Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 85

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | User problems

User:Sandy131419

Hello!

This user uploads images of naked women and their private parts. Right after the upload he marks them for deletion which makes no sense. After they've been deleted he uploads them again, at least in one case that I found. First I didn't think about reporting him since naked images per se isn't anything wrong but then I see that he was indef-blocked at zh.wiki. for vandalism only account so probably doesn't have the best of intentions by editing here.Jonteemil (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Blocked indefinitely. No useful contributions: en:WP:NOTHERE and en:WP:COMPETENCE. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Thanks for fast action - Jonteemil (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre

This administrator and checkuser has just ignited a wheel-war by re-doing a block configuration that a soon former admin disagreed with, despite the fact that the earlier comments Alexis made was removed by himself and he closed the discussion apologizing for his behavior. Not only that, but they’ve also deleted their user page. I’d like a review on these admin’s actions and whether a desysop is in order. 1989 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? Have we all lost our minds? Are we experiencing some sort of collective cabin fever from being in quarantine or something? Magog, what you did is the definition of a wheel war. There was no need to do that and is against everything an administrator should do. This has devolved into insanity. The deletion of the user page is just dancing on a grave and is conduct unbecoming. We are supposed to be the cool headed ones here. Please reconsider what you have done. This is turning into a nightmare. --Majora (talk)
It is with great sadness I have committed this action. This user has threatened physical violence and continues to do so against me and fellow admins. This has moved from the court of drama into real life. If you wish to take away my sysop bit for zealously enforcing the "don't threaten to kill administrators" policy, I'll take that fall. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
If you feel threatened in real life, then you should contact emergency wikimedia.org. Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand what exactly is the policy rationale behind your actions, anymore than I understand the policy rationale for the action I asked you about yesterday that you never responded to. GMGtalk 00:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  Note For edit warring and the misuse of administrative tools I have blocked Magog indefinitely pending this discussion. This has been one hell of a day and I was forced to do something I never thought I would do but there it is. For the record, I support the desysop of Magog the Ogre. --Majora (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed this totally abusive and disproportionate block. The blocking policy is clear in defining that the CUs are responsible for evaluating {{checkuserblock}}s. As checkuser, Magog the Ogre clearly has this power and doesn't matter if we like him or not; that's what the policy defines. Any user who obstructs this review is in violation of what our policy says and commits vandalism if insist on that (which is what 1989 did). Érico (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I did not block them for reviewing a checkuser block. I'm not entirely sure how I can get you to understand that. The community has every right to discuss every block. We serve them. We answer to them. Period. Closing that discussion is like saying the community doesn't matter. They were not reviewing a checkuser block. Alexis did not ask to be unblocked. They weren't responding to an {{Unblock}} template. The community was discussing it independently. Magog closing that thread had nothing to do with a "review" of any block. And edit warring to keep it that way and then blocking someone to keep it that way is insane. --Majora (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Érico: I think you need to very carefully consider your position here, in reversing another administrator's block for edit warring, and you should do so quickly. GMGtalk 00:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't disagree that the community has the power to discuss any block. However, it is the checkuser team who decide reviews of blocks made by them. And it is not a question of whether you like it or not; is what our policy says and we must follow it. And, forgive me, but it is sooo clear that the section was a block review that its title is "Block review: Alexis Jazz".
And GreenMeansGo, I will not going to undo my action of unblock. The sysop responsible for the block, two minutes after carrying out the action, encouraged everyone to step back. Blocking a checkuser indefinitely is anything but a "step back". Érico (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Érico: You are liable to lose your bit over this. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Backing off and reversing your action, and letting us discuss the issue seems like a much better option personally. GMGtalk 01:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
No. Stop. Enough. I'm fine with the unblocking. Leave it be. The thread is closed. 1989 said they wouldn't continue edit warring. Everyone needs to calm the hell down. The immediate situation has passed. Enough. --Majora (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
And my "abuse" was unblocking a checkuser who was indefinitely blocked for very weak reasons and no consensus. Very smart and constructive comment, Natuur12. Érico (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose especially for Érico whose unblock was just as justified as the one of 1989, who was edit warring to undo a close in what I think was an inappropriate manner. Neither should have been blocked, but both Majora and Magog acted in good faith, and I think Érico's actions were pretty much the only sensible way to move forward since a lot of heat has been generated here but little light. Everyone needs to take multiple steps back. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Desysop for Magog the Ogre. I didn't understand their attempt to unilaterally impose a banning policy that doesn't exist on Commons. I didn't understand the fact that they did not respond at all for requests for clarification through at least two pings at AN and a message on their talk page. I don't hope to understand why they took it upon themselves to delete the blocked user's user page, protect their talk page, edit war with another admin over a close, and block the other admin over the same. This is well beyond what is acceptable, and certainly not for someone trusted with advanced access beyond that of an adminstrator. GMGtalk 01:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • WTF. Magog the Ogre unilaterally bans someone, shuts down all discussion about it, and finally blocks another admin who dares disagree for overturning a non-existent "community decision". Who gave checkusers on Commons that kind of power?! Where's the accountability? clpo13(talk) 04:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose any more desysoping, blocking, shit-talking, etc. This whole mess has gone on long enough. I can't help but think Majora is correct and that this is some kind of mass cabin fever episode where folks are losing their minds. Just step back and cool down. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a grave misuse of admin privileges. Since Magog refuses to revert their actions and apologize, I support the desysop of Magog. This is unbecoming of an admin. pandakekok9 05:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I was neutral on Alexis-sock-block, but you acted like god and closed an ongoing important discussion.   Support de admin Magog. You are not to control any discussion. I was neutral on action of CU team but now I support unblocking Alexis without any restriction. I hope other CU team members don't repeat what Magog did. Edit warring, Abuse of rollback, forcing your opinion on the community, blocking an admin. Unacceptable. If you apologize, I am happy to let it go.// Eatcha (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I just asked Magog the Ogre to re-open the discussion and unprotect the talk page of User:Alexis Jazz. Let's wait and see how this turns out. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    •   Support I waited for about 36 hours, but no responses from Magog the Ogre unfortunately. I don't mind whether the community at large still trusts Magog the Ogre or not. But I firmly believe that the discussion should go to the second phase, i.e., the actual vote by the community. This is not a frivolous incident, and should not be treated as such. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support de-admin. Sorry to say that, but the recent admin action from Magog is unacceptable, particularly blocking 1989. The user should take some time to review his action. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No further action, or discussion regarding AJ, or events related to the user, until one month has passed since the initial action to allow everyone to calm down and avoid further casualties.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nobody should be de-sysopped. A mediation should be considered. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the group assembled here should remember that all five Checkusers have agreed that Alexis Jazz's actions deserve a permanent block. The five of us have about sixty years of experience on WMF and have made more than 1,250,000 contributions. We include two Stewards and two Bureaucrats, so we are, arguably, among the very most trusted members of the community -- trusted both for our discretion and for our judgement. As Checkusers we are not allowed to reveal a wide variety of confidential information that we come upon in our work. That is a factor in the present case. It seems to me that, having chosen to trust our judgement, that other Admins should not unilaterally reverse that judgement by unblocking serious offenders. Therefore, I don't see Magog's action as wheel warring, but simply as correcting a mistake. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Then you aren't using the same definition of wheel warring that is pretty much agreed upon by most other people. The reinstatement of a reversed admin action is the literal definition of wheel warring that most people have agreed to. I understand that you wish to protect one of your own and I'm not disputing the block here. Quite the opposite actual. I agreed with the block in the first place. In the end, I believe that Zhuyifei1999 also came to the same conclusion to allow further discussion to occur as they undid their action. The wheel warring was the rerevoking of talk page access which Zhuyifei explicitly left on. This is the reinstatement of a reversed admin action by another admin. By definition, at least by the definition most people have agreed to, that is wheel warring. Ignoring the abuse of rollback and the blocking of someone they were actively engaged in an edit war with. Wheel warring is a bright line for me and for many other people as well. That is the seriousness of this case and anything sort of a formal desysop vote initiated by a 'crat would be saying that such an action is acceptable. Being among the "very most trusted" members of the community doesn't mean you can't lose that trust and for me, Magog has lost my trust to perform their duties as both an admin and, by extension, a checkuser. --Majora (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • They are not being accused of wheel warring. Unless I've missed something, the block was reversed by Zhuyifei1999 and then reinstated by them. They are being accused of:
  1. Closing a discussion and revoking talk page access to enforce a "ban" that has no basis in policy
  2. Refusing to provide any explanation or clarification when pinged twice to the AN discussion and when a message was left on their user talk page, while they continued to actively edit
  3. Closing the AN discussion in which they were heavily involved, edit warring with another administrator over the close, and blocking that administrator over an edit war in which they were a participant
  4. Deleting a user talk page which has no appreciable basis on policy that I can see
  5. Fully protecting the user's talk page which also has no basis in policy that I can see
None of these are liberties granted to checkusers, and all are substantial misuse of administrator access. The only reason they still have the bit is because they stopped, because I had at the time two stewards on IRC looking at the possibility of an emergency desysop for gross misuse of the tools. GMGtalk 13:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with those who have said that pretty much all the admins here have behaved recently far short of the standard required. Magog and 1989 edit warring over the Block review: Alexis Jazz at AN is not covered by CU privilege and both participants are wrong in any edit war. Can we stop with the admins blocking other admins nonsense, Majora, et al. You've all got a bit too trigger happy. There's very little that can't be discussed and agreed with a community, and no great harm comes from any page being in a particular state for a while [except for stuff that needs revdel'd etc]. Alexis promised a "firestorm" and you all, in your rash hotheadedness, gave it to each other. Well done. Now, I suggest admins go do something else for a while and I hope Zhuyifei1999 reconsiders too and we don't lose any admins over this. Yes I agree with Natuur12 that this falls short, but I also hope it has just been a few days of madness rather than indication of long term problems that need the bit removed. All admins should be working towards lowering the drama, which includes no hasty blocks, resignations or calls for people's heads. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment is it possible that every body calm dow a bit, stop block fellow administrators, stop unblock the others, stop multiple desysops?!? are there still not enough things stuffed in all this? one experimented user was blocked, one experimented user/administrator resigned? is there not enough?
I second Jim, Magog did his job and reinstalled something that was wrongly removed, see block log: Zhuyifei1999 has wrongly removed the block, but when they reinstalled it, they did it by changing the block seetings (talk page access). This was wrong, as evidence, 1/ they resigned by themselve 2/ nothing constructive have been written in this talk page by the blocked user excepted denigration and total refusal to consider his original fault. Nobody should have touched to this block, nobody should have encouraged (included several administrators) AJ to stay on this wrong position. These encouragements and actions made by several administrators have conbtributed to the escalation off all this. Is it not enough? can something come out good if we try to punish one administrator or the other? what interest to count the points? Please fellow administrators and other colleague users, encourage each other to calm down. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Jim and Christian. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Everyone really does need to calm the fuzz down, Unless AJ has been using undisclosed accounts then I cannot understand why the CU block was done and why it still remains?,
I will say for the record Magog the Ogre the deleting of AJs userpage was wholy innapropriate - Revoking TP access/protecting TP stops the drama which I understand obviously but AJ like anyone else on this god forsaken project still deserves their userpage .....
Given this was supposedly a team effort that team needs to come forward and state why the CU block because from where I'm sitting using 1 account doesn't automatically mean perma-ban ...... –Davey2010Talk 15:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose De-sysoping of Magog is too drastic an action to take. Over many years of outstanding service to the entire project, his abuse of the tools is hardly habitual, nor do his actions in this instance require such an extreme punishment. As I understand it, a grave threat of personal bodily harm was indeed made and has been confirmed by the CU team. Concur with Jim, Christian, and Steinsplitter.  JGHowes  talk 17:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree that Magog the Ogre's edit-war on the AN is not good. But it is already discussed on their talk and no need to push more. I didn't see anything wrong in "re-doing a block configuration" that already imposed by the CU team. Admins are not allowed to undo or modify a CU block. So if anybody need to warned if needed are the admins who messed with the CU decision. Jee 14:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support, per GreenMeansGo. Shutting down an ongoing discussion without a consensus and threatening people to open it again is way too much. Similar behavior was then picked up by other users. This cannot be tolerated. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jim. -- Geagea (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Magog has done a lot of good work for the community and one lapse in judgment should not lead to de-sysoping in my opinion. - FitIndia Talk Mail 17:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There's an evident need for a few to take a step back and go outside/take a walk (if you can). We even have some freely-licensed Category:Videos of meditation for those who can't go outside or are otherwise interested. Once ready, go tackle a backlog, not your fellow collaborators. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I vote just in the case that my point of view was not obvious. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I do agree that this may have been an extreme situation, and in this extreme situation it is very important to act accordingly. I have tried my hardest to figure out what has happened with Alexis Jazz, I was unable to do so, but even if we take all the possible claims in Magog the Ogre's favour, we must conclude that: There was a serious abuse when closing the ongoing discussion of other users into the original block. I believe that it was clear that although any user could edit the page and claim that the discussion was over, it was the fact that it was done by an admin that made it such a horrible act of vandalism and misuse of community's trust. We seem to be plagued by admins who close ongoing discusions with no penalties. This needs to stop, and Magog the Ogre has clearly stated that they are willing to be desysoped for this. May at least something positive come out of this. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have serious concerns with the actions and statements of several members of our administrative team. I am extremely disappointed to see how quickly blocks have been placed on other administrators without adequate discussion and consensus; the speed in which they were unblocked are clear indicators that these are controversial blocks and should not have been placed uni-laterally. I hope these individuals remember our guiding principles as administrator - if you are involved and considering placing a block, step away from your computer. At this point, I cannot support the opening of a de-sysop request for Magog because it would only be fair for the actions of other involved administrators to be called to the stand and likely lead to additional de-sysop discussions. We have already lost an administrator, we have a retired notice on Majora's userpage, we have 1989 doing the dramatic, with no explanation, "I'm deleting my userpage and blanking my talk page". What, or should I say, who is next? Buckle up, start talking and put down the tools before you lose them. ~riley (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Your opposition is a de facto support to the very behaviour you are criticizing. You are creating a community where somebody who says "I am willing to stick my neck out and clearly go against policy" stays as a respectable admin, but everybody who quits in disgust are no longer here. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I am opposing this specific proposal, I fully agree that there was abuse and there needs to be significant reform. I cannot support a thread singling out the actions of one administrator when the actions of several others need to be considered. There needs to be mediation and arbitration to ensure this is rectified. ~riley (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support de-sysop of Magog. I am profoundly disappointed by Magog's actions, and I feel I can no longer trust them with the tools. I think we should allow Magog to do the honorable thing and give up the sysop tools voluntarily. I don't support any other actions against anybody else. GMG has it right, and I commend their common sense. I am incredibly saddened that Majora is being driven away from Commons, as they are an excellent sysop whose judgment I still trust. Abzeronow (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • It's quite evident to anyone reading this that, even if Magog does have evidence of Alexis's alleged death threats against administrators (which I've failed to find on-wiki), there's been an abuse of administrative tools. They attempted to impose a community ban out of solely their own authority, in a block which was already being contested, revoked talk page access, wheel-warred, blocked other administrators, edit-warred, sought to prevent community discussion of their actions, and dramatically escalated the situation beyond what it needed to be. The argument that we've already lost some contributors, and this is dramatic, that thus we should stop discussing this, is an asinine argument. The clear reason why we lost contributors is because people are taking illogical steps in trying to prevent the loss of contributors, namely refusing to hold administrators accountable for their actions, hoping that the accused administrators do not leave. What's the result? Multiple users, who were in active opposition to that administrator and sought redress for their abuse of tools, have outright left. The same thing happens on the English Wikipedia, and Meta-Wiki, and every other medium-large project where there is drama and people try to justify abuse of tools. It's inevitable that uninvolved users attempt to weigh the value of that user's contributions to the movement with the harm created by their abuse, and many have done so in this case and came to the conclusion that Magog provides more benefits than costs. These users have failed to account for the damage to our administrative system, and the fact that users have been harmed with no outlet of rectification. There has been an abuse of tools here, on multiple sides, and refusing to address any of it is unacceptable. Vermont (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
As it appears non-public information may be involved that influenced the actions of members of the Checkuser team, including Magog, there is a potentiality for Magog's actions to be legitimately justifiable. For that purpose, consider my above critiques of them suspended. Until the situation is resolved, as not all of the information is public, it is not possible to make an informed decision on the legitimacy of their actions. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose de-sysop - Everyone acted poorly here however the block was a CU team one and Magog was acting as part of that team, I don't at all agree with the block but Magog was simply doing his job at the end of the day,
If we're gonna fire up a desysop request then those who were involved with unblocking AJ/blocking Magog should also face the chopping board.? –Davey2010Talk 20:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Can we all just go back to Alexis being unblocked, Zhuyifei and Majora un-resigning, and everyone contributing to the project like we were before? ...... That really would be nice. –Davey2010Talk 22:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Policy is not just important because bureaucratic such-and-such, but because people need to know that they're contributing to a community that has clear rules, that everyone agrees to, and everyone understands. No one is going to spend time on a project where sanctions or use of power feel arbitrary, capricious, and primarily political first and foremost before they are fair. Even if this doesn't go to deadmanship, hopefully it reinforces the fact that fairness matters and we won't have to go through all of this again.
There was a path here where policy was followed, and fairness was respected, regardless of the outcome, and no one would have resigned or retired because we followed the rules we all agreed to. That path was not chosen. GMGtalk 23:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  Comment It is not the case that Majora was "driven away" — no one asked them to leave. I, too, greatly regret that Majora saw fit to leave. Nonetheless, the voluntary resignation of an experienced user because they didn't get their way should not cloud the issue here regarding Magog's actions in imposing a well-deserved block.  All five Checkusers unanimously agreed‎ that Alexis Jazz' threat was so egregious as to warrant indef global block — a judgment concurred in by two Stewards and two Bureaucrats. It should not be necessary, nor is it prudent, to publicize the specific threat here.   As stated above by Jameslwoodward, As Checkusers we are not allowed to reveal a wide variety of confidential information that we come upon in our work. That is a factor in the present case‎.  JGHowes  talk 21:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)‎
Global block? No global block/lock was imposed. Also, I had not noticed that comment by Jameslwoodward, thank you for reiterating it as I may have continued to accidentally skip over it. Best, Vermont (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose any desysop at this point. We have lost too many experienced users in this fruitless conflict. There has been a lot of anger from multiple users but anger is never the best solution for anything. I did agree with the suggestion by User:AFBorchert on how Alexis could return to Commons but in hindsight perhaps it would be better to follow the procedure of the WP:Standard offer. I also agree with User:JGHowes in that there is probably significant information that cannot be publicised. What we need is to take a collective couple of steps back and examine the issues in a more collegiate manner. What we do not need is administrators blocking each other. -Green Giant (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
For those who may not have seen it, Alexis Jazz has now posted this mea culpa of sorts on meta.  JGHowes  talk 23:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (Edit conflict) Magogs actions were violating policy but they are to be seen in the context where the CU team was under severe attack (see comment by Krd). When I made my proposal I wasn't aware of Alexis Jazz' statement at Meta (quote directed at the CU team: go quietly or go in a firestorm) and the associated messages ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). All this occured in a context where Alexis Jazz knew that the CU team interpreted the comment by his sockpuppet as a death threat. This was a major escalation after the block. I do not see how Alexis Jazz could return to Commons in the foreseeable future and I think that it is time to move forward now and not chose to drag this further. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks AFBorchert for summarizing the entire situation. So it is clear that we have no clear understanding on the severity while trying to reduce the block on that user, which added frustration and pressure on the CU team. One admin lifted the block which forced the second CU to re-impose the block. Some admins considered it as wheel-warring. Only later that Krd and James also commented on the severity of the issue. It is not their fault; CUs are refrained from publicly making such comments. Unfortunately we made huge pressure on the CU team to defend themselves. I think we need to amend our blocking policy to explain the CU blocks as we did in case of oversight blocks. I had asked it earlier; even in that previous discussions. Jee 04:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • It doesn't address Magog's block of 1989, however (odd that the block reason has been redacted, but it was related to this). Whatever the case for blocking AJ was, blocking 1989 for trying to have a discussion about it was completely unacceptable. clpo13(talk) 04:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That "Block review: Alexis Jazz" discussion was initiated by 1989 and they undo the closure by Magog two times. So it is clear that 1989 pressed the topic too much. Magog was not much an involved admin at that time as the block of Alexis Jazz was done by another CU. So there was indeed a mishap from both sides. Anyway this review discussion will not have opened if we had well defined the "CU Block" in our blocking policy. (I'm not happy with the way how 1989 blanked their user and talk page and run away. It was their initial behavior since their previous account. Will do a lot of works, do some silly things, and will run away washing their hands when caught. Will come back when the sky is clear.) Jee 08:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose de-sysop. It is in fact a poor judgement to ask a CU (or the team) to make their report public knowing fully well that such information could include some personal information. CUs are not going to publish their reports for this obvious reason. It's very disappointing to seeing people we trusted with advanced permissions (admin, checkusers) acting in the way some of you had acted in the past few days. I am not going to comment on the specifics of the issues that led to this drama but would appeal to all involved parties to stay calm. Generally, I think we need to design a more structured way to resolving conflict. Maybe an COM: Arbitration Committee or something close to that? Well, it's up to the community to decided but something must be done about conflict resolution. We can't continue to conduct the business of conflict resolution the way we are currently going about it. Please stay safe! Regards. T CellsTalk 02:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose de-sysoping per T Cells. Everyone needs to calm down and take a breather. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 04:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think that a lot of people would withdraw their support for a desysop (including me) if Magog acknowledges that wheels wars and blocking the person you have an edit war with are never acceptable, regardless the circumstances. You meet abuse with even more abuse. As we can all see, that just causes a downwards spiral with mistrust and a further fragmented community and damaged core principles. Abuse always is a slippery slope. I understand that Magog and others involved have good intentions, but people do terrible things because of those very same good intentions. Natuur12 (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Natuur12, I agree with your comments. However, I do think, in the spirit of the section below, that it is healthier right now for many of the admins involved to take a break and chill. Then I hope, after some days reflection, they are in a better position to acknowledge mistakes and agree. Right now, I think if we keep pushing each other, we'll just continue to see admins go "fuck it; I don't need this right now" and retire, or to do or say something so bad they are forced out. None of this needs sorted today. -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree with Colin. The only way forward to resolve this is to get some rest first, relax, and go to other areas (like COM:VIC, creating and improving galleries, and take some photos inside). The stress caused by this and the quarantine really messed us all. pandakekok9 11:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I hesitated to go in closer by now, but the more time is passing, the more I dislike the behavioural tactic by MTO, who disappeared straight after their controversial actions, refusing any discussion, and now is likely to "come back when the sky is clear" (to cite Jee). That's truly not the behaviour I would expect from a professional sysop colleague. So I'm for de-sysop at this point, even though some opposers have a valid point and my support now appears useless anyway. --A.Savin 14:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
    Update 3 April: Magog the Ogre is still hiding. --A.Savin 14:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose but you do have to admit that Magog's actions while allowed by policy did pour more fuel on the fire (as well as that of several other administrators, unfortunately). --Rschen7754 17:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rschen7754: I'm...confused. What part of policy allows an administrator to edit war with another administrator and then block them for it? I'm not asking rhetorically. I get the argument that people screwed up, but one screw up doesn't warrant a desysop. I don't understand the argument that there were actually no policy violations. GMGtalk 23:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Is the use of {{Checkuserblock}} justified though? pandakekok9 01:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Have any of the other CUs overturned the block? --Rschen7754 02:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
How can we hold them accountable then IF they are wrong? Desysop/de-checkuser? As if it's easy to initiate one in the first place. Not only is the COVID-19 making it difficult, but the requirement to have some "consensus" from an AN/U thread before we can even have the real desysop vote. This is ridiculous. pandakekok9 02:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
CUs can also make mistakes. But that doesn't mean we can overturn their actions without first consulting them and waiting for their replies and or actions. All these process need a lot of patience and time. See one example where we took more than one year to finally convince the acting CU. Jee 03:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
We are all humans, so we make mistakes. I agree with your first point. Our CUs however are consulted, and we explained to them why the block and CU are wrong in the first place. I could have waited as you did, but the fact that they are ignoring us since 25 March and are giving only unhelpful responses is worrying. An LTA or newbie is not the one affected here. An established, trusted, and hardworking user is. If they just give us one response, a response saying they will review and reconsider the block they placed, I will wait, and surely all of us will wait. Until that occurs though, I will still continue to think that this block is not justified and support a desysop. pandakekok9 04:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
So basically, what you are saying is that all 5 of them are wrong and should be desysopped/deCUed? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. --Rschen7754 06:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Checkuserblock is a reason to let the wheel war slide, though also inculuding talk page settings is quite stretching the limits of the definition of a checkuser block. The checkuser block template is pretty clear about appeals Users: You may request {{Unblock}} through the normal channels, however a CheckUser will review the block. This implies that the talk page isn't part of the checkuser block, because a checkuser is a block placed by the CU's to prevent abuse, with an open talk page. But enough wikilawyering. Like I said, the checkuserblock is a reason to let the wheel war slide. But not acting like a total autocrat and blocking another admin while being involved in the very same edit war. I know how frustrating it can be when someone threatens you and people start defending the person who just threatened you but that could never be an excuse to allow abuse. Natuur12 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we should regrant talk page access for Alexis Jazz for a start? It's been 10 days now, and AFAIK they haven't tried to circumvent their block on-wiki (though they did circumvent their talk page block on other wikis). The fact that they haven't used their alternate account to evade the block should be commended. We should give them another chance to post an unblock request on their talk page, if they wish. pandakekok9 11:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
No, we really shouldn't given this clear statement made by Krd. Natuur12 (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Natuur12, I understand the pain that still remain in the hearts of many admins here. We lost two good admins. They were good coders too who helped the automation of many tasks which are very tedious otherwise. I came to know that AJ was also good in coding. Perhaps this "working together" relationship may be reason behind their hyper-response to this incident. Anyway, it is a loos for Commons. That is one of the reason why I spent a lot of time during this crisis time.
When we look into the timelines of the incidents, we can see User:1989 contacted Trijnstel soon after the block. She replied but with some discomfort. After getting the reply, User:1989 jumped to AN for a block review instead of asking the blocking CU for a review. Although Majora strogly opposed the idea, the discussion was continued and many expressed their opinions. Then Majora asked other CUs to comment by pinging them. Then Magog the Ogre responded that their decision is final and "end of discussion". I didn't checked the timelines of further events like unblock by Zhuyifei1999 and restoration, AJ's talk page revocation and edit war on AN.
I agree that all those events happened after Magog the Ogre's denial for reviewing the block were unfortunate and should be avoided. But there are a lot of people misbehaved there; including Magog the Ogre, Zhuyifei1999, User:198, Majora, ... to name a few.
I think Trijnstel may be regretting on disclosing the (partial) reason for block. As far as I know such reasons should not be revealed as it may be harmful to the blocked users too in some countries. Anyway I don't want to comment further on it. I think that discussion on block of AJ can be closed, leaving it to the Trust and Safety team as I read somewhere else.
Do taking an action on Magog the Ogre helful now? Doest it help to restore the dignity of remaining admins? I don't think so. The only way I look forward is to forgive each other and return back to work. I wish Zhuyifei1999 and Majora will come back. I wish User:1989 will be more careful in future. I wish CUs will be more careful in NOT disclosing partial information to public as it will only help to make the situation worse. I hope our blocking polcy will be amended to fully support a CU block. Jee 15:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I do believe that taking action on Magog is helpful, though it's not the course of action I prefer. (Even though the behavior of 1989 is far more problematic). Not because this will help re-establish trust but as a preventive measurement. If someone cannot admit that they have acted wrongly there's a significant risk that someone will make the same mistakes again. Especially if someone holds CU-tools. I still rather see a credible statement from Magog that he won't repeat his mistakes (even though this is the second time he used his tools in a way that's not okay when being emotional). If such a statement cannot be provided, all I can plea for is risk management and in this case that means removing someone who has proven to be a significant risk from a position of trust and power. I don't agree that we should implement CU-blocks other than as regular CU-blocks, at least as long as Magog is a CU. Rather let the oversight team handle blocks related to sensitive cases. The oversight team has proven that they are capable of handeling delicate blocks numerous times in the past, without causing the mother off all clusterfucks. It doesn't matter what AJ did, abuse is never an excuse for even more abuse. Natuur12 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I understand the points you raised. But it is very inappropriate for me to desysop Magog the Ogre alone leaving 1989 and the two resigned admins free from any sanctions. If justice must be served they whole need to be desysoped altogether for this total damages.
I agree with you on "Rather let the oversight team handle blocks related to sensitive cases". In fact, this block on AJ is more like one that should be handled by the Oversight team if no alternate account was used in that scene. CUs found and linked accounts; but remaining parts are more of Oversighters' role. I too think they would have handled in a much better way if the CUs handover the job to them. Here the CUs think they alone can handle this and is within their power. Our blocking policy is much vague on this. If you too think we can limit the role of the CUs by clearly separating from the Oversighters, you have my full supports.
Hope you may noticed that I had raised my concerns on defining the CU blocks in many occasions, including that Oversight Block discussion. Unfortunately we are a small and lazy community and usually postpone many such cases until we find a definite need (when some very terrible things happened). I think it's the time. Jee 14:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I really wanted to stay out of this, but this seems these individuals keeps making comments about yours truly, so now I need to explain myself. Wrt to the edit war, like TonyBallioni said, the closure that Magog performed was inappropriate and it had to be undone. I was hoping Magog would talk to to me like an adult instead of misusing rollback that’s meant for vandalism, unfortunately that wasn’t the case. The only reason I undid it again was because of that reason alone, and I stated that in the edit summary. So what’s next? Yeah, he misused rollback again and blocked me, the best part is they used a very false narrative. Yes, I indeed removed it as I’m free to revdel anything that’s considered libelous/slander, and that’s exactly what Magog did. Luckily Majora saw through the bs, and immediately undid it. As I’ve taken a step back from this, now there’s this individual that’s claiming I’m “far more problematic” with no evidence, even after I asked to explain themselves earlier in this thread. AFAIK, the best they could come up with is stating I’m to blame for Magog’s abuse, yes victim blaming, a despicable and far more problematic statement. As for the other individual, I’m confused about this sanctions thing against two admins who resigned. It seems to me they’re beating a dead horse. Why? Who knows. As for one on myself, they failed to explain why. Now back to main topic at hand. Hopefully the true outcome of this saga, is the CU/admin turning in everything they have voluntarily, a self-proposal they made to the community should they ever go on a rampage again, in which was the case. Very disappointed here. 1989 (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
One of the first things you did during this whole affair is making this sexist remark. So yes, I deem your behavior more troublesome than Magog's. Natuur12 (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
If that’s how you sincerely viewed that remark despite the actions I’ve done to fight against discrimination, I pity you. 1989 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: there are several things that need doing as a result of this whole affair but asking OS to do the CU tasks would require a major change of oversight policy. We need to clear the air (as is being done here by users expressing their views). We need the relevant policies to be updated to remove any ambiguity (displayed for example by Zhuyifei questioning the statement that "a checkuser may" to mean that non-CU review is also available). We also need some involvement by a bureaucrat, who have a role of guiding the community. Two of them have commented as CU but we have not heard from the others. Of course they will have perfectly legitimate reasons but I’m reminded of a somewhat similar situation almost five years ago. At that point we had 18 separate people holding B, CU, and OS, as well as 250+ administrators. We elected some new bureaucrats but nonetheless we are now down to 13 people holding one or more of the advanced permissions and fewer than 220 administrators. My impression is that Commons has become busier than five years ago but we now have significantly reduced capability. Since summer 2015 have had no further bureaucrat applicants, one successful OS candidate (later resigned) and one unsuccessful OS candidate, and one successful re-application plus one withdrawn CU application. I think it’s time to encourage more people to stand as candidates as we did in 2015 but for all three advanced permissions. --Green Giant (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Green Giant for this constructive comment. Yes; I remember some previous incidents where we worked hard to find a solutions. Here too I'm very optimistic. I said above "this block on AJ is more like one that should be handled by the Oversight team if no alternate account was used in that scene". I didn't mean that CU role can be taken by OS. What I meant after identifying the accounts CUs can ask Oversighters to "remove the potentially libelous information" that editor added by his alternate account. Then Oversighters can review the seriousness and decide whether they should block an editor on the basis of oversighted information that cannot be shared publicly. If this block was happened this way it will be perfectly appropriate according to the existing policies. Here the CUs themselves executed the block without oversighting the content. When asked by an admin, they accidentally revealed it too. Some admins started to review the block based on the information available to them and ended up in this mess. I will say the whole incident was handled in a very unprofessional way. The procedure need to be improved and well defined in our policy pages. Jee 16:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm sorry to say this, but there are several issues with Magog the Ogre's actions. Although Magog the Ogre is not the only administrator who used their tools in a way that wasn't in line with the policies, they, as I said, made several wrong/unexplained actions. I don't think of removing talk page access for the second time simply as "correcting a mistake". Removing the talk page access wasn't a CU block. It was totally an administrative decision. Another administrator decided to revert the action, and Magog the Ogre then removed the talk page access again. They also protected Alexis Jazz's talk page indefinitely (which was later removed based on community consensus, and wasn't based on the protection policy) and deleted their user page (although the reason for deletion was listed in MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown, but, as far as I know, it isn't based on any valid speedy deletion criterion). They also blocked 1989 for edit warring, despite being heavily involved. Especially because they haven't responded to their talk page messages (yet), I'm supporting this desysop proposal. However, I'll be checking their talk page to see if they have responded to messages regarding this, and will decide based on their response, if the discussion is still open by then. Ahmadtalk 19:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rschen7754: Sorry, it's difficult to follow discussions with things happening IRL at the moment. What I mean by policy not being followed is trying to enact a de facto banning policy, edit warring, blocking another administrator with which they are engaged in an edit war, deleting a user page out-of-process and fully protecting their talk page out-of-process. That CU blocks are excepted from normal blocking procedure is not carte blanche to ignore unrelated policy. If the functionary team would like to carve out additional exemptions, then they have the same recourse as the rest of the community: they may make a proposal and gain consensus.
I am highly uncomfortable with the seemingly Orwellian approach that was taken here, that not only may other administrators not reverse CU blocks, but CUs may edit war, protect pages, and close discussions in which they are involved, in order to prevent the community from even discussing a block. GMGtalk 12:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I certainly think there was room for improvement and I do think that Magog did pour more fuel on the fire than necessary. I think he should have talked a bit more rather than resorting to using the tools. But to be fair - when other administrators don't respect CU blocks, what else is he supposed to do?
Also - I don't think what I am about to say is going to make people happy but I have to say it. I think that you should really reconsider the optics of this discussion. You're basically advocating for someone who made death threats against a bunch of CheckUsers, even wheel warring to allow them back into the community. This sort of attitude is why WMF feels the need to intervene in large local communities like enwiki and commons. As a community, why are you defending people like this and like Russavia? This is why harassment still exists on Wikimedia projects. --Rschen7754 18:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: I'm afraid Russavia was before my time, and I neither have an opinion nor am I haunted by their ghost in my decision making. I think that rules matter. I think that we grant users privileged access because we think they are they type of people who will follow the rules, not because we are granting them leave to disregard them.
I am advocating only for the policies we have enacted, the consensus that supports them, and the community behind it.
There is no good faith position here that says that the community was respected and the rules were followed. If the community decides that that's okay, then I will respect that, because the community makes the rules. But I serve at the behest of the community and so should everyone else here. GMGtalk 20:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
This statement is appalling in context. When death threats are involved, I'm going to side with keeping editors (i.e. the community) safe over some notion of "following the rules", every single time. --Rschen7754 01:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rschen7754: Which death threats are you refering to? (The “betsy” thing had not been a death threat, anyway, and the (paraphrased) «I will cause you to lose your admin bits» was obviously not a death threat either.) (And of course claimed harassment is not the reason some people in the WMF wish they had a more docile user community.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Surely he won't be able to answer that. The CUs haven't even answered my simple question of whether the threat was made on-wiki or off-wiki. :P pandakekok9 04:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who has received death threats related to on-wiki work, I wouldn't feel comfortable talking about it either. And I don't know why you think death threats are a joking matter, pandakekok9. (Also, if the death threats were made by IP and they were to link to them now, then boom, they have now broken the privacy rules). --Rschen7754 04:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not asking for an IP address. I'm asking a simple question which have two simple answers: on-wiki (with diff) or off-wiki (no questions asked there). You can see how I asked here. I was willing to believe the CUs. If the death threat was made by an IP on-wiki and they link to it, they won't break the privacy policy, as the threat and IP are intentionally public. Your accusation that I treat the death threats as a joking matter is wrong. I'm only skeptic. I haven't got any death threat from my work here, but I did experience outing off-wiki but related to my work here, and if it wasn't for an admin who thankfully notified me on IRC, I won't know that there is a stalker behind me revealing my identity. I understand how it feels like to be threatened. pandakekok9 04:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
they won't break the privacy policy - that is abjectly wrong, if they say that a certain IP is Alexis (even by linking a diff) they have now linked an IP with an account in public, which violates the privacy policy. We go back to the use of {{Checkuserblock}} in the first place: that template is used when the community is fundamentally unable to fairly review the block because it involves private information that cannot be disclosed publicly. Either you trust the CUs or you don't.
I don't know why people are taking Alexis' apology/explanation at face value - it is a common manipulative tactic to attack people with vague threats and then completely deny that there was a threat intended when questioned about it. You're taking the explanation of someone who already deceived the community (hence the sockpuppet) over the word of two stewards and three other CheckUsers. Quite frankly, I'm surprised this community still has CheckUsers because with the way you've accused them, if I were one I'd have resigned by now in disgust.
And thank you for your clarification that you do take death threats seriously, it is difficult to tell otherwise when you use an emoticon in your comment. --Rschen7754 05:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think I know what a death threat looks like. GMGtalk 13:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: Thank you for providing your point of view. I for one don't take AJ's explanation at face value, however, the CU's made every attempt to make it hard to believe their word at face value as well. I'm not saying that I don't believe them, but that's not strange that there are users who don't. For example: we are right and you are wrong because we have experience is a case book example of a fallacy. Experience doesn't make that you are in the right, it's the strength of your arguments. And the strength of the arguments has been severely lacking from the start. It's because I know what some of the CU's stand for that I can still believe them. And that isn't right. I should be able to believe them because their arguments are valid, and the methods applied are accurate, instead of a feeling of personal trust.
About the CU-block, this was already resolved by Majora who convinced the unblocking admin to reblock. The talk page isn't necessarily the domain of the CU's, therefor leaving the talk page open cannot reasonably to be considered as undoing a CU-block. But this is hardly the most relevant incident. It's Magog edit warring with a fellow admin over closing a discussion at an admin noticeboards, abusing rollback and blocking that other admin over that edit war. This has nothing to do with the abusive unblock. There was no need to blatantly ignore all our policies and practices, both written and unwritten. Those policies and practices are in place, not only when things are easy but also when dealing with harder cases, regardless of the circumstances. Otherwise, what's the meaning of having policies, guidelines and practices if you are only respect them when it's easy to do so. And yes, I know how hard and frustrating it can be when even your fellow admins take the side of an alleged offender or even blatantly deny that a death threat but abuse is never a reason for more abuse. You know what I stand for, no tolerance for abuse, but also a high regard for proper procedure. Those two don't conflict but are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without they other. Natuur12 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Natuur12: While I don't think this was necessarily wrong per se, I think we both agree that we don't really like what Magog did. I think that a more measured response (a dialog with the admin) would have been more appropriate - and I think that communication from the CU team has been suboptimal.
But being practical here: Commons has no ArbCom and no method of emergency desysop - unlike English Wikipedia (where CU blocks came from I believe). Bureaucrats cannot desysop here. Any desysop discussion will take at least a week. Some editor has been giving you and your fellow CUs death threats, and some other admin has undone your CU block. WMF is (as always) slow to respond. What options do you have?
And I don't think that you can put "making death threats" and "edit warring and blocking the other admin" on the same level - one is definitely worse than the other. Only one of them could lead to a WMF ban or even send you to jail. --Rschen7754 15:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: This is a bit a question of conscience, this is because I still don't feel comfortable editing NL-wiki because of a death threat. Since the unblocking amdin already restored the block,but with leaving the talk page open an at least an attempt could be made to communicate with the unblocking admin. Since he could clearly be convinced with arguments. If the unblocking admin hadn't undone his unblock, than using the blocking tools without discussing this with the unblocking admin first might have been justified. But only if he/she carefully argues his/her case. The CU team could also have a crat to intervene. The community does respect the authority of a crat when they intervene. There are still options, but they are harder than merely using the tools and putting up a broken hero act.
I think that a point of irritation for some is that they have faced some serious harassment as well. But yet they did had to follow proper procedure and never saw going full autocrat as a viable option. Admins get harassed far to often and threats of harms aren't as rare as they should be. Yet we don't have a long list of admins/CU's behaving badly because of them. Not even in the cases where a community fails a victim. Natuur12 (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think the problem is that neither AJ nor Magog seems to think they have done anything wrong here. I don't think the original post was intended as a death threat, but AJ's combatative attitude on his talk page is not helping. Meanwhile Magog's block of 1989 is far out of line, and deleting his user page seems vindictive. I have restored the page history as there is nothing in policy to support routine deletion of user pages of indefinitely blocked users. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Jurajec12

