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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

• Messi112 (talk · contribs) - Continued uploads of news agency photos, File:Fabregas and his teammate Lionel Messi.jpg and File:Fabregas playing for Barcelona in the UEFA Champions League.jpg, after being asked to stop. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but his last uploads (now gone) happened already 2 days ago. Should be blocked immediately with next copyvio upload. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SIDDHARTHSB.MECH (talk · contribs) has repeatedly uploaded copyvio images - including today images that were previously deleted by admins. He is also a problem editor on Wikipedia. Can someone deal? --Biker Biker (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for three days. Courcelles (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user continues uploading unfree image after warning. Can he/she be blocked?--Quan (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This new user doesn't listen to more experienced users und tries to press home (by edit war) overcategorization and an inappropriate description of his File:Liechtenstein 2004 -019 Junger Rhein von Triesenberg in Liechtenstein betrachtet.JPG. He's also spamming several projects with his low quality, low resolution pictures with bad descriptions. Please note that "Junger Rhein" ("Young Rhine") is not a geographical term, but a poetic line from the national anthem of Liechtenstein. Mixing it with geographical terms here is misleading. --Sitacuisses (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the quality of an experience user when he shows it very selective. please comment always your changes of files. and in case when you comment doesn't push again and again new comments while the further comments just are resolved. --Neptuul (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really no one who can get Dr. Kuiper to stay away from my work?!? Please see his contribution history as of 19:13, 24 October 2011 and then resuming at 19:24, 24 October 2011! No discussion anywhere (in answer to this for example), he just reverts the categories then proceeds to remove them from all 5 the photos in the category where the Southerly Clubs has been involved in contributing the images. His bias and selective bullying is very evident this time, as he stared at 19:28, 24 October 2011 to edit 21 other travelers and recategorized them very efficiently, none of the images were contributed by the Southerly Clubs, of course. We were just mutilated and left.

Questions:

1. . Is Category:Travellers really only to be used for "explorers" as Kuiper puts it?
2. , Why not rename it then so that so many of us will not misunderstand our first language and think that it's actually for travelers?
3. . When, if ever, can someone with clout get Kuipoer to stop stalking, hounding and bullying us in this selective manner?

Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "Traveller" by your definition? Wknight94 ^talk 22:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Travellers" seems too vague to be useful. I vote either scrapping it or turning it into a meta-category and recategorizing its contents as needed. Since we already have Category:Explorers and Category:Tourists the remaining group that needs to have a category would be business travelers - Category:Business travelers or Category:People traveling for business reasons or Category:People traveling who are not tourists or explorers --Kramer Associates (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he means gypsies and the like. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Roma people and Category:Irish Travellers. At the moment Category:Travellers contains only:

1. People noted for their travels e.g. Ibn Battuta‎ and
2. People doing touristy things

I recommend creating Category:People noted for their travels for the first group.

I have similar concern with Category:Visitors. Just sounds like Tourists again. Wknight94 ^talk 03:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woodzing is complaining here because of File talk:Wild Side Story 1974 Tour.jpg. Maybe he should be told not to abuse this notice board for trifles? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly surprised :) however I agree with Pieter. Definitely over cat'ing in my opinion too and reverted correctly by PK in the example above. I do not see this as an admin board issue - discuss but this is a wiki. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ResolvedBlocked by an admin

DeeperQA (talk · contribs) needs to be indef'd here. He's already indef'd as a sock on wikipedia. He signed on here for the sole purpose of uploading a crude (and wrong-headed) illustration attacking wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that his latest comments include something resembling a "legal threat". I don't know about commons, but on wikipedia that is grounds for automatic indefinite block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user was blocked in July 2010 for uploading non-free files. He's back, uploading more non-free files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - blocked and thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ClemRutter is removing nude categories without any valid reason. Please, can an admin try to explain him ? And can any bot undo all his removings ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has continued to upload copyvio's after repeated warnings and final warning of possible block. Warfieldian ^(talk) 16:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -  Done --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion policy indicates when a duplicated file is deleted, it should be redirected to the kept version. Likewise, when a file is moved the redirect should be kept (unless it is recent upload, name is misleading... etc). The reasoning for this is to prevent breaking links for external users.

