Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

  • Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Problem with User:Ruthven and User:Elcobbola[edit]

Hello! I want to open something like an arbitration with two admins, wich may be unusual for this page. But since Commons has no arbitration process I use this page. The 2 admins in question are User:Ruthven and User:Elcobbola. The case is as follows:

At the end of last year I opened a DR on a file because of errors in what it tries to depict, low quality and better alternatives available. Nothing happened until 10 month later Elcobbola closed the DR, keeping the file because it was in use in 2 projects and advising me to discuss the matter in languages I don't speak. Revisiting the file I recognised that the data in the unsourced map were taken from Open Street Map and there were some additional data (hill shading) not available at OSM, thus having originated in another not diclosed source. As not even the licence matched (still does not) to OSM, I choose to request a deletion via copyvio. This was rejected by Ruthven without explanation on the subject just because of the former DR and when I reinserted the copyvio I got blocked by Ruthven for 1 month.

After that Ruthven went to a different map about Georgia that I recently had reverted to the version backed by the given sources after a Georgian Nationalist had changed it back to a erroneous older version that suited his beliefs better. Despite me having given an explanation for every revert, Ruthven did not explain anything. On my talk page he also did not explain the revert other than with his bad faith. In the enduing discussions, also at Elcobbolas and Ruthvens talk page, mostly due to intervention by User:NordNordWest, I had to read a number of insults, defamations and threats especially by Ruthven. Both Ruthven and Elcobbola have acknowledged that the file #1 had copyright issues, but did nothing further regarding the issue. At the end I was unblocked by User:Mdaniels5757, who I had called to my talk page, after over a week.

So my problems with the behaviour of both admins are as follows:

  • Both Ruthven and Elcobbola doing nothing against a copyright violation (File:Staged map of border changes in Karabakh as per 2020 Armenia- Azerbaijan Agreement.png), even after beeing notified more than once and having acknowledged the problem by themselves and in Ruthvens case actively protecting the copyright violation
  • A disproportionate block by Ruthven of 1 month for having reverted him once
  • Ruthven blocking me after being active as admin in the same case with a different action (rejecting the copyvio DR)
  • Ruthven meddling with File:Caucasus 1060n map de.png. The file was created by me (2009) and I was the only contributor (changes 2010). User:Ercwlff reverted the file to the old version from 2009 due to him just not believing in the sources I had given in the meantime. Ruthven reverted again to the version preferred by Ercwlff, without any explanation. His action was not identifiable as an action as admin in any way either. Ruthven thus just acted as edit warrior. Plus Ruthvens/Ercwlffs version conflicted with the sources given for the contents of the map. Thus both produced forgery. And despite Ruthvens false claims I did not revert other's contributions here. That would be impossible, since the only contributions to this file were made by me. He was the one reverting other's contributions without explanation and by this producing forgery/pseudohistory. An as I am the only true contributor to the file and always named as the author, both are suggesting I was the one responsible for the forgery they did.
  • Ruthvens insults, defamations and threats. I will not comment everything he said, just two points: He repeatedly stated that I who worked with numerous scientific sources to compile a map and have no personal involvement in the topic would be less trusted than a self proclaimed nationalist who just expresses doubt because a map does not confirm his ideology. For what was I even doing all the work? Second are his repeated threats, that he could block me again at any time if he would find anything he does not approve. Which is especially terrifying as he uses absurd reasoning as "seeing a pattern" in just 2 edits (everyone and no one could see a pattern he wants to see in a sample of 2) and openly lying those were "reverts without explanations" and putting this up as reason for the block, even if all my reverts in this issue had elaborate explanations (Ruthvens claims). This gives me the feeling of anything I does could be a reason for another block by Ruthven. And it is a red flag for an admin making things up just as they suit him regardless of what happened.
  • Elcobbola supporting Ruthven in his behaviour. Which is even more worrisome as a self-confessed nationalist is also involved in the issue and Elcobbola as a checkuser would be able to access undisclosed data about me.