Jurajec12 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

The user continues to upload copyrighted images, despite having been warned on several occasions. View your user talk page Mazbel – 20:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The user has not uploaded something new since your final warning at 20:29, 22 April 2020. However, the reuploading of previously deleted files is a problem. @Jurajec12: if you continue to upload files from the internet without a clear free licence at the source page, your account will be blocked. This is also valid for images that you created yourself from non-free files like cropped photographs. See COM:DW. De728631 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: well now the user has uploaded a previously deleted file Mazbel – 08:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  Done. I blocked Jurajec for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Roddy Ricch7

Roddy Ricch7 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Escape block of Agiasma (talk · contribs), same uploads (File:Дмитрий Савкин.jpg). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Bloocked. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hello!

w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashkumar16 was just closed but since the user edits a lot on Commons as well I figured it would be good to get attention for it here too. I don't really consider the user's contributions to Commons vandalism. The only wrong they have done is editing under several accounts and uploading out of scope selfies and pictures. I don't know if using several account is warrant a block or anything. On Commons:Requests for checkuser it said "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases; pursue other options first, such as posting on the administrator's noticeboard." and since there has already been a checkuser investigation, albeit on another Wiki, I figured it was redundant to do one here as well. That's why I'm posting here.Jonteemil (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Bkn0029

Bkn0029 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Almost everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked Bkn for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A1Cafel

A1Cafel (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Last year, I requested that A1Cafel be disciplined over deleting other user's photographs in favor of the duplicate photographs A1Cafel uploaded, even when the latter were uploaded later. I wasn't the only complainer then. Now I see that user has apparently learned nothing and just goes ahead: see the deletion request of this file in favor of this later upload (and again: the earlier upload also has a better title than A1Cafel's). I don't buy it that this is again some sort of mistake, it is highly annoying. Since these duplicate tagged files are deleted very fast, it is not easy to track them, but I happened to stumble over this one. I request that this user will be blocked for a while, since there is no improvement since the last warning. User's conduct is a very bad example and it should stop. Eissink (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC).