OSX has renamed a number of his uploads, for example File:2002-2004 Land Rover Discovery (MY03) V8 5-door wagon 01.jpg to File:2002-2004 Land Rover Discovery (MY03) V8 5-door wagon (2009-08-22).jpg. This particular redirect should be kept (original upload over 2 years ago and not misleading = keep to prevent harm to external users), and its worth noting that this particular move would probably be declined as a rename request as its a case of merely "looking better".

Over the past few months both Tony Wills and myself, have repeatedly requested that OSX does not tag these redirects with {{Speedy}}. I reverted the speedy-tagging of this redirect; and OSX reverted again (by a misuse of rollback). Same applies to File:2002-2004 Land Rover Discovery II V8 5-door wagon 01.jpg

Could others look at this please?-Nilfanion (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's too hard for you, then I will not be uploading any more images. Take your pick. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Bye.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects have now been deleted by Denniss, I've asked him to comment here. There's a double redirect going on here, as OSX moved the file twice in a minute. The intermediate file is redundant, as it only existed for a few seconds, but the original should redirect to the final destination for reasons I've stated above (its not a speedy, a MY03 Discovery is a Discovery II - so still not misleading).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, that those redirects should not have been deleted. Furthermore, I think OSX is using the rollback and move tools in an inappropriate way. I suggest warning the user and revoking these privileges in case of repeated abuse. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. No wonder people are leaving this project in droves. I'm certainly considering it. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, User talk:High Contrast#No source tagging indicates that there is a serious problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I see it correctly that there was just one strange (non-admin action) edit? "compromised admin account" and "serious" sound more severe for me. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes even one small thing is a symptom of big trouble. If High Contrast truly did not make an edit (adding a no permission template) that the file history shows High Contrast as doing, then something is very wrong. Either we have a bug or someone else is using High Contrast's account.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High Contrast could change his password - log off and relogin (maybe also on the old secure server) then he would be the only owner again (taking aside a trojan infection). I suspect it could be a JS error in the QuickDel script or a accidental click on the no source link. Maybe induced by a browser bug. Would be helpful to know what actions HC has done at the file page (clicked anything other?). --Saibo (Δ) 14:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper seems to have gone back to his old habit of harrassing people who he feels have done something he disagrees with - Saibo started a deadmin request on Jcb and, less than 10mins later, Kuiper posts a sarcastic remark and the next day nominates three Saibo uploads for deletion.