Judging by his own measures Ruthven should be blocked für 3 month. 1 month for edit warring. 1 month for protecting a copyright violation. 1 month for insults, defamations and threats. If his own measures are refused, he should be blocked for 4 weeks. 1 week for everything aforementioned each and 1 week for abuse of adminship due to the disproportionate block. But I assume different oppinions on that will emerge which I am curious about.

Sorry for so many words and thanks for reading. --Don-kun (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I provided my summary here and my comments speak for themselves. I renew my belief that Don-kun is intellectually dishonest, and consider this complaint disingenuous piffle in bad faith (e.g., "Elcobbola supporting Ruthven in his behaviour. Which is even more worrisome as a self-confessed nationalist is also involved in the issue and Elcobbola as a checkuser would be able to access undisclosed data about me.") Boomerang? Эlcobbola talk 17:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Idem, I clearly explained to the user in the talk page why their behaviour was disruptive (edit warring, for instance). Mdaniels5757 unblocked Don-kun against my advice, and now I invite him to deal with this "revenge" post on AN/U. Ruthven (msg) 20:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elcobbola, both your summary and your reply here do come across as defamatory. You and Ruthven should be able to explain proper procedure without resorting to such animosity and excessive blocks, and Don-kun was right to bring your behaviour to our attention. Don-kun, this doesn't change the fact that the way forward for you is to start another, non-speedy DR. I know this is frustrating, but it may not take a year this time. You did editwar, and Elcobbola's close was correct given the information they had at the time. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Elcobbola's close was corrct is not the issue here. And I have the impression that so far no one here really cares about the rest. --Don-kun (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion says: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." You did the opposite twice. In my opinion block is fair. Unfortunately Commons is understaffed and some deletion requests take almost a year. Sorry for that. Taivo (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained, for me the copyright violation was newly discovered. So your conclusion is wrong. Also you did not respond to any of the problems I explained above. --Don-kun (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CardinalBoy27backup (talk · contribs)[edit]

Yet another Jermboy27 (talk · contribs) sock. Please also delete all uploads. Fry1989 eh? 15:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to get rid of me? After you added categories in yourself? CardinalBoy27backup (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
You helped me added in the road sign to the category back in 2018. Remember? CardinalBoy27backup (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your upload and editing history, and manner of response, leave me no other presumption. Fry1989 eh? 16:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares. You added categories to my Portuguese road signs back in 2018, and you're getting rid of me! It's useless! CardinalBoy27backup (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked. All files deleted. What should we do with Road signs of Vietnam? Yann (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave the page alone, since the images are legitimate. Thank you for your assistance. Fry1989 eh? 16:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fry1989, Yann, and Taivo: Thank you all. I updated m:srg#Global lock for Roadsover9000 et al.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fry1989 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Yet another Jermboy27 (talk · contribs) sock. Please also block him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CardinalBoy271 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked CardinalBoy indefinitely as sockpuppet of Jermboy. Taivo (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please also delete the uploads of the CardinalBoy271 account. Fry1989 eh? 15:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CardinalBoy272 (talk · contribs)[edit]

We have another. Please also delete the uploads of this account and of the CardinalBoy271 account above. Fry1989 eh? 01:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, all edits deleted or reverted. Yann (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Thank you, but could you please also delete the uploads of CardinalBoy271 (talk · contribs)? I've asked twice before and it hasn't been done. Fry1989 eh? 16:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Yann (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinalboy273 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Here's another one. Please also delete the uploads. Fry1989 eh? 00:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the source for the Morocco yield sign? https://www.alamy.com/give-way-road-sign-in-english-and-arabic-at-the-emirates-palace-hotel-image64626683.html Cardinalboy273 (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fjjsb5161 engaged in uploading copyright images only[edit]

Repeated uploading fair use images mainly TV serial banners and posters after repeated warnings. The user is always engaged in copyright violations. Latest being