(Edit to add:) Since my last complaint, at least four others users have addressed the same problem on A1Cafel's Talk page (see User talk:A1Cafel/Archive 4) and since it is often very hard or even impossible to check whether a deleted file was the earlier, and that it's quite a step to address this, it is quite likely that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Eissink (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC).
FYI this can always be checked in the logs or via the wiki database. However the earliest upload is not necessarily the one to be kept for digitally identical files, the deleting admin should check to see how a duplicate merge is best managed, preserving categorization, image page description, good naming and so on. --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
If I don't know which file is deleted, how do I know where to look? I agree, of course, that the deleting admin makes the final decision, but I suspect they mostly follow the tagger, at least that's how it's been with the tagged files discussed here and before. I think it's warranted to prevent A1Cafel duplicate tagging at least where the own uploads are involved. Eissink (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC).

*Support block - This is a user who only appears to care about his name on uploaded photos and it seems he wants to recieve credit for these over others, This is deceptive and deceitful behaviour, I personally would support indeffing the user as there's certainly no trust from me at this point. Disgraceful. –Davey2010Talk 11:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC) See below

Pending a response, a social ban from using DRs and the duplicate template for a set period may be more effective or productive here that a block. DR abuse in the past has had to be extremely persistent and disruptive before a full account block was considered necessary rather than punative. --Fæ ( talk) 11:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Recent unwarranted DR --Tibet Nation (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems that there is double standard of tagging duplicate. After I uploaded this file, I found that another user uploaded the same file, though with a longer name. Then, I was noticed by an admin that a better file name should be kept, regardless of the time of upload. Afterwards, I tagged the file listed above as duplicate because of better file name, and I was being reported here. I'm so confused. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@A1Cafel: That is not what I said. Please reread what I did say, I didn't mention time at all.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
In addition, I have never thought of receiving credits from others. I'm not a very active user on Commons. If this is the case, I would do the above tagging ASAP, but not after more than a year. Moreover, Eissink is not happy to see the DR of this, then he reported me. I know the photo means a lot, but I really believe it has FOP concerns, so I started the DR. I have totally no means to censor the anti-government protest materials. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) You did not act upon the unfortunate instructions of Billinghurst in the recent example that I gave, so it seems you are playing innocent here, trying to escape the responsibility for your edits. There was certainly no confusion to be had from the decision last year, and the users that addressed you on your Talk page were also not contributing to any confusion. If it is to hard for you, than I think it is better you totally stop tagging duplicates, especially when it concerns your own uploads, and stop requesting deletions. Eissink (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC).
  Comment @Eissink: I think that you will find that I said that where the files were essentially the same, and to me that would include the upload time, and all the other factors. As I said if a file is poorly named and subject to being renamed, and is essentially the same in all other respects it will be the deletion target per MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown -> Exact or scaled-down duplicate with non-descriptive file name F8); these situations are less usual.

A1Cafel in their commentary seems to have ignored where I have rejected their deletion requests and gone in the contrary direction. Either way, if a set of duplicates is identified, and it is up to the admin to delete appropriately. I am not going to blindly follow a nomination request if I don't think that it is right, either as a duplicate, or labelled the right direction as a duplicate.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It was clear that A1Cafel was cherry picking already, but I didn't expect A1Cafel even cross the line and misrepresent others. I'm glad some action has now been taken, but on a social level there seems to remain quite a lack of mutual understanding and trust. Eissink (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC).
You say you are not very active on Commons?? With 214k edits you are far from a newbie. And please don't try to frame this as if the mentioned DR has triggered this – it was the reason I took a look at your edits, but it's your tagging style that is subject of discussion here, not the DR. Stop playing the victim. Eissink (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC).
I just listed out what I have experienced, it is totally unrelated to playing as a victim. Seems that Eissink is mad, and no matter what I said he won't listen. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not mad. I am just fed up with seeing past problems repeat themselves over and over again. Show me one user who got as many complaints over duplicate tagging as you got – it's not normal, and I refuse to accept it as being normal. That you find a hobby in tracing possible violations of any kind in uploads concerning Xi Jinping, that's your choice, and if that happens to be one of my uploads, it's totally normal that I react on it, but that has no direct relation to your problematic selfish tagging. Eissink (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC).

This looks like a long-term problem that a short block is not going to resolve. Meanwhile, given his long history of otherwise good contributions I don't think a long block for A1Cafel is warranted. Hence I have decided to block A1Cafel specifically from using flickr2commons, via Special:AbuseFilter/208. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

If this prevents the duplicates from being created in the first place, then I welcome this solution. Thank you. Eissink (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC).
Best solution by a long mile!, Thank you User:King of Hearts for doing this,
FYI I originally held off further commenting until a discussion commenced and to hear A1s side of the story,
Anyway by far this is a brilliant solution, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This is overblown, importing files using flickr2commons involves minimal effort, unless someone's work of adding the correct categories or other improvements are being lost. Need more evidence.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Agree that it's not all that clear that the asserted misuse of {{duplicate}} or DRs is equivalent to misuse of F2C. If the root cause is duplicates being created by F2C, that's a tool and systems issue. The misuse of manually added templates is a behavioural issue that needs resolution, even if part of ensuring that behaviour changes may be a restriction from using the templates until there is a resolution.
Though the F2C block may be a partial fix, it's not clear to me how that block gets lifted, or how A1Cafel should appeal. Can someone also point out where this block appears in the block log? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: It does not appear in the block log, as it is technically not a block but an edit filter designed specifically to target a few users doing one action.
@A1Cafel: The idea behind this restriction is to force you to go through a slower process when transferring images from Flickr so that you have the time to do diligence on your uploads to make sure they don't already exist on Commons. (And even if a few slip through, you should tag/allow to be tagged for deletion your new uploads rather than the existing ones. If the existing ones are poorly named, slap a {{Rename}} on there.) Appeal can be to me or to this noticeboard, after a period of demonstrating that you will not repeat these problems. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:DennisBIH

User DennisBIH (talk · contribs) continue to re-upload previously deleted copyvios. --Smooth O (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  Done - blocked a week for copyvios and warned about civility and attempt to remove this post. Эlcobbola talk 17:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Low-quality smear filters applied to tons of images

User 通りすがりの猛者 (talk · contribs) is applying very low-quality smear filters to very, very many images of Japanese politicians and emperors. These filters just destroy, smear, and blur detail and they look very unnatural. I am manually reverting tons of images this has been done too with this explanation, but I feel such drastic "personal" modifications cant be allowed to be applied to historical photos here willy-nilly? Is this allowed?

Examples:
Real[6], Fake[7]
Real[8], Fake[9]
Real[10], Fake[11]
Real[12], Fake[13]
Real[14], Fake[15]
Real[16], Fake[17]--Havsjö (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Havsjö, I have blocked 通りすがりの猛者 (talk · contribs) for a week to stop the vandalism. I've gone through and reverted all their uploads of new versions. Their own uploads probably all need to be nuked, I've NPDed those which didn't have a PD tag. I'd probably indefblock, but would appreciate more input from other admins. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and could someone with knowledge of the topic please go through and kill off all the duplicates in those categories? I saw the same five photos over and over. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Kakaleite3434

User Kakaleite3434 (talk · contribs) seems to me it is more link spam than useful information. Perhaps someone would have a look? I'm too lazy to undo the edits one by one. ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked him/her indefinitely. Now I'm going to delete the uploads and revert spam. Taivo (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Vkraja

Vkraja (talk · contribs) I came originally after I've nominated en:Mavadipannai for speedy deletion and wanted to check the images posted there. The first one, File:Jglrlhre.jpg was a straightforward copyvio, so I tagged it as such. When checking for other files uploaded by the same user, I discovered that he uploaded a dozen images in the last few days, most of which with generic titles that look like he pressed random keys, which makes it nearly impossible to check the images for copyright violations. Most of the files (I have only checked the latest 10 or so) also have a random-typing description(like the one linked above) making it impossible to use the image as it's not clear what the image actually displays. I am coming here because I don't know how to handle this. A further check of his talkpage history showed that he had a dozen files deleted already. I am now checking the latest image, File:Mavadipanna River temple.jpg. A google seach shows that "Mavadipanna" is aparently misspelled, the image description yust contains "river", which I fail to see in the image. In my opinon there are two possibilites:

I deleted his user page and the OoS stuff. Besides the dodgy file names some of these might actually have been taken by him - I am seeing the same camera types Gbawden (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Rábold Gusztáv

It is possible there has simply been a misunderstanding here, because I am having to work through Google translate, but at [18] it would appear that in exchange for trying to explain the copyright issues to this user, I've been insulted and he's basically announced his intention to keep uploading likely copyvios. At the very least, someone who can speak Hungarian needs to engage him. More likely, if he really intends to ignoring copyright law, someone needs to block him. - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Rábold Gusztáv just doesn't understanding or doesn't want to. Ain't the first and won't be the last. OTRS gets a lot of these as well (without revealing anything confidential): They generally go like "I am the so-and-so A of so-and-so B, and it is a picture of so-and-so B. We don't know who took the picture. It has never been published and it is from our private family archives. Therefore, we own the photo. We own the photo, and so we own the copyright" which obviously is not how copyright works. Anyways, I agree, if they ignore copyright law and Commons policy, then a block may be necessary. Pinging @Bencemac for input. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 06:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Önök nem értik vagy nem akarják érteni. Jelen esetben egy száztíz éve készült képről van szó, amelyen az 1949-ben elhuny Rábold Gusztáv Kálvin és Cicero műveit fordító klasszika-filologus, gimnáziumi tanár, református lelkész látható, akinek unokájaként hivatalosan is a szerzői jogutódja vagyok. A képen szereplő személy illetve annak jogutódja adhat engedélyt a kép felhasználására. A kép készítőjének is! Üdvözlettel : Rábold Gusztáv

@Nat and Jmabel: Please review my comment before posting. Something like this? As my colleagues tried to explain in English above, the problem is that physically owning the photo and owning the copyright of the photo is not equal. Please read this. What do we know? The author of the picture is unknown, the picture is ~110 years old, we do not have information about the first publication and the exchanging of the copyright (payment for the picture). They tried to tell you that the picture probably can't stay, because we cannot know the exact copyright status of the picture due to the fact that the author and the date of the publication are also unknown (date of death/publication +70 years is not okay in this case).

Mint azt kollégáim fentebb próbálták elmagyarázni angolul, a probléma az, hogy a kép fizikai birtoklása nem egyenlő a kép szerzői jogainak birtoklásával. Kérem olvassa el a következőt. Mit tudunk? A kép szerzője ismeretlen, a kép ~110 éves, nyilvános publikálásáról és a szerzői jogok átadásáról (fizettek a képért) nincs információnk. Arra próbálták felhívni figyelmét, hogy a kép valószínűleg nem maradhat, mert ismeretlen szerző (nem alkalmazható a halál dátuma +70 év) és publikálás dátuma (nem alkalmazható a publikálás +70 év) miatt a szerzői jogok nem megállapíthatók.

Bencemac (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Ez önöknek már presztízskérdés, nem szerzői jogi kérdés. Ajánlom a szerzői jogról szóló tövény hathatós tanulmányozását. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rábold Gusztáv (talk • contribs) 08:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
  • @Rábold Gusztáv: No, it is not a matter of prestige as you claim. It is purely a matter of copyright law and Commons policy, and your outright refusal to understand them. The subject of a photo is not the copyright holder. The photographer is the copyright holder, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract. As Bencemac stated above, the photographer is not known, and we have no information as to first publication. Any content on this website must comply with the both the country of origin and the United States. If we accept that this was created in Hungary, then Hungarian and US laws would apply. Under the Act No. LXXVI of 1999, which governs copyright in Hungary, If the identity of the author cannot be established, the term of protection is 70 years from the first day of the year following the first publication of the work. Note the mention of first publication. Under US law, if unpublished before 2003 and if author is unknown or corporate authorship, the work will enter the earlier of 95 years after first publication, or 120 years after creation. The onus is yours to prove that the image can be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, which you have not done so far. All you stated is that you are the heir of the subject. But that is not a valid rationale. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 17:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Soy Daniel leal

Soy Daniel leal (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Doesn't get it: only OOS uploads (es:Daniel Leal, en:User:Soy Daniel leal). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Identical images?

Hello all. Usually if I try to upload an image that is already on Wikimedia Commons, it will be automatically rejected. However, these two maps [19] and [20] seem identical to me, but were both able to be uploaded. Is there any way to check for a minute difference between the two files? If they are identical, I would like to go ahead and delete one of them. This has not come up before so I don't know exactly what should be done. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Geographyinitiative. They do look the same to me, but File:Hong Kong and Canton Province Map 1954.jpg is 16MB vs File:Txu-oclc-10552568-nf50-5.jpg 4MB. The way to deal with this is to tag one as {{Duplicate}}, with a reference to the other. An admin will then delete one. My preference would be to keep the 16MB one with the nice name, though the TXU one is in use.
For your future reference, this page is meant to be for people reporting users who are problems, rather than users to report they are having problems. I'd suggest Commons:Help Desk in future. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Forgot to mention here - I changed the usages in sister projects before keeping the older, better-named and less-compressed version. Storkk (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I put in an editnotice to steer users to the correct forum in the future. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Shamar54

Shamar54 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) seems to be using Commons as a hosting space for external projects only. Maybe a block would be in order? --Slashme (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

user:Chris die Seele - user:Gliwi

Both users have the same clear name, deal with same subjects and propagate same style fake official CoAs. Both intensively use the tool "Global replace" to publish his personal creations replacing proven CoA-images causing a tremendous workload ckecking his actions, rolling back his replacements, deleting his watermarks in SVG-code and repairing the SVG-images. (see Commons:Forum deutsch)  MaxxL - talk 15:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

User: Sjgdzn Accounts and photos

I would like to have my photos and account completely deleted to be able to start over because I need more info before contributing my images to Wikimedia to determine if is the best place for them. They were uploaded without a full understanding of how it works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjgdzn (talk • contribs) 05:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons never deletes accounts, because every action must be connected with a user. The accounts can be indefinitely blocked, but not deleted. You nominated a lot of your uploads for deletion, claiming bad quality and privacy violation. None of the photos violated privacy and none had remarkably bad quality. Nevertheless, I granted courtesy deletion for some files, but rejected some requests. Taivo (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

User:タカヲ

タカヲ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user has repeated copyvios. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User warned. COM:BP requires a user to be warned. @Yuraily Lic: if you enable the User Messages gadget in preferences you can warn users yourself Gbawden (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Pranabkrnath

Pranabkrnath (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
PranabClub (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) ‎

Same person, multiple accounts, OOS content. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked Pranabkrnath and 157.40.253.180 (talk · contribs) for abusing multiple accounts. Thank you for nominating self-promo for deletion! Taivo (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Pipenavis

  Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Splintercell10 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user is uploading numerous photos since February with doubtful usefulness. But the major points are that the descriptions and categories he/she put on theses images have nothing to do with the photos themselves. For instance, he/she put Category:Art on most of them while they have nothing to do with art or the description, when that one make any sense. Many of his upload has been flagged for deletion, too. So an administrator should warn him/her and potentially block the account if this behavior continues.

Pierre cb (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Bill497

Bill497 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user keeps making disruptive edits to this file adding 50/50 paint showing partial Syrian/Russian military control, even though the map displays civilian control and the other parts has a presence of the international coalition. (Sources: http://www.hawarnews.com/en/haber/al-mehbash-the-agreement-is-military-and-there-is-no-amendment-to-the-administrative-map-h12124.html, https://rojavainformationcenter.com/graphics-and-maps/) I have tried to discuss the issue and opened a discussion on the Rojava talk page, however the user keeps on adding this material unilaterally to any map connected to Rojava/SDF, regardless of the nature of the map. He bases this on a Russian military map which I have explained is not sound to use as the only source since this is a pontentially biased source and not guaranteed to be factually correct. Also relevant for the discussion is that the user has been blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia after a string of disruptive edits and being a suspected sockpuppet. This is the second time I've started a topic concerning this user. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This user is making a notification about me for a second time, the first one was not replied by an administrator despite him re listing the request. Here is the first one. As in the first one user is again reverting the map of the article Rojava to a primary referenced version of the file, and then reverting me and calling me disruptive and edit warring, as he did in the first report. I've colored the contested section of the map in a dashed tone to highlight its contested, neither coloring it black or white, but in a dashed black and white mixed tone. The user however is not okay with this and accuses me of disruptiveness. User also removed the old version of the map from the article and made this new one so he can color it in full color instead of 50/50 while claiming this is due to the new map displaying civilian control only, but its clearly due to users POV which can be seen in his other contributions towards the topic. Bill497 (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  Done File protected for one week. Both users were warned for engaging in an edit war. Three other points:
  • Files should not be overwritten with substantially different content per COM:OW policy. User:Bill497 may upload their map under a new name as a different file.
  • Discussions on Wikipedia have nothing to do with Commons.
  • It takes two to tango. Either both of you should be blocked or none of you. I opted for the protection of the file and giving both of you a last warning. Further edit wars will get you blocked.
4nn1l2 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010 deleting my comment at DR

I object to the deletion and then crossing out of my comment by the editor in question.

Wikimedia does not insist on Contributors to be experts, but it does have rules as to what media is acceptable, they are separate things. I was going to ask whether Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) (which this image has) was not good enough for Wikipedia, as that knowledge would be useful to know in the future. I do have some understanding creative commons licences but I am forgetful about some of the differences between CCs. I had not gone as far as voting. As the current main contributor to the wikipedia page in question, an interested party, I was getting more information before I voted, but I was not going to vote unless I knew the licence was good/bad. I do not believe any one has the right to remove comments unless a editor was being disruptive. Its extremely rude to delete another editors words, even if they are learning. Bodney (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We learn by asking. Once we learn we might be able to contribute more.Bodney (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Bodney at the DR stated and I quote "Comment :As someone who contributes to the article in questio (and does not know too much about the legal borders of CC) I would have to agree if the is no evidence to support its use on Wikipedia then the image should be removed, other pictures can be found" (emphasis mine),
I saw this as basically a delete !vote and had major objections to someone essentially !voting delete whilst not knowing or understanding the CC licences and process, The file was nominated based upon the fact the Flickr licence was changed since being uploaded here,
Yes originally I deleted their comment however I never like to remove comments so struck it (Bodney reverted my removal) although I did remove another sperate comment here due to it being completely off-topic and of no help to the discussion,
I was wrong to originally delete their comment however I did immediately go to add it back,
If an admin wants to reinstate the deleted comment there's no objections from me however as I said I simply objected to someone coming to a DR and !voting delete on something they knew nothing about. –Davey2010Talk 15:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Striking another user's opinion, no matter how well- or ill-informed, is unacceptably hostile and BITEy. Storkk (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I had not voted. We all learn, once we learn we can contribute. Non administrators should not remove other editors contributions unless those contributions are clearly disruptive. (Atm i have a sour taste in mouth and made to feel less inclined to contribute in any way to the Wikimedia projects in future).Bodney (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
As I said I essentially saw it as a delete !vote, Agreed hence why I was going to add it back (you beat me to it), If you don't want to participate to any Wikimedia project after today than that's up to you however I will say you shouldn't simply drop everything just because you've had a disagreement with someone ..... If we all did that we'd have no editors here. –Davey2010Talk 16:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Having reflected on my actions there I certainly agree I should've replied as opposed to removing/striking their comment, My logic at the time was - People were going to come from EN (here) and start !voting Delete for no actual reason or per Bodneys comment but I guess it's no different to people at EN !voting Keep with no comment or per someone, In future I'll reply instead of removing/striking, FWIW I never delete or strike anyones comments but was simply afraid it was going to be deleted for some reason, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 17:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Davey I am glad you reflected on this. Bodney did indicate his comment was just that - a comment. Remember that anyone can comment on a DR and admins will treat comments as such.
I think we can consider the matter closed now Gbawden (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Low-quality smear filters applied to tons of images V2

The application of cheap filters applied to portraits of Japanese politicians by 通りすがりの猛者 (talk · contribs) was previously brought up here[21]
But now that the previous ban expired all files have been reverted to the smear-filter state by the same user[22], + a new one added[23] --Havsjö (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a month. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Same person

--Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 15:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Amitie 10g

Although Amitie 10g (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked for years, (s)he is still able to upload files into Commons. I'm not sure, is it system's bug or feature. Taivo (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a bug. Amitie 10g has not contributed/uploaded to Commons. They have uploaded some files to other projects, such as English Wikipedia, and other users have imported their uploaded files to Commons with FileImporter. For example, please see the history of [24] and pay attention to the yellow tags. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I find it not at all intuitive and actually quite disconcerting that a user's Special:Contributions on this wiki are affected by another user's edits on a different wiki. Storkk (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The notification was mentioned in the village pump I made a comment her and this was created by Jeff G. but not much echo. -- Geagea (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


As a general point, the idea of a blocked editor, instead being free to do uploads is an interesting one.
A problem with the full indef block is that it is hard for the user to demonstrate being prepared to behave well. Someone with a few months showing productive and uncontroversial uploads, at least has some evidence to support an unblock request.
Any account without a global ban should eventually be allowed to raise an unblock request and find some reasonable path to return to contributing beside socking or an "un" clean start. --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

FileImporter tags

  Question what are "yellow tags"? I see the tags "Mobile edit", "Mobile web edit", "Imported with FileImporter", "Advanced mobile edit", "2017 wikitext editor" and "Visual edit", but none of them are yellow (for me, using MonoBook) . Storkk (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I meant the above-mentioned tags and in particular "Imported with FileImporter". Maybe "yellow" was not the best description. I see them in a "cream" background (only in Desktop view). 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, part of the problem is that "lightyellow" is too light, to the extent that it is almost invisible. If you add the following snippet to your Special:MyPage/common.css and make the import tags more conspicuous, then the problem seems less severe.
    .mw-tag-marker-fileimporter-imported { background-color: #ffffb3; }
    I also wikified "FileImporter", so it is clearer now. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This is highly tangential, but in MonoBook, the background is not "almost invisible", it is not colored at all. In any case, even if I saw yellow, I wouldn't have known that it meant that the user didn't actually perform the edits on this wiki that are being highlighted. Perhaps this should be raised on the Village Pump again.Storkk (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that the import upload will add template to every upload that include all upload info:
date of original upload + original uploader + upload to wikiproject
date of moving to Commons + mover user name
That info is missing in the file page.
I also suggest to create a new abuse filter for new files of blocked users. -- Geagea (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Poetuq

