It concerns me greatly that Commons seems unable to deal with a user who, at
various times, has attacked a Jew with anti-semitic cartoons, has thrown
racist abuse at a German theen harassed that user - and still has numbers of
admins willing to unblock him, simply because he does supposedly good work
on Deletion reviews. Diod I mention the Jew was blocked for several months
for A SINGLE COMPLAINT ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOUR?
Pieter has harassed numerous users away from contributing to Wikipedia. That
he is still editing after all he's done is disgraceful. Commons'
administration has clearly failed, and failed horribly.
A list of evidence follows:
The most recent incident was racist abuse against a German user, followed by
harassment
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martin_H.&curid=11…http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Farrel.jpg and
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Tiotio.jpg
The report, which before I noticed and acted upon it was full of people
claiming that racist abuse was fine, and that Pieter was being harassed by
being called out on it, is here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use…
Pieter has a block log as long as your arm:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3APiet…
However, he also has an unblock log, where the same few admins constantly
unblock him, without insisting on a change in the problematic behaviour.
This is a user who gets serial warnings and second chances, all the time
becoming bolder and bolder.
A few past incidents will suffice:
The Wall of Shame incident, and the Havang_nl harassment.
Pieter's modus operandi has been to attempt to harass admins who do things
he dislikes by scouring their image uploads to find something to request
deletion on. The validity of these deletions varies in quality, and are
often grasping at straws. Several of the blocks in the block log are for
this.
One of the clearest incidents was when he attempted to refight old battles
where the DR had gone against him, attacking the admins who uploaded and the
admins who closed the DRs as keep. Here's the wall of shame he created.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APieter_Kuiper&action=…
The next few edits are him editwarring to keep the Wall of Shame up. He got
blocked for this. He made an unblock, and Havang_nl denied it. So he
promptly attacked Havang.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APieter_Kuiper&ac…
----
I believe there were other incidents involving antisemitic cartoons being
used to attack Mbz1, a Jew, but one can be found here, where he constantly
insists on including a cartoon which he knows will upset said Jew.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper/Arch…http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper/Arch…http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper/Arch…
this was followed by a WP:POINTy FPC nomination
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:…
It's clear that Commons cannot handle him, and I beseech the Foundation to
step in, investigate the matter, and deal with it. I also think that every
administrator invoilved in defending him, and encouraging the harassment of
other users, should lose their admin rights.
In a message dated 12/9/2010 2:51:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com writes:
> yes it would be great. As i said, it could just include all pages
> listed as REF pages and that would allow people to review the results
> and find pages that should not belong.
>
> We also need to cache all these pages, best would be with a revision
> history. It should be similar to or using archive.org.
>
We would not be able to do that for copyright reasons.
Some if not most of the refs are still under copyright, we cannot make
copies of those pages.
That won't help much.
If I understand your email correctly, you want the information in order to
protest on pt.wiki - either about your name being used or about being
blocked for mentioning other users' names.
There are problems with this.
1. The thread started by saying it is inaccurate to use a tag line "the
only person ruled by an arbcom under a real name (in the title)". Cases
exist (eg enwiki Arbcom)
2. Each project is independent. What enwiki does may truthfully be
different from ruwiki, ptwiki, dewiki. wikis can be very different and their
internal decisions on these things can be compared but it is not going to
persuade anyone about pt.wiki, if you try and argue about events on some
other wiki.
3. Even on a single wiki, treatment may vary within context. For example
on enwiki a user may be blocked indefinitely for naming another user's real
name, or an arbcom case may even be named after a real name. What is the
difference? In the first case the real name was not public, in the second
case the real name was also their username. So a lot varies depending on
context and community.
4. You may be the only person dealt with under a real name *by pt-arbcom*.
But nobody has said you were or weren't.
Hope this helps?
FT2
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam(a)fct.unl.pt>wrote:
> 1) No real names will be disclosed on this list on account of the request
> made.
>
> 2) No action is asked or expected.
>
> These two personal commitments are important before answering an
> absolutely legitimate request for clarification: "why [is] this issue
> of such [...] importance to the thread-creator."
>
> It is very important for this user. Most are now familiar with the
> use of his real name by the pt.wiki arbcom.