While the requests may be grounded in fact, it is impossible to dispute that this is just the latest example of Kuiper attacking people he feels have slighted him in some manner. How much longer are we going to lie back and accept this? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - certainly more the old style of behaviour here - a pity as things had been far better (IMO). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At is an attempt at exposing Saibo's double standards: nominating and renominating and renominating File:Panorama Berliner Olympiastadion-Glockenturm.jpg, while self uploading File:Commerzbank-Arena-Luftbild.jpg and other non-street-level photos of recent buildings in Germany. And we now have several admins that are aware of File:OE Award.png without doing anything about it. Just telling me off. There is clearly a problem when an admin removes the A.D.A.M. watermark in copyrighted images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info: File:Cellulite-2.jpg - that is the possibly and apparently (DR) copyrighted image where I removed a watermark from a image which I had not uploaded originally in assumption that it is PD-gov four(!) years ago. I am glad that Pieter didn't find really problematic files while digging through my uploads. Thanks, Pieter, for checking all my uploads for problems. :-) --Saibo (Δ) 17:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with mattbuck's statement except the "grounded in fact" part. (See File talk:Bolsa de Comercio Rosario 1.jpg.) —LX (talk, contribs) 16:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I went by Saibo's own extreme standards, I would have nominated several other images. Sometimes Saibo credulously accepts declarations of "own work" for 1925 photos, see File talk:Bengen Emmy und Harold Hiddensee.jpg. But he nomiminates anonymous WWI images like File:Shooting on an Italian airplane over Mte Chiesa.jpg and renominates and renominates when he does not get his way. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's a response to my comment, which was about your destructive, disruptive, incorrect and careless nomination of a file uploaded by an innocent bystander (whom you failed to notify). You nominated it not because you care about what's best for Commons, but because you were looking to avenge a copyright violator who had been temporarily blocked by User talk:ALE!. This is the essence and the effect of your behaviour, which is not by any means limited to Saibo. Your involvement with Commons is not for the good of Commons. You're involved, by your own admission, to make a point about your dislike of Commons' administrators and of the working atmosphere of Commons. You do this through deletion nomination sprees aimed at contributors who you handpick because you disagree with them in some way. This behaviour has caused endless amounts of drama in the past, has driven contributors away, and has led you to be blocked on several occasions – yet you persist. That is, when you're not busy calling people names. Your actions are a timesink and a net loss to the project. And this is me putting it as diplomatically as possible. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I failed to see the original upload, thank you for finding it, but undoubtedly Saibo would have enlightened me too. I tagged because there was insufficient information on the file page - that happens all the time. That was because the original upload had disappeared from the thumbnails. Your accusations about me failing to notify the original uploader are drama without base - the original upload was not on the file page. You have also tagged files that could easily be removed. As to namecalling, please direct you comments to Woodzing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you're dodging the issue and projecting your mistakes and deliberate transgressions onto others. I don't know why you expect Saibo to fix mistakes you made because you were trying to attack ALE! Perhaps if you'd be less motivated by personal vengeance, you'd have the wits about you to consider looking at the page history. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it goes on and on in a never-ending carte blanche for Dr. Kuiper to behave like this, because of "all his valuable contributions". I guess Commons would just collapse without him, huh? Stalking, hounding, false accusations, insults - never-ending. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time when I defended Pieter (sorry, Serge) because he does a great deal of useful work here, but I, too, have reached the end of my willingness to put up with him. As I once said to him, I really don't understand why he puts in thousands of hours on a project on which he continually tells us all about his lack of respect for everyone involved.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to help colleagues like Reimarspohr (talk · contribs) and other uploaders and users against deletionists like Jameslwoodward. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except if they are people you despise for your own personal reasons. Them you never help, only stalk, snap at, hound, insult, ridicule and go out of your way to try to make their work time on WP as miserable and disagreeable and foolish (!!!!!) as possible. Your never-ending hate grudges, sleazily deceptive methods and incorrigibly belligerent behavior absolutely disgust me, as does your obvious opinion of yourself as faltless, flawless and papaly infallible, and the poor excuse that you do "so much good work" and should be allowed to continue to be the rudest, most aggressive and depressing user in all the WM projects (I have a right to my opinion) is just sickening. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was rude. And File:Leo Poster.jpg is a COM:DW of a copyrighted poster. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was nothing, compared to the 3 years of abject misery I have now gone through just about every time I've had try to deal with you constructively, and then the scores of others you've mistreated over and over and over and over again. And your comment just backs my point about your obvious opinion of yourself as faultless, flawless and papaly infallible. You'll never change. That's what’s so discouraging and frightening about you. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that poster collage was created in its entirety by Lars Jacob in 1969. About 1000 people know that. It still exists and is prominently displayed in an office in Stockholm. Anything else you'd like to stalk today? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than been diplomatic and respectful by staying away, Kuiper continues to try to irritate (hound) me by picking at about one image a day that he knows I'll see (Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives), just to show us all that he does as he pleaes with no restraint. Is anyone ever going to get him to leave all those images alone? If there is anything wrong with a few of the 1000+ images, can't we let someone else find the problems, or must we continue to permit this constant contentious stalking? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is right with some of the questions he is aksing regarding this Southerly images. The 'one image a day' problem... Look, you are not very open for questions or ideas or problems if it comes to this images or the categories. You hit the roof in some cases. Better asking in small portions. --Martin H. (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I am open to all constructive criticism and love sincere help to correct mistakes we have made. There is a lot of evidence of that. Kuiper's criticism is never constructive. Even if he has found a very small amount of legitimate problems, his input is not constructive because he knows we want him to leave us alone and let other editors deal with those few problems. A vast majority of Kuiper's complaints against these images have turned out to be unfounded and worthless. I have long been convinced that he only does this to hound us, not for the benefit of Commons.

Your accusations are unfounded and very unfair. I am not open to personal cruelty and persecution. Just about everything else is fine with me.