Please block Poetuq (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , as it is an obvious sockpuppet of Omarov Nursultan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Omarov Nursultan). The user uploaded the same Getty Images photograph of Dylan Sprouse as all the previous sockpuppets, except they’re using a Flickrwashing account named “Nursultan Omarov” as the source. Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done Blocked and salted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Gordito1869

The user has been infinitely blocked on de-WP since a long time. Now he is obviously going nuts here, see contributions, his page or history of User talk:He3nry. Could you please stop him, thx, --He3nry (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

...yes, it`s mad - but I did it only for - OUR - project COMMONS : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gordito1869 --- --- --- Where was He3nry while this very, very long time ??? :https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/He3nry ??? -------- Please, close my account for only writing further access. ---- I really thouht, it`s - HERE - still working for COMMONS - also a russian COMMONS, -it`s also a french COMMONS, it`s also a spanish COMMONS ... but it is - in Reality like this : +"GERMAN THE GERMANS"+ ... This are the real team-players of He3nry in de.wp. --- Please, stop as fast as possible - (!) this obviously members & thinking USERS of COMMONS : GERMAN THE GERMANS !!! --Gordito1869 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Nachdem auf de:wp schon genügend schmutzige Wäsche gewaschen wurde (wobei He3nry meiner persönlichen Meinung nach nicht gerade den besten Eindruck hinterlassen hat), halte ich es nicht für sinnvoll, bestehende Diskrepanzen nach Commons zu verlagern. Daher ohne Schnörkel noch einmal nachgefragt: Gordito1869, möchtest du, dass dein Account gesperrt wird (betrifft nur Schreibzugriff), ja oder nein? --Achim (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Ja, bitte meinen USER-Account für den schreibenden (nicht den lesenden) Zugriff infinit sperren. 159-de.wp-Artikel und wohl tausende Fotos reichten bei Weitem nicht aus, einen der sicherlich verdientesten Commons-Mitarbeiter - He3nry - von meiner uneigennützigen COMMONS-Arbeit zu überzeugen. - "Deutschland den Deutschen" - vgl. meine Disk. - deckt sich ferner nicht mit meinem Weltbild von einer gleichberechtigten und offenen COMMONS-Communitiy. - Ich wusste bisher auch nicht, dass Commons faktisch und offensichtlich dem Diktat von de.wp unterworfen ist. - Bitte sperren Sie meine Account heute noch gegen Missbrauch von "Deutschen den Deutschen & others". (Bitte aber - lesend - offen lassen !) --- PS.: Mir hat Commons 11-Jahre viel Freude bereitet, meine Fotos in unzähligen Wikipedia-Artikeln sollten ferner für sich selbst sprechen .... und ich verabschiede mich hiermit & heute von meinen Kollegen-/innen mit Respekt - und einem Anflug von Selbstachtung - als Mensch MICHAEL PFEIFFER - aus Köln am RHEIN  : Tschüss & adios Euer : --Gordito1869 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  Done: Account blocked indef per user's request. Michael, alles Gute für die Zukunft! --Achim (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Gordito1869 unter bekannter IP : Eigentlich sollten nur meine beiden USER-Seiten gegen Fremdzugriffe geschützt werden, weil Neu-USER kommentarlos ihren Krempel bei mir abgeladen haben : https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gordito1869&diff=416161966&oldid=416157592 --- --- --- Bilder/Fotos würde ich schon noch sehr gerne weiterhin hochladen wollen. - Ist das programmtechnisch nicht machbar ? - Bitte meinen USER-Account - als solchen - wieder freigeben. - Vielen Dank & entschuldigen Sie bitte die Missverständnisse (CORONA hinterlässt auch bei mir Spuren). - gez. Michael Pfeiffer alias IP : --46.82.122.219 06:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Block undone, user page protected. --Achim (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh He3nry, müsst ihr unbedingt die Probleme die Ihr in meinen Augen in der DE-WP geschaffen habt, Stichworte: Klüngel-Adminstration, politisch-ideologisch Schlagseite, Abmahnunwesen, Marktplatzpushung (bezahltes Schreiben) etc., unbedingt jetzt auch auf Commons noch tragen? Also ich ersuche Dich, den Antrag zurückzuziehen. Bwag (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

+ Senf des hier Gescholtenen : Ich denke, mein COMMONS-Bilderdienst war & ist vorbildlich; auch meine excellenten Fotos gereichen COMMONS-INTERNATIONAL zur Ehr'. - Ich habe unter COMMONS niemals jemanden persönlich angegriffen und USER He3nry lediglich - von USER zu USER - um einen winzig kleinen persönlichen Gefallen gebeten (Tausch eines Bildes in de.wp) . - Bitte schalten Sie meinen Account wieder frei, ich möchte COMMONS dienen & Bilder/Fotos hochladen. - DANKE --- PS : @He3nry : "Now he is obviously going nuts here" ist imho ein glasklarer & gänzlich unprovozierter PA, für den ich in de.wp gesperrt worden wäre. MfG - gez. Michael Pfeiffer alias --46.82.122.219 08:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Michael, du kannst dich wieder einloggen. --Achim (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Supi, Achim - DANKE !!! (Einen kurzen "Nachklapp" biete ich noch feil : PS II. zu oben. : Mein hiesiger sachlicher Hinweis auf einen AfD-Funktionär in Führungsgremien der de.wp war kein PA, sondern eine unbestreitbare & allseits bekannte (?) Tatsache. --- MfG - gez. M. Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Tschüss & bleibt gesund !!! --Gordito1869 (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Ich muss und vor allem hier will gar nichts machen. Wenn die Kollegen Plessen und Gordito aufhören, meine hiesige Diskussionsseite mit fettgeschrienem Unsinn vollzutexten bzw. mich anzupingen, kriege ich gar nicht mit, dass auf Commons irgendetwas passiert. (@Achim: Was der Kommentar sollte, wird Dein persönliches Rätsel bleiben. Wenn Du wg. de-WP was diskutieren willst, dann tue das dort.) --He3nry (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Mag vielleicht einer der hiesigen USER = de.WP:Benutzer meinen sehr höflich erbetenen Bild-Tausch noch durchführen ? --- He3nry möchte ich vorzugsweise nicht nochmals höflich bitten - sonst beschwert er sich am Ende gar noch bei de.wp Benutzer:MAGISTER über mich. - ...und ich denke, mit MAGISTER - dem enttarnten AfD-Funktionär - möchten die wenigsten hier mitlesenden Demokraten noch etwas zu schaffen haben - oder etwa doch, He3nry ?? - Tschüss & carpe diem. - MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm closing this section now, as there is no further need to discuss. Warning to Gordito1869: please stop writing anything on He3nry's talk page, as he obviously does not wish it. Any further writings may be considered harassment and result in block of your account. Thanks --A.Savin 13:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --A.Savin 13:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexismata7

Please block talk page access to Alexismata7, as they insist on adding comments that do not relate to their unblock request. In fact, they have been putting up attacks. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 16:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  •   Not done I have restored the comments by Alexismata7 which you removed. Once you weighed in at the unblock discussion by posting references to the Spanish Wikipedia, Alexismata7 was allowed to respond and cite possible problems with your account, too. Also, there is no policy that limits the use of a blocked user's talk page to requesting unblocks. Edit warring about this issue didn't strengthen your position either. De728631 (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: You mean ad hominem fallacies are good to go? Bummer! Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 18:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Please show me any ad-hominem fallacies in this edit. Your account at the English Wikipedia being blocked for socking is a fact, and I cannot find any name-calling there. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Exactly that they mentioned my block on the English Wikipedia is an ad hominem fallacy. The matter of discussion is their block, not mine. Got it? I would be more than willing to respond concerns regarding my behavior on other wikis, had it been expressed in words that are not detrimental to my self-perceived work, that is, free of attacks. I believe you are an understanding user, for a reason you are an admin here, so I will explain the issue on the English Wikipedia for the record: I was banned on the English Wikipedia in 2015, following a discussion, because I created some articles which were perceived as promotional to stuff I was related to. Looking back, of course I did wrong. I have been a Wikimedia user for nearly 14 years, and you can understand I do regret these errors, which is why I have now requested an unblock/unban. This particular account (Cuatro Remos), however, was my account for use in public computers, such as in school or university in later years. It was not blocked immediately, in fact, it was blocked after I requested it (as you can see in the talk page on the English Wikipedia). I know many users who have interacted with me in Commons since I became an active user in 2010 do know my past and know me well enough. Having said this, I urge you to remove these unwarranted fallacies and attacks. I am not reverting you out of respect. Thanks in advance. Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 18:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
With so much experience you should actually know the summary of Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot (aka 'Boomerang'): "Consider your own actions before bringing attention to the actions of others." By bringing up Alexismata7's conduct outside of Commons you automatically put yourself under scrutiny in terms of credibility and reliability. If you take offence by Alexismata citing your failure's elsewhere, you shouldn't have blamed them in the first place. De728631 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I insist, the matter of discussion was their block and their conduct, not my five-year-long block elsewhere. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 19:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Both of you are attacking the other, trying to diminish other one's position bringing some other-wiki-thingies. You brought es.wikipedia stuff and Alexismata7 ...en.wikipedia's. Honestly, appearing there to presume bad faith after Alexismata asked an unblock, and after that repeatedly reverting Alexismata7's answer in their own talk page... does seem wrong. If you have a grudge with them... it's a good moment to keep some distance and let sysops manage the situation. Strakhov (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Strakhov: I agree, I will be staying out of the discussion for good. I intervened only because I requested their block for uploading copyvios in the first place. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 19:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Udin Azmi

I looked at a couple of the user's uploads and I think they are all Copyvios. Maybe an admin should take a look at it and delete the copyvios. --Killarnee (T•1•2) 02:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
User has uploaded new copyvios. --Killarnee (T•1•2) 03:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Blocked for a week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Xxlfussel in Category:Selina Egle at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
We do not want to see edit wars as it occurred in Category:Selina Egle at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics. Speedy deletion requests as this one are abusive if this is contested. COM:CFD exists for discussions about categories and to find a consensus. Such discussions do not belong at this board. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It is definitely enough now. For two weeks now, the user has been running an ever flaring editwar against three other users because he does not want to see that there is a system for certain category names. All pictures of participants in the Youth Olympic Games have their own category and this is then included in the sport / annual system, just as in the participant system of the games. He also refuses any conversation, see Category talk: Selina Egle at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics, where he does not respond, but only acts in a harmful way against three other users, also against those who a) have taken these pictures and therefore know exactly what they are doing and b) against the users who generally contributed most of the pictures on commons for luge, i.e. they know what they are doing. It just cannot go on like this that someone with such a fixed idea creates such unrest. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Full approval to Marcus Cyron. Xxlfussel thinks that he has to enforce his exclusive private opinion – contrary to the complete system (see Category:Lugers at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics) – and appears extremely bossy and impudent via editwar. --Sandro Halank (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done Edit war stopped by reverting to the status quo ante and protection of the category. —DerHexer (Talk) 19:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Ich würde das hier ja mal als eine schöne Hinterzimmer-Diplomatie bezeichnen. Die Entscheidung wird getroffen, bevor sich die beschuldigte Partei, in diesen Fall ich, äußern darf. Zudem ist dann der Admin, der die Entscheidung trifft, selbst in diesen „Konflikt“ beteiligt ist. Das kann – meiner Meinung nach – nicht so sein. Deswegen werde ich mich auch weiter zum Thema äußern, auch wenn die Entscheidung eigentlich schon getroffen wurde.
  • In seinen Plädoyer schreibt Marcus, dass alle Bilder von Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmern in eine eigene Kategorie kommen. Das trifft so nicht zu. Als Gegenbeispiel bringe ich die Galerie von Anna Andexer an. Dort sind die Bilder in der normalen Galerie und nicht in der zusätzlichen Galerie „Anna Andexer at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“. Ich hoffe, dass dies auch nicht geändert wird, solange die Diskussion hier läuft. Die Sondergalerien existieren nur bei insgesamt 167 Athleten. Bei 413 Athleten existiert diese Sondergalerien nicht. Also ist aus meiner Sicht diese Aussage vollkommen unzutreffend.
  • Da ich mich ja hier äußere, sehe ich den Vorwurf, dass ich jegliche Konversation verweigere nicht. Ich sehe es sogar anders, er hätte mich ja mal auf der Diskussionsseite markieren können, so dass ich die Diskussion bemerke, oder er hätte mich auf meiner Diskussionsseite angeschrieben. Dann hätte ich die Diskussion auch bemerkt, ich habe ja auch diese Diskussion mitbekommen.
  • Seit wann haben denn diejenigen, die die Bilder aufgenommen haben, und diejenigen, die zum Bereich „Rodeln“ die meisten Bilder beigesteuert haben, mehr Rechte als ein normaler Benutzer, wie ich? Das diese Regel gilt wäre mir aber neu und das fände ich auch nicht gut, vor allem wenn die Benutzer dann auch ihre Rechte missbrauchen, wie hier in diesen Beispiel. Sie erstellen für zwei Bilder eine Sondergalerie, welche vollkommen unnötig ist. Zudem ist die von mir erstellte Kategorie „Selina Egle in 2020“ auch überflüssig, dass gebe ich ohne umschweife zu. Eigentlich müsste man einfach nur die beiden Bilder in die Kategorie „Selina Egle“ einsortieren. Zudem müsste dann diese Galerie als Unterkategorie zu den beiden Kategorien „Austria at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“ und „Luge at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“ zugefügt werden und fertig ist der Lack. Mit dieser Möglichkeit können sich aber die „three other users“ aber nicht anfreunden.
Soweit erstmal zu meinen Standpunkt bei diesen Thema. Ich möchte nur noch anmerken, dass auch die „three other users“ eine „fixed idea“ haben, welche genauso zu diesen „Konflikt“ und die „Unruhe“ beiträgt. MfG --Xxlfussel (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Wir hatten bisher noch keinen Kontakt. Und von dem Problem habe ich heute zum ersten Mal erfahren, da ich in einem ganz anderen Bereich dieses Kategorienbaumes arbeite. Aber gut, man sieht gern die Verschwörungen, die man sehen will. Die Gründe bleiben ja, wie sie sind. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Am Ende werden alle Teilnehmer der Olympischen Jugendspiele die wir fotografiert haben für 2018 und 2020 tiefenkategorisiert werden. Mit eigener Kat für die Bilder bei dieser Veranstaltung. Punkt. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Dann schreibe ich auch mal auf Deutsch.
Wenn es Sinn macht, dann bekommen die Sportlerinnen und Sportler eine entsprechende Kategorien <Name> at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics (so wie es auch bei den 2018 Summer Youth Olympics geschehen ist). Die Bilder werden gerade noch bearbeitet und hochgeladen, d. h. hier findet noch viel Arbeit statt. Du kannst dich gern beteiligen und entsprechende Kategorien <Name> at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics anlegen (sofern sie noch nicht vorhanden sind), die Bilder entsprechend dahin verschieben usw., das würde sicher ungemein helfen. Gerade bei den Rennrodlern, wo es abseits der YOG schon zahlreiche Bilder gab und gibt macht eine entsprechende Unterkategorisierung durchaus Sinn, zumal damit zu rechnen ist, dass in 2020 weitere Bilder hinzukommen (einige aus 2020 liegen auch noch bei mir auf Halde und folgen nachdem ich mit den YOG fertig bin). Dass wir dann hier bei einer von insgesamt 87 Athleten ausscheren sollten, sehe ich nicht. Da sollte dann schon ein bisschen Konsistenz drin sein, wenn man ein System aufzieht. Sicher ebenfalls nicht ohne Grund machst du, Xxlfussel, ja auch Unterkategorisierungen wie Category:Skeleton racers from Poland – dann hier über eine Kategorisierung von zwei Bildern einen derartigen Editwar anzuzetteln ist nun vollkommen abwegig.
Den Hinweis auf die Diskussion hat Marcus sehr deutlich gesetzt (vgl. Verschiebeschutz mit Verweis auf die Disk.), aber wenn man das nicht sehen will, dann sieht man es auch nicht, schon klar. Und wenn man mal ein klein bisschen Rücksicht darauf nehmen kann, dass andere Dinge vllt. auch nicht immer wahllos und ohne Grund so anlegen, wie sie es tun, dann ist allen sicher geholfen. --Sandro Halank (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Da haben sich ja jetzt schon alle drei beteiligten Mal gemeldet. Da kann die Diskussion ja richtig losgehen.
  • @DerHexer: Ich sehe da jetzt keine Verschwörungen oder so. Aber wenn du möchtest und es dir Freude bereitet, kannst du mich gerne zu Xavier Naidoo und Attila Hildmann in die Ecke stellen. Aber du kannst nicht leugnen, dass du dich schon an diesen Konflikt beteiligt hat, auch wenn du dich vielleicht nicht mehr daran erinnerst. Aber ich helfe dir gerne ein wenig auf die Sprünge, man kann sich ja nicht alles merken, was man sich gemacht hat. Dieser Link könnte dir vielleicht ein wenig auf die Sprünge helfen. Da hat du meine erste Bearbeitung mit der Begründung „that was the right name; please don't move it back“ rückgängig gemacht. Darauffolgend hättest du diese Entscheidung nicht treffen dürfen, da du befangen bist, oder wer ist neben Marcus und Sandro der ominöse Dritte von den „three other users“?
  • @Marcus Cyron: Liest du dir eigentlich deine Sachen durch, bevor du sie postest. Dann hättest du vielleicht gerade mitbekommen, dass du an deinen eigenen Ast sägst. Mir wirfst du eine fixe Idee vor, aber du willst selbst nicht von deiner oder eurer Idee abrücken. Du beschuldigst mich, dass ich nicht diskutieren will, was gar nicht stimmt. Jeder der mich von der Wikipedia oder von Wiki Commons kennt, der weiß genau, wie gerne ich diskutiere. Du bist derjenige, der nicht diskutieren will. Du willst einfach nur, dass deine Idee umgesetzt wird, komme was wolle.
  • @Sandro Halank: Da werde ich mich garantiert nicht daran beteiligen, weil diese Galerien unnötig sind und ich daran keinen Mehrwert sehe. Du kannst es aber gerne versuchen, Ihn mir nahe zu bringen. Aber bisher sehe ich keine Argumente für diese Kategorie. Du legst ja auch nicht zu den IBSF-Weltmeisterschaften beispielsweise bei Janine Flock – wenn wir schon mal bei Athletinnen aus Österreich sind – die Kategorie „Janine Flock at Bobsleigh & Skeleton World Championships Altenberg 2020“ an. Genauso unnötig wie die gerade genannte Kategorie wäre, ist – finde ich – die Kategorie „Selina Egle at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“. Ich sehe in dieser Kategorie keinen Mehrwert, egal ob mit zwei, mit 25 oder mit 117 Bildern.
Ich schaue mit beim besten Willen nicht die Zusammenfassungen von eueren Bearbeitung an und wenn überhaupt nur minimal beim drüber schauen und da sieht man sowas nicht. Da ist eine Ping sehr viel sinnvoller, als es in die Zusammenfassung zu schreiben. MfG --Xxlfussel (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Es sind keine Galerien, es sind Kategorien, bitte versteh den Unterschied.
Unterkategorien zu Personen bei Veranstaltungen würde ich eigentlich deutlich häufiger anlegen, würde es mich nicht so viel Zeit kosten, die ganzen Kategorien anzulegen. Zeit, die ich leider nicht finde. Es ist sicher auch nicht für jeden Weltcup notwendig, aber für Großevents macht es schon Sinn. Einfach auch, weil dann über Kategorien wie Category:Lugers at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics entsprechend die Bilder der Sportlerinnen und Sportler bei der Veranstaltung gefunden werden können – der vorrangige Sinn von Kategorien. Das wird natürlich erschwert, wenn es keine entsprechenden Unterkategorien gibt. Auch dient es einer möglichst sauberen Dokumentation der Ergebnisse eines solch großen Fotoprojekt – immerhin rund 2 Wochen intensive Arbeit vor Ort.
Nur weil du keinen Mehrwert darin siehst, egal wie viele Bildern so eine Unterkategorie hat, ist ein Editwar sicher nicht der richtige Weg. Du möchtest etwas anders haben als es bisher status quo ist, dann hast du auch die Diskussion zu suchen, anstelle hier wie der große Entscheider aufzutreten und direkt Tatsachen zu schaffen. Tut mir leid, da habe ich kein Verständnis für. Nur weil ich in der Unterkategorisierung bei Category:Skeleton racers from Poland „keinen Mehrwert sehe“, mache ich es nicht rückgängig. Du wirst dir dabei was gedacht haben, das respektiere ich und würde (wenn es mich wirklich stören würde) vllt. mal bei dir nachfragen, bevor ich irgendwas rückgängig mache. So funktioniert ein Gemeinschaftsprojekt wie dieses normalerweise und ich fände es schön, wenn wir so konstruktiv zusammenarbeiten könnten. Du kannst es gern anmerken, wenn du etwas anders sinnvoller findest, wir können uns darüber austauschen und wir finden dann hoffentlich einen gemeinsamen Weg. Das würde ich mir wirklich wünschen und finde es tatsächlich überaus schade, wenn es nicht gelingt. --Sandro Halank (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Die Diskussion teilt sich wieder in verschiedene Unterthemen auf und deswegen teile ich meine Beitrag in verschiedene Abschnitte auf, sodass man besser erkennen kann, was zu welchen Thema gehört.
  • Thema „fehlerhafte Bezeichnung“: Ja, es sind Kategorien. Ich weiß nicht warum, ich manchmal fälschlicherweise das Wort Galerie statt den Wort Kategorie verwende. Aber kontextbezogen ist es klar erkenntlich, von was ich rede.
  • Thema „Status quo“: Ich sehe es nicht so, dass eure Vorgehensweise der aktuelle „Status quo“ ist. Aus meiner Sicht ist der aktuelle „Status quo“ weiterhin die Vorgehensweise, die bei allen Olympischen Spielen und auch allen Olympischen Jugendspielen, mit der Ausnahme von 2018 und 2020, verwendet wird. Bei dieser Vorgehensweise wird die Hauptkategorie der Sportler in die Kategorie „<Bezeichnung der Olympischen Spiele> sportspeolple“ oder eine dazugehörige Unterkategorie einsortiert. Das ist der aktuelle „Status quo“. Ich unterstreiche die Aussage gleich mal noch mit einen Beispiel, bevor ihr mir um die Ohren hauen wollt, dass diese Kategorien keine Bilder zu den jeweiligen Olympischen Spielen oder Olympischen Jugendspielen enthalten.
    • Wie bleiben auf den Eis, aber wechseln zu einer anderen Sportart und schauen uns die Kategorie von Anna Seidel an. Sie nahm nicht nur an zwei Olympischen Spielen teil, sondern auch 2016 an den Olympischen Jugend-Winterspielen 2016 teil. Dort wurden von ihr, während des 1000 Meter Rennens insgesamt neun Bilder aufgenommen. Diese Bilder sind in der Hauptkategorie von Anna Seidel einsortiert.
Es gibt auch noch weitere Beispiel, welche ich, wenn es nötig ist, gerne nachliefern kann. Somit bin nicht ich es, der dem aktuellen „Status quo“ entgegengesetztes durchsetzen will, sondern ihr seid das. Deswegen müsst ihr nachweisen, dass euere Vorgehensweise sinnvoller ist als der aktuelle „Status quo“. Einen solchen Beweis oder Nachweis seid ihr bisher schuldig, geblieben.
  • Thema „Relativierung“: Damit du aber diesen Beweis nicht liefern musst, willst du hier deine Bearbeitung mittels meinen sonstigen Bearbeitungen relativieren. Ich habe nichts gegen eine Diskussion über meine Bearbeitungen, wie hier klar zu ersehen ist. Aber eine Diskussion zu den von die angesprochen Bearbeitungen gehört nicht hier hin, sondern auf meine Diskussionsseite, dort können wir gerne darüber diskutieren, wenn du das möchtest. Hier geht es einzig und allein um die Diskussion zu den von mir schon mehrmals als unnötig betitelten Kategorien „<Name des Athleten> at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“.
Ich bin auch an einer Lösung des „Konflikts“ interessiert. Wer eher nicht an einer Lösung interessiert ist, ist dagegen Marcus Cyron. Er hat ja mit seiner letzten Stellungnahme klar unterstrichen, dass er einfach nur seine fixe Idee durchdrücken will und kein Interesse dran hat, eine einvernehmliche Lösung zu finden. --Xxlfussel (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Ach, das war dasselbe Thema? Diese Diskussion gibt es schon seit Wochen? Na gut, kann man in der Zeit vergessen. Würde man c:Category:Félix Dolci nicht nach Wettbewerben, sondern nach Jahren sortieren, könnte man die Bilder nicht nach den teilgenommenen Wettkämpfen 2018 trennen. Genau dafür gibt es die Möglichkeit, Unterkategorien anzulegen. Es wurde länglich dargestellt, wieso es aus Konsistenzgründen auch für Personen mit einer geringeren Anzahl an Bilder je Kategorie sinnvoll ist, diese anzulegen. Tut ja nicht weh und macht am Ende nur Arbeit (klar, wieso es bei Anna Seidel dann auch noch nicht gemacht wurde). Da wurdest du ja zur Mithilfe aufgerufen. —DerHexer (Talk) 11:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Und zum 2016er-YOG-Beispiel: Von den 2016 Winter Youth Olympics gibt es weniger als 1.500 Bilder, von den 2018 Summer Youth Olympics hingegen mehr als 100.000 Bilder, von den 2020 Winter Youth Olympics werden es wohl rund 50.000 Bilder werden (da ist noch jede Menge Arbeit zu tun, auch rund 4 Monate nach der Veranstaltung, das bringen mehrere zehntausend gemachte Bilder so mit sich – zum Projekt gern an anderer Stelle mehr). Dort eine saubere Dokumentation für Nachnutzende (Auffindbarkeit von Bilder, die während der Veranstaltung entstanden sind) und zur Auswertung eines solchen Projekts zu gewährleisten, sollte dann eines der Hauptziele sein. Gerade beim Rennrodeln sind in den letzten Jahren – auch dank stetiger Arbeit und dem Aufbau guter Kontakte zur FIL – viele Bilder entstanden, die sollten sinnvoll auffindbar sein und es ist davon auszugehen, dass von den YOG-Teilnehmenden sicher noch in 2020 weitere Bilder entstehen können; das alles ist keineswegs so selbstverständlich, dass das für ehrenamtlich Aktive möglich ist – die Kriterien für Presseakkreditierungen sind eigentlich sehr streng. Umso mehr ist jede Jahresakkreditierung da ein Erfolg, jede Akkreditierung für die Weltmeisterschaften beruht auf viel Networking und positiver Zusammenarbeit (auch bei den Bob- und Skeletonweltmeisterschaften in Altenberg) – die Akkreditierungen für die YOG aber sind die wohl größten Erfolge. Und genau da sollten wir dann m. E. weitere positive Beispiele der Dokumentation, Nachnutzbarkeit und Auffindbarkeit der ehrenamtlichen Arbeit schaffen. Denn genau das wird wahrgenommen und ermöglicht in Zukunft vllt. sogar solche Projekte bei den „richtigen“ olympischen Spielen.
Du magst ja recht haben, dass eine Unterkategorie für zwei Bilder vllt. an sich nicht unbedingt notwendig ist, aber sie ist – wie schon geschrieben – Teil eines Systems von insgesamt 87 Kategorien zu den Rennrodlerinnen und Rennrodlern. Dort eine gewisse Konsistenz zu haben, ist hoffentlich ein nachvollziehbares Ziel. Diese Kategorie schadet nun wirklich niemanden (um entsprechende Serverkapazitäten müssen wir uns keine Sorgen machen), sie gewährleistet aber ein konsistentes System der Auffindbarkeit von Dateien zu den Rennrodlerinnen und Rennrodlern bei YOG 2020. --Sandro Halank (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Die beiden Bearbeitungen von euch bringen durchaus neue Themen ans Licht, welche vielleicht auch noch ein wenig die Diskrepanz zwischen meiner und euerer Einschätzung zu Tage fördern. Von Anfang an möchte ich klarstellen, dass ich nichts gegen eure Arbeit habe. Die Bebilderung von der Wikipedia und auch den anderen Schwesterprojekten ist sehr wichtig. Aber man kann es vielleicht so sagen, dass ich eine andere „Arbeitsweise“ oder „Herangehensweise“ besser finden würde und so vielleicht auch eine solche Kategorie und damit auch eine solche Diskussion nicht mehr nötig ist.