>
>
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09…
> and
>
>
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitrage…
>
> That never bothered the user or the foregone decision to filter his
> edits for infinity, a period that far exceeds his expected natural
> life. The 53 irregularities that overshadowed the case bothered him a
> great deal more.
>
> What is not so well known is that four months later, while quietly
> working on a new subpage, after listing the real names of two users,
> this was used against him and eventually led to him being blocked or
> banned (depending on the page you look at) for infinity, by the same
> administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and arbcom member (hopefully no
> title was left out) that led the arbcom in the case using his real name.
>
> It is very important for the pt.wiki.
>
> The governance of the pt.wiki is in such disrepair that this user
> felt compelled to gather as much information as possible on a Meta
> page. Soon, that work was under attack by the same user mentioned
> above and one of his accomplices, and his now on hold as a user subpage:
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governa…
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_go…
>
> This modest work was started in May 4, 2010, well before the
> following reports on Meta:
>
> October 2010 -
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Lestaty_de_Lioncourt/Archive/Octobe…
>
> November 2010 -
>
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12…
>
>
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitrage…
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards'_noticeboard
>
> It is very important to the communities at large.
>
> Unaware of the existence of this essay
> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kylu/Essay and
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kylu/Essay), this user
> opened a request for comment on Meta on "What is public and
> non-public personal information?"
> (
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-public_pe…
> and
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-publ…
> )
> which brought to the fore some of fears, tabus and misconceptions
> that are quite widespread on Wikimedia projects.
>
> It is hoped that the above explanations fully justify the statement
> that the user was interested in the information requested "For
> reasons of the utmost importance, not only to this user but to the
> communities at large." as it would provide more evidence of real
> names being used, without leading to the blocking or banning of the
> arbcoms that used them in the TITLE of a case.
>
> Due to the sensitivity of the matter, this user wishes to withdraw
> his request, and apologizes for any anxiety he might have caused in
> some members of this list. What happened to him is evidence enough.
> If there are no further questions concerning this request, it will
> now be considered closed. For inquires, opinions, and/or debate about
> other matters mentioned above, both this user and the listed talk
> pages are available to all.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)
> "Co-author" of "A civilized community"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Comment_draft
>
>
> At 01:17 09-12-2010, you wrote:
> >On the English Wikipedia, we generally try to avoid bringing editors' real
> >names into decisions, unless the username is the real name. In the three
> >years I've been an arbitrator, we have extended this courtesy even to some
> >highly troublesome users. (Aficionadoes of the En-WP arbitration pages
> will
> >recognize the "Mantanmoreland" and "MZMcBride 2" cases as examples.)
> >
> >I am not clear, however, on why this issue of such such importance to the
> >thread-creator.
> >
> >Newyorkbrad
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Hello,
I don't like to send emails like this but I don't see a solution other than
this.
I understand that we need money to keep the Wikimedia Foundation running,
and yes I support the fundraiser and I donated money. But do we want money
because we told people other things than the truth I find it kind of strange
and very disturbing that there are things that currently being used to get
money from visitors while those things are simply wrong.
First we have the donating landing page and it say's
Together, we can keep it free of charge and free of advertising. We can keep
it open – you can use the information in Wikipedia any way you want. We can
keep it growing – spreading knowledge everywhere, and inviting participation
from everyone...
*free of charge*
The content on Wikipedia is written under a free license that means
everybody can use in all ways saying that Wikipedia will be a payed source
of information will just be wrong because all the content is on mirrors and
even if it goes bad it will always be free for everybody somewhere.
Secondly:
There is a banner saying Sue is the Director of Wikipedia and there is a
discussion about that where somebody of the fundraising team say's that they
are testing what gives more money... Telling people Sue the director of
Wikipedia or Sue the Director for the Wikimedia Foundation...
But the Fundraising team knows that they are wrong because the Sue's letter
says: *Wikipedia will always be free* (
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:2010/SueLetterA/en)
But let us ask the quistion: Do we want to make this our best fundraiser
knowing we didn't tell the truth about things or do we think we can be open
and clear about roles, functions and facts? I hope we choose the last
option.
