking rationale. Per COM:BP: "Tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is not harassment." If you want to block for this, you first need consensus to change the blocking policy. Pieter is not just nominating any image for deletion from specific users he was infights with. His nominations appear for me to be relevant, also for those which are kept. Personally, I would be grateful if a user as knowledgable as Pieter about copyright would use his spare time to actually trawl through my contributions to find potential copyvios, as I would want to have a clean sheet. I have sometimes DRed some of my own contributions in cases where I have had doubts about the copyright status, just to have the discussion in open, and check out my own understanding of the rules. I think that is a healthy process. I agree with Avenue and Herbys comments below. --Slaunger (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a need to keep this thread open for a long period of time, may I suggest that it be closed off in a couple of days if there are no objections. Leaving the thread open for the entire duration of Pieter's previous block may have led people, including Pieter, to assume that this an ongoing thread. In the interests of lessening dramuh, I would suggest that future conversation on this topic be closed off, so long as Pieter understands that the reason for his latest block (and unblock denial) is warranted, and that he should be channeling his energies towards more positive pursuits on Commons. russavia (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I object, user seems to be socking right now. Please wait a while before marking it for archive. Thanks. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Per Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#By-passing_a_block_using_IP_address which now includes an inflammatory reply that appears to fit the Quack principle rather neatly. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pieter Kuiper was filed. I have also closed all DR nominations by this IP 95.199.16.21 (talk · contribs) as speedy keep. I and evidently we as a community are sick of this conduct by Pieter Kuiper. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

IP socks

List last updated 13:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This ISP is the largest in Sweden, and used by maybe as much as a third of all sweeds who are on the net from a private connection. (I also use this ISP.) The number of possible trolling copycats could be as many as there are fishes in the Baltic sea. -- Lavallen 17:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But a checkuser can determine which ones are relevant and which ones aren't. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban Pieter Kuiper from Commons:Deletion requests for a duration of 1 year

I think it is time to consider this as the user actively ignores warnings. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware that I have ever knowingly done that. All of us make honest mistakes at times (mine have proven to be relatively few) but none of us deserve to be treated with sarcasm, false accusations, insults and cruelty for that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose strongly. I doubt many users have the track record of finding copyvios in what have been considered acceptable files. It seems obvious that people suggesting this do not really care about copyright law. --Herby talk thyme 07:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not about copyright, this is about creating a hostile environment for other good faith contributors. By the way, what does 'ffs' mean in your edit comment? --Fæ (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I imagine almost everyone knows what it stands for. What it means is that although some are on about personalities here I - as a working Commons admin with some experience - am simply interested in the copyright status of files. I am grateful to anyone who assists in clarifying/questioning validly the status of such files. It also means that, as a working Commons admin, I never have enough time to do the work that is required and I object to being diverted from the work that needs doing. Last contrib here. --Herby talk thyme 08:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you suggesting I do not care about copyright law? I do CARE about copyright law. What do you think I did on commons to date? I however also CARE about the harassment of users. No one on commons should EVER disagree Pieter Kuiper as he will nominate your files for deletion even if it the files have no problems with them. He will not do this because he cares about copyright he does this to distress others. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Herby, such an implied comment on other editors is quite unacceptable. Would, "It seems obvious that people opposing this do not really care about attacks on other editors." be accepted? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Pieter Kuiper is quite good in finding copyvios. The cases he finds should be discussed and not suppressed. To my experience each DR by Pieter Kuiper had a point. Even if we at the end did not agree with him in our decisions, it was always worthwhile to discuss these cases. Pieter Kuiper's deletion requests may be seen as inconvient and some of them were even described as retaliatory. If this is seen as a problem, we should talk openly and calmly about this. As it currently stands, however, every outsider gets the impression that functionaries and Commons admins shall be excempted from deletion requests. This is something I would not like to see. I strongly suggest to reconsider the current block of Pieter Kuiper. This requires, in my opinion, wider consensus to be upheld. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pieter Kuiper is not blocked for one of his valid DR, but for nominating one of my file for deletion because it needed renaming (bad id of a plant). It means Pieter Kuiper prefers to start a DR with someone he is in conflict with rather than improving the quality of commons by asking for a rename and correcting the identification of the plant. I've checked my archives hard disk, the problem was that the description plate of the plant was wrong, it happens a lot with museums and I'm sorry for that (I've faced this problem a lot while working for Museum de Toulouse on Commons:Projet Phoebus). So yes I do agree with you on Pieter Kuiper being able to spot copyvios, however I have to disagree with him not being disruptive. IMO his 1 month block is justified, next time he'll try to improve commons instead of just harassing people. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wild Hyacinth.jpg was not constructive. Neither do I think that Pieter Kuiper's interaction with Fæ was helpful or collegial as it should be. But I still do not think that this warrants a month long block, not to mention any extension as requested below. And in each case we should take care that nobody gets frightened of filing DRs for possible copyvios. Hence, when a block is to be upheld, the message must be more clear than it is now. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your concern and share it. Nominating files to DR should not be a big deal. However this is only possible when people nominate DRs because of the files status (copyright, scommons scope, etc) and not as a means to distress the uploader over an unrelated disagreement. Pieter Kuiper frequently uses DR as an intimidation tool and goes as far as to avoid his current block to nominate more files for deletion from the user he was disagreeing with. Surely this is a problem. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, a one month block is enough. --Avenue (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The user is good at finding copyvios and Commons needs to delete copyvios. It is unfortunate that the deletion requests are annoying to some users, but annoying deletion requests are better than no deletion requests. If the files end up being deleted, it decreases legal risk for the uploaders, which I guess is positive for them. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Herbythyme and AFBorchert. We've all been here before. --JN466 15:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Pieter's contributions to valid deletions are recognised, but his tendency to also use DRs as a form of retaliation and bullying are too great a price. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support as we are sick and tired of being kuipered.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, essentially per Andy Dingley (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Overwhelming evidence of self-appointed hypocrites to harass Pieter Kuiper and deliberately make this a hostile environment for everyone. -- Thekohser (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Pieter Kuiper from Commons for a duration of 6 months

I personally don't think the 1 month block which Fastily instituted is enough. PK's ensuing block evasion shows that he is unwilling to accede to the wishes of the community. A six month ban will temporarily prevent disruption and demonstrate that his repeated misbehaviour is taken seriously. --Claritas (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-close bad-faith nominations by Pieter Kuiper or his socks/impersonators regardless of merit

  • I feel we should end this "gaming" of the system. Copyright is a serious issue but so is wikihounding. Pieter Kuiper's tactic of retaliation through DR nominations is well known and he was blocked for it numerous times. There are IP edits currently contiuing Pieter Kuiper's conduct. These are either socks or impersonators. Either way their intent is strictly to disrupt.
  • If Pieter Kuiper or his socks/impersonators make DR nominations with the intention to harass/stalk/distress other users they should be speedy closed regardless of merit.
  • If the files really have copyright problems a fresh, independent and untainted DR nomination can be conducted.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I approve. He didn't find any problem on my files, so he nominated to deletion a file I've reuploaded for another contributor. His behavior don't only annoy administrators but also other users, having absolutely no link with this case. --Dereckson (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Copyvios are copyvios, end of story. In all of these nominations it looks like the concerns are valid. In a way this is a round about admission that there is a real underlying problem here which is not being addressed - why should we punish the messenger?Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this. Since I disagree with you, I could go though all your uploads and bombard your talk page with as many files as I can find. I will do so only to distress you but will put "copyright" as the excuse. This is why Pieter Kuiper is blocked. This is what he is doing while avoiding the block. So the "messenger" here is really just trying to harass/stalk/distress users he disagrees with with hopes of alienating them from the site. Copyright can be handled in the natural course of time. Also user is known to make false claims when he cannot find a file with adequate copyright problems. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 01:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Consider this: Since I disagree with you, I could go though all your uploads and bombard your talk page with as many files as I can find. - go for it. Copyright is copyright and no, it "cannot be handled in the natural course of time". What actually happens is that the copyright violations of the "privileged few" (folks who hang out on IRC together) get tolerated and Commons admins turn a blind eye, while borderline questions of CV from those not in the inner circle get nominated. PK is not part of the inner circle, hence this hounding of the user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to the list of members of the inner circle, I would like to check if my name has been accepted yet? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of inner circles, it is possible that some might be encouraged by "piku's" post on Wikipediocracy to join these discussions. It would be really nice for those that do join us this way, to let everyone else know. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have the right to say what you want, you have the duty to prove it. --Dereckson (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support he can raise DRs when he is not blocked or under a restriction. If anyone else is concerned about copyright of a particular image, they should have the initiative to raise a DR for themselves rather than allowing disruptive behaviour and a block bypass to be rewarded. --Fæ (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who oppose this gets a Pieter Kuiper-like treatment