  • Thema „Sortierung nach Jahren/nach Wettbewerben“: Meine Meinung nach schließen sich die beiden Arten der Sortierung nicht aus. Ich sehe es nur so, dass eine Sortierung nach Wettbewerb nur dann erfolgen sollte, wenn es unbedingt notwendig ist. Wie ich bereits hier in der Diskussion angemerkt habe, sehe ich es bei der Kategorie „Selina Egle at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“ keine Notwendigkeit dafür. Dort sollten die Bilder, wenn es bei den zwei Bildern bleibt, einfach in die Hauptkategorie sortiert werden und, wenn es ein paar mehr werden, dann kann man sie einfach in die Kategorie „Selina Egle in 2020“ einsortieren. Am Schluss wird dann nur noch die Hauptkategorie in die beiden „2020 Sommer Youth Olympics“-Kategorien einsortiert. Bei der von DerHexer in Spiel gebrachten Kategorie „Félix Dolci“ sieht die Sachlage ein wenig anders aus. Dort ist – nach meiner Meinung – die Aufteilung nach Wettbewerb notwendig auch. Zudem kann man hier auch die Wettbewerbskategorien in die Jahreskategorien einsortieren. So können Wettbewerbs- und Jahreskategorien nebeneinander bestehen. Aber eben nur, wenn halt eine Wettbewerbskategorie notwendig ist.
  • Thema „Anzahl der Bilder“: Warum ist bei der Kategorie von Félix Dolci die Einsortierung von den Bildern in eine Wettbewerbskategorie notwendig. Die Antwort ist natürlich naheliegend. Es sind einfach so viele Bilder, dass man sie nicht anders händeln könnte. Es sind ja schon nur in der Kategorie „Félix Dolci at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics‎“ und den fünf Unterkategorien 1923 Bilder einsortiert. Da stellt sich für mich die Frage: Sind so viele Bilder wirklich notwendig? Meine klare Meinung dazu ist nein. Dafür habe ich zwei Gründe:
    • Mein einer Kritikpunkt ist der, dass ich finde, dass bei den Olympischen Jugendspielen einfach zu viele Bilder geschossen wurde. Denn in Bezug auf die Sportler, welche daran teilnehmen, stellt sich ja noch die Frage, ob sie überhaupt relevant werde. Nämlich erst dann werden sie ja für die Wikipedia interessant. Bei Félix Dolci könnte sich Frage vielleicht schon nicht mehr stellen, weil er durch den Medaillengewinn bei den Pacific Rim Championships schon für die deutsche Wikipedia relevant sein könnte. Zudem hat er ja schon in der englischen Wikipedia einen eigenen Artikel. Aber bei anderen Sportlern und Sportarten stellt sich die Frage schon. Weil wir mit Marcus Cyron ja einen Rodel-affinen Diskussionsteilnehmer haben, können wir ja einfach mal auf das Rennrodeln schauen, wie viele Rodlerinnen und Rodler, welche 2012 oder 2016 an den Olympischen Jugendspielen teilgenommen haben nun relevanten. Nach meinen kurzen Nachschauen würde ich sagen, dass es nicht wirklich viele sind. Ob dass nun bei den teilnehmenden Rodlerinnen und Rodler der Olympischen Jugendwinterspiele 2018 anders ist, kann man nur mutmaßen.
    • Ein andere Kritikpunkten ist auch, was für Bilder überhaupt hochgeladen werden. Ich stelle mal stellvertretenden diese beiden Bilder (1 und 2) vor. War es wirklich notwendig, dass diese hier auf Wikimedia Commons hochgeladen wurden? Dabei sieht man Félix Dolci nur minimal. Er ist übrigens der im roten Turnanzug. Ich sehe – ehrlich gesagt – bei diesen Bild nicht den Nutzen des Bildes. Wo könnte es bei Wikimedia Commons oder den Schwesterprojekten nutzen? Ich habe da keine Ideen. Deswegen hätte man meiner Meinung nach diese beiden Bilder gerne nicht hochladen müssen. Ein „Nutzungsproblem“ besteht aber nicht nur bei diesen beiden Bildern, sondern auch weiteren Bilder. Deswegen würde ich gerne mal kurz von den Jugend-Sommerspielen weggehen und mal auf die Bilder der IBSF-Weltmeisterschaft schauen. Dafür würde ich vielleicht die Galerie „Benjamin Maier in 2020“ als Beispiel nehmen. Die Fotoreihe zum Start verstehe ich ja noch und die finde ich persönlich auch gut, weil auf man den Bildern dieser Reihe auch den Einstieg in den Bob sieht. Aber bei den anderen Bildern kann man sich fragen, ob man da wirklich so viele Bilder braucht, dass die Galerie auf 77 Bilder anwächst. Da vertrete ich klar die Meinung nein und ich gebe auch gerne ein oder zwei Beispiele, welche Bilder man – meiner Meinung nach nicht hätte hochladen müssen. Zum Beispiel hätte man beim Viererbob-Start die Bilder, bevor die Sportler in den Bob springen, weglassen können. Das würde in den Fall von Herrn Maier die Bilder 391 bis 398 bedeuten, also acht Bilder. Man kann ja jetzt naiv annehmen, dass man auch bei den anderen Viererbobs diese acht Bilder wegnehmen kann und somit hätte man eine Ersparnis von 176 Bildern, welche Meinung nach hier nur auf Wikimedia Commons nur gespeichert sind und nie benutzt werden.
Was ich mit dieser Äußerung erreichen will, dass man vielleicht beim nächsten Mal vielleicht eine Vorauswahl von Bildern trifft, welche man dann hochlädt. Natürlich bedeutet dies mehr Arbeit. Aber so nehmt ihr prinzipiell den Schreiberlingen von Wikipedia und vielleicht auch der anderen Schwesterprojekte ein wenig Arbeit ab. Zudem würden dann die Kategorien auch nicht von so vielen Bildern überflutet und dadurch könnten auch Wettbewerbskategorien vermieden werden.
  • Thema „Konsistenzgründen“: Von was für Konsistenzgründen redet ihr denn bitte? Ich sehe es eher so, dass ihr doch die bisherige „Konsistenz“ verändert und nicht – wie ihr es darstellt – ich mit meinen Bearbeitungen. Im Bezug darauf zierte ich einfach mal aus meinen ersten Beitrag in dieser Diskussion. Damals habe ich folgendes geschrieben: „Die Sondergalerien existieren nur bei insgesamt 167 Athleten. Bei 413 Athleten existiert diese Sondergalerien nicht.“ Also zerstöre nicht ich die „Konsistenz“, sondern ihr zerstört die Konsistenz indem ihr die Sonderkategorien in diese Kategorien einfügt. Zudem sehe ich in der bisherigen Vorgehensweise mehrere Vorteile gegenüber eurer Vorgehensweise. Wenn man die Sonderkategorien einsortiert, dann sieht man natürlich sofort die Bilder, wobei bei Félix Dolci sieht man sie auch nicht sofort, da muss man erstmal in die Unterkategorien. Die Frage ist aber, was man nicht sieht und man sieht – wie ich finde – vieles nicht. Zum Beispiel sieht man nicht, welche anderen Bilder gibt es von der Person bzw. von welchen anderen Jahren gibt es Bilder von der Person. Zudem sieht man die Infobox nicht, wo man etwas über die Person erfahren kann, wie zum Beispiel das Geburtsdatum, den Geburtsort und vieles mehr. Zudem sieht man auch nicht, in welchen Sprachen ein Wikipedia-Artikel verfügbar ist. Dies alles sieht man im Gegensatz dazu, wenn man die Hauptkategorie der Person ein kategorisiert und nicht die Sonderkategorie.

Wie ich bereits zum Anfang meines Beitrags gesagt habe, finde ich euere Arbeit grundsätzlich gut, aber in gewissen Punkten gibt es eben unterschiedliche Meinungen. Das ihr die Akkreditierung dort erhaltet habt, ist natürlich schön und ist sicherlich auch ein großer Erfolg, aber nur deswegen könnt ihr nicht die bisherigen Vorgehensweisen umschmeißen und als nichtig erklären. Das ist auch nicht Sinn der Sache eines Gemeinschaftsprojekts. --Xxlfussel (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Warum sträubst DU dich denn dann so gegen den Gedanken des GEMEINSCHAFTSprojektes und agierst so deutlich und offen gegen die gemeinschaftliche Arbeit Mehrerer? Und das ALLEIN? OO Im übrigen sind Kategorien keine Gallerien. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
„agierst so deutlich und offen gegen die gemeinschaftliche Arbeit Mehrerer“ – Du kennst dich doch damit besser aus als ich. Wie war das denn als du in der deutschen Wikipedia aus den Wintersport-Portal ausgetreten bist? Du musstest dich einer Meinung von mehreren unterordnen, welche nicht mit deiner Meinung identisch war. Da hast du glasklar gezeigt, dass du an einer gemeinschaftlichen Arbeit nicht interessiert bist. Das hast du auch in dieser Diskussion schon getan. Ich zitiere einfach mal deinen Diskussionsbeitrag: „Am Ende werden alle Teilnehmer der Olympischen Jugendspiele die wir fotografiert haben für 2018 und 2020 tiefenkategorisiert werden. Mit eigener Kat für die Bilder bei dieser Veranstaltung. Punkt“ – Mit diesen Kommentar zeigst du, dass du einfach nur deine eigene Meinung bzw. in diesen Fall deine eigene Idee auf Biegen und Brechen durchbringen willst. --Xxlfussel (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Es ist nicht seine eigene Meinung, sondern ein Kategoriekonzept dass die beteiligten sechs (2018) bzw. drei (2020) Fotografen erarbeitet haben, damit es irgendwie händelbar ist. Diese Unterkategorisierung ist nicht falsch, sie verstößt auch gegen keine Richtlinien. Eigentlich könnte man damit die Diskussion einfach beenden, aber ich schreibe mal noch ein paar weitere Zeilen.
Du mixt schon wieder Galerien und Kategorien bunt durcheinander. Diese Kategorien sind keine Galerien, bitte versteh es doch endlich!
Dir ist schon klar, dass Wikimedia Commons mehr ist als nur die Dateiablage für Wikipedia? Es geht bei den Bilder auch darum, die Veranstaltung und den Sport zu dokumentieren und dies unter freier Lizenz. Deshalb werden diverseste Bilder auch außerhalb der Wikimedia-Projekte genutzt. Genau dafür ist die Auswahl durchaus sinnvoll, wenn ich die Bilder gemacht habe und sie qualitativ in Ordnung sind, dann stört es nicht, wenn sie hochgeladen werden. Um Speicherplatz brauchen wir uns nun wahrlich keine Sorgen machen. Welche Bilder du dann für relevant hältst, ist mir ehrlich gesagt vollkommen wumpe. Das ist nämlich eine sehr subjektive Wahrnehmung, ich als Fotograf vertrete den Standpunkt, dass sich die Nachnutzenden hier auf Wikimedia Commons gern das Motiv/die Perspektive aussuchen können, dass sie gern nutzen möchten. Du musst keines der Bilder nutzen, du musst dir die Kategorien auch nicht anschauen, es ist alles nur ein Angebot.
Zu den Kategorien bei YOG nur so viel: Da wird ja gerade noch dran gearbeitet (wie dir nun oft genug mitgeteilt wurde), da ist noch viel aufzuräumen; was aber erst sinnvollerweise dann vollständig gemacht werden kann, wenn alle Bilder hochgeladen sind – was noch ein bisschen dauern wird. Beim Rennrodeln, Bob und Skeleton bin ich durch – deshalb hier gleich ordentlich gemacht. Am Ende werden sicher noch einige solcher Veranstaltungskategorien notwendig sein. Die von dir beschriebenen Nachteile liegen bei einer Jahreskategorisierung ebenfalls vor, nur dass dann noch wild gemixt würde. Gerade bei Bildern eines solchen Events schadet eine Unterkategorie dort nicht – an dieser Stelle würde ich mir nur noch wiederholen, deshalb war das hier mein letzter Beitrag. Gute Nacht, --Sandro Halank (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Kleine Ergänzung zu „dass man vielleicht beim nächsten Mal vielleicht eine Vorauswahl von Bildern trifft“: Das geschieht selbstverständlich und keineswegs wird jedes gemachte Bild hochgeladen und das nicht nur aus Gründen, dass gerade bei diesen Speedwettbewerben nicht immer der Fokus sitzt. --Sandro Halank (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sandro Halank: Ah, das waren also jetzt deine letzten beiden Kommentare. Nun wechselst du also auf die Seite von Marcus Cyron und vertritt die Meinung: „Unsere Vorgehensweise ist, die einzig wahre und wer das anders sieht, hat keine Ahnung“ – Dabei hast du ja noch vor kurzem von dem „gemeinsamen Weg“ gesprochen, aber der Wunsch danach hat wohl sehr, sehr schnell nachgelassen. Wenn ihr nicht mit euch reden lasst und einfach eueren Weg durchpreschen wollt, dann ist das eure Entscheidung. Aber ich werde mich weiterhin voll und ganz dagegenstellen, weil ich hinter den Sonderkategorien keinen sinn sehe, vor allem wenn es von der Sportlerin oder den Sportler bisher noch gar kein Bild hier auf Wikimedia Commons gegeben hat. --Xxlfussel (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the Administrators' noticeboard, not the place to discuss the plausibility of the category system or if the amount of uploaded competition photos is appropriate.