--
Regards,
Huib "Abigor" Laurens
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
1) No real names will be disclosed on this list on account of the request made.
2) No action is asked or expected.
These two personal commitments are important before answering an
absolutely legitimate request for clarification: "why [is] this issue
of such [...] importance to the thread-creator."
It is very important for this user. Most are now familiar with the
use of his real name by the pt.wiki arbcom.
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09…
and
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitrage…
That never bothered the user or the foregone decision to filter his
edits for infinity, a period that far exceeds his expected natural
life. The 53 irregularities that overshadowed the case bothered him a
great deal more.
What is not so well known is that four months later, while quietly
working on a new subpage, after listing the real names of two users,
this was used against him and eventually led to him being blocked or
banned (depending on the page you look at) for infinity, by the same
administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and arbcom member (hopefully no
title was left out) that led the arbcom in the case using his real name.
It is very important for the pt.wiki.
The governance of the pt.wiki is in such disrepair that this user
felt compelled to gather as much information as possible on a Meta
page. Soon, that work was under attack by the same user mentioned
above and one of his accomplices, and his now on hold as a user subpage:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governa…http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_go…
This modest work was started in May 4, 2010, well before the
following reports on Meta:
October 2010 -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Lestaty_de_Lioncourt/Archive/Octobe…
November 2010 -
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12…http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitrage…http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards'_noticeboard
It is very important to the communities at large.
Unaware of the existence of this essay
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kylu/Essay and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kylu/Essay), this user
opened a request for comment on Meta on "What is public and
non-public personal information?"
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-public_pe…
and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-publ…)
which brought to the fore some of fears, tabus and misconceptions
that are quite widespread on Wikimedia projects.
It is hoped that the above explanations fully justify the statement
that the user was interested in the information requested "For
reasons of the utmost importance, not only to this user but to the
communities at large." as it would provide more evidence of real
names being used, without leading to the blocking or banning of the
arbcoms that used them in the TITLE of a case.
Due to the sensitivity of the matter, this user wishes to withdraw
his request, and apologizes for any anxiety he might have caused in
some members of this list. What happened to him is evidence enough.
If there are no further questions concerning this request, it will
now be considered closed. For inquires, opinions, and/or debate about
other matters mentioned above, both this user and the listed talk
pages are available to all.
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)
"Co-author" of "A civilized community"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Comment_draft
At 01:17 09-12-2010, you wrote:
>On the English Wikipedia, we generally try to avoid bringing editors' real
>names into decisions, unless the username is the real name. In the three
>years I've been an arbitrator, we have extended this courtesy even to some
>highly troublesome users. (Aficionadoes of the En-WP arbitration pages will
>recognize the "Mantanmoreland" and "MZMcBride 2" cases as examples.)
>
>I am not clear, however, on why this issue of such such importance to the
>thread-creator.
>
>Newyorkbrad
Quite a lot of people know that Wikipedia is one of the 10 most popular
sites in the world.
Much less people notice that among the most popular Wikipedia is the only
one that doesn't sell them anything: Google has Adwords, Microsoft sells its
products and all the other websites have advertising banners or animations
of some kind. I didn't notice it until Sue Gardner mentioned it in a meet-up
in New York city last August. It is a very impressive piece of information;
since i heard it, i tell it to people and it makes them raise their
eyebrows. Sue mentioned BBC as the only popular website that gets anywhere
near Wikipedia in terms of being a non-profit, but even BBC shows some ads
in its videos.
I look at Alexa's top websites every few days and i see that this assertion
is quite true: among the top 100 Alexa websites there are usually no
non-profit organization. WordPress.org and Mozilla.org appear there
occasionally, but nothing except that (WordPress.com is high on that list,
but it shows ads on some blogs).
But is Alexa precise? Is it a good measurement of a website's popularity, or
should i base myself on a better ranking when i talk to people about it?
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
The "Google test" used to be a tool for checking the notability of a subject
or to find sources about it. For some languages it may be also used for
other purposes - for example in Hebrew, the spelling of which is not
established so well, it is very frequently used for finding the most common
spelling, especially for article titles. It was never the ultimate tool, of
course, but it was useful. With the proliferation of sites that
indiscriminately copy Wikipedia content it is becoming less and less useful.