  • All uploads of users that oppose or disagree with this proposal will get their uploads reviewed and mass nominated.
  • This may sound COM:POINTy but this is what users that disagree with Pieter Kuiper is dealing with. If this conduct is fine, then feel free to oppose this.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  • You really don't get this do you. Everyone here's contributions re up for scrutiny by any user. They must be - we must satisfy copyright. It is the uploads that need to satisfy copyright and it is nothing about the person doing the scrutiny. When I am not distracted by other issues I scrutinise closely the uploads of whoever I spot - I then follow them to the best of my ability. They will often get many copyvio messages from me and no doubt think I am a terrible person. I will continue doing that whenever I can (and my uploads are always available for scrutiny by anyone). Let's get on with the work - enough folk above seem to agree with my position so let's move on. --Herby talk thyme 13:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you expect us to move on when this is brought up here so frequently? Several people are refusing to address a problem others have brought up. This is a problem even if majority consensus is not reached.
    The problem here isn't copyvios. Copyvios MUST be dealt with. The motivation behind nominating copyvios should be that they are copyvios not retaliation. Pieter Kuiper makes a non-controversial process controversial. Copyvio nominations should not be a weapon of retaliation. Should I feel intimidated to discuss anything with Pieter Kuiper? Disagreeing with him means your files will get mass nominated - almost like blackmail.
    -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you see a check of your contributions as something negative. On the contrary, I see it as something positive: it removes legal risks for you. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, I do not see it as a negative thing. It is however a problem when this action is used as a tool of retaliation. Pieter Kuiper avoided his block to DR uploads by the user he was disagreeing with. Just because someone is reviewing files of copyright should not make them exempt of all other policies. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
If that were all it was, just a random check of contributions, I would have no problem with it at all. But that's not what it is. Pieter does not just go through random people's uploads looking for copyvios, he goes through the uploads of people who disagree with him, because they disagree with him. He's not in it to find copyvios, he's in it because he wants revenge on people. This has been shown again and again and again and again and again. In all the years I have been on Commons, this same issue with Pieter has kept coming up again and again and again.
We at Commons have problems with people like this. People who do some good work, but who completely poison the atmosphere. And every time it's really hard to get them blocked, because people defend them on the basis of the good work. But you have to ask, are they being a net benefit to Commons? Because I don't think Pieter is. We spend all these hours arguing about his behaviour, which is wasted time. Time we could be spending uploading pretty pictures or deleting stuff. Mutter Erde. Ottava Rima. There are many many more - all with consistent records of bad behaviour, and it took so so so much fighting before they were finally kicked out. The problem is that we develop a bunker mentality - we keep fighting because, originally, the behaviour wasn't too bad. It's like the frog and the boiling water - slowly heat the water, and the frog simply won't notice it's being cooked.
Pieter should not be on Commons. Not for now anyway. He is banned for a month, and he is evading that ban. That should result in greater punishment. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter is blocked not banned, and blocks are not intended for punishment, but to avoid further disruption. I am surprised to see these confusions of terms from an admin. --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, banned, it's the same damn thing and we both know it so cut the crap. As for not as punishment? They're not solely as punishment, but again, it's pretty much semantics - we block someone for time X, they continue to be disruptive, we block them for longer on the basis that they clearly have not learned their lesson. That is punishment for bad behaviour, pure and simple. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding a block should lengthen its period. Pieter Kuiper is only symbolically blocked currently as he continues to edit commons regardless. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Blocked, banned, it's the same damn thing and we both know it so cut the crap. (i) they are not the same thing. A ban is a community decision to exclude a person from editing all or part of a project; a block is a technical measure to prevent any editing from a specific source (which may be a user account, IP address, or extensive IP range). See en:Wikipedia:Banning policy. (ii) apart from sharing Slaunger's surprise at your lack of understanding of this, your "cut the crap" remark is rude and entirely unwarranted given the preceding comments from him. Rd232 (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This a common problem where established users past uploads are in need of a review.
  • Status of uploads may change or older uploads may be during a more relaxed time period.
  • To limit incorrect nominations and not to overwhelm DR, each file should be reviewed bu at least two people.
  • Users may be asked to volunteer
  • The person asking user to volunteer should not be a reviewer for that users contribution.
  • This does not limit or hinder anyone from nominating copyright violations like how it is currently.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Creates a lot of bureaucracy which removes time from copyvio reviews so that fewer copyvios are spotted. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. You can still nominate files on the spot if you see them. This in no way changes that. It is a pre-process for those whom choose to volunteer. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • (ec) This is getting very silly. A copyright violation is just that, a suspect copyright violation is just that. Files must be legal period. There is no time period, no acceptable users to do it, no "volunteering" - all uploads are always up for scrutiny by anyone. There will always be the playful/idiot who noms stuff badly - they will be dealt with but all legit uploaders must be just that - legit. --Herby talk thyme 13:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if I want to seek help for my older uploads, your response is this is something silly to ask? To be blunt you want Pieter Kuiper to retain his intimidation tool. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If you want them reviewed that is fine - however they are always open to review. You cannot be "exempted" in some way from having your contributions reviewed. All files must be correctly licensed. While I would prefer PK to behave differently if folk upload questionable files they must expect people to review them. --Herby talk thyme 15:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure but I would prefer someone other than Pieter Kuiper. I would want the review to be conducted as a review of copyright of files rather than as an act of retaliation. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose per herby; this would be a superfluous attempt for super-bureaucratisation. --High Contrast (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support in principle, as long as it's done in a way that is minimally bureaucratic. Perhaps en:Wikipedia:Editor review could be a model - just a noticeboard where users can request review. That's pretty simple, doesn't interfere with existing processes, and if it doesn't work, it's harmless. The key component of the idea is, I think, that users request review, and therefore don't feel attacked when people go through their contributions and find (possible) problems. Rd232 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the intended idea, yes. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose - If there is a copyright problem or suspicion, a DR will do. If the uploads of a specific user need review, but do not yet need a DR, we do have this very noticeboard available. No need to add procedures on this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is broken though because DR is an intimidation tool for some. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, like a television is broken because some people may use it to smash their neighbours windows. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worthwhile to regulate areal use of televisions in such a case. Is this a problem concerning commons? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It's just a comparison. Thanks for your answer, showing that you understand abuse of DRs should be dealt with, instead of blaming the process in general. I'm happy you don't propose to use plush televisions in order to protect windows of innocent neighbours. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter Kuiper abuses the DR process to intimidate though. This proposal is more in the lines of establishing a way for neighbors to ask their windows to be reviewed to make sure they are Television set proof. Since we have at least one person with a history of areal transportation of Television sets through neighbors' windows. Either such a person shouldn't be allowed to own Television sets at all OR neighbors be given the option to avoid damage from the barrage of Television sets. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Pieter Kuiper now

I find the current block of Pieter Kuiper unfortunate as the blocking reason is, in my opinion, at best ambiguous and thereby possibly intimidating in itself to all who are going through contributions of functionaries and Commons admins. One of the strengths of this project is its aim to respect international copyright law even if this is at times inconvenient and time-consuming. To me Commons appears to be one of the best online resources in regard to international copyright law of images and all this is the work of our community where we have among us quite some expertise and users who succeedingly grew familiar with these topics. Pieter Kuiper is one among of them. While some may possibly find some of his interactions at times irritating or objectionable, I got also at times the impression that some found it at times more convenient to join in the complaints against Pieter Kuiper than to take his deletion requests seriously. The unwarranted speedy closures along with the block send in my opinion the wrong message that some user's contributions are not to be touched and/or Pieter Kuiper's deletion requests to be brushed aside.

This does not mean that I support everything Pieter Kuiper does. I find some of his recent edit comments quite unhelpful like [4] and [5]. Nor do I think that this DR keeps up with his other DRs (but please note also this and this). If you are going to block Pieter Kuiper because of such or similar interactions, please refer to that and not to the fact that he dared to file a deletion request.

Some of his deletion requests have been described as retaliatory now and in the past. But I think that this is too easily claimed. There exists also different explanations. Pieter Kuiper has over a long period taken a focus on the contributions of functionaries, admins, and admin candidates. This should surprise no one and this should not be something objectionable in itself. And, once he found something, he continues to walk through the contributions of a particular user. This is something many of us in their function as admin do on the contributions of regular user's where we have some reason to believe that more questionable cases can be found. All this may be found unpleasant and inconvenient when we are hit by such a series of deletion requests but at the end it helps the project and, we should not forget that, helps also the uploader as it is surely preferable to get a deletion request by Pieter Kuiper than finding yourself in a legal dispute. And it gives the opportunity to learn something about an aspect of copyright law. We all make mistakes and we should be grateful to have the opportunity to fix them within our community. The point is, in my opinion, not whether a justified deletion request is filed or not but how it is done which includes the subsequent interactions. Here we can and should expect Pieter Kuiper like any other contributor to stay cooperative and helpful. The same, BTW, is to be expected from the uploader whose file is under discussion.

If you still want to restrict Pieter Kuiper's ability to file deletion requests, then please go and find a consensus to create an entry at Commons:Editing restrictions. (I would not support that, though.) For now, however, I suggest to unblock Pieter Kuiper. Some days have been served for inappropriate edit comments (see above) but a month long block does not appear justified for this in my opinion. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I do understand people's frustation with PK - I have encountered some less than charming interactions with him myself and can't really call myself a fan of his. However in looking through established files for possible copyright violations he is doing Commons a very useful service. Files must be legally licensed for us to host them so while I understand that people take offence because "their files" are found to be questionable I honestly do not understand why. We all make mistakes - it is what we do about that which is the issue. I've made them here and elsewhere and will continue to do so. When that happens I apologise and do my best to put it right. It would be good if both PK (who is not always right) and those he interacts with would do the same. I am uncertain of my actual vote on this for now but will reflect (& watch when I get the time while dealing with what continues to need doing). --Herby talk thyme 12:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that he could be useful to commons immensely with the type of work he is capable. However that does not exempt him from other policies such as the one on harassment. He uses DR as a retaliation tool and refused to stop doing this. Currently I am his target for retaliation because I dared to make a remark here not in his favor. He is currently avoiding his existing block to continue this behavior as well. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose User is evading block and continuing behavior he was told to stop. When you are blocked and told to stop, you stop even if you do not agree with the person blocking. Chances are they are considering your actions disruptive and you should discuss matters first rather than continue the behavior. Again this has more to do with the intent than DR nominations. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The user for instance requested deletion of a file I transwikied from another wiki to here. He then went to comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Artwork for Wrights Biscuits.jpg, a file uploaded by User:Fæ. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Portal Africa logo.png was deleted at the so called source; we neither know the author nor whether is "own work" of the uploader. -- RE rillke questions? 13:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I asked it to be deleted locally as I transwikied it. This is common practice. If you see a problem, you can just ask the uploader. The IP (Pieter Kuiper) decided to nominate it for speedy deletion instead. As you can see, it was deleted by a commons admin/global sysop Zscout370 whom verified that information. You can ask a global sysop to verify. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
And it turned out that plenty information was missing. I am still not sure where the cat comes from. For example in en:File:Eltiempo1.jpg, the same uploader "this image has been scanned by myself and it has free license" Also, 95.199.4.100 tagged the file as no source. 7 days are not speedy-deletion, IMHO. You were notified while you were active on Commons and had time to act. But is going to be off-topic as this thread is about Mr. P. Kuiper. -- RE rillke questions? 15:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IP IS Pieter Kuiper trying to intimidate me by nominating my uploads for deletion despite being blocked for a month. What part of it is off topic? Nomination for speedy deletion by Pieter Kuiper and by you was greatly inappropriate. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose if this is about very very very well documented unacceptable behavior for years and years, not about valuable work that makes any behavior by this particular person acceptable forever and ever. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Reporting policy violations is not a valid reason to block someone. The block violates the blocking policy. Besides, he is needed here due to his great ability to find copyright violations. It might have been better to ask とある白い猫 to fill in an {{Original upload log}} instead of tagging {{subst:nsd}}, but his overall contributions look good to me. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Pieter is using, and always has used, DRs as a weapon to "get back" at people he feels wronged him in some way. It has been documented on this board over and over and over. I agree, finding copyvios is a good thing, but the way he does it makes people feel harrassed and victimised. He has been warned again and again about this behaviour, and he's always got away with it because "he finds copyvios". I say enough. Again and again, we see people who have frankly awful interaction with people excused because they do good work - Mbz1, Ottava, etc etc etc. They get banned, someone else unbans them immediately. This is not right. Lessons need to be learned. Keep the block in place so that we can have some time when the name pieter Kuiper is not the subject of a complaint here. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never had "awful interaction with people" only with some abusive admins and other ...On the other hand you should be watching your language. Using the word "crap" while describing a comment made by another user as you have done here is frankly awful and frankly unacceptable, and it is not the first time you're using unacceptable language. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just entirely proved Mattbuck's point. --Claritas (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Bypassing a block by (openly) using IP addresses instead and thereby sticking a finger up at the entire Wikimedia Commons community cannot be brushed aside as just being "irritating". Using Commons processes to create a hostile environment for other users over a period of years is a clearly demonstrated pattern of disruptions that required sanctions and is fully and unambiguously supported by Blocking policy. --Fæ (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support There's obviously a much better way of dealing with whatever personal problems some people have with Pieter - railroading him, and abusing him is probably not the best way. Some of AFBorchert's suggestions above are much more reasonable. It's hard to escape the feeling that there's a lot of vindictiveness and cabalism going on here, not to mention unwarranted sanctimony about "lessons (that) need to be learned".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - he's a troll. Pure and simply. --Claritas (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a falsehood, plain and simple, as I think even many people who disagree with Pieter will readily admit. And since it is a falsehood, plain and simple, the above statement is pretty much a straight up personal attack (against a user who can't defend himself - so it's even one of those high class gentlemanly decent "kick a guy while he's down" kind of personal attacks). And people are wondering why Commons feels less collegial lately? Hmmm, maybe it's precisely stuff like this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he was genuinely interested in contributing to the project, he wouldn't be socking in order to harass users he's had disagreements with. --Claritas (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of problematic DR participation