Previous violations were

Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. No activity after you warned him/her. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizm by user:PolishBoyInUK / User:Gejzir.owski[edit]

The thing is about the user "82.25.126.28, PolishBoyInUK, Gejzir.owski". I suppose it's the same. Vandalizes on commons, english wiki, and possibly others. I now present the fruits of his "fruity" that I have revised on the english wiki [1] and on commons [2]. It is especially virulent because it often makes two changes in a row and the revert becomes complicated (See input 82.25.126.28). The particular insolence he has uploaded onto the commons is a fake panorama of small town Hel in Poland with a skyscraper [File: Hel Panorama 2020.jpg] as well as the graphics allegedly of Lidl on Hel (in fact in Władysławowo) and McDonalds on Hel. It is time to check everything he has done and uploaded to commons and other projects. 2A01:C23:951E:AB00:153F:592E:8690:7949 23:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to discuss the same case. Yesterday I was alerted by the IP about the edits by user:PolishBoyInUK and his sockpupet User:Gejzir.owski and so far my findings are:
  • According to the page user:PolishBoyInUK, User:Gejzir.owski is his other alias I will refer to both accounts edits as PolishBoyInUK
  • from what I can tell PolishBoyInUK Modus operandi seem to be uploading images with wrong information and than using those images to add misinformation to Wikipedia articles. For example:
It seems like PolishBoyInUK was blocked indefinitely by User:Achim55 and I just did the same to User:Gejzir.owski. We might need help cleaning up the edits by those accounts, and be on a lootout for other similar activity. Great thanks to 2A01:C23:951E:AB00:153F:592E:8690:7949 for alerting us. --Jarekt (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gejzir.owski --Achim55 (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ferrer[edit]

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.

Christian Ferrer earlier unblocked Rodhullandemu. I am raising discussion here as the unblock has several problematic aspects, and attempting to raise the issue directly with Christian Ferrer has been unproductive. I consider their responses and behaviour following their unblock to lack the level of accountability and fundamental respect for the community that we expect from administrators, hence I am raising this thread to allow Christian the opportunity to respond fully to my concerns, and if discussion progresses in such a direction, to allow the community the opportunity to decide whether an de-RfA discussion should be held.

Rodhullandemu was indefinitely blocked for making a death threat, at the time of Christian Ferrer accepting an unblock request, discussion was continuing on whether the community wished to unblock Rodhullandemu, and whether any conditions would be required before an unblock request would be accepted. Christian Ferrer was involved in the discussion and had expressed support for an unblock, and additionally had expressed an opinion that the block was never necessary [3]. They subsequently accepted the unblock, despite not discussing the issue with the blocking administrator [4][5]. There was certainly no consensus to accept an unblock at the time Christian accepted the unblock, and they appear to be entirely disinterested in the fact that unblocking at the time was opposed by several users (myself included).

They have been asked to reinstate the block by two (at time of posting) administrators (myself and Yann). In their response [6] to my concerns of undertaking an unblock request when already involved in the discussions concerning the block, and having displayed a strong opinion on the block, they state ...sorry, before to perform the unblock I have read again our policy, and is is quite clear: "...may only be declined by an uninvolved administrator", not the opposite. And if you think the opposite is obvious, well, you can see that it is not my case. They also continue to make attempts to justify Rodhullandemu's behaviour in my request for accountability All this for an IP only acting as a vandal... well ok if it is how is our community, here we go. which is, in my opinion, unacceptable for two reasons - it again demonstrates that they have not acted in a neutral, unbiased manner when reviewing the unblock, additionally they appear to be justifying the behaviour of leaving death threats for IP/anonymous users, which is hugely detrimental to our project.

Christian continues to justify the unblock with what I believe to be faulty and concerning logic, such as calling conditions or sanctions against Rodhullandemu "punishment and blackmail" [7] and displays further inappropriate behaviour which is not (in my opinion) becoming of an administrator when asked to account for their behaviour, such as posting a poem [8].