The notification here was dealing with an edit war. This is resolved by protecting the page. Further discussions are misplaced here. --Stepro (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Legal threat, editor a sockmaster at en.Wiki

Commons:Deletion requests/File:OrdosAncientCeremonialBronzeFinialWithStandingHorse.png. I've blocked the editor and two socks at en.Wiki. Doug Weller (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The account's edits on Commons don't appear a case of instant block under COM:BP, especially as others are supporting the deletion request nomination. A helpful notice explaining where they can legitimately raise a complaint may be more productive rather than taking a DR nomination on a tangent.
en.wp's policy of NLT, does not apply as literally here, especially with respect to copyright issues which have to be open to discussion.
BTW, it is the norm to name the account you are requesting action for, and to leave them a notification. --Fæ (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
One of the sockpuppets, Rialex217, uploaded a related file, File:Modern and ancient Akhal-Teke.png, a collage consisting of File:OrdosAncientCeremonialBronzeFinialWithStandingHorse.png and a copyvio. We do not need sockpuppets that re-upload files that are already nominated for deletion. For this reason, I will indef'ing the sock. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I've notified Ggg3243 about this discussion. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  Done. I warned Ggg against making legal threats. Taivo (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying the editor. I agree I should have even though they are a disruptive editor and sockmaster on en.Wiki. Doug Weller (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Thank you for letting us know! Notifications in case of cross-wiki abuses are very appreciated. I've also taken care of this case at de:wp. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User insulting a person

Special:Contributions/Berkaycatak added a description and caption with an insult (piç/bastard in Turkish) to File:Berkay Çatak.jpg. I DR'ed the file because I doubt it is a bona fide upload, and the WD does not impress me. If admins do not delete this image let's take it to Category:Young people of Turkey; he is not an "enterpreneur" with a pink wig! --E4024 (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Comment Deleted the other Facebook images from category, also removed Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Turkey as it doesn't really fit the definition of "entrepreneur" to me. That just leaves this image. I can find no reason other than naked self-promotion for this person to have a Wikidata item. On that basis, I should have one too as a published author! Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Alterego

Alterego (talk · contribs) has issued a specific legal threat "Technically, not deleting this file right now is a felony, and if you revert the edit again I will contact the FBI." in the edit-summary of this edit against User:Jonteemil, who had reverted an inappropriate rv-edit by Alterego.
Initially, User:Alterego had tagged File:Diplopedia main page.jpg for speedy-deletion for "This image is not authorized for public release". His speedy-request was converted by me to a regular DR (see: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diplopedia main page.jpg), because 1. the file was in use on :en (now also on 2 other projects), and 2. was uploaded already in 2010, whereby it's unlikely such an urgent case. Alterego then reverted my edit to restore his speedy w/o any comment. When Jonteemil reverted him to restore my version, Alterego reverted again and issued above cited legal threat. The disputed file was uploaded neither by Jonteemil nor by me.(see edit-history)
I propose to block User:Alterego from Commons until he unconditionally retracts his legal threat. --Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I support an indefinite block for Alterego until he retract his threat. Users who explicitly threaten our volunteers with legalese are absolutely not welcome here. pandakekok9 09:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Such threats have no place here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Paul venter

User:Paul venter's reaction to having yet another of his uploads deleted as a copyright violation (in this case by User:Jameslwoodward) is to leave an abusive message on my talk page. Can someone issue him with appropriate advice, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done See User_talk:Paul_venter#Your_comment_on_Pigsonthewing's_talk_page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I had in mind advcie about assuming good faith and not posting abusive messages, rather than advice about copyright, which has been given previsouly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Continuing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Abusive?.....really?....critical perhaps or even disparaging, but hardly abusive..... cheers Paul venter (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Category troll

Uploaded two interesting photos showing repurposed discarded items and proceeded to misuse the category system by tagging them with any and all categories containing the word "reuse", including unrelated things like Category:People of Reus. I undid what I could find all their miscategorizations, but this should not be allowed to happen again. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Other than those two, there are 6 other photos of less note (one of them even I would agree it’s off scope), all of them categorized with litteral dozens of ridiculously unsuitable categories, in an inept attempt at “gaming” a search engine spidering these categories as “tags”. All undone, for now. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Suppressions abusives de la part d'un utilisateur

Hello.

These users ([25] et [26]) delete my contributions so I upload since few weeks musics from FMA website.

Thanks to resolve it.

--ComputerHotline (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@ComputerHotline: These categories still exist and currently appear under Audio files from Free Music Archive and its subcategories. Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

User:24milleh repeatedly uploading copyvio images

The user 24milleh has been repeatedly uploading copyvio images of Josephine Langford. Could someone please reach out and let this person know about the copyright policies of commons? I've been tagging the images as I see them, but I'm not as well-versed on policy here on commons as I am on enwiki. Thanks Phuzion (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done Thanks. Elcobbola notified them yesterday. I've given them a final warning today. Storkk (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Православни хришћанин

This Православни хришћанин (talk · contribs) should be warned or blocked since all uploads are photos from various random websites without permission. --Smooth O (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@1989: , @Nat: Taking into account themes of uploaded images (people related to Serbian orthodox monasteries) this could be another Category:Sockpuppets of Миодраг Крагуљ. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Петар Поповић. And after warning he continues to upload photos. --Smooth O (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Blocked 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Falk2 again

So, this edit is fairly useless, as the order of the categories within a file page is scarecely relevant and often outside of direct control by whoever adds a new cat (with Cat-a-Lot, HotCat, or VFC)… However Falk2 (talk · contributions · user rights management) sought important to alter it and wise to add this edit summary: «Wie kaputt muss man sein, wenn man einen längst zu recht verschrotteten Benzinstinker prominent kategorisiert?», which Google translate unveils as «How broken do you have to be if you prominently categorize a petrol stinker that has long since been scrapped?»…

This seems to be one more instance of this user’s seemingly endless reservoir of animosity, penchant for needless strife and escalation of conflict. I could not care less (and indeed I hold no affection for them petrol stinkers) but others might feel differently — maybe this sentence hurts the feelings of ComradeUranium or Frettie or DePlusJean, who curated said petrol stinker in this file, and/or maybe Falk2’s quipping habits in general will eventually upset other users unless they’re clearly warned to behave.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Although I said above that I could not care less about this user’s casual rudeness in edit summaries, I do feel strongly about their obnoxious COM:OWN problem and their unyielding uncategorization vandalism, of wich this very recent edit is only an example of. It would seem that in addition to all other namespaces, Falk2 should be blocked also from editing filepages. Considering their recent apports maybe it should be ideal if their work is restricted to new uploads (if that’s possible with a file namespace block in place) and SDC edits. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Tuvalkin  
Having been notified in this request about the user behavior fault Falk2. I fully support this approach of unequivocal sanctions on behavioral abuses against Falk2.
Examining the different indices that make the contribution of Falk2, we can learn that it has been registered since 27 January 2007 and his first contribution is from 11 January 2009 (xtools:Falk2). The annual contribution counter (xtools:Annual counter) put in corellation with the Blocking Journal (block:Falk2) shows sanctions depending on the amount of contributions, the latest of which is 9 March 2020. The anti-abuse filter trigger log shows us an acceleration of recent behavioral drift every other month (Abuse:Falk2). Regarding user talk page, its history shows some scattered erasures (history:Falk2). All discussions are in German and Spanish languages. The excesses of conversations with Tuvalkin begins on 25 September 2018 with: “Quieres guerra?”, “You want war?”. It follows, on 4 November 2018, a conversation with MKBler concluded by: “Are you approaching everyone like that? Then don't be surprised about failures. Haven't you heard of the "not now" effect? Congratulations, you successfully triggered it”. In the same month began a very agitated exchange (sic) with Sebari and A.Savin which ends in January 2019. Then in March 2020, in an exchange with Fma12 to conclude the conversation by: ... In no way am I going to do what you want to command. Don't know expressions like please, thank you or hello? ... If you want to post an explanation in another language, please click below. English in first place there is not. Sure? English is not spoken here. What you have done is not collaboration, but provocation. No greeting.
In view of these observations, we can reasonably think of an increase in verbal aggressiveness by its author which goes against the uses of Commons. A summary of contributions indicates that the user contributes mainly in the rail sector, having imported 12,283 files, for 41,611 chain editions, out of a total of 77,744 contributions with an index of modifications deleted of 0.3%. The sanctions could be directed towards a final reminder of behavior in order to stem the rising drifts of its author. If like everyone else we are, we can make mistakes, we are able to correct ourselves in order to respect ourselves and our environment. If other people's comments or notes may seem awkward or inappropriate, they have the merit of expressing a teaching or a thought that may be worth remembering.
(I apologize in advance for my poor command of the English language for which I use the help of a translator to correct my nonsense)
Yours sincerely, DePlusJean (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It was me who requested Sebari to partial lift Falk2's block, just in order to let them upload their photos. --A.Savin 12:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Tuvalkin and User:DePlusJean  : My problem with @Falk2: started when I change a category of a file uploaded by him, File:J30 874 Abzw Graneros, Kontakttelefonnummer.jpg. He reverted my edit, stating "my file, my description!", which I replied on his talk page (see here). His answer was (translated from Spanish): "we are not at the military service and you're not my sergeant". He also changed my addition of English and Spanish descriptions to this file see with an unusual statement: "gringos abajo!" which is hilarious in some way. About the issue, he replied to me in his talk page: "If you want to add a description in another language, do it below German description. Do not put words in English above so English is not spoken here".
As you see, the user seems not to know that English is the primary language on Commons, beyond his disrespecful and anger showed in her replies. My intention was never to provoke him (as Falk2 thinks) but to place English in first place as the most spoken language (and the primary language on Commons by the way).
Undoubtely, Falk2 has been a longstanding contributor to Commons with loads of own photographs, but he should understand that any good faith editions to his pics are not for worse as he seems to think. - Fma12 (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

TonkarLike and KittipongLike

TonkarLike had been blocked 2 times before for repeatedly removing deletion templates while a DR is active. They did it again, at File:Heil dir im Siegerkranz (recording version).ogg. About a day after I reverted their removal, they did it another time, this time under KittipongLike, probably wanting to clean start without the blocks on their logs. I'd say this is an abuse of multiple accounts. Please indef block both of them, since they seem to never get why their uploads are being nominated for deletion, and why they have been blocked 2 times for the same behavior. pandakekok9 02:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done. TonkarLike has some valid edits in en.wiki, so I did not block him/her indefinitely. I blocked KittypongLike indefinitely and TonkarLike for a year (third block). Taivo (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

User Kingtn99

Kingtn99 (talk · contribs) uploads copyvios images including already deleted images. Also, user uploads images that already deleted from தமிழன்997 (talk · contribs). Uploads images by different names. --~AntanO4task (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Comment I warned both and deleted some copyvios. Taivo (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

NOTAPOTA

NOTAPOTA (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

@Achim55: Same as Bdministrator (talk · contribs) : attempts to closes DR with the same rationale. Probably another sock of Nitinpatkar194 (talk · contribs) (en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nitinpatkar194). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked Notapota indefinitely and Achim blocked Bdministrator indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Salikmisbahi1970

User has only uploaded out of scope images (of themselves). Furthermore, they are attempting to write an article about themselves on their Commons talk page, after their attempt at a vanity (draft) article was deleted twice (!) on English Wikipedia. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 16:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Achim55 --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 16:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
They stopped. I'm a bit AGF because the content (at least here on Commons, on en:wp I can't see) wasn't plain promotional. --Achim (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Achim55: Understood and thanks!   Update: Another en.wp admin has blocked the user for continuing to spam. But it seems they haven't attempted to do the same on Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 21:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Ángel Dav. Olivares

Please block and nuke uploads of Ángel Dav. Olivares. It's yet another sock of Ángel Olivares Aray. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 19:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done, but Cuatro Remos please don't put block notices on userpages unless they are actually blocked. I ignored this earlier because I went to their userpage and it said they'd already been blocked. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mattbuck: I'm sorry! Not happening again! :-) --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 21:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

In Estonian language "oli" means 'was' and "vares" means 'crow', so for me the username means "Angel was crow". Taivo (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Православни хришћанин

Православни хришћанин (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Almost everything is copyvio, probable escape block by Миодраг Крагуљ (talk · contribs), same uploads of media related to Orthodox monasteries for use on Serbian Wikipedia. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Blocked 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

User:BarryBoggside

Yeah, serial harasser, troll. No other interest in being here except to continue a vendetta from another wiki. Also x-wiki abuse on Meta. Please remove this account. Merci bien! Serial Number 54129 (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done thanks - whatever it is it has nothing to do with Commons. --Herby talk thyme 11:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  Done. Barry requested unblock, I declined it and reblocked him without talkpage access. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Ythlev

Ythlev (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  User engages in personal attacks and repeatedly revert license review decisions, for example in File:NT$100 obverse.jpg and File:NT$100 obverse.jpg and does not stop after warnings. --Wcam (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The "person" accused me of sockpuppetry without evidence and called me a jerk. As for the template, it clearly states that If you disagree with this media file's speedy deletion, replace this tag with a regular deletion request. Ythlev (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Ythlev there is no need to keep removing speedy tags, it gets added to admin back log for them review and choose. User:Wcam, those two rollbacks don't look within COM:ROLLBACK.
When you look at the file usage, upload date and that Commons:Deletion requests/NTD banknotes was already quite lengthy before the speedy tag was added, it's unlikely to be speedy deleted to allow the process to complete.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@BevinKacon: But then, how do you think about [27]? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
And fyi OTRS ticket related to this topic: ticket:2020051710002624. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Mwahmed

This user Mwahmed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) had already notice about mass copyright violation. Today he upload more files with copyright violations. Кронас (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Railsonrm190

Railsonrm190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - mass copyright violations, already noticed, today he load new files. All deleted. Кронас (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Warned by DaleinCleveland per COM:BP - let us know if it persists Gbawden (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 days since they kept uploading copyvios. De728631 (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox got deleted

Respected Sir/ma'am,

I was creating a biography page for Dr. Sumer Sethi which got deleted on its own. Kimdly explain how to get the content back and rectify the errors due to which the page was deleted by admin. I will work on the page again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disha Gahlot (talk • contribs) 01:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Disha Gahlot: I don't see any mainspace edit in your contributions page, but regardless, Wikimedia Commons is not the place for biographies. Please read our project scope. Other Wikimedia projects, like the English Wikipedia may accept your work, as long as your article doesn't violate any of their policies (like NPOV, notability, and copyright). And next time, please use our help desk instead of this page if you have issues with this site, as this noticeboard is for problems with other users. Thanks, pandakekok9 01:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Seems like your editnotice got ignored... pandakekok9 01:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
What about renaming this board to "Trouble users" or "Troublemakers"? 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This is not Wikipedia but Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free educational images. Your sandbox was deleted at the English Wikipedia because its content was overly promotional. Wikipedia articles need to be neutral in their wording and may not praise the subject without citing reliable sources. Please read WP:PROMOTION and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before creating a new draft in your sandbox. Please see also Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion where you can ask for your sandbox content to be restored. De728631 (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sajic1999

Sajic1999 (talk · contribs) should be warned to stop uploading copyrighted photos from different websites. --Smooth O (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done User warned Gbawden (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Chodale13

Chodale13 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Attack pictures.

  Done Blocked for a day as a precaution. If I'm too harsh/lenient I am happy to be overruled Gbawden (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

And Ratoplaveur (talk · contribs) removes detetion tag. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Comment That was this accounts only action. Possible sock? Warned by Patrick Gbawden (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Chabe01

Chabe01 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Same report as 7 December 2019. Doesn't understand (or doesn't want to) nothing to FOP despite many explainations in English (beginning in 2016) or by me in his own language. Thinks he is allowed to upload copyrighted pictures because according to him some similar pictures are not deleted. Repeats the same rationale here. There such work is not copyrightable or is of bad faith there. Should re-read COM:FOP or avoid uploading pictures of 20th Century monuments. Addentum: please note that the uploader never asks himself if the sculptures are in the public domain or not since he doesn't perform researchs on them (in any of his uploads is the name of the artist mentionned). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If I can give any arguments, I try to do my best not to upload pictures of sculptures which are not in public domain. I see if the artist died before 1950 to upload photos and I am a bit upset to see Patrick Rogel requesting a deletion for war memorials which seems to be in the public domain. Furthermore, he told me I had a lazy behiaviour which is totally pardoxal as he didn't take the time to check the validity of the photo. I don't understand why he still tries to block users whereas he was indefinitely on the French wiki. Last but not least, I think this user targets some users for some artworks in the same area where I take pictures, he didn't request deletion as there are not in public domain. Chabe01 (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
If user had the habit of verifying that artists died more than 70 years I suppose he would fill the file description pages with the artist's name and date of death (one thing he never does) and he would not have so many files deleted for the same reason over the years. So it's difficult to assume his good faith since "he does NOT his best to document the files he uploads." and that's why I can tell he's a "lazy" contributor. I won't lost too much time on his nonsensic unprooved accusations of "this user targets some users for some artworks in the same area where I take pictures". Indeed, if I don't "request deletion as there are not in public domain" how the Hell does he know that I patrol these files? To conclude, perhaps because he has some shots elected as Good pictures, it seems that Chabe01 thinks he is above the Commons rules by saying "Hello, I have already read these rules but I do not understand the reason why there are photos which are not deleted when they do not seem to respect the rules which are imposed. Therefore, I thought that some of the rules imposed did not apply." or "Hello, having read the conditions, I do not understand the deletions concerning works whose authors are unknown. I especially believe that there is a relentlessness against certain people because some photos of other authors do not seem to be subject to deletion while the conditions required for this deletion seem to be required.". Since the user himself confesses a non-understanding of Commons basic rules and doesn't seems ready to discontinue his practices I think he should be given leisure time to learn about them. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I think such accusations as "I think I am over the rules because I have good pictures" is totally irresponsible as Patrick Rogel pretends to make everybody think I upload all photos without taking in consideration the rules. XXth century artworks around Paris are numerous and I take many photos of them. It doesn't mean there is a wave of these pictures in Commons as those which doesn't respect the rules are not updated (I keep them in my external hard disk drive). It means I try my best to upload photos which respect the rules. The problem with freedom of panorama in France is that it is up to everyone to consider a photo doesn't respect the rules. For instance, when can we consider the artwork is the main subject ?
Lastly, Wikimedia is a collaborative platform. Consequently, when there are mistakes, I try to regulate not delete in order for the platform to store more accurate data. My goal is neither vandalizing Wikimedia by uploading incorrect photos (it can be a threat for the credibility of the platform) nor creating conflicts with other users to impose my point of views. Chabe01 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Please do not overstep the mark. It's not an accusation; it's a supposition. Have you a better explanation for discarding patrollers ("he didn't take the time to check the validity of the photo", "creating conflicts with other users to impose my point of views" and I don't mention "I don't understand why he still tries to block users whereas he was indefinitely on the French wiki") instead of acknoledging your own inconsequence in copyright matters? Because it's what it's all about: your talk page is full of copyright violations and you seem to don't give a damn since at least 4 years. Then after having just requested a ban on uploads of 20th Century architecture, I consider now that your confession of a non-understanding of Commons basic rules (you add now that there's "a problem with freedom of panorama in France (which) is that it is up to everyone to consider a photo doesn't respect the rules" (!)), your excuse that all this is not your fault but other's and your non readiness to discontinue your practices deserves a block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
About all requests for deletion which has been done for 4 years, the subjects were totally different. At the beginning, when I started contributing on Commons by uploading logos, I didn't know the rules and I understand how it worked. Consequently, I no longer have problem with that. Concerning problems about sculptures, it happened on October 2019 with your suggestions. As you may know, it ended during the month after. It means I understand I had to be more meticulous about these problems. This is why I am surprised by this "User problem" as it is the consequence of the upload of war memorials which are not concerned by the freedom of panorama according my researches when we find information about them. That's the reason why I don't really understand what is happening as if I have not understood the rules, I would have kept on uploading recent sculptures with impunity. Chabe01 (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Uploader tries to cloud the issue but we may quickly recapitulate: it started with modern architecture back in 2016; it continued with ancient architecture of War memorials in 8 October 2019, 20 October 2019, 27 October 2019, 19 May 2020 so it's untrue to say it ended since (it was just yesterday!) with interludes made of mural paintings, various outdoor sculptures and a panel (a famous example of his bad faith). Nevertheless the issue is not the huge amount of files which have been deleted (and for which any other user would have been blocked a long time ago) but uploader's behavior problems. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Compared with the number of photos I have uploaded, these problems are a minority which means it is not a will of breaking the rules. On the opposite, create new user accounts to create conflits is obviously a desire of vandalism in the platform. This current request seems to be a kind of revenge about French wikimedia community (it is a supposition) as I think my uploads are not made for vandalism with problematic files. Chabe01 (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
These attemps to cloud the issue become pathetic so it's my last word here anyway because I think Administrators have enough material to make their decision to proceed or not. I simply add that in his flight forward Chabe01 forgets to understand that his files have been deleted by various Administrators, not be me, and that he's the only person to blame for his misadventures. In the meantime I think it's his duty to open a report against me since he thinks the time I spend on Commons is devoted to revenge myself from French Wikipedians. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I won't try to lose time by developing my arguments with people who doesn't seem to understand what I am saying. I do all by best to provide photos in places which had a lack of it in order to illustrate wikipedia pages. Besides, I sorted many photos in some departments of France to improve the search of photos. I think my actions were not done without taking into account recommandations of other users. Indeed, before yesterday deletion request (which looks arbitrary as no source says us the authors of artworks died after 1950), no problem has happened since last November. Chabe01 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Irma violense