Pieter, and some of those supporting him above, make out that Pieter has a knack for identifying copyright violations (some of which he will undoubtedly find in my contribs after I post this), but it has been my experience that Pieter also has the potential to act in a way in DRs which defy this.

Take for example Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parliament of Georgia and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhukov victory parade.ogg; in which Pieter argues to keep files which are clear copyright violations as laws stand now.

Unfortunately, Pieter tends to engage in personal attacks on other editors, calling them a raft of various things, but the above would show there is a problem with Pieter here that needs to be dealt with. And I am certain that there are other examples of DRs which Pieter has participated in, in which he has clearly "trolled" -- because i can't see any reasonable explanation other than this for such things from a self-proclaimed copyright expert. russavia (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restore previous block

Previously "Pieter Kuiper has been blocked indefinitely". Changed heading to make it more clear what is being proposed. Jafeluv (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An IP dared to file a deletion request and the uploader not just speedily closed the case by deleting the file but also by blocking Pieter Kuiper indefinitely. If you consider Pieter Kuiper's deletion requests as possibly retaliatory, this should be seen similarly. While there was no much support for my request for an unblock there was neither support for an extended blocking period above at a time where these IP activities were already well known. There was no rush in turning the month-long block into an indefinite block. There was a time at Commons where we acted in consensus. We should return to this. A consensus sends a much clearer message and gives the necessary support for the blocking admin. Such bad blocks as this are, however, much worse than any possibly perceived annoyance when Pieter Kuiper filed deletion requests.

Hence, I suggest to return to the previous month-long block and then to consider in consensus how to proceed with Pieter Kuiper. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Indef is not eternal. Until the discussion here is complete and Peiter Kuiper is seen to stop using IP addresses to continue his disruptive behaviour, there seems no benefit in changing an indef into a specific block period. --Fæ (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per Fae. I take your point, AFBorchert, but Pieter's continuing block evasion merits a response, and turning the block into an indefinite (not permanent) one is a reasonable response to the nature and extent of the socking. It means he'll need to file a successful unblock request, instead of merely wait until the block expires whilst continuing via IP the behaviour he was blocked for. In a sense, this may even help Pieter by taking away the illusion that the course he has adopted is a remotely sustainable one. Rd232 (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per above. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Indef is not the correct outcome however I would like to see some indication of change in the way PK does things - the approach is not good though I still say the work is valid. --Herby talk thyme 07:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Per Herby - most certainly NOT the proper way to proceed. Also, block/desysop the person who extended the block to indef after having their copyvios pointed out for abusing admin tools. Duh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose return as others above, if that's what we're opposing.  Support block. Heading is confusing here. You have to read all that to know what you're opposing of supporting. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Un-indef the block. An indef is in essence a perma-ban (spare me the petty Wikispeak nuance argument, when you are on the other side of one, it sure feels like a permaban). PK did not do anything driving a permaban. Just give him a week or two like normal forums do for a minor transgression. Also...the whole growing practice of site moderators making indefs as some sort of forcing mechanism to extract a concession from a general debate opponent is troubling.TCO (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a minor one-off trangression the block would be minor. The problem is a long-term pattern which has finally been brought to a head. Pieter's behaviour during the block makes it crystal clear that hoping this will go away isn't going to work. Rd232 (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow...I just came right to the section and did not realize there was a whole FUCKING 5 screens or so of this kerfuffle above here. Fuck. I don't know man. What a mess. TCO (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support per AFBorchert, Herbythyme and Volunteer Marek. --JN466 15:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This was not an instance of only an IP; but it is an instance of Pieter ignoring his block, and socking using IPs. And not caring that we know it is him. In that regard, there is a problem, and the indef block can stay whilst 1) Pieter recognises that what he is doing is not on and 2) the Community takes in anything Pieter has to say. As to Fastily's indef extension, if anyone has a problem with it, I will take it over as being mine. russavia (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not suggest to simply take that block over. I simply ask that no block of Pieter Kuiper is upheld without finding a consensus first. So far, we had no consensus here to block him for any period longer than a month. If you insist on bypassing this procedure of finding a consensus you do harm Commons not just in this case but Commons in general. Then it will become a recurrent practice that bad blocks which are the result of one heated emotive action need a long battle to be undone if those who oppose it do not want to wheel war. Do you really want this? --AFBorchert (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An indefinite block is neither longer nor shorter than a 1 month block. It may be shorter if Pieter files a successful unblock request soon, and longer if he doesn't. In the mean time, there's not much risk of the 1 month block being overturned, so there's no pressing need to decide whether a block longer than 1 month is appropriate. The only real difference until 1 month has passed is that a conversion back to a time-limited block gives the false impression that Pieter's behaviour can continue as before. Rd232 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again: What is happening here is that a rogue block bypasses regular consensus finding procedures without any need for urgency. This is not a matter of how long the block takes or how we shall proceed with Pieter Kuiper. It is a matter whether rogue blocks triumph over community processes. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may recall that I'm very much against (in the case of established contributors) indef-blocks intended to be permanent without strong prior community consensus. But I don't see this as intended to be permanent, but rather as a strong signal that certain behaviour cannot be tolerated; and it's a signal that's really unavoidable, it has to be sent, and who sent it is secondary. I think most people expect the block to be lifted in the reasonably near future; certainly I do. But it requires some work to figure out some arrangement between Pieter and the community. Rd232 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit restriction

What about some kind of edit restriction to support an unblock, and allow this to be resolved? I suggested to Pieter that while blocked he can raise problems on his user talk page (for others to address), but this basic idea could also be a longer-term solution. Pieter could be banned from raising DRs, as long as clear alternatives are provided. Those would be (i) a user talk page note to one or more people associated with the file(s) (ii) contacting someone else to raise a DR or (iii) if necessary for efficiency, a user subpage which various people can monitor for issues raised and act on appropriately (eg raise DRs if necessary). Would this possibly square the circle of allowing Pieter to raise problems without using DRs in ways people feel is inappropriate? PS I would also combine this with creating Commons:Contributor review, where people can volunteer to have their uploads reviewed - Pieter could also be active there. Rd232 (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter's use of DR isn't the problem - the subject of the DRs are reasonable, and the tone he takes in the DRs is also reasonable. The problem is the circumstances that lead to him starting the DRs in the first place. That is him getting into dispute with a user (for whatever reason), which results in him trawling through their uploads looking for problems and inevitably finding something. Its the understandable reaction of the others - getting "hounded" by someone who is already arguing with them - that raises the temperature to flaming. The fact Pieter has to know by now that the net result of his actions is hostility and chooses to do it anyway is what the problem with his behaviour is.
Banning him from DR will not prevent that: The problem is Pieter trawling through the contribs of the people he is in dispute with, not his action when he finds potential copyvios. If he notifies me, and I complete the DRs on his behalf, then DRs will still have the same effect on people. I could reduce the drama by waiting for the dispute to settle down before acting on problematic files. However, once I am aware of files which are copyright violations - I should act on them immediately, its clearly inappropriate for me to allow Commons to host files I know are legally unacceptable.
What should be restricted is how and when Pieter trawls through contributions (something no restriction can accomplish directly). Something that prevents him getting into disputes in the first place, such as a total ban from Commons space except from raising deletion requests, may indirectly prevent this problem.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"use of DR" is what I meant by what you describe above; this has also been described as "retaliatory" DRs. Having a third party raise DRs when necessary will be better, not least because I seem to remember that some of the time Pieter has been launching DRs unnecessarily, when a note to the uploader could have resulted in a quick clarification or fix. So a third party filtering Pieter's "potential problems with uploads of user X" should help, even if it's not the outbreak of world peace... :) Anyway, I can't see much of a practical alternative to my proposed edit restriction which is compatible with Pieter continuing to edit, unless he either changes his behaviour voluntarily or we change our minds and decide to live with it after all. Rd232 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may limit the aggravation but I can only see it having limited effect. If I start his DRs for him, the user he is targeting will find a bunch of DR notifications on their talk - just as they did before. They may not be by him, but they likely be able to figure out it is at his behest, and I can't see the reaction against Pieter being much different. I may be able to filter some of it, but when questions are asked at the DR I may not be able to answer; how is the closing admin supposed to tell if its my lack-of-knowledge of a valid problem, or a faulty request? Not to mention I might end up getting some flak too for being on "his side". We need to prevent the cause (the disputes), not the symptom (the retaliatory DRs). And no, I can't see any way of preventing disputes short of a block either...--Nilfanion (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't need to answer questions - the ban would be on creating DRs, not participating in them. And without a real alternative, I'd be willing to try this (or some variation of the concept) and see how it goes, assuming that Pieter is willing. Rd232 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Constructive and fair. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complete discussion ban