Here I am om the defensive again. So, what else is new? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS Kuiper was extremely, ingratiatingly helpful and instrumental in helping us create the Southerly Clubs template and then (2008) encouraged us to use it for any and all images we had, giving us no other guidance or warnings of any kind. Then one of us did something that rubbed him the wrong way politically (as he thought) and his campaign of hateful stalking has been unrelenting since then. That's the real background here. I've provided the links to prove it several times. We have been very severely duped by Kuiper, and that's the main reason we would like him to stay away. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not read the entire discussion here but I wanted to add that Pieter Kuiper has a strange way of handling discussions that do not go his way. I blocked an Italian user for repeatingly uploading copyvios after warning. As I did not unblock him as Pieter Kuiper requested, he started to tag some of my uploads with "no permission", "no source" and other 'close to copyvio' tags. None of his accusations were true. But it keeps me and him busy. Said, very said. He should reconsider waht he does because otherwise it might happen that some admin will block him. (But it will not be me. You can be sure of that!) --ALE! ¿…? 08:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent and very typical example in several ways. Thank youi! SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting interesting: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Unasur member states German.PNG, File talk:Bandera de los andes - san martin - bandera de mendoza.jpg. --ALE! ¿…? 10:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This a particularly good example of retribution because the clear source of this German version of a map is the English and Spanish versions, but Kuiper tagged only the version that ALE! produced. If there is a problem here (and I don't think there is), it would be the same on all three versions.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

en:WP:Other stuff exists. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, now that we can see that Pieter engages in vindictive attacks on people he doesn't like via deletion requests and the like, I ask, what are we going to do about it? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start a request for comment from the community at large? – Adrignola talk 13:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are at Commons and not at the English Wikipedia. --ALE! ¿…? 14:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Commons should have such a process too. Certainly the two sections about Pieter on this page don't impress me in terms of evidence of deliberate bad behaviour, yet there are quite a few users who seem to have issues. This is exactly the sort of situation in which I would, on en.wp, recommend an RFC/U, as a more structured way of examining issues and hopefully reaching a conclusion by voluntary agreement among users. RFC/U on en.wp is often seen as unsatisfactory, but it is still better than the unstructured ad hoc format of noticeboards, not least because it encourages a focus on proposed solutions to problems, and not just an airing of complaints. Rd232 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, two sections started by an admin with an axe to grind and a history with Pieter Kuiper and a user that generates more heat than light regarding anything related to Pieter. I'm not defending him, because frankly he can be an ass and he definitely doesn't help himself, but it's the same old Kuiper-haters that start these discussions and waste the most community time.

Pieter is clearly not the only problem here, formal interaction bans would be a start, particularly with SergeWoodzing. Getting some kind of consensus of whether a "revenge" deletion nomination is a personal attack, let alone blockable offense, would be another, bearing in mind that if the file he nominates is a copyvio (and usually he is right with licensing) it has to go regardless of whether you are personally annoyed that he nominated it.

Pieter was blocked for his "Wall of Shame" on the whim of a few admins who found it unacceptable that he was detailing their admin decisions (as precent and therefore useful), yet there is a whole page "naming and shaming" Kuiper but nothing is done about it. Admins regularly tag legitimate "own work" and "PD-old" files as "no source" without discrimination causing the loss of contributors and valuable old works, Pieter does it to admin uploads (admittedly to make a point) and he's vilified for it. These are the types of double standards no-one takes notice of because it's Kuiper that brings them up. It makes the admin corps look corrupt and only interested in circling the wagons to defend each other.