Everything is copyvio. Warned and guided, without success. Looks OOS too. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done Blocked by Herbythyme Gbawden (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Complaint about Rodhullandemu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I ask another admin to look at Rodhullandemu's insult and threat. Please see this post. He calls me a jerk then strikes it, deliberately leaving the insult visible. He also threatens to block me. As you will see from my edit, I asked him to improve the scope of a VIC. He has got the wrong name for the campus and does not specify the University. In previous VICs, he has failed to give sufficient information, such as city name. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do you have two topics open on a single issue. Pick one or the other, not both and also you need to inform the concerned party (per the note at the very top of this page)! Bidgee (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Assuming this is the correct venue, I make no claim to infallibility, even though I've been here for over 12 years and am fully aware of categorisation, disambiguation and scope. The reason I do the things I do is because of that experience and that I think about what I'm doing. Mr Sharp provides no source for the campus, despite a request. Just as Category:Empire State Building is unique in the world, so is Category:Byrom Street campus, so further amplification is unnecessary. If anything, it should be disambiguated to the next upward level of granularity, such as Category:Byrom Street campus, Liverpool John Moores University, but there is actually no need to do that. Mr Sharp has an unsettling tendency to make picky and unnecessary critiques of my nominations, and I wish he would stop. The rules of scope aren't as strict as he thinks they are. In this one, he has turned a Promotion into a Discussion rather than just making a   Comment. Unnecessary. Maybe my language wasn't what it could have been, but I'd just been out for food, despite strictly not being allowed to, and had to move out of a disabled seat on the bus to standing up, because people will not keep 2m apart. That doesn't help. Mr Sharp should lighten up and seriously consider refraining from commenting on my nominations. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • So good they named it twice? Perhaps Byrom Street is a more specific term within the City Campus and it makes sense to call it that, comprising as it does the Security Lodge, Tom Reilly Building, Max Perutz Building, James Parsons Building, Cherie Booth Building and Peter Jost Enterprise Centre? What would you call that distinct grouping of buildings? And instead of trusting my judgment when naming the group, why didn't you do the most basic due diligence and realise, "oh, that really is the most sensible name for that group of buildings" rather than just go "Sharp says no"? Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Let's not get distracted. The issue is not the image, it is the behaviour of Rodhullandemu. Unfortunately this is part of a pattern which has seen a lot of contributors threatened with punitive bans for disagreeing with Rodhullandemu. The previous instance was about four weeks ago in a long-running dispute at User talk:Motacilla#Break. I do not doubt Rodhullandemu's dedication to Commons, but they clearly let their frustration (not limited to the current global situation) affect the way they interact with other users. This is conduct unbecoming to an admin, and against the spirit of COM:MELLOW. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Let's not bring Motacilla into this. He is the architect of his own misfortune. The tl;dr version is that he and I disagreed over how to DEFAULTSORT UK churches. I followed COM:DISPUTE TO THE LETTER and sought consensus from the community, who agreed with me. At that point I no longer owned the decision, but Motacilla continued to ignore his colleagues. He was blocked twice and reminded once, but continued with his preferred version. He was blocked a third time, and his appeal was rejected by a respected Admin. He makes great play of his mental state, with which I have some sympathy myself, but at no time has he participated in any discussion except on his own talk page. Meanwhile, he was able to travel to Slovenia and take photographs, an activity which must involve some communication at some level. So why not here? Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Do not attempt to police someone's mental health.
Motacilla's actions are not germane to the matter at hand, I merely brought them up as an example of your own poor behaviour. You seem to be able to cast a lot of blame on others, and I do feel your frustration when others don't follow consensus, but if you are not able to address a situation dispassionately then you should step back from it and ask someone else to deal with it.
There is no shame if someone frustrates or angers you - that is on them. But if you lash out in response, that is on you. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
*I ask you this: What do you do with an editor who persistently refuses to accept and comply with commnunity consensus? If you disagree with it, you should seek change it. It may not be the strongest consesus there may be, but per COM:DISPUTE, to follow the rules and is valid an enforceable until changed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
If you're in a conflict with them, then you get someone else to handle it. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
This is indeed yet another occasion where Rodhullandemu has acted badly and is unable to take responsibility for his actions. As Mattbuck says, this is not an isolated incident of poor behaviour. As Motacilla, an editor with fragile mental health, is in no state to defend himself here, I'll supply the other side of that long-running dispute. You can look through User talk:Motacilla to find find examples of Rodhullandemu swearing at, insulting, and threatening Motacilla. No wonder Rodhullandemu doesn't want his unacceptable behaviour there brought into this. Where Rodhullandemu says "sought consensus from the community, who agreed with me", he means that after threatening Motacilla to the extent that he was unable to face contributing, Rodhullandemu opened an RfC which attracted about four supports. This becomes transformed in Rodhullandemu's mind into a project-wide decision that he was entitle to use to sanction Motacilla with. When Rodhullandemu says "He was blocked twice and reminded once", he means that Rodhullandemu twice blocked Motacilla, an editor he was in a dispute with. Similarly "He was blocked a third time" means Rodhullandemu blocked Motacilla again, despite still being in dispute. If Motacilla breaches Commons policy in a content dispute, then there are plenty of uninvolved admins to sort out the problem. But Rodhullandemu insists on performing the sanctions himself, in spite of being involved. Rodhullandemu takes no responsibility for his actions and simply doubles down defending the indefensible. The last project where he behaved like that community banned him, and Commons should not be any more tolerant of long-running admin misbehaviour. --RexxS (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
*You know full well why I am blocked from Wikipedia and has virtually nothing to do with my behaviour there. As it happens, it's an out of process, policy-breaking and indefensible block by any standard. Just remember that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
That is your opinion of it. Plenty of others who'd disagree (about it being indefensible). And the problem behaviours cited here are not inconsistent with behaviours on en-wiki that brought your adminship into question there. Casliber (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You really need to consider whether a long-standing Arbitrator should follow Wikipedia policies or not. You've desysopped numerous admins there for failing to follow such policies. Please look after your own house before destroying another's. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm following policies alright. You're claiming, what, that I've made a personal attack or something? Please explain in what ways my post is not following policy. I just don't like to see people misrepresenting the past as you've done above. Strictly speaking the block was for a different reason to the deadminning, but the behaviour that was discussed at WP:ANI when you were deadminned was similar to that complained about above. In fact, there is no need for anyone to assume anything really as folks can easily look for themselves. Casliber (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe now. not in 2011. "Posts on Usenet are rarely regarded as reliable sources, because they are easily forged or misrepresented, and many are anonymous or pseudonymous". Exactly so. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The usenet issue was not the main issue in your desysopping, which is what is the issue here (your ability to be a fair admin) Casliber (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*Addendum: This is Commons. We rarely care about what has happened on other Wikimedia projects unless it impacts here. Especially when those incidents happened eight years ago in relation some fake joe-job Usenet posts that happened over twenty years ago. Please Google "joe-job", look at en:WP:USENET and in relation to Motacilla, "Podolatry". It's exactly parallel. Prepare for scalpel-like analysis, with diffs (rare here, what, but it needs to be done because I don't care much for kicking someone when he's down, expecially when it's me). Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • If you don't want to be called a jerk, then don't behave like a jerk. This is, BTW, the Byrom Street Campus. It has been known as that for forty years (at least). It might not be the only name used (and marketing departments do so love to rename), but it is known as that, was best known as that for years, and AFAIK still is best known by that name. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Desysop Rodhullandemu

(pinging others in the thread so that they are aware that the discussion moved: CasliberRexxSMattbuckCharlesjsharp)

This situation above is just a small part of Rodhullandemu bullying and harassing others. "Prepare for scalpel-like analysis, with diffs" Not a bad idea. Rodhullandemu has fallen short of expected administrative decorum for years, and repeatedly interacts with other users in very rude ways. Here's some diffs:

Blatant NPAs/incivility:

"you know, if I realised that I was actually just being a lap-dog for the still-self-misguiding ArbCom (after nine years!) and enforcing their indefensible block, I would probably resign as an Arb Clerk and Administrator, and go and weep in a corner forever; because I would also have realised that I have neither insight nor self-respect."/"No reply. Not surprised, few have the wit or guts to engage in complex topics. Some advice: Your RFA was close. Don't blow it by doing things you shouldn't be doing" (context: He left these messages on my talk page after I blocked him for evading his enwiki ban. They were later removed as a personal attack.)
"Thanks for reverting me here. You've made me realise that someone with an incomplete mastery of the English language, or a moron, could easily mistundertand a conditional statement, a statement of fact, and a piece of advice from one Admin to another, as a personal attack. Meanwhile, as I face death in the face directly, and that is without Covid-19, I'll just say this: I don't want to die leaving an undeserved slur on my reputation. That is what I am fighting for in the limited time I have left. Thanks"
"Utterly bizarre. I cannot go back in time to photograph the box as it was. Can you? However, to anyone who wants to see the box in context and as it is now, it IS the best image we have. And of course it has a commemorative plaque. Scope amended to make it clear to even the most moronic moron that it's not a historical photograph"(…)"Admins are human too. I am not going to respond to personal attacks except by blocking those who make them. Kindly judge the image for what it depicts- a notable telephone box as it is now; and the "moronic" comment refers to those who simply do not understand the VI criteria. I'm sure you'll get it now. Please feel free to put it on en:WP yourself and don't dare to dance on my grave again."
"Please be careful how you answer because having been treated so appallingly I am very sensitive to harassment."
"How on earth does that make sense, and why would this deter users from trusting our services? It's not just wrong, its massively wrong"
"No, I want ALL churches EVERYWHERE to be defsorted CORRECTLY, showing proper consideration for our users and a basic understanding of their expectations. A very high degree of consistency is absolutely useless if you are consistently wrong. Following the herd may be easy, but it is mindless. I'm prepared to seek community consensus on this, because everybody else seems to get it right"
"It's good to see you have found your voice after such long periods of silence. Had you done so, e.g. by participating in the consensus discussion, or just accepting that consensus, or appealing your earlier blocks in the same terms, I think we would not be here now. It's clear that you can make a case when you need to, and I leave the consequences of your failure to do that for others to consider."
Neither have you started a discussion to overturn the consensus reached by the community, and neither has anyone else. All you do is sit here wailing and compaining about me to a tiny audience. Yet despite other user's concerns and your protestations about your mental health and in the middle of all this you manage a trip to Croatia to photograph trains. That must have been quite a challenge. It's a long way, longer than I would be able to travel without assistance. I presume you had your mental health worker alongside you every second of the way, given how stressful foreign travel is.
  • Inappropriate general threats/threats to make involved blocks:
"by now you should be capable of realising which mistakes may lead to unforeseen consequences, and which are harmless. That's why your mistake was so, so wrong. You just don't get it. Time will tell whether you will."(…)"Bad move. You say on your user page "I try to maintain the highest possible integrity in all matters". I'll leave you to ponder why that is a blatant lie while I examine whether you are to be permitted to continue having use of this account."
"Nobody but you thinks that I am bullying you. This is another personal attack which I am not prepared to tolerate. One more word in the wrong place, and your next block is going to be your last. Make no mistake about that"
"Please learn what you're doing with categories before you do anything else, and I lose my fucking temper with you. I'm prepared to let you have the clearly incorrect DEFAULTSORT templates, if you will allow me to override them so that the user doesn't wonder why the fuck everything is in the wrong place"
Please be careful, because your answer will determine whether you are able to continue editing here. And, I'm sorry "That's the way it's always been done" won't do, because only an utter fool would perpetuate mistakes made by others"
"Accusations of edit edit-warring against an editor of 11 years standing and Admin of five years here are unconstructive and will only end in one way. I'd remind you this is Commons, where we act to professional standards in a mellow manner and care about what we do. This is not Wikipedia. They can make all the mistakes they want, we don't care."
"If you can't do that, your files must go. If you persist, you must go. And expecting an answer to a post here after only seven minutes is just laughably naïve"
All you needed to do was follow the community consensus. You decided not to. You accuse me yet again of bullying. I will say this only once: that is the very last time you will do that on this page or anywhere.

Most of these diffs were just within the last few months. I'm convinced that there is far, far worse behavior that has gone unnoticed. Thus, I am proposing that Rodhullandemu is desysopped for abuse of power and gross incivility, as Rod has clearly failed to stand up to the expected standard.