Ok, how about this: PK does not contact any other Commons users on-wiki or off-wiki , except through a trusted administrator who reviews all of his comments to prevent harrasment. PK cannot open deletion requests or participate in any discussions, except through proxy. All sorted. --Claritas (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Yuck, no. Those restrictions are a straight-jacket as he cannot do anything himself and will be a heavy burden for the admin. I'd be surprised if as anything like as much as 10% of his edits are questionable - so the constructive 90%+ will bog down the admin or just not happen. He could carry out various jobs such as re-categorising and uploads, but he has not shown much interest in those areas. Even in those areas, you still need to discuss sometimes. It would be easier to implement, and frankly fairer on Pieter to just block him than have such a sweeping restriction.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ban would be on creating DRs, not participating in them. And he can continue to use talk pages etc in the usual way. The only limitation is creating DRs. Another way of achieving the same goal: require Pieter to propose a DR somehow, and get someone to agree its a real issue. Rd232 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opposition is to Claritas' proposed measure which includes "participate in any discussions" - which includes everything, DRs are one instance of that.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Humph. That certainly wasn't clear, and I didn't really think it was a serious proposal anyway. Rd232 (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a serious proposal at all. The intention was to highlight that unless PK fundamentally changes his attitude towards interactions with other members of the community, he's not going to be able to participate in anything here at all without creating more drama. I don't think editing restrictions are appropriate. What would be appropriate is a six month ban or an indefinite block, and a crackdown on his block evasion. --Claritas (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Principles

I think we are getting nowhere. I am attempting to create different options so that we can at least agree on the problem. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

These are not findings of fact, they are principles - and not principles anyone can really disagree with... Rd232 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I merely am trying to make sure everyone has the same approach. Feel free to rename the section to something more appropriate or feel free to add more sub sections. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I changed the heading from "findings of fact" to "principles". --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is rather less clear. Can you explain if these are community principles (supported by existing consensus or policy) or personal principles that people replying might have (i.e. opinions). Do you also expect everyone to strike their views below based on this change in scope, or perhaps we ignore any reply dated before the change? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it is worthwhile to see if we are in general in an agreement with the below principals. No one is expected or required to do anything. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
What's written below looks like the principles and findings of fact of an arbcom case. If Commons wants to have an arbitration committee, to fairly adjudicate disputes, then elect one, rather than have a small self-selected group of users mimic the reporting style of an arbitration case on a page like this. --JN466 13:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to deal with copyrights

 Support -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 Neutral - as I have often proposed, we should move all servers to Iran and host as much copyrighted material as we like. However, dealing with copyright is moderately important. We do not need to chase it as zealously as PK. --Claritas (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral lots of things are important. Destroying a long term partnership with a GLAM organization by personally attacking the professionals helping with our mass uploads by calling them incompetent and ignorant of copyright is not, in my opinion, an acceptable way of addressing copyright issues. --Fæ (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support See COM:L. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support   — Jeff G. ツ 15:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons contributors should be expected to be civil and polite

 Support -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support - no need to be polite, just civil. As long as you make no personal attacks and listen to what others have to say, and don't embark on massive campaigns of harassment. --Claritas (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This is not a finding of fact. There is some understanding of "norms" but I have yet to see civility "expected" for contributors on Commons. The fact that we allow (and some defend it as a right) allegations of libel or editors telling each other to fuck off as being within the acceptable norm, means that the words "civil" and "polite" as understood by wider society do not apply here at the current time. --Fæ (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above in the heading it says "should be expected [italics mine]" - I supported that as an obvious fact, so I don't understand your objection. Why oppose obvious progress in clear factual definintion of what should be expected? SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, "should" is your opinion and mine, however there is no evidence that this is a "norm" and in past cases on AN, editors have been supported by the community in their demands to be able to tell other contributors to fuck off. Consequently, this is an opinion, not a finding of fact. --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Civility is broadly expected, I think. Please see Commons:Talk page guidelines. A vocal minority may object, but I think and hope that they constitute a minority. Commons:Staying mellow goes a little further and is embraced by many. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Being civil is good, staying mellow is better. --Avenue (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Better"? Can we say equally advantageous (to Commons)? We humans would have no rights named after us, of any kind, if everybody stayed mellow in every case of injustice and cruelty. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, "equally advantageous" is not what I intended to say, nor do I believe it's true. The disruption these DRs can cause is worsened when neither party can remain mellow, even though they might both remain civil (at least to start with). In other words, staying mellow is less likely to escalate conflict than merely being civil. If you are likening DRs to human right violations, that also strikes me as a false equality. --Avenue (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My reference to human rights was only one and - please! - is not to be misconstrued: we would hardly have any at all if mistreated people always had remained mellow. There's a time for mellow and a time for anger and times for various emotions in between, but there is never a time for cruelty. A related right we should be able to have here (and everywhere else) is the right to a humane working environment. That's worth fighting for, if need be. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support   — Jeff G. ツ 15:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support per Wsiegmund (talk · contribs) and Avenue (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose – Users should only be expected to speak candidly. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests (DR) is not a retaliation tool

 Support -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support --Claritas (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This is an aspiration, not a finding of fact. DRs are being used as a tool of retaliation to create a hostile atmosphere and have been used this way for some years. This is something that would need a policy change to recognize, but we do not yet know if there is a sufficient consensus to get there. --Fæ (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon me, but how diffusive! So just because something is incorrectly used as a type of tool, you oppose definiing that it is not that. You would oppose a statement that a hammer is a hammer if enough of us use it as a sceptre or a baton? A hammer is a hammer, that's not an aspiration, but a fact, no matter how a hammer may be misused. We all want constructive consensus, and I see this as a rather valid attempt to create that. Why don't you? SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • PK's right to use DR's as a retaliatory tool under the guise of raising copyright questions is being vigorously defended by several experienced contributors. I would be more convinced that this is a statement of fact if those people come here and support this finding before I can agree it as a factual reality. In the meantime, anyone is free to use DRs for retaliation, apparently. If this were a request for comment, I would express the opposite as my personal opinion. --Fæ (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I personally feel they are more concerned that while attempting a policy to limit "retaliatory usage of DR" inadvertently we discourage people from opening or even participating in DRs. I can understand their reluctance. I feel historically commons is best run by common understanding than written policy so if a common understanding is reached the issue can be better addressed. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support Commons processes are tools to be used to encourage harmony with the policies and guidelines of Commons. They are not bludgeons to be used against perceived enemies. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons processes are tools to ensure that the content of the project complies with copyright and other policies, not some kind of misguided phony "encourage harmony" hippie nonsense. If there's copyright violations then there's copyright violations. And exactly how does abusing and bullying people like Pieter who point out copyright violations square with this notion of "harmony". Harmony for us but not for others?Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry but if you make DR a retaliatory tool, then you are turning a routine task into a controversial act. How is polarizing and upsetting people help us deal with copyright violations better? DR would be turned into a bully tool if people are allowed to abuse it with "copyright" as an excuse to do so. There are types of copyright violations. The ones that can get us sued fast(er) and the ones that are less of an urgent issue. Murals for example are less problematic than movie screenshots. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support   — Jeff G. ツ 15:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, strongly, per Wsiegmund (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support essentially per Wsiegmund. Whether we say our processes should "encourage harmony" or "ensure compliance" with Commons policies, doesn't matter that much IMO. --Avenue (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith DR nominations are disruptive

 Support -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support - but only if opened by PK (or a similar miscreant). We must always assume good faith, unless there is block evasion and harassment. If I make a bad faith deletion request, no one would notice. --Claritas (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Retaliatory ones, that is. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support with the caveat that we are unclear as to exactly what would be a disruptive DR, in particular the argument we have seen repeated, often, is that it cannot be disruptive to question copyright of a media file. In some cases we see DRs being raised several times in succession for the same image, this is not necessarily incorrect or disruptive, on other occasions many may feel the motivation is for malicious disruption, but we would need a very clear behavioural guideline to understand what our consensus for the difference is and whether we expect folks to do anything about it. --Fæ (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Please see my comment immediately above. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - but only if opened by PK. What??? So bad faithed DRs are not disruptive when others do it? Thanks for illustrating the nature of the nonsense that is going on here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • View of one user is not necessarily shared by all participants. Please do not put words on every bodies mouth. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 17:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you for pointing that out! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Claritas' comment speaks for itself. The only difference seems to be that he is not as careful in going from "thoughts in head" to "words on page" as some of the other people engaged in this witch hunt who are bit more nuanced in sugar coating exactly the same biased sentiments.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I mean is that bad faith DRs are only disruptive if it can be perceived that they are bad faith, which is generally extremely difficult unless you are obviously harassing people you have had previous negative interactions with. I'm not encouraging bad faith deletion requests, but the fact is that they are not inherently disruptive if the rationale is correct. It is the block evasion and hounding which is disruptive. --Claritas (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note that Claritas altered his original comment, toning down the obviously bad faithed original statement (usually in those cases the practice is to strike through and rewrite, rather than hide the original meaning).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is called a clarification. People are allowed to do that. This is also commonly done. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
              • No, a clarification would be to say "what I meant was [...]", not to silently replace what you wrote with a new version - especially after someone has already replied to it. --Avenue (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Some people prefer this way. I am not suggesting it is the best way or the most clear way but it is a way. User has also explained the change on this very thread and merely added ()s I believe. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support   — Jeff G. ツ 15:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, strongly, per Wsiegmund (talk · contribs) and SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would also like to add that removing other users' comments because one disagrees with them is also disruptive (and that CAN be said to be censorship as well as an attempt to manipulate the discussion).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion is a serious breach of the community's trust and should be treated accordingly

 Support I am astonished that PK is essentially getting away with socking due to the support of a few established users. --Claritas (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support obviously, though I give some credit to PK for evading his block reasonably openly and not bothering to deny it when caught with his pants down. --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Naturally. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support - should be obvious to everyone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, per SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support   — Jeff G. ツ 14:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks should be preventative, not punitive

 Support --Avenue (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It is a fine theory and what Blocking policy states, but terms similar to 'sanction'[6] and 'cool off'[7] are often used to describe blocks or requested blocks on the Administrators' noticeboard, so I have no confidence that the current general Administrator group sticks to this in practice. --Fæ (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral - I don't think this is quite borne out by reality, or is anything more than semantics. A punishment is very much the same as prevention - blocking someone for uploading copyright violations both prevents them from doing it more and punishes them. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reality can be inconsistent with our principles, yes, but that doesn't mean the principles are invalid. For preventative vs punitive blocks, I agree there would probably be little difference in the initial response. I would see a more than semantic difference arising if two months into a six month long block, say, a consensus developed that the blocked editor would not reoffend if unblocked. Reversing a preventative block would then be much easier to justify than reversing a block intended to be punitive. --Avenue (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral - the difference is semantic, per Mattbuck. --Claritas (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment If someone disrupts the site, they can be blocked for it so that they do not disrupt it more. If the user acknowledges a mistake, block length can be reduced or completely removed. Everyone can do things they later regret. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support - We are not here to punish one another but to work together in an acceptably humane environment where we don't intentionally hurt each other's feelings and/or damage each other's interest in contributing to the Wikimedia projects. People who disrupt the working environment considerably, and do it over and over without ever improving, are for-all-intents-and-purposes pollutants. They must be prevented from doing so forever. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, per entirety of comment by SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support but with the understanding that bans are punitive, and a ban is what is necessary in this case.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed. --JN466 01:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support --JN466 01:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Being an admin is no big deal. Why are they being highlighted? Adminship isn't nobility. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 04:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support Obviously (though the comment above suggests it's not obvious to all).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A collection of votes