And what exactly is the problem with him nominating files for deletion in response to disagreements with admins? If the only problem is that he irritates a few cliquey admins then I say tough, live with it, let it go, ignore it or learn from it. Admins aren't above the law, the rest of us might feel annoyed when our files are nominated for deletion too. If it rids Commons of copyvios or improves the sourcing or licensing of existing files then it's a good thing. From afar it seems to boil down to some people just don't like Pieter and they are in a position of influence and power to do something about it. 109.155.149.128 21:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a more structured approach to solving this sort of issue (Commons doesn't have an RFC/U system), can we try and make some suggestions as to what people want to see Pieter do or not do? If there are concrete suggestions for action, maybe some voluntary agreement can be reached. And if this is attempted and fails, it should be clearer whether any kind of sanction is at all plausible. Without trying for solutions, it seems we're just getting repeated complaints, and nothing changes. Rd232 (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal: Kuiper stays away from any files uploaded by any representative of the Southerly Clubs (he knows who) and from any and all work I am a principle contributor to or worker on. If he sees any serious problem with any such work, he can ask somebody else in a civil manner to deal with it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. From what I see, Pieter Kuiper search for any minor bug in the mostly good contributions by SergeWoodzing, because, basically, Pieter don't like him. Just look at User talk:SergeWoodzing -- it's filled with deletion warnings by Pieter, and most of the nominated files were kept. Looks like an obvious example of harassment that destroys the collaborative atmosphere of Commons and should be stopped. --Trycatch (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment We needn't agree that this was deliberate harassment; but it seems clear that these interactions are causing problems, and avoiding them would help. If Pieter can agree to this it would be a start. Can you, Pieter? Rd232 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I do not like is the blanket OTRS ticket that Jcb has given to Southerly Clubs. And I am not in the habit of renominating, but Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pau 2 20101028.JPG was not decided according to policy. Also, the Angela Romeo photo was a very real copyright problem until Woodzing managed to secure permission. But of course, I can grant Woodzing the same privileged status of being exempt from scrutiny. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know about the blanket OTRS ticket (or even what that means). If that's an issue, then raise it somewhere appropriate. For the rest, the proposal is not to exempt anyone from scrutiny, it is to stop you interacting with Woodzing (and some others), since those interactions are causing problems. If you agree to the restriction, you would still be able to point out any problems you come across to a third party. Rd232 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tried to discuss the highly irregular Southerly-Clubs-ticket at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 13#.232010092510008875 Southerly Clubs - no answers, really. Woodzing has a pattern of complaining at admin boards, see en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Stalked forever (and earlier) where they are telling him that he has no case. But he is so sensitive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right now there are a number of users, including at least one admin, who want to ban you indefinitely. Whatever the rights and wrongs of what is no doubt a long and complex history, if you're not willing to make concessions to help avoid problems, then I can't help you. Commons is a big place; don't tell me you simply can't avoid this Southerly Clubs part of it. Rd232 (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal: Kuiper is banned from commons
  • a: indefinitely.

 Support _→AzaToth 18:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support - regardless of good work, PK ends up here every other week, and has made life miserable for many, many people. Every time we debate and the harrassment just continues. PK has shown himself incapable of changing - let's end this. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • b: for a year.
  • c: for a month.

• Proposal: Kuiper is prohibited from engaging in deletion discussions and/or nominate files for deletion
• Proposal: Kuiper is prohibited from nominate files for deletion which was uploaded over a month ago

For the record, Pieter has been blocked twelve times in the last two years for bad behavior (the total is actually 18, but the other six were reblocks over the same incident). The 18 total blocks were applied by 11 different Admins:

• 9 October 2011 (brief) Vandalism: Disruptive editing, making a deletion request just to prove a point and then arguing to keep the file in question.
• 6 July 2011 (brief) Removing "problem" templates from images after warnings.
• 7 December 2010 (month) Intimidating behaviour/harassment:
• 4 October 2010 (week) continuing to edit war over Latuff image categorisation
• 25 August 2010 (ten days)Intimidating behaviour/harassment: User picked up exactly where he left off, with accusations of lying, threats of deadminship, etc, and that "wall of shame" still exists. We're better off without Pieter.
• 24 July 2010 (month) Continued issues after repeated warnings and blocks.
• 7 July 2010 (week) Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Revenge deletion:
• 9 June 2010 (brief) Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Uploading Latuff images again
• 6 May 2010 (day) disruption
• 6 April 2010 (day) Trolling file deletion pages to make a point about something he's already been warned about.
• 18 December 2009 (week) Disruption, particularly Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Latuff nazi camp 2.png
• 22 November 2009 (brief) editwarring

I don't think, therefore, that we're looking for a limited sanction. I think the question must be whether we are ready to say that enough is enough and that Commons would be better off without his disruptive behavior. I say that with the full knowledge that he has 91,000 global edits, including 56,000 on Commons and that we will miss most of his work here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only the last two incidents are in 2011. Perhaps there is room for a last chance, possibly with a voluntary agreement to help Pieter avoid problem areas? Rd232 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget this one -- it's really three in 2011 -- and there's no evidence that he learns from being blocked. I'm not sure what problem areas you could lay out -- he creates problems wherever he works.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent block by Rosenzweig (talk · contribs) was really silly: I was blocked for following the (admittedly weird) instructions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see there were just 2 incorrect blocks of Pieter Kuiper in 2011, both of them were lifted in a matter of minutes. Of course some problems that should be solved are still present (mainly harassment of users via targeting of their contributions), but there is a serious progress since 2010. Trycatch (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference needed: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3APieter+Kuiper