I would appreciate comments and discussion from the community - also, can I ask that we do not relitigate the Rodhullandemu discussion, but where possible, we try to discuss Christian Ferrer. I also think the community would benefit from comments/discussion on involved administrative actions and consensus for unblocking. Nick (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, as you might expect. But the idea of "involved" is only related, as far as I can see, to being in dispute with another editor, and has no application to the exercise of an Admin's discretion, which is part of the job and why they were given the bit as they showed that they were capable of exercising discretion prudently. That you disagree with the exercise of discretion is neither here nor there. I've read many, many legal appeal decisions in which the appellate court absolutely refused to interfere with a discretion unless it was "manifestly unreasonable", in the sense that no reasonable tribunal could (not should) have reached it. The unblock rationale clearly shows that Christian considered the issues I raised and quite rightly gave any consensus not to unblock the weight it deserved. Sorry, but You Can't Always Get What You Want, and I suggest this proposal should be strangled at birth. It's over. Let it go. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ...strangled at birth is a poor choice of words. Krok6kola (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a reference to Cyril Smith's comment about the Alliance between the Social Democrats and Liberal Party in 1987, but I don't expect people to know that. It's a metaphor, nothing more and is not meant to be offensive. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rodhullandemu Another user has already suggested that Christian, as a non-native English speaker, has misunderstood the situation. But you claim to be a native English speaker; you have no excuse. This is clearly not going away; the least you can do is avoid making this worse with poor wording like this. Brianjd (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Tensions are running high here, and obscure metaphors do not help. Even worse, another user has already suggested that Christian, as a non-native English speaker, has misunderstood the situation. This is clearly not going away quickly. Brianjd (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure what's being "opposed" above, given this isn't a vote. I've had a half eye on this disappointing situation since it happened, and found myself somewhat speechless when Christian Ferrer unilaterally unblocked Rodhullandemu in a display of what can only be described as pure, bias cabal-ing. I find myself questioning if I should be making this comment, as I am not very active here and have not been a steward for quite some time - I do however know that Nick is a level-headed and respected admin, and not someone who would "overreact" to such a situation. Christian, I do not know you well, and I have no reason to believe you're manifestly a bad administrator from this single bad unblock, but I do implore you to listen to your colleagues and reinstate the block. Everyone makes hasty mistakes, please do not compound yours by doubling down, lest this thread finds consensus to desysop you for cause ~TNT (she/they • talk) 22:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reaffirming per the below that the original block was good and very overdue. Rodhullandemu needs to be shown the door and I can only hope that T&S is reading this. You are not welcome. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • AFAIK even an indefblocked user has a chance to clean start at least, and definitely unwelcome are only banned users. --A.Savin 08:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not had any previous interactions with Christian Ferrer, but I am appalled at this unblock, and Christian's total refusal to listen to the numerous editors and admins who have called this unblock wildly inappropriate, least of all AntiCompositeNumber, the blocking administrator. That Christian had previously voiced support for a block appeal by Rodhullandemu before unblocking him is an obvious indication of bias. Administrators are supposed to be impartial in disputes like this, and to not get directly involved when they are not impartial. Quite frankly, I consider this conduct unbecoming of an administrator. And Rodhullandemu's gloating across Commons, displaying some of the same incivility he has repeatedly been in trouble for in the past, is not helping. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gloating? Where? I am not on Wikpediocracy, so I don't gloat. But, even if you don't like it, I will tell it as I see it. No doubt Christian saw the opinions of others, and gave them appropriate weight as he saw fit. He exercised his discretion as he was fully entitled to do. That's why he was entrusted with the Admin bit. But undoing his unblock, however much the clamour to do so, is wheel warring: "When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision". On en:WP, that would be an immediate ArbCom case for the reversing Admin. And then, there'd be another unblock request, more discussion, more argument, more heat, less light. Nothing is to be gainedby prolonging this agony any further. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He has just lifted unlawful, too impulsive block. Simple as that. A threat of physical harm is a crime, but what local or global policy justifies an instant block for such a crime? Instant blocks are reserved for obvious vandals and LTAs and it is rather hard to say that sole purpose of Rodhullandemu’s presence here is to throw death threats at innocent vadals. --jdx Re: 07:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (When I will use "you", I talk to everybody not someone in particular) I have read again our policy section "Appealing a block". Where the word "neutral" is writen? where is it writen that unblock should be performed only by uninvolved administrators? However two points have been raised while only one was needed:
1/ a credible promise that the behavior will not be repeated have been provided
2/ an explanation why the block is not appropriate have been provided