I think there is enough of an agreement at #Principles so we can perhaps proceed to this. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose with this section? The statements are either fact or fiction (i.e. either something which is true or something which is false). I don't really see any purpose in  supporting or  opposing plain statements; those opinions don't affect whether the statements are true or false. Besides, the whole section may be seen as harassment against Pieter Kuiper. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is kind of natural to see sections on "Pieter Kuiper" on a "user problems" case on Pieter Kuiper. Anyone can start a new section. Some statements are in favor of him as well so I cannot see how it harasses anyone. We need consensus and simple sentences seems like the best way to go forward as detailed text proposals above fail to generate a majority of any kind. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
This process isn't sound. You can't transfer the credibility of an arbitration committee decision to a page like this just by using the same headings. Commons needs an arbitration committee ...
And, by the way, there would need to be a finding of fact that enumerates how many files uploaded by each of those voting here were deleted as copyright violations because Pieter Kuiper nominated them for deletion. As in: "User X uploaded [x number] of files to Commons which Pieter Kuiper nominated for deletion and which were subsequently deleted as copyright violations." --JN466 13:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is called community consensus. We do not need a useless body like ArbCom to have community consensus. This isn't the first time we had community consensus. You are welcome to ask someone on toolserver to get that statistics for you. Perhaps what would be more interesting is how many nominations of his were closed as keep. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • More interesting still would be the proportion of his nominations (compared to a few other frequent nominators) that were unproductive - i.e. where no one else supported deletion, and where no improvements were made to the image or its description page during the discussion. A DR doesn't have to result in deletion to benefit the project. --Avenue (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose on technical grounds. This looks like an arbcom case: if Commons wants to have an arbitration committee, to fairly adjudicate disputes, then elect one, rather than mimicking the reporting style of an arbitration case. --JN466 13:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I counter- Oppose your  Oppose on technical grounds. Commons can have community consensus. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't see any problem with replicating a simple structure to clarify the community's consensus. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You see Jayen, if Commons had an ArbCom then they'd have to run for it and people might not vote for them. But this way... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it: they get to appoint themselves without any of that voting/community trust nonsense getting in the way! And do what they want to whoever they want to. Profit! Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am actually curious about something else... Who are you? Why do you feel you qualify in being our metric for community trust on commons? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 17:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I second the curiosity (of course without asking for an outing). Credentials of any kind? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • What kind of question is that? Who are *you*? Why do *you* feel qualify (sic) to appoint yourself as a faux-ArbCom in this case? I'm not a metric for anything, I'm just pointing out that such a metric has not been established, rather a couple of users have cloaked themselves in the "community trust" mantle as a way of getting rid off a user they don't like. And Credentials? Are you seriously asking me for credentials on Commons??? Like a PhD in uploading porn or something? An MBA in closing copyvio DRs as keep? A BS in Flicker image washing? Sorry, don't got any of those.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this section heading misleading. It seems more like A collection of votes. The same DR claimed to be retaliatory is referred to twice, and a reference to a CU case, which concludes that PK probably has been editing under various dynamic IP adresses. Not a lot of facts for so many votes IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And people are not voting on facts, they're voting on their prejudices.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prejudices? Could you spell out exactly what you mean? --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They made up their mind to get Pieter banned and will pursue all kinds of means to that end, facts and principles be damned. What did you think I meant? Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support This user helps commons by identifying copyright violations particularly works that are derivatives of copyrighted content. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose Problematic to make such a sweeping statement here, as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wild Hyacinth.jpg sometimes the issues are purely retaliatory when there aren't even any copyright issues involved. -- Cirt (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This has been a rationale for long term hounding of other users, creating a hostile environment and malicious disruption. It was worn out a long, long time ago as a credible excuse and should be taken out of PK's handy harassment kit bag. --Fæ (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose PK's primary intention is disruptive. --Claritas (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support It's a fact, regardless of whether it's inconvenient to admit it. Not that it justifies disruptive behaviour. --Avenue (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support as Avenue. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support the statement, but  Oppose the intent. He does regularly nominate copyvios, but any such finding is secondary to his revenge DRs, which are frequently without any basis. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Yup, on net positive contributions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support   — Jeff G. ツ 14:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Technically true, but misleading. Pieter Kuiper regularly nominates files for deletion as an act of revenge; the fact that these files are suspected copyvios is incidental to the process. --Carnildo (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper was not being civil and/or polite

 Support Primarily his interaction with Fæ is a serious concern. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support Importance of this stressed, essentially per my comments at #Commons contributors should be expected to be civil and polite. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support PK is rarely polite, and never polite to those he has disagreements with. --Claritas (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Question When? This is not clear enough. Starting new heading just below this one (hope that's allowed!) to address the more general problem. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anybody is allowed to create a heading. I do not own this thread. :p The time frame was intentionally left vague so that users can fill in the "when" or of this is a general behavior or an overall misconception. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 00:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 Question Who cares? People here are uncivil and impolite all the time, not to even mention the usual passive aggressive bs, so let's skip the hypocrisy please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support   — Jeff G. ツ 14:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper has been combative, impolite, less than civil and unwilling to improve too often for his constructive work to be used as an excuse anymore

 Support Just as much of a fact as his valid DR's. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Agree with analysis here and elsewhere on this page, by SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support - I've been saying this for ages. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support definately true --High Contrast (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Even whilst blocked, the use of IP accounts and off-wiki hounding demonstrates his entrenched commitment to maintaining Commons as a hostile and combative environment for everyone. --Fæ (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Even if the first part of that obviously leading statement is true, the last part don't follow from the premise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support   — Jeff G. ツ 14:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper has used Commons:Deletion requests (DR) as a retaliation tool

 Support To the point he used IP socks. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support This is a crucially important part of this discussion, per my comments at #Commons:Deletion requests (DR) is not a retaliation tool. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Yes. --Claritas (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Unquestionably, and very often. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I'm not sure there's anyone who doubts this anymore. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support --Avenue (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support   — Jeff G. ツ 14:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I would not like to say that he used deletion requests merely as retaliation tools. There was an element of retaliation, clearly; but the above statement makes it sound as though retaliation was their only purpose. No one doubts that Pieter is knowledgeable about copyright, cares about copyright, and has invested many volunteer hours in this project, addressing copyright matters. --JN466 01:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not need people using otherwise non-controversial copyright review as a means to distress users. This is disruptive. Since you state that "there was an element of retaliation, clearly" your oppose vote is in direct conflict with your statement. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 04:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper has made bad faith nominations

 Support -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support One stark example is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wild Hyacinth.jpg. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is it stark? - The plant is still not safely identified as far as I can see? -- Lavallen 08:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of identification has never been a reason to delete high quality photographs of flowers. --Claritas (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support --Claritas (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Unquestionably, and too often. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Yup. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose What are bad faithed nominations? Either there's reason to think they're copyvios or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support   — Jeff G. ツ 15:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Bad faith is a pretty strong claim, and I see little evidence for it here. Someone can be combative, retaliatory, and more while still operating in good faith. --Avenue (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Given his hit rate, which is very high, my impression is that he made the nominations because he genuinely thought the files were copyright violations – and was generally proved right. --JN466 00:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper has used multiple IP addresses to abusively evade his block

 Support --Claritas (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support blatantly. --Fæ (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak support True, although many of his block-evading edits do not appear disruptive. --Avenue (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It included the same attacks towards Fæ as visible here. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support per this thread though I would prefer a Checkuser conclusion on the case. It seems like this will not be possible though. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 Neutral I just don't know the facts on that, but I am willing to entrust them to reputably good-faith users who do. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral - I agree with Serge, some IPs claimed as Kuiper do appear to be valid, but one someone pointed me at turned out to be JN466 forgetting to log in. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from that IP you mentioned other IPs are compatible with Pieter Kuiper's geographic location that we are told of. That said so is probably millions of people. I however feel an impostor popping up right after Pieter Kuiper was blocked from a geographically compatible location feels remote. Block expired for most of them so it seems like the edits have stopped after their prompt blocks. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 03:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support   — Jeff G. ツ 15:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I cannot endorse the term "abusively", given the circumstances. --JN466 00:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of recent deletion requests by PK and his alleged sockpuppets

As a followup on my observations that the facts section has very little facts. I have started collecting a table of PKs most recent DRs.

The only subjective field is the "reasonable" coloumn which is my personal opinion rearding whether such a DR is reasonable to open or can only be perceived as retaliation. Feel free to contest that. Also Feel free to correct my comments. I have not included DRs opened by IP addresses suspected to be PK, as the connection is not confirmed by CU. I only went back some 1.5-2 months as then I ran out of time. I would appreciats if others would extend it to get a more complete picture. I just ask for a complete list to get a nuanced picture and not just cherry-picking good ones or bad ones.