AdamCuerden (talk · contribs) is very prominent there. Almost all blocks were quickly overturned. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eight of the twelve were a day or more and they total more than three months.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vacations :) Anyway, block reasons were for example people getting upset about me expressing my opinions on admin decisions on my user page; yet User:Saibo "Censorship via the backdoor" seems perfectly fine. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just count block log entries. I created a system on en.wp for annotating the block log because of the errors that occur this way; we could consider importing it. Anyway, looking at the 9 Oct block/unblock, discussed here, I don't think you can count that as a strike against Pieter. The 6 July block should also be discounted, given that it was removed with the remark "incorrect block". I could go back further, but this already means that Pieter has not had a block stand in 2011, which is long enough that we shouldn't be rushing to shove him out of the door. Rd232 (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather disgusting vandalism to another user's page. Certainly deserves some consequences. I'd go as far as a permanent ban and a check on who else uses the same IP address. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Sorted thanks (& CU :)) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tubgirl... not seen that for a while. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello community

I request to be blocked indefinitely. I'm busy with my study for my next exams and I'm tired of contributing here. Moreover, my presence on Commons will be a dissatisfaction to somebody. Therefore, indefinite block will prevent me of coming to Commons so that I can't be distracted. Again, thank people who has helped me recently.

Note: Please delete my user and talk page and tell me how to get blocked globally or delete my account forever (if possible). This will be my last conversation here. Thank you very much--Quan (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you have decided this? Last week you wanted to be an admin. Frankly, no matter what people do, there will be people who are unhappy about it, even if all you do is upload pictures of cute bunnies. You have to be moderately thick-skinned in this place unfortunately. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's hard to decide this. I have wasted a lot of time on Commons while I'm only a high school student. My study program is rather heavy and I am going to have many exams, so you can see that I am less active in this week. So I will have a big wiki break. Moreover, I admit that I (may be) addicted to Commons. Sometimes, I can hardly think about anything else except for my work on Commons. That somewhat makes me feel tired. Now, I want to change it. I will stay away from here for a while. Maybe, a block can do that. When I am better, I will request for unblock and continue working here. So goodbye, see you again--118.71.133.101 09:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Administrators/Requests/Blue Marble; multiple names are confusing. Good luck with your studies. Take good care of yourself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear your decision to leave and withdraw your RFA; I hope Jcb's comment was not too big a factor. However I do sympathise with the decision, having done a similar thing in leaving en.wp (and resigning adminship). Whether you come back one day when you have more time or not, please don't feel your time here was wasted, I'm sure your many contributions are a valuable part of the history of this volunteer project, and that isn't going to change. All the best, Rd232 (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to lose any editor, especially a good candidate for administrator. I see that Adrignola has fulfilled Blue Marble's user page deletion request, consistent with the precedent of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_24#Restoration_of_deleted_user_pages. I don't think we delete talk pages because activity such as DR's that require notifications may occur in the future. I don't see in the Commons:Blocking policy explicit mention of blocking at the request of the user. While unusual, I think that it could be granted as long as it is clear from the log entry that it was done at the request of the user and may be reversed upon request. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of blocking logs on WP show entries "per user request", "Benutzerwunsch" or similar. I do not think that there is a need for an official policy for that any user could be unbureaucratically blocked and consecutively unblocked if this is someone's own wish. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

36 hours after his explicit own request, I have indef-blocked the account Blue Marble/Quan and put a "blocked by own wish"-note on his talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact he requested to "get blocked globally". Blue Marble, please ask for this at m:Steward_requests/Global#Requests_for_global_.28un.29lock_and_.28un.29hiding if you still want it. I am sad to loose you, thanks for the work you have done and all the best for your exams/studies! --Saibo (Δ) 16:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HappyMarc1 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly uploaded non-free album covers to Commons under false free licenses. There are over 30 notices and deletion tags for such on his talk page over the last 2 months, yet he continues to upload non-free album covers to Commons as recently as today. He evidently does not understand the nature of Commons or is simply unwilling to read the warnings or follow policy. Blocking may be warranted. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]