Rod, feel free to carry through your threats, block me. It won't change anything, there are too many eyes on this now. Unlike Worm, I don't publicly identify myself, so any other threats based on where I live will fall upon deaf ears. This doesn't have to do with usernet (which, if were you, I would completely avoid talking about), or enwiki; this has to deal with your conduct here. I'm not some dog of arbcom, I just want to make sure people can edit this site in peace, without the fear of feeling harassed. Moneytrees (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Seriously   Oppose We're all living through difficult times. For those of us with pre-existing medical and mental health issues it is particularly difficult and challenging, so the timing and especially the tone of this proposal ("feel free to carry through your threats, block me") is grossly uncivil and unworthy. Occasionally out of over 600,000 global contributions I lose my rag with those who do not see things the same way I do, but that's because I have taken the trouble to think things through against a background of over ten years experience of Commons policies and because I'm therefore stressed, and I'm sorry about that. Before you vote on whether I should be desysopped, please consider whether it is worth anyone losing a life for. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not an active commons member, so I will not vote on this desysop, even though I do support it. What I will point out is that this response is very similar to the one that took a desysop on en.wiki to a site ban. The fact is that any of these projects should not be tied so directly to your mental health that you would consider ending your life over. If you cannot separate your hobby from what really matters in life, then you should not be editing - and I believe it is the responsibility of a community to tell that to the individual, first by words and then by force. WormTT · (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Well thanks for not voting. At least you realise the value placed here on comments from those with few contributions to Commons. On the other hand, you seem to think that blocking editing from every single one of Liverpool's public libraries is a proportionate and just response to evasion of a block based on very wobbly foundations, so maybe I think your judgment is questionable. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. I don't doubt Rodhullandemu's contributions to Commons, but the way they interact with anyone who disagrees with them is completely inappropriate for an admin. They say above please consider whether it is worth anyone losing a life for, and they are right - Commons is not worth losing a life for, which is why we should protect our mentally vulnerable users from abusive admins. I'm not claiming Rodhullandemu was in the wrong in any dispute, but if someone is getting to you so much you revert to insulting them, it's time to take a time out and let someone else handle it. Rodhullandemu seems unable to grasp this concept, and instead engages in years-long sniping and punitive blocking of users. Rodhullandemu, if that was a threat that you will commit suicide because you are deadmined, then I seriously encourage you to seek help, because Commons is not worth it. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Rodhullandemu mentioned stress, it is a real stretch to read that as a threat of self-harm, and is the type of comment that we could helpfully respond to with suggestions about how to avoid conflict or take a decent wiki break to rethink how to support this projects aims in a way that is a more positive use of our volunteer time and energy. --Fæ (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Fæ, I say that only because the words "worth anyone losing a life over" were used. As regards the comments below, I agree that people who are inactive on Commons should not be voting. But I also don't see that Rodhullandemu has shown any desire to change their behaviour, and I feel it is disqualifying. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It isn't a stretch, and I'm not going to disclose why it isn't. 1989 (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is an unhelpful proposal from a Wikipedia administrator with this proposal being just their fourteenth edit ever to Commons. This appears to be importing disputes from the English Wikipedia, as demonstrated by Worm That Turned appearing "by magic" immediately after the proposal opens (despite WTT being virtually retired from this project, having made only 8 edits in over 3 years, hardly an account that would be monitoring discussions here). No, this is manipulative and unnecessarily gaming the system to the detriment of Commons. Rodhullandemu's behaviour needs examination, but letting lobbyists or a peanut gallery from other projects control events here should be firmly rejected by the Wikimedia Commons community.
@Moneytrees and Worm That Turned: could you confirm if you have taken part or noticed off-wiki correspondence, messaging, tweeting, Facebook group messages, or on-wiki canvassing in any form in relation to this proposal? Please avoid posting any direct off-wiki links, per the "hostile environment" part of COM:BP which I am sure is taken seriously by everyone here. Thanks in advance for helping with transparency. --Fæ (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: Moneytrees notified the English Arbcom about this, when he posted. I was not aware prior to his notification. WormTT · (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. As far as I can see, this was not declared, apart from cryptically Moneytrees prompting us to think about this scenario with I'm not some dog of arbcom... In my view, this demonstrates off-project canvassing against the interests of Rodhullandemu and is evidence of this proposal being an unwelcome and unhelpful import of long-running English Wikipedia disputes. --Fæ (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I believe the notification was appropriate, which is why I did not hesitate to mention it. I will go further, it would have been particularly appropriate to notify me and for me tor respond as the first "Inappropriate general threats/threats to make involved blocks" was targetted at myself. In addition, Rodhullandemu has sought to contact me unsolicited off-wiki, through Facebook, LinkedIn, via WMUK and by threatening to "expose me to local newspapers". I'm not sure how commons views these sort of infractions, as I'm not an active member of this community, but on en.wp, they would constitute harassment and outing. So, yes, I did feel the need to comment here when I saw it. WormTT · (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
This thread is about Rodhullandemu's actions on Commons. If you wish to complain about off-wiki harassment, you know full well that this is not the place to do that and it would be foolish to advise you considering you are an expert in harassment cases compared to everyone else here, even Herbythyme. --Fæ (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Certainly I am an expert on how to handle harassment on en.wp. Who would you advise me to contact for harassment on Commons? WormTT · (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
You have corrupted the discussion here with serious-looking allegations about outing and off-wiki harassment which cannot and should not be examined here, they should not even be mentioned here.
Please do not play rhetorical games. You are the expert and claim to be one, you should behave like one.
Everyone else please ignore these allegations they are irrelevant to this proposal. If anyone has a complaint about off-wiki harassment or being outed, they should never be used as ammunition for a dispute on a public noticeboard and WTT is fully aware of this, and would normally advise others not to do this and has a history of providing this same advice for others to follow. --Fæ (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Fæ, tell me who I should contact about harassment on this project, and I will happily remove all these comments. WormTT · (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
(Apologies to non-UK folks), I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago. 1 2. --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
So there is no community route? T&S only? In which case, surely this is the right place to discuss off wiki harassment if the target is willing to? If there was a private community route, I would gladly take that. I do not believe I have an alternative option here. WormTT · (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: I suggest you do not respond to the allegations by WTT in any way on-wiki without talking to a member of Bureaucrats or Oversighters. The allegations were not part of this desysop proposal and should not be published on this noticeboard as being used this way appears threatening behaviour using off-wiki allegations and is a direct contravention of BP and the wider TOU.
WTT your badgering and disruptive behaviour here is highly inappropriate, and considering your reference to the official Arbcom notification system reflects badly on Arbcom making it appear to be an English Wikipedia drama board rather than a respected governance committee. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Fæ You write "Rodhullandemu's behaviour needs examination, but letting lobbyists or a peanut gallery from other projects control events here should be firmly rejected by the Wikimedia Commons community. But then you claim the proposal is unhelpful, despite this thread being exactly the examination you're calling for. What would be helpful then? At what point does Rodhullandemu's behaviour get examination? Are you simply intending to kick the can down the road, and do nothing? Why not address the issue in front of you, which is Rodhullandemu's behaviour here on Commons? If you don't think it deserves a desysop, then what action do you propose? or do you condone his behaviour? --RexxS (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    Hi @RexxS: , your viewpoint is well-founded and I have no doubt well-grounded in what you have read in cases on sister projects. However, this proposal fails to respect the authority of the established Commons community to handle this problem. Were a desysop proposal raised by, say, a respected Commons administrator, without all the tangential deviations into allegations about behaviour off-wiki or on other projects, and not subject to blatant political lobbying by Arbcom members as if this were an opportunity for a Wikipedia/Arbcom political power grab, then no doubt the evidence would be sufficient to go to a desysop vote.
As you asked for my alternative suggestion, here it is:
  1. This proposal is voluntarily closed as being unhelpful, preferably by @Moneytrees: as the proposer, now packed with tangential allegations, and once corrupted this way cannot be reshaped into a credible community vote. Forcing the community to have a desysop vote would be damaging at this point and would be characterised as a Wikipedia forced desysop on Commons.
  2. @Rodhullandemu: now takes a complete wiki break of 28 days, enforced by a voluntary account block to avoid any temptation, not as a sanction. This will be good for all parties to consider what to do next and addresses the immediate real-life concern of Rodhullandemu's comments about being stressed, something that we should all take seriously in the current difficult challenges we face, especially those of us with existing health issues. During that 28 days everyone should refrain from pinging or writing about Rodhullandemu, and Rodhullandemu should refrain from writing about or to any of the involved parties; i.e. a meaningful wikibreak which can be taken as neutral "gardening leave" in old fashioned management parlance.
  3. Arbcom and English Wikipedia stalwarts (like yourself) should back off, full social distancing please, and let the Commons community reach our own consensus without leaving a bad taste in the mouth from apparent gaming the system and canvassing. Presuming good faith that this is entirely unintentional, even the proposer now recognizes this looks manipulative and feels like an attempt to hijack the process of how Commons sysop rights are supposed to be governed by the Commons community through credible voting procedures. Rigging votes, even the appearance of rigging votes, should be condemned by all committed Wikipedians as it undermines our trust in the basics of how our community functions and whether this provides for natural justice.
  4. After 28 days, the Wikimedia Commons community can reopen a discussion to examine what actions are needed based on representative and succinct case evidence from interested parties using only Commons diffs, preferably not within 2,000 word essays and avoiding emotive or confrontational rhetoric; the benefit of being limited to 500 words is a useful Arbcom method we could learn from. This may or may not result in an official desysop vote depending on Rodhullandemu's commitments at the end of their wiki break and whether the community finds any response sufficient and credible.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
But Fæ, I have exactly the same concerns as the OP. I'm an editor in good standing here. I've been a regular contributor to Commons for as long as I've been an editor on any project – well over 12 years – and I'm the author of the module that draws Wikidata into Commons, in use on three million pages, so I'm not some "outsider". I know that I don't usually get involved in project space here and I don't need any more drama, but I've seen the damage that Rodhullandemu has done to editors on Commons, and I don't agree that postponing an examination of his behaviour is the best course at this point. If he had show even the slightest inclination to change his behaviour, I'd have some sympathy, but he just doubles down every time. Let him be desysoped and apply again after a month's break, if you want him to have a rest from stress. If this thread concludes without taking some action against Rodhullandemu to show him that Commons doesn't accept the behaviour we've seen described here, it will simply become a validation of incivility, abuse of fellow editors, and misuse of admin tools in a content dispute. How could Commons afford to do that? --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
We know each other in real life, so let's park the credentials as agreed, without highlighting who has the biggest.
My points stand, and if the folks that have flown in are, as they have written, seriously concerned about Rodhullandemu's health, this pitchfork mob style speedy vote is not the way to ensure that appropriate and sufficient action is taken permanently to address the un-mellow behaviour of an admin, while at the same time respecting the person behind the account. A four-week break to consider how and who would want to put up a credible, correctly formulated request and the minimal focused case examples harms nobody, or even better in that time provide some thinking space informally to negotiate a mellow solution with Rodhullandemu that might avoid the dramah and leave the parties with sufficient dignity to continue to enjoy contributing here. --Fæ (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @4nn1l2: The problem from the English Wikipedia was unfortunately imported to Commons by Rodhullandemu, when he attacked an English Wikipedia administrator here on Commons for an administrative action that they had undertaken on English Wikipedia. Do you believe it is appropriate for any user to use Commons as a place to launch personal attacks against administrators on our sister projects ? I surely hope not. Nick (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nick: No, it is not. But two wrongs doesn't make a right. What I see is that some enwiki admin whom I have never seen around Commons starts a de-admin proposal and some enwiki users come out of the woodwork to support it. I object to this process. My opposition is on procedural grounds. If a Commons regular had started the de-adminship proposal, I might not have opposed it. I also wonder why Rodhullandemu has not been blocked on Commons so far. Surely, blocking an admin for violating behavioural policies and guiudeline is not forbidden. I wonder why a de-admin proposal should be chosen as the first course of action to remedy this problem. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support, sadly. While most of the diffs provided by the proposer are not really PAs (like this, though I agree that using such language is inappropriate) or threats (like this), I agree that Rodhullandemu's behaviour is unbecoming of an admin. If an admin is losing their fucking temper with another user, then it is expected of them to take a break. The blocks against Motacilla are also out of policy, and must have been done by an uninvolved sysop. I would reconsider if Rod retracts his inappropriate comments, recognize that their blocks against Motacilla are wrong, apologize for their behaviour, and take a break from editing on Commons.
I however share the same concerns by Fae. It's weird that an enwiki sysop who rarely becomes active on Commons, suddenly swoops in, unilaterally moves this discussion to the main noticeboard without agreement from the involved parties, and create a desysop proposal. Worm also somehow noticed this proposal and made a comment, even if they weren't pinged or notified here. Seems like the primary motive of the proposer is not for the good of Commons, and more of a grudge imported from enwiki. I'd also like Fae's question to be answered, for the sake of transparency. Thanks, pandakekok9 09:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Casliber: did you read the serious concern above about canvassing of Arbcom members before voting?
For those unaware, up until this edit, Casliber had made 15 edits this year on Commons and is now the second active English Wikipedia Arbcom member to write here, but has not bothered to make transparent that they were canvassed by the proposer.
Clearly the canvassing of English Wikipedians with apparent long term grudges behind this proposal that are based on what has gone on at the English Wikipedia is deeply concerning, and is bad faith manipulation of the Commons consensus process during a discussion about who can and cannot be a Wikimedia Commons administrator. Administrators are not granted sysop rights for this project on license from English Wikipedia Arbcom and the use of official (off-wiki) Arbcom systems to manipulate important vote processes on Commons should be firmly rejected by the community.
Gaming the system through Canvassing is unwelcome and disruptive for any vote process. The closing administrator for this proposal should consider separating the verifiably canvassed votes on this basis as doubtfully importing disputes to Commons from the English Wikipedia. --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I was aware of recent issues via the thread on wikipediocracy. No-one made me aware of anything I hadn't already been aware of. Given your history with the En-wiki arbitration committee Fae I could equally say it's you who might have natural antipathy to any en-wiki arbs which is colouring your view in this case - are you saying his conduct (e.g. comments such as this) is consistent with that of an administrator? You wanna stand by that? Casliber (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
You are a member of Arbcom, did you receive an email from Moneytrees canvassing Arbcom members to this discussion, yes or no?
Your other bad faith comments attacking me personally and referring to a site that routinely harasses, and hosts and promotes blatantly homophobic and transphobic attacks against our LGBT+ volunteers are unwelcome. The fact that you choose to follow appalling off-wiki trolls and have now given them oxygen on-wiki says a lot about your perception of what is or is not acceptable behaviour or factual. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support "Let's not bring Motacilla into this", eh? I am not "the architect of my own misfortune". Rodhullandemu has persistently, repeatedly and gratuitously bullied me since 2017. I am autistic, but I was not diagnosed as such until November 2014. Since 1996 I have had at least five mental health crises including two nervous breakdowns. My first breakdown was in 2003 as a result of bullying. The second was in 2015 as a result of cyberbullying (unrelated to any Wikemedia project).
This year I began counselling for complex PTSD that I sustained from these and other episodes of bullying. Unfortunately in the UK's covid-19 lockdown it has been impractical for me to continue my counselling. But I do have a mental health support worker helping me one or two days a week.
I joined Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons in 2007. In the early 2010s I started to find thousands of images of churches either unsorted or poorly-sorted. Many English churches had no category of their own. so I started categorising them. I noticed that some were alphasorted by location. That made sense to me so I copied that established custom.
Not until September 2016 did Rodhullandemu take issue with this. [His very first message to me] angrily implied that there were a consensus and I was breaking it. But at that time no such consensus existed. Sorting by dedication rather than location was merely his personal preference. For these reasons I ignored him and continued alphasorting by location, and for another whole year Rodhullandemu did not challenge me.
In September 2017 [Rodhullandemu challenged me a second time]. This time he opened by threatening to block me. And he was abusive, ranting at me "I can't believe anyone ever though that "location, dedication" as opposed to "dedication, location" is in any way a sensible way of default sorting church names, and frankly, it's just asinine to support the idea. People read names in the UK from left to right, and expect to see a church sorted by its saint's name. Let's not insult their intelligence and confuse them by getting it wrong, please." and "A very high degree of consistency is absolutely useless if you are consistently wrong. Following the herd may be easy, but it is mindless."
Again Rodhullandemu was trying to enforce a rule that existed only in his own imagination. But this time he was also threatening to block me for breaking his imaginary rule. I do not submit to rudeness. Nor do I obey imaginary rules. Nor am I swayed by weak arguments. Although frightened, I continued to ignore him.
In October 2017, as others have noted above, [Rodhullandemu got nastier]. He ranted "Please learn what you're doing with categories before you do anything else, and I lose my fucking temper with you. I'm prepared to let you have the clearly incorrect DEFAULTSORT templates, if you will allow me to override them so that the user doesn't wonder why the fuck everything is in the wrong place." I was so terrified that I ceased reading my talk page or answering messages on it.
I do not think I looked at my talk page again until at least June 2019. Each time I got an automated email notification of a new message I would panic and be too frightened to read my page, even if the message was not from Rodhullandemu. His bullying had completely incapacitated me as a member of the Commons community.
In mid-2019 I at last got a mental health support worker to start helping me to put my life back together. After [Rodhullandemu started blocking me] my support worker gave me enough courage to start reading my talk page again. When I did, I found further abuse and frightening threats from Rodhullandemu.
In August 2018 Rodhullandemu had widened his dispute with me to the alphasorting of pubs as well as churches. At at that time there was no rule as to whether pubs should be alphasorted by name or location. But [Rodhullandemu attacked me with both another threat and more abuse]: "Please be careful, because your answer will determine whether you are able to continue editing here. And, I'm sorry "That's the way it's always been done" won't do, because only an utter fool would perpetuate mistakes made by others."
In September 2018 Rodhullandemu had belatedly launched a [VPP discussion] to resolve our dispute. This is two years after he started it, and in the intervening time I had categorised hundreds more churches, and no-one but Rodhullandemu had disagreed with the established convention that I had copied and continued. However, by now his behaviour had seriously damaged my mental health and made my trauma too acute for me to join the VPP discussion.
In the VPP discussion he misrepresented me by saying "There is one user who persists in perpetuating this error, as I see it, claiming that "it's the way it's always been done" is a taxonomically valid reason for the current system." In fact my main argument was that people search more by location than dedication, and that people looking for the parish church in a particular village or town would include many who would not know its dedication. Jeff G. asked "Who is the "one user"?" Rodhullandemu replied "I don't want to embarrass him by naming him..." But the truth is that for two years Rodhullandemu had consistently shown he cared not a whit for my feelings. Therefore sparing me embarrassment is unlikely to have been his true motive.
Rodhullandemu could see from my talk page that I had not answered anyone's messages since September 2017. From this he could surmise that I had given up defending myself, and there was a good chance I would not join the VPP discussion. By not naming me, Rodhullandemu thus prevented any interested party from finding my talk page and seeing the true nature of the dispute he had waged against me for two years.
In July 2019 Rodhullandemu started blocking me. As the blocks were directly related to his acrimonious, long-running personal dispute with me, he should have referred the dispute to another admin. By blocking me he abused his powers. Three times. [The third block was in October 2019, for three months].
Also in October 2019 RexxS challenged Rodhullandemu's abuse of his admin powers. [Rodhullandemu's reply to RexxS] included the comment "I'd remind you this is Commons, where we act to professional standards in a mellow manner and care about what we do." It is ironic that Rodhullandemu cites COM:MELLOW when (a) it is a Wikipedia policy that Commons has not formally adopted and (b) since Rodhullandemu first messaged me in 2016 his manner toward me has never been mellow.
Until Rodhullandemu blocked me I had no idea he was an admin. It never occurred to me that Commons would grant such powers to someone so persistently rude, abusive and irrational. Only recently has someone drawn my attention to the discussion in 2014 of the proposal to make him an admin. 15 contributors supported him and only one objected. But the concerns expressed in February 2014 by Ultra7 are very telling: "Rod seems to me to believe that on Commons, he is under no obligation to present any kind of counter-argument at all, even if it's just to give a single reply explaining how the other person are themselves mistaken." And "[listen here, y'all. I am not here to be cross-examined. I understand the difference betwee (sic.) a consensus and a vote. If my reasons for voting to delete or keep any image are insufficient, by all means let the closing admin disregard what I have to say. But I'm not prepared to be hounded. That's all I have to say, apart from urging others to apply a little good faith. End of.]"
Since my three-month block expired Rodhullandemu has escalated his threats. He now threatens to ban me from Commons for life. This is despite RexxS pointing out that because he is an involved party in the dispute he should not be the one to ban me.
Rodhullandemu has disclosed that he has had mental health problems. As such he ought to recognise how vulnerable I am. Instead [he has implied that I am not telling the truth about my mental health problems]: "Yet despite other user's concerns and your protestations about your mental health and in the middle of all this you manage a trip to Croatia to photograph trains. That must have been quite a challenge. It's a long way, longer than I would be able to travel without assistance. I presume you had your mental health worker alongside you every second of the way, given how stressful foreign travel is."
Note the sneering tone. Note the sarcasm. Note Rodhullandemu's presumption that because his mental health prevents him from travelling abroad, all mental health problems have the same effect, and therefore Motacilla must be lying.
Yet despite his persistent pattern of bullying, on my talk page one admin has insisted "Rodhullandemu is a good administrator" and scolded me for reporting his swearing and abuse. Another user has claimed "I'm afraid I don't see evidence of bullying by Rodhullandemu, in fact (s)he has tried to not upset you". These are two cases of gaslighting a victim of chronic cyberbullying. This is the culture that has enabled Rodhullandemu to remain an admin despite repeatedly abusing his powers for years.
Crouch, Swale has tried to reason with him and calm him down. RexxS has reminded Rodhullandemu of the rules he is breaking. Despite their efforts Rodhullandemu has continued to abuse his powers to make gratuitous threats. Much as I sympathise with Rodhullandemu's mental ill-health, this does not justify allowing him to remain an admin. He has persistently shown himself to be unfit for the position he holds.
I note too Fae's complaint that Wikipedia users who seldom contribute to Commons are taking part in this discussion. However, I am more concerned at other users (not Fae) opposing the motion without offering an iota of evidence or argument for their vote.
Fae: the charges against Rodhullandemu are valid. You are trying to save him by discrediting some of his accusers. Instead please concentrate on the charges. Read and re-read all of Rodhullandemu's bullying of me. Note that he has continued bullying me for more than two and a half years. Not that he has never apologised for his swearing and insults. Rodhullandemu's behaviour is utterly incompatible with being an admin.
Since Rodhullandemu's third ban on me expired in January 2020 I have all but given up my contributions to Commons. This is not only because he is a bully. It is also because so many users and admins let him continue to bully. I feel neither safe nor welcome on here. If Commons wants to be an inclusive, welcoming, constructive, safe community it must desysop Rodhullandemu. Motacilla (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Just responding to your civil comment to me, I stated Rodhullandemu's behaviour needs examination so we are not disagreeing that a proper review would be helpful, but this vote has been confirmed as canvassed both by covert emails and off-wiki trolling. The vote was proposed by an account with barely any edits to Commons, and is not credible and is massively on a tangent with allegations about events off-wiki and on the English Wikipedia, which is being used to manipulate the votes and the outcome rather than focusing on the evidence on this project. --Fæ (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support There is a pattern of behaviour on the part of Rodhullandemu in his loss of temper, his incivility, and his misuse of admin tools when involved in a content dispute. This is in relation to multiple editors and across an extended time period, as the evidence in these discussions shows. I am disappointed to see other editors that I respect condoning Rodhullandemu's behaviour, and I think they should carefully consider whether that behaviour really can be acceptable on Commons. --RexxS (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Per User:Rodhullandemu; anyone who believes that emotional blackmail is either useful or appropriate in discussions such as these lacks the judgement and clear-sightedness to wield advanced tools with any guarantee of nuance or impartiality. And to those pointing out edit-counts (yes Fae, I'm looking at ye), step back and consider how many editors might actually stay (and/or not leave) and contribute to Commons if the atmosphere was occasionally more collegial than it sometimes is. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Is this a legit, binding desysop vote, or just a survey towards opening a desysop vote? <ake it official if it's the former, please?--Roy17 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
No, it is not a formal binding vote. It is just a prior discussion, according to Commons:Administrators/De-adminship#De-adminship process as a result of abuse of power. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support It was Rodhullandemu's rudeness and threats on Commons that prompted me to make a complaint. I would be keen to understand the reasons that Fæ, Herby, A.Savin, 4nn1l2 FitIndia oppose the motion without presenting any counter argument. Do you all support the language he used against me and the threats? 4nn1l2's post seems to imply that the problem comes from Wikipedia. It doesn't. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    I explained my position a bit more at [28]. My opposition is on procedural grounds. I can't remember having any sort of interaction or personal experience with Rodhullandemu (I simply don't know them). But I seriously object to the fact that some enwiki users come here and make decisions for Commons. This has happened in the past and the Commons community did not accept it: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 69#What appears to be an inappropriate indef block of User:Rowan Forest. I can't understand what the English Wikipedia ArbCom has to do with Commons! Why have they even been notified? Is it appropriate to come here as a result of Wikipediocracy notice? So again, please do not export enwiki problems (including Wikipediocracy) to Commons. This is not directed at you, but the general enwiki user. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I believe we should be moving towards a formal de-RfA at this stage. The behaviour reported above is not acceptable in any way, I'm enormously disappointed in my fellow administrators who seem to be defending it (though it's hard to tell, as they're not really explaining their opposition to a de-RfA sufficiently). Nick (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose from what I see everyone here is condemning Rodhullandemu for his bad behaviour and poor reaction (I am not happy with threats myself too) for fix this 1-3 days block would suffice, you don't need to de-admin hard working user for misbehaviour from what I see Rodhullandemu is accepting what he said was not right, this is enough for me, hopefully he won't repeat it. Mardetanha talk 22:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    You should never ever have to block an admin. If the situation can not be dealt with by discussion, they should not be an admin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Meh, where did you get this ? Admins are users first and they are not special humen beings that never make mikstakes, They are not immacualate Mardetanha talk 23:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
We don't block for mistakes. We don't block for punishment. We block to protect the project from someone who will continue the behavior. If a user makes a mistake, step one is to inform them of that, and if they don't care, if they have to blocked, then they aren't admin material.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (ec) I have not seen any contrition from Rodhullandemu, only indignation. His behaviour has been the same for years, and honestly it's to our communal shame that we have only just called him on it. This behaviour is utterly unacceptable, and is disqualifying for someone with admin tools. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not familiar with his previous behaviours and to be honest I didn't know him before the thread but do you think de-admining him is going to change his behaviour and create new person with new set of behavours ? and if was rude before he should have been blocked before but this proposal is not going to fix the problem Mardetanha talk 23:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support User:Mardetanha says this is a block-worthy matter, then this is de-admin worthy. We can analyze the on-Commons matter by itself, and canvasing does not negate the underlying problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support This is well-evidenced with diffs here, and although Commons is independent from the English Wikipedia, Rodhullandemu should never have become an admin in the first place because the reasons that lead to the en-wiki ArbCom block were serious. It is public that Jimbo Wales allowed Rodhullandemu to appeal the block to him (en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu#Appeal to Jimbo Wales): "Furthermore, upon presentation to him of real-world evidence that professional/medical help has been sought and followed for six months, and upon the recommendation of those professionals, Jimbo Wales will recommend to the committee that Rodhullandemu be allowed back provisionally."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)" Rodhullandemu never appealed, so go figure. --Pudeo (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • You've got this so wrong, but OK, you're not the first: You say: "the reasons that lead to the en-wiki ArbCom block were serious". I think you meant to say "the reasons that lead to the en-wiki ArbCom block were apparently serious, but based on flawed and unreliable evidence per en:WP:USENET. Whichever way you read it, "Refer all enquiries to the Arbitration Committee" is code for only one thing. Let's not be faix naif about this. It's a stigma based on a bunch of lies fron a convicted criminal that I do not deserve and only exposes how weak Wikpedia and functionaries are in their naivete in what evidence they consider to be proof of anything. To Arbcom, and anyone else whose mind is already narrow and poisoned, such that you will invade a sister WMF project to grind your axes, I will say only this: Prove it. There's one Arbitrator, @Newyorkbrad: , with enough legal training who understands "standard of proof", if his College course on Evidence was up to scratch, and he will know that serious allegations require serious proof. As an officer of the Court in the UK, I could tell you exactly how such things are proved, but you're probably not interested. The appeal to @Jimbo Wales: is a right according to Wikipedia policy so "by permission" is irrelevant. Wales's response was, I'm sorry, nothing short of ludicrous, and that was pointed out in my RfA here by uninterested parties, who found it, IIRC "disgustiog". Could you basically prove you are sane? Why should you have to be put to expense of a consultant psychologist who is only going to say "Within the limits of what is considered "normal" (whatever that is), my client/patient is certainly not abnormal. Eccentric, certainly, gifted, possibly" Would you be happy with that? Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - It's understandable that we lose our rag and say stuff that we soon regret.... but some of the comments above are completely unacceptable and should not be tolerated in any way, shape or form, I had no idea Rodhullandemu was blocked on EN and quite frankly unless he was blocked for stuff that he's also said here then I don't really care, I've always found Rodhullandemu to be a fair and level-headed admin but those comments (especially the block threats) are completely unacceptable. –Davey2010Talk 00:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am a regular critic of admin behaviour on WMF generally and Rod Hull's behaviour has often been less than impressive. However this particular case is no reason to start talking about desysopping. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I've had some interaction with Rodhullandemu and I've not seen them do anything particularly wrong. Some of the uncivil comments and the involved blocks are a bit of a concern though. It would not be fair though to have a de-sysop discussion here that has been canvassed on EN though. One thing I have noticed about Rodhullandemu is that they frequently criticize EN saying were're not WP and that they can make all the mistakes they want[29][30]. Well I agree with Rodhullandemu that things on WP are indeed not binding here and because we deal with media rather than text things work differently but we usually do follow then to prevent us having to needlessly repeat debates and fork their policies and guidelines. Indeed its not fair to base this request mainly on what's happened on WP but that doesn't appear to be the case. In any case I appriciate Rodhullandemu's contributions here and wish them to continue even if de-sysoped but the civility does need to get better though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom and many supports above. Such incivility is unbecoming, especially for an Admin.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Rodhullandemu has posted on his user page that he is taking a wikibreak "on medical advice". Despite this, he has continued to edit. Out of concern for his wellbeing, he should be blocked until such time as he has medical clearance to edit again. This is unrelated to the issue at hand and should not be considered as a punitive block. Bitter Oil (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Now a globally locked account.... --Herby talk thyme 17:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bitter Oil: Please read COM:BP. That would be so out of process. And if people persist in perpetuating the libels that followed Arbcom's failure to comply with Wikipedia policies, I'm not going to be complicit in those lies because in any future proceedings I would think "truth" and "fair comment" would be big mountains to climb for a defendant and I'm not going to allow them the luxury of alleging that I took my eye off the ball. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal discussion

@Moneytrees: in the light of your recent change of account name, and relatively recent RFA under the old account name on the English Wikipedia (link) and questions asked there, could you list any other accounts you have had or do have on Commons, or any anon IP accounts that may have interacted in some form with Rodhullandemu?

Having alternate legitimate accounts on Commons is fine, but they are relevant for the purposes of transparency for demonstrating interactions with Rodhullandemu, and this proposal and vote may be influenced by those unmentioned accounts, which in turn may have influenced community processes in the past or now (these do exist, such as a past desysop vote and a deletion request vote). Should you prefer to discuss these in confidence with a Bureaucrat, this should be possible. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: I've never edited commons under another username/ip. I've never directly interacted with Rod, even when this was posted on my talk. To address some of what you say above;
  • The "Dog of Arbcom" quote was me responding to Rod calling me "lap-dog for the still-self-misguiding ArbCom".
  • I get how this looks like canvassing, but it isn't. I could explain to you in further detail in email, but arbcom was simply informed of what was happening; I did what I did on my own accord. I really wish I could be more open, but it's best if some things aren't said in the open. I would be happy to share some information with you, because I think you'd understand what's happening here.
  • I don't want this to be a "foreign intervention" of sorts; I'm here because there's a problem here involving sub-optimal conduct. I implore you to look over the diffs, and think about what's being said. This isn't about fixing an enwiki problem, and doesn't have to do very much with an enwiki problem.Moneytrees (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't want this to be a "foreign intervention" of sorts (...) doesn't have to do very much with an enwiki problem. Says the one who notified enwiki arbcom about this in the first place. You thought you could fool us? pandakekok9 09:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, (and for what it's worth here since it was nine years ago and didn't happen here) Rodhullandemu was the subject of an en.wp arbcom case relating directly to his administrative actions, that case was suspended when he was then blocked for unrelated reasons. The evidence of alleged misuse of tools/admin position over there is here. Take from it what you will. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: This is becoming; no, actually it has been made, not by me, a review of events in Wikipedia nine years ago. I don't know about you, but I have moved on and escaped the disastrous situation I was in then, per the generosity of an old friend. It wasn't easy, but I conquered most of my demons in a fresh scene in which I realised that I could greatly improve the coverage of photos of where I am now. Not my fault if en:WP is now prepared to play second fiddle to other language Wikipedias to which I am able to upload some of my nearly 750 valued images or 350 quality images. But again, you have fewer than 2000 contributions on Commons as against 94000 contributions on Wikipedia. So what on earth qualifies you to judge the totality of my 500,743 contributions here? You don't know me, you don't have the seem to have the apparatus to judge me in totality. Narrow-mindedness should not be a quality of any WP/WMF/Commons contributor, I feel. So take up your pitchfork, light up your torch, and align youself with the unthinking; it's easy, but it isn't the right thing to do right now. Castng the first stone? Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You haven't moved on because you are acting in the same bullying manner as described above. Casliber (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_85&oldid=422393528"