I removed the reasonable coloumn as its meaning is ambiguous. --Slaunger (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the DRs started by PKs alleged IP sockpuppets (the five listed above), and changed the section title above to reflect this. I can't see who directed Flickr upload bot to upload the deleted files though, so it would be great if someone could fill that in. --Avenue (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to gather further factual information. --Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recent DR nominations by Pieter Kuiper and alleged sockpuppets
{|class="wikitable"
Date Nominating user Deletion Request Uploader/Creator Result Comment
2012-06-07? ? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steampunk display.jpg Flickr upload bot (for ?) Deleted DR deleted by Fastily as vandalism, restored by Elcobbola
2012-06-07? ? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wildlife Centre entrance.jpg Fæ N/A DR deleted by Fastily as vandalism
2012-06-07? ? Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Great wall - by Bernard Goldbach.jpg FlickrLickr N/A DR deleted by Fastily as vandalism
2012-06-07? ? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Large Thatched Fox.jpg Flickr upload bot (for Fæ) N/A DR deleted by Fastily as vandalism
2012-06-07 90.236.29.6 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wooden bird.JPG Claritas Open Uploader disagrees, no other comments
2012-06-07 90.237.37.181 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Artwork for Wrights Biscuits.jpg Fæ and others Deleted Group nomination of seven files, discussion was civil
2012-06-07 95.199.16.21 Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Flat Head revolution had started.jpg Flickr upload bot (for ?) Deleted Closed by とある白い猫/12 as retaliatory, reopened by Elcobbola, reverted, reopened again, and closed as delete.
2012-06-07 95.199.16.21 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kanagawa in Washington.jpg Flickr upload bot (for ?) Deleted Closed by とある白い猫/12 as retaliatory, reopened by Elcobbola, reverted, reopened again, and closed as delete.
2012-06-07 95.199.16.21 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steampunk.jpg Flickr upload bot (for ?) Deleted Uncontroversial
2012-06-07 95.199.16.21 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steampunk Ocular.jpg Flickr upload bot (for ?) Deleted Uncontroversial
2012-06-07 95.199.16.21 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prisoner Jamyang Kyi.jpg Flickr upload bot (for Rédacteur Tibet) Open More info needed, may be kept
2012-06-06 Pieter Kuiper Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dino-bravo-1.jpg Woozz Deleted Uploader agrees
2012-06-06 Pieter Kuiper Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ningen Gakki (human musical instrument toy).jpg Clusternote Deleted Uncontroversial
2012-06-06 Pieter Kuiper Commons:Deletion requests/File:Funky chicken graffiti on Dog Kennel Hill.jpg Fæ Deleted Heated arguments between Fæ and PK
2012-06-06 Pieter Kuiper Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wild Hyacinth.jpg PierreSelim Kept PK asked for deletion because taxonomic id was wrong. He had informed Pierre, but Pierre did not correct it. Thus, he opened the DR to get Perres attention. Closed by Léna who is "close to" PierreSelim. PK was blocked by Fastily due to this DR. Unblock request declined by mattbuck
2012-06-02 Pieter Kuiper Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apple Computer Logo rainbow.png (2) Pieter Kuiper Deleted Uncontroversial.
2012-05-18 Pieter Kuiper Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grande roue à Toulouse (coupée).jpg PierreSelim Kept PK was blocked while this was open. PK responded after his unblock on the talk page arguing about aspects, which had not been taken into consideration. PierreSelim reported PK for this DR and Fastily blocked him for two weeks. Unblock request declined by russavia.
2012-05-14 Pieter Kuiper Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monaco is an asshole.png Russavia Open Will probably be kept. An IP edit from May 19 argues it is junk.
2012-05-11 Pieter Kuiper Commons:Deletion requests/File:Expo aeropostale Toulouse 2011 (3).jpg PierreSelim Deleted Uploader agreed.
2012-04-27 Pieter Kuiper Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apon 0007 xs pho heaven - paradise lost - hell.jpg Sebarts Open No response yet.
2012-04-27 Pieter Kuiper Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tdpe 0006 xs Thomas Dellert directed Rocky Horror show 1981-83.jpg Sebarts Open Uploader disagrees. Else no response.
2012-04-27 Pieter Kuiper Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thomas dellert - hins 0030 xs sil Two German Queens.jpg Sebarts Open Uploader disagrees. Else no response.

|}

Thanks for the table. However just because something is within the rules, does not make it reasonable when seen as a pattern of disruptive behaviour. Considering how PK is established as a self-elected police force, I will use my local related example; I live next to Peckham, well known for black gangs, drug dealing and gun crime. In this context, it is not "reasonable" for the police to routinely stop the cars of suspected black gangs on suspicion, even if they can claim afterwards that they have a successful high detection rate and doing something about the violence problem is popular with the general public. To interpret what is "reasonable", they have a duty to not disrupt society and to minimize damage to the rights of any citizen to enjoy life and liberty regardless of their creed or race. Even if every DR that PK raises were to result in a valid deletion of the image, using the process disruptively in a way that creates an openly hostile environment for other contributors to Wikimedia Commons, is not acceptable. In my eyes, this interpretation of Wikimedia Commons norms, civility and the blocking policy, seems to be what 80% plus of opinions raised on this page support.
I fail to see a pattern in the table. Over a course of 1.5-2 months only a few DRs are raised with several different uploaders. Of course this may be because the table should go further back or include the suspected IPs, I don't know, but please provide some evidence for your claims. Moreover I have a hard time seeing the analogy with the police. The police has power. Here admins have power to block PK. PK can only request a deletion. It will not be deleted unless there is consensus to do so, and in that case not by PK. --Slaunger (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The police catch suspects, the courts convict some of them. PK seeks out suspect copyright problems by imagestalking other users, the DRs assess consensus (our courts). The police have no power to convict, PK has no power to delete, both are required to comply with policies to avoid creating a hostile environment. --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In theory I would be within the rules to write a bot that raised every past upload of PK's for DR with a simple nomination that I am concerned about copyright for this uploader because some of his images have been deleted in the past. As it is within the rules to re-nominate any file even after a DR keep, I could then re-run that bot every month, each time with a slightly re-phrased nomination rationale, in an attempt to drive PK off the project and maximize how many of his contributions get deleted. Ensuring that our contributors are free to enjoy contributing to this project, is more than allowing users to apply our policies in creative ways that result in mayhem, dispute and distress new contributors. --Fæ (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not what PK has done. PK has not systematically raised DRs on any upload by specific users. In the table above I actually see one problematic case (the flower one). For other DRs raising them seemed relevant for me. Moreover, I do not see a pattern of PK systematically reraising DRs. I think you are completely overreacting in your analogy. --Slaunger (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to keep an open mind and would be interested in any evidence you can support a case with. However you should take into account the extended history of complaints from a variety of contributors about PK's behaviour and associated disruption raised on COM:AN which I would suggest is representative of the disruption caused to the project. --Fæ (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The "reasonable" field seems problematic to me, though not so much its contents as its definition. There are some DRs listed here that were probably retaliatory, despite being reasonable to open when looked at in isolation, and thus capable of being perceived not just as retaliatory. I think adding a "Probably retaliatory" column would give a fuller picture.
I deleted the column to make the table purely factual. --Slaunger (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's probably best to restrict it to the facts. --Avenue (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While extending the table back in time wouldn't hurt, that won't shed any light one of the main issues here, namely PK's alleged use of IP sockpuppets after being blocked. The five alleged IP sockpuppets listed above account for another 7 or 8 DRs that should be added to the table. (90.236.99.227 attempted to start one, but the DR page was never created, so maybe that doesn't count.) --Avenue (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sockpuppet/block bypassing is a real oddity. If PK simply said, "Look, I understand I was upsetting people with my actions and would like to do the following good work [+some scope statement] in a non-disruptive way and would be happy to be under probation for a few months to limit me to that scope and ensure I could demonstrate better ways of working to regain the trust of the community" then there would be no need to bypass the block. A key issue here is that PK seems incapable of taking on that there is a problem with creating a hostile environment for others and that Commons is not his personal project. While PK uses socks and refuses to change previous patterns of disruptive behaviour then a track record of most of his DRs being closed as deletions is irrelevant to the central issue. --Fæ (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that Pieter's lack of acceptance that there is a problem with his behaviour is a key issue. Regarding the table, I see the outcome of the deletions (kept, deleted, etc) as interesting but probably less important than whether it demonstrates extensive recent retaliatory or other disruptive use of DRs. --Avenue (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the table entirely irrelevant. Please do not insult our intelligence. There isn't a soul that does not know how Pieter Kuiper nominates files. His real reason is retaliation which makes commons a hostile environment. Justification becomes irrelevant with that intent. Otherwise non-controversial nominations become controversial and stress users out. This alienates good users. Copyright is neither the most important nor the only policy. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 17:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
You keep making these accusations (to which the accused can't answer) and keep repeating this mantra but when it's pointed out that there is no evidence for the accusations you say that the evidence is "entirely irrelevant". And you're not seeing a problem with this whole process?? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is evidence available for at least some of the accusations, e.g. in Pieter's block log, but this process has done a poor job of making it visible to everyone. Blustering about more current evidence being "irrelevant" seems to me a lazy response that alienates people who haven't seen it all before, and just entrenches people further in their views. The table is not irrelevant. If you feel it needs to be put into a broader context, I'd suggest that presenting other evidence that outweighs it would be more useful than just repeating your views. And dealing with copyright is vital to fulfilling our most important policy, that Commons is a repository of free content. --Avenue (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • White cat, I am sorry if you feel insulted because Avenue and I have spend some time to gather factual information and post it here. I am also sorry that it seems to have spread out to a larger group as you are quoting "our intelligence". You see, I am a scientist, and in my world we collect evidence to base our claims on. This can at times appear shocking to witness. Regarding "There isn't a soul that does not know how Pieter Kuiper nominates files" I can conclude that I do not have a soul, as I honestly did not know how he did. I still do not know completely, because the data collected are scarce, but until now, they do not seem to support the prevailing rather one-sided claims on this subpage. I am happy that you have embedded the table in a by default collapsed section. That follows well the editorial principle of least astonishment. I reckon many would be alarmed to see actual data and not just expressed feeling and opinions. --Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on the meaningfulness of this table and in the interest of completeness, you may wish to include Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wildlife Centre entrance.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Great wall - by Bernard Goldbach.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Large Thatched Fox.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steampunk display.jpg. These were likely missed when the table was being compiled as they were deleted as vandalism (I reopened File:Steampunk display.jpg, but either did not notice or did not find compelling the others). Эlcobbola talk 21:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing about this. I do not know if these deleted pages ever contained anything (I am not an admin). If others with admin flag find it relevant to include in the table for the sake of completeness, please do. Thanks. Or if they could be undeleted such that they could be seen by a wider audience than just admins. --Slaunger (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added them to the table, with as much info as I can find. --Avenue (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Avenue. --Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wildlife Centre entrance.jpg. and File:Large Thatched Fox.jpg did each receive comments from one editor. I don't believe the deletions of the discussions were appropriate - transparency and good practice would suggest they be closed as keep/delete - but that is another discussion. Эlcobbola talk 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - first, I'm confused, why exactly is Fastily deleting deletion discussions? Is there a policy for this or is there a policy against it, or it is simply a gratuitous abuse of admin tools in retaliation against Pieter by Fastily (again)? Second, yes, could elcobolla, or another admin restore the other deleted discussions? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've restored the deleted discussions. I've closed the two that were open at the time of deletion - とある白い猫 had speedily closed one and had not (yet) been reverted. This is an administrative closure only; others may renominate if necessary. Эlcobbola talk 12:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add - ok, so looking at the data, here are the actual statistics on nominations by Pieter:
starting with the flat head file we have 17 nominations (I can't look at the ones for which discussion were deleted).
of those, 10, or 59% were closed as "Delete". Of these ten, two, Flathead and Kanagawa were initially closed as "Keep" by とある白い猫 (who's all over this page screaming for Pieter's head) but where then renominated by elcobbola and then closed as "Delete" by User:Jameslwoodward. This actually looks more like とある白い猫 purposefully taking steps to create the impression that Pieter's nominations were unjustified, whearas in fact they were. At the very least, it's pretty clear evidence that とある白い猫 does not have a good grasp of copyright issues (both in terms of what constitutes a copyright violation, and the more basic fact that you don't "keep" a copyright violation, just because you don't like the person who pointed it out). Admins should have more competence than this.
Yes, but とある白い猫 is not an admin, on Commons at least. --Avenue (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, とある白い猫 is not an admin. Per COM:DEL, "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial." Obviously, however, these closures are controversial and any reasonable consideration, I think, would have concluded that to be the case. Эlcobbola talk 12:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of the remaining 7 files, two, or 11.7%, were kept. Both of these "keep"s happened "under a cloud" so to speak - rather than resolving the actual matter and the copyright status of the file, the response was to instead block Pieter.
The remaining 5 files are Open and the majority, 3, of these are the uploads by User:Sebarts. Looking at these I can certainly see how someone might think these are copyvios even though, presumably, they're not (uploader and credited artist are different).
So at the end of the day, the majority of Pieter's nominations are legit and there really isn't a massive amount of "retaliatory" nominations. There might be one or two, but here the problem appears not to be how many nominations Pieter has made, but rather whose files he nominated.
If there's retaliation going on here, it's not by Pieter, but rather by the people (certain admins and their friends) who are trying to send the message "if you nominate my, or my friends', files for deletion, I will get you banned". Can we put that into a statement of fact or a principle somewhere? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please list the "certain admins and their friends" you are making allegations about so that everyone can consider the evidence of the retaliations against Pieter Kuiper you claim are occurring? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper has on numerous occasions identified copyright violations uploaded by Commons administrators, and nominated them for deletion. In the majority of cases, these files were deleted after review. --JN466 01:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support as proposer. --JN466 01:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Your point? No body is arguing about this. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 04:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 Comment As previous. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the record bears that out.