For some time i used to fight this problem by adding "-site:wikipedia.org-site:
wapedia.mobi -site:miniwiki.org" etc. to my search queries, but i hit a
wall: Google limits the search string to 32 words, and today there are many
more than 32 sites that clone Wikipedia, so this trick is also becoming
useless.
I know that some Wikipedias customized Special:Search, adding other search
engines except Wikipedias built-in one. I tried to see whether any Wikipedia
added an ability to search using Google (or Bing, or Yahoo, or any other
search engine) excluding Wikipedia clones. Does anyone know whether it's
possible to build such a thing? And maybe it already exists and i didn't
search well enough?
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
Look up English Arbcom history. There have been several cases there. But
real people at Arbitration (whatever community) are best not publicized - we
aim not to harm real people.
A number of big cases included users under their real names, some smaller
ones were named under people's real names too. Check it out, if you like,
but please don't publicize a list.
FT2
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam(a)fct.unl.pt>wrote:
> Still practicing, after all these years.
>
> From the information provided to this list, it is reasonable to
> assume that other wikipedians, besides this one, have been dealt with
> by other arbcomcs, besides the pt.wiki arbcom, by their real names,
> like Virgilio A. P. Machado, NOT their user names, like Vapmachado.
>
> This page lists existing arbcoms:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_Committee
>
> For reasons of the utmost importance, not only to this user but to
> the communities at large, the assistance of the members of this list
> is asked in helping identifying as many of those cases as possible.
>
> This request for assistance is made, due to the dauting task of
> searching each and everyone of the arbcoms archives to find those
> examples. If readers provide information from the arbcoms with which
> they are most familiar, this could be a fine example of cooperative
> work. Given the assumption above, it is expected that the list member
> who classified the original sentence as "extremely inaccurate" would
> have no difficulty whatsoever in providing at least another example.
> The cooperation of the other readers would also help to justify the
> use of "extremely inaccurate." The mere occurrence of another case
> hardly justifies classifying an accuracy of 50 % as "extremely inaccurate."
>
> Please remember to provide a link to each case you may identify and
> would be so kind as to contribute to the gathering of that
> information. My own case can be found here:
>
>
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09…
> and
>
>
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitrage…
>
> Thank you so very much for your cooperation and understanding.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)
> The one that can be fooled by some people all of the time, by all the
> people some of the time, but not all of the people, all of the time.
>
>
> At 21:34 07-12-2010, you wrote:
> >When a person says "by an arbcom" it implies by one of several arbcoms
> that
> >exist. The word "an" (um/uma) suggests one of several/many.
> >
> >Perhaps more accurately "by the Portuguese Wikipedia Arbcom"?
> >
> >The term "for what it's worth" (or "as an aside") in English implies
> >information provided that may or may not be useful to the reader but is
> >given because it is possibly helpful.
> >
> >
> >FT2
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam(a)fct.unl.pt
> >wrote:
> >
> > > Let's see if perfect practice makes perfect.
> > >
> > > The quoted tag line, "The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by
> > > an arbcom by his real name, NOT his user name!" has been questioned
> > > has "extremely inaccurate."
> > >
> > > It was used right below a name and user name: "Virgilio A. P. Machado
> > > (Vapamachado)"
> > >
> > > Since the arbcom wiki was omitted, it was assumed that it would be
> > > understood that it referred to the user's "home wiki."
> > >
> > > What exactly is "extremely inaccurate" in the quoted text?
> > >
> > > If no clear explanation is provided by the author of that
> > > qualification, he or she should be kind enough to withdraw the
> > > comment and apologize.
> > >
> > > "for what it's worth" is an expression conveying bonhomie, helpful,
> > > friendly, or is it a put down, sneer, scornful, snooty comment, more
> > > akin to what is usually called here a "personal attack"?
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Virgilio A. P. Machado
> > > The one with only this tag line
> > >
> > >
> > > At 18:10 07-12-2010, you wrote:
> > > >On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <
> vam(a)fct.unl.pt
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by an arbcom by his
> real
> > > > > name, NOT his user name!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >This tag line is extremely inaccurate, for what it's worth.
> > > >
> > > >FT2.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