For the first point you will find it words by words in the unblock request. The second is also writen in the text, to condition potential "apologies" vs indef block is indeed highly inappropriate, and way too much disproportionate, as regard to the mistake done. Although it takes the form of a threat it is not a true threat, it's a slip, in bad taste of course, but a simple verbal slip (in the sense verbal excess) given impulsively to an IP just acting like a vandal. Rodhullandemu should not have done this, I agree, and he have been warned for that, even by myself. This is sufficiant. To block indefinitely Rodhullandemu demanding "apologies" is unfair and blackmail, and of course Rodhullandemu can not acknowledge such a thing apart from lying to please you, hence the term blackmail I used. I perceveid that Rodhullandemu was not ready to perform such a lie, to his credit from my point of view, and that inspired me the little poem I have written a in the other noticeboard, sorry if you don't like it. I have nothing more to say. I will not undo my action, I will not apologie, and I am fully ready to assume the consequence. Sorry to appears potentially impolite, but as I have said all I had to say there is signifiant chance that I don't comment anymore here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a desysop request. This was a rogue unblock and Christian has shown a willingness to ignore what the community has to say, not to mention any sort of norm on how we expect contributors to this site to act towards others, even if they are only represented by an IP. Both of these are bad characteristics and unbecoming of an admin on any Wikimedia site. --Rschen7754 07:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment AFAIK for a poll on whether to open a desysop request a separate subsection has to be started, and the user should be notified separately too. I know this, because myself was subject of such polls too, started by... guess whom. Here we have only a COM:ANU complaint, not a poll yet, so no point in voting at the moment. Opinions are welcome of course. --A.Savin 12:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons:Administrators/De-adminship#De-adminship process as a result of abuse of power only says that "prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal" is required. It says nothing about a poll, a separate subsection, or notifying the user. Brianjd (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @A.Savin. Brianjd (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the point in pinging me? That was how I experienced this; if you read something different from COM:A, be bold and try it the other way. --A.Savin 07:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to say, I would hope that the Commons community would not desysop over this incident. I agree that his unblock was incorrect, but I believe that Christian has made the mistake of taking certain things at face value, where they should not be, especially as the level of nuance is less clear to a non-native speaker of English. One of the things I admire most about Commons is the way that those who speak multiple languages are able to work together for the common good. Christian Ferrer, please, consider that there may be more to this than meets the eye, you have long term Commons admins and many users in good standing all suggesting that enough is enough. A good community works collaboratively, listens to each other. Look at where the consensus lies and ask yourself why. WormTT · (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would disagree. I will not undo my action, I will not apologie, and I am fully ready to assume the consequence. - he has the opportunity to fix this mistake and doesn't, that is a really bad character trait for an administrator to have. --Rschen7754 19:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      What mistake? Lifting bad, out of process block is a mistake? --jdx Re: 20:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Worm That Turned This seems like a weak excuse. No one asked Christian Ferrer to get involved. If they felt they did not understand the situation, because of language difficulties or any other reason, they should not have got involved, especially given they failed to consult the blocking admin. And given they were involved in discussion for over a day before granting the second unblock request, they should have understood there was a problem here. Brianjd (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps. I was hoping Christian might see the light, along with my belief that people aren't perfect and should be allowed to make mistakes. However, the doubling down after all this does rather step on that hope. WormTT · (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly I've held