 Support as proposer. --JN466 01:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Indeed! People are sick and tired of getting a retaliatory strike from Pieter Kuiper even over minor disagreements. It could be as simple as someone daring to rename a file that Pieter Kuiper declined the move request. This is enough for Pieter Kuiper to go through your contributions in bulk and spam your talk page with nominations. The idea here is to intimidate users not to dare double cross him. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 05:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 Comment As long as we are talking about uncivil behvior where a humane working environment is disrupted time and time again year after year, I can't see how this is relevant. Of course, we all make mistakes (except PK according to PK) - that's no excuse for sarcasm, hounding, bullying, stalking, obvious hate, retaliation and a never ending stream of unacceptably disagreeable behavior. Mistakes can be corrected without personal attacks and such, I believe, and without driving otherwise valuable contributors away. There are lots of other editors and administrators who are good at that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Pieter Kuiper's indefinite block affirmed

 Support - I believe that PK's behaviour warranted at the very least warranted Fastily's indefinite block, considering the fact that he was evading a block to repeat the same behaviour which got him blocked in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claritas (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Weak tea. The block itself does nothing but postpone the day of reckoning. It was also imposed by an admin involved in conflict with PK at the time. I would reconsider if we could agree conditions under which the block should be lifted. --Avenue (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Question what does "affirmed" mean here? Rd232 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, there were issues involving socking, in addition to the behavior concerns and retaliatory methods of modus operandi. -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support(ish) - perhaps we can go with the indefinite block, but with the proviso that after 3 months or so, an unblock request can be considered if Pieter accepts that his behaviour is unacceptable or some such expression. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Pretty clear cut case of abuse of admin tools. And Claritas throwing stones ("considering the fact that he was evading a block to repeat the same behaviour which got him blocked in the first place") is really just too much hypocrisy packed into a single sentence, enough to make your head spin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a hypocrite because I no longer sock at Wikipedia. I'm waiting for six months to request an unblock. How is abusive to block a user who is evading a prior block indefinitely ? --Claritas (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not a hypocrite because I no longer sock at Wikipedia." -> ??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was 13 when I used the Nefesf9 account. People change. --Claritas (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...which I guess would make you 14 when you used the S Larctia account, the Anthem of joy account, the Anton dvsk account, the Blest Withouten Match account, the Kay barbsy account, and the Xijky account.
I guess it would also make you currently 15.
15, would also happen to be the age at which you used the Theorr account, the Gheressist account, the He to Hecuba account, the Cmifyc account and the Impotency leads to avarice account. And that's just from the confirmed ones. Maybe people change, but you haven't so far.
Look, I couldn't give a flip about your sock puppeting antics over on en-wiki. What does annoy me is that given your history of abusing multiple accounts, as recently as this month, you have the nerve to show up in this discussion and scream for another person's head based on accusations of sockpuppeting. Like I said, it's the sheer volume of hypocrisy on display here that is the issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, the arguments don't matter, it's whose making them ? I can be hypocritical if I want to, I don't hide my interesting patterns of editing at Wikipedia. --Claritas (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support   — Jeff G. ツ 15:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, with EnWiki's standard offer as a way to get unblocked. --Carnildo (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per Avenue and Volunteer Marek. --JN466 15:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock subject to edit restriction

What about some kind of edit restriction to support an unblock, and allow this to be resolved? Pieter could be banned from raising DRs against active users (DRs relating to inactive users I think are not a problem; we can define inactive as not contributed within the last 3 months), as long as clear alternatives are provided. Those would be (i) a user talk page note to one or more people associated with the file(s) (ii) contacting someone else to raise a DR or (iii) if necessary for efficiency, a user subpage which various people can monitor for issues raised and act on appropriately (eg raise DRs if necessary). Would this possibly square the circle of allowing Pieter to raise problems without using DRs in ways people feel is inappropriate? PS I would also combine this with promoting Commons:Contributor feedback, where people can volunteer to have their uploads reviewed - Pieter could also be active there. Rd232 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Question User has not even implied that he would consider changing his ways. User should agree not to make further retaliatory DR nominations and agree not to circumvent around them. Consider this remark by Multichill and his subsequent response. Why should we as a community consider unblocking him when he does not even consider stopping with the retaliatory nominations. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • How about leaving the block in place until PK accepts whatever editing restrictions we have agreed upon here? I hope we can develop a more lasting solution than the usual block/unblock cycle. I like the general shape of Rd232's proposal, except for (i), which I think still offers too much scope for Pieter to fire up conflict. I'd suggest widening the ban to prohibit Pieter from initiating any discussion of an active user's uploads except within Pieter's user talk space, which others can monitor and act on as they see fit, or on the talk page of an uninvolved editor. I have also wondered if we should ban Pieter from editing the talk page of editors who add their names to an opt out page. --Avenue (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Is this only about DRs? I thought this might be more important: Pieter Kuiper has been combative, impolite, less than civil and unwilling to improve too often for his constructive work to be used as an excuse anymore.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not entirely about DRs (see e.g. my talk page opt out idea above), but those have been a big part of the problem IMO. Trying to develop some boundaries within which Pieter might be more likely to work constructively does not mean that we are making excuses for his misbehaviour. If anything, I think these proposed restrictions would reduce the chance of excuses being made in the future. --Avenue (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose, not just about DRs, also involved socking, and conduct. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose - give it a few months, and then let him file an unblock request. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose as I outlined above, any editing restriction which would effectively resolve the problem would be too restrictive to be implemented. --Claritas (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose   — Jeff G. ツ 15:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Pieter Kuiper from Commons for a duration of three months

Enough is enough. The consensus from the above "Findings of fact" subsections is that:

  • Pieter Kuiper regularly nominates files via Commons:Deletion requests (DR) over valid grounds such as copyright.
  • Pieter Kuiper was not being civil and/or polite.
  • Pieter Kuiper has been combative, impolite, less than civil and unwilling to improve too often for his constructive work to be used as an excuse anymore.
  • Pieter Kuiper has used Commons:Deletion requests (DR) as a retaliation tool.
  • Pieter Kuiper has made bad faith nominations.
  • Pieter Kuiper has used multiple IP addresses to abusively evade his block.

  — Jeff G. ツ 15:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Pieter Kuiper

This process is tainted; admins seeking to block a user who has nominated their copyright violations for deletion. It is never wrong to nominate a copyright violation for deletion, and the record shows that the vast majority of files thus nominated were indeed copyright violations. Admins' uploads should be subject to particular scrutiny, as the process is likely to benefit their own understanding of copyright, and a correct understanding of copyright in turn is of vital importance to correct project administration.

  •  Support as proposer. --JN466 15:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, this proposal ignores several problem areas, for example, the socking abuse in order to attempt block evasion. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - as noted, this proposal completely ignores the issue. The problem is not so much that he finds copyvios, but that he uses deletion requests as revenge, and his attitude leaves a lot to be desired. This has come up here again and again and again, his behaviour is a problem. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - you're descending to the level of PK himself. We've already discussed this above and came to the conclusion that this isn't a good idea. --Claritas (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It is always wrong to nominate files for deletion if the intent is strictly to stress, harass or distress the opponent. There is no emergency to deal with copyrights. They can be dealt with the causal passage of time. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 17:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Copyright is fundamental. User とある白い猫's logic simply stands things on its head.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Never is too long and too wide. PK can drive a tank through that gate and mow down any newbie he doesn't like the look of using the shield of "I must be right, I see copyright violations everywhere". The fact that he has raised multiple pointless DRs on the basis he does not believe the OTRS ticket rather than bother to ask on OTRS/Noticeboard is a good example of unnecessary drama rather than anything approaching the mellow behaviour that one might otherwise expect from a contributor with his experience. As they are known to be rather active writing off-wiki, perhaps Volunteer Marek or Jayen466 can advise, has there been some off-wiki canvassing going on about this discussion? The closing administrator should probably take that into account if it has. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that from what I see most of the DRs were fully justified (even a few of those - a minority - which were kept as keep in the end; there was still good reason to nominate them). So no, these were NOT "multiple pointless DRs". As far as canvassing goes, why not ask that of とある白い猫, or Fastily or Mattbuck? I didn't get canvassed by nobody, like I said, I saw this and was struck by just how LordOfTheFliesque and unfair the whole process was, so I decided to speak up. This is just another attempt to derail the discussion of issues (just like the whole "who are you to question us? what are you credentials?" nonsense) Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing me of canvassing? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling Fae to ask others the same question he asked me. Is he accusing me of canvasing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Volunteer Marek and Jayen466 with their established expertise in this area, "has there been some off-wiki canvassing going on about this discussion?" It is hard to read that as an accusation, it was intended as a general question and sensibly directed to the two people that have talked about their off-wiki posts in the past. I would be happy to hear answers from everyone else if they have noticed any apparent off wiki canvassing that may influence who is turning up to comment on this page regardless of who may have written the off wiki posts. No need to provide direct links of course, we would not want to have another tedious debate about the external links blacklist. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have a hard time making out what it is you're talking about. Whatever meaning is in there seems to have fallen through the cracks of the in nu en do. Second, to the extent I can guess at what your meaning is, I guess you're referring, once again, to the discussions going on over at Wikipediocracy. What of it? Where you canvassed by those discussions or something? Third, it sounds like you need address your explanations to mattbuck who's the one who inferred that there were accusations going on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a yes, thanks. --Fæ (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes what? You can take it however you want it of course but what does that mean? If I ask you a question, and you reply, can I just repost with a "I'll take that as a yes", regardless of the actual answer that you give? I might try that next time. You're welcome.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the question was a simple one, a yes or no would have been adequate. From the link you have given the answer is obviously yes and the fact that you have not said no, is telling enough for anyone that understands something of the context here. Thanks for your help. --Fæ (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The mere fact that an editor does good work helping to ferret out copyright violations may not excuse sufficient bad conduct in other regards. (I'm not familiar enough with this case to say if that applies here) But, those making this decision must understand that the average man on the street is not going to tolerate people being blocked for reporting genuine copyright violations, even if the reports are "retaliatory". As you well know some folks over at w:User talk:Jimbo Wales have long been agitating against you for upholding good principles - don't let them have a legitimate complaint! And some of those comments above could be presented as evidence that they might. Wnt (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Copyright is much more important than butthurtness. Those involved in this disgraceful kangaroo court should be ashamed of themselves. Disclaimer: I arrived here as this issue is being discussed on Jimbo's talk page. Salvio giuliano (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not try to manipulate the vote

Can we please NOT have people who are involved up to their ears in this (and other) discussion going through and remove comments/votes they disagree with [8] under the ridiculous pretext that these are "unhelpful". Can I start going through these comments and removing all the "Supports" and "Opposes" which *I* find unhelpful? It would take quite a while.

Seriously, admins should know better. But yet again we have a blatant attempt to game and manipulate the outcome, by censoring opinions which some disagree with, and that from a person who's known to go around crying about "not censored!".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties can raise opinions. Who would qualify to participate in this discussion in your opinion? Would anyone who ever had a disagreement once with Pieter Kuiper automatically disqualify? Wouldn't that also disqualify people who have had an agreement with Pieter Kuiper at some point? Who would be left? Is there community consensus to back the kind of edits Pieter Kuiper was making? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't want anyone to be disqualified. That's my point. You're misunderstanding - address your points to mattbuck below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comments which I moved out of the subsections were bordering on trolling. The idea that "this looks like an arbcom thing, therefore commons must elect an arbcom to do this because only arbcom are allowed to use this style" is rubbish, but it is especially irrelevant to each individual section. That is more an attempt to manipulate the vote: to oppose not for actual reasons based on the factual accuracy or inaccuracy of the statement, but because you disagree with the process. Please note I am not saying that it is an attempt to manipulate, merely that it is more than my edit. The comments are still there: I simply moved them out of the subsections because they did not refer to those sections, it was a general unhappiness with the process. There was no need to put it in every section, and yes, Whitecat was equally guilty for replying in every section.
As I commented elsewhere, there is no one who is not involved with Kuiper in some way, at least not any admins here. If you believe these comments were helpful to the individual sections, I would ask you to explain why, and why it was not better to simply oppose the process in a single place rather than 10, which made it unreasonable to have a discussion in response to any of them. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comments which I moved out of the subsections were bordering on trolling. - no they are not. They are merely comments you disagree with. Look, if you're gonna participate in this discussion, "vote" yourself, and run around this website (and other venues) making derogatory comments about some users, then you most certainly should NOT pop up and start removing other people's comments on a whim. I consider most of your comments here and elsewhere to be disruptive junk but you don't see me removing them from discussions based on some made up flimsy pretext. Letting others speak is a basic issue of courtesy as well as a standard principle of open discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observations about the process

Over the last nine days after this subpage has been created, +200 edits have been done by +15 editors producing +140 kB of wikitext all dealing about one person. Or rather about how to punish/restrict/ban/whatever the particular user for his actions. That person is currently blocked leaving him no offer to defend himself, excuse himself, perhaps correct a false statement or twist of a fact. This page is basically a free ride to call a user anything one likes, such as combatitive, impolite, less than civil, unwilling to improve, an abusive block evader and a retaliator. Now, one or more of these may be true, but there are always nuances, and I find it natural for such a massive critique from multiple user to have a door open to communicate here.

How about offering PK to have a section on his talk page transcluded in here allow him to at least comment on what other says about him here? PK is called incivil, but is this process, where the accused is left no possibility to defend himself a civil process? --Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this little bit of sanity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He could have been unblocked fairly quickly if you read his talk page. Very few conditions were put forward which he disregarded (and went ahead to sockpuppet). However feel free to do that as he is welcome to explain himself. I am unsure how this would work though. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Where do you see that on his talk page? All I see is the same mutually supporting clique bullying Pieter, that has then proceeded to organize this little "two minutes of hate". See? That's the problem (one of several here) with not letting the guy defend himself - *you*, a bone fide member of this clique - get to define the terms, (mis)describe the situation, and say all kinds of nonsense about him and he can't respond back. If he did, maybe, just maybe, these kinds of gross mirepresentations wouldn't fly so easily.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Volunteer Marek seems to be the new intercessor pf Pieter Kuiper? How does it come to that? Does he know him? Interestingly User:Volunteer Marek is mostly active in user related discussions about a bunch of users here. User:Volunteer Marek did hardly appear on Commons but when this Pieter Kuiper theatre begann User:Volunteer Marek massively appeared on the show. --178.10.111.200 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was struck about how messed up this whole process was. Some of us do things because they're right, not because they're popular. Or is there something else you want to say?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And seriously, how weird is it to be accused of "just having shown up" by ... an anon IP with no previous edits/contributions? Or did somebody forget to log in?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could fully support the points of view by Marek and similar as long as it is clear to all of us that they either are completely unaware of the amount of valid complaints about Kuiper's uncivil and rude behavior over several years, or else are willing to put up with any amount of such behavior from Kuiper even in the future. Other than that, it's hard to understand where they are coming from, and why they are doing so much mudslinging against all of us who object to that behavior and, with it, find Commons a very uncomfortable place to spend our leisure time trying to do as good of work as we can for the project. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(i) Pieter has been around long enough to know that he can ask for comments to be copied from his talk page to this page; the offer doesn't need to be made as some exceptional thing, he knows this can be done. And it's not like he's busy on his talk page attempting to engage with the issues or ways forward - his recent efforts have just been more investigation of the contributions of editors involved here, i.e. continuing the same behaviour. (ii) I emailed Pieter a few days ago to ask him for his input on ways forward; his response was dismissive enough (and he's had time enough to rethink that response, without having done so...) that I've lost all interest in helping him get out of the hole he's in. If he doesn't care enough to properly engage (preferring to play the victim of an Abusive Admin Conspiracy™, it seems), why should anyone else? Rd232 (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abusive Admin Conspiracy is a ℠. :P -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever. To both of you. The whole point of the original poster has already been derailed by this "who are you?" inquisition and other crap - so let's reiterate:
A user who's being accused and railroaded, at the minimum should have the right to defend himself. This whole process has been bunk from the beginning and being cutesy about the questions that are being raised about it, by putting little "℠" marks in your comments speaks more to your maturity and intellectual level than the actual substance of the issue. Bottom line is quite simple - if a bunch of youse are gonna gang up on somebody the LEAST decent thing you can do is give him the right to say a few words in his own defense. All this other stuff is just simple obfuscation which evades the point. This isn't a flamefest (or at least it's not suppose to be). Youtube comment section is over that way --> Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See, here is my issue with your remark. You are making personal attacks. You have not demonstrated any understanding of how commons operates. And you are trying to lecture us on how to handle user disputes. That doesn't compute. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 05:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
You're probably right in that I don't understand how commons operates. That's different from *knowing* how commons operates.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've managed to completely ignore the substance of my remarks. Pieter has the chance to defend himself, engage with the issues, and seek solutions that will allow his continued participation without ignoring his concerns - he seems uninterested in doing this (so far, anyway). He could even ask for a conditional unblock (unblock solely to participate on this page and no other, per en:Wikipedia:BLOCK#Temporary_circumstances_unblocks, which I added to the en.wp policy a while back) - I'd do that if he seemed willing to start engaging. Rd232 (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information: this page has been brought up at w:User talk:Jimbo Wales#Commons, again. --Avenue (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email from Pieter

(EC)I wrote to Pieter yesterday to hear about his thought regarding my proposal to transclude a section from his talk page into this subpage. Here is his response, which he has allowed me to quote. --Slaunger (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kim,

Thank you for your kindness but I am traveling and my mind is on other things. Without a real computer editing would also be too cumbersome. You may quote this mail.

The least that should be required in Findungs Of Fact would be some diffs. I resent the accusations. Blocking me was against policy in com:block.

Otherwise, my banning may hurt Commons and the Projects more than me. I feel no real need to have my photos exhibited on Commons. And I have no problem to find other ways of spending my time than diffusing physics categories. Or trying to save images fromdeletion. Anyway deletionists seem to have won the upper hand. For example Thuresson lately. Commons is now enforcing an effectively perpetual ban on using photos by unknown authors.

Best regards,

Pieter

PK is wrong about COM:BLOCK, which explicitly states: "Accounts and IP addresses which are used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked." and "An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may and should also be blocked." PK may be thinking of the clause "Tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is not harassment.", but in fact PK's immediate response to any conflict has been to nominate a few of that user's files indiscriminately for deletion, which does not constitute "tracking a user's contributions", but retaliation. --Claritas (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Pieter believed what he was doing was OK (and up to a point I agreed), rather than disputing what he was doing. Others disagree that it's OK. Asking for diffs in this situation lacks a clear purpose (if it isn't time-wasting). Rd232 (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He can look at his edits he made as an IP while evading his existing then 1 month block. How many times was this exact same issue on user disputes? He can look at those too. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
+PK is not banned. He should be welcome to come back when he recognises the issues with his behaviour and stops socking. We don't even have official bans here. --Claritas (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Pieter_Kuiper&oldid=73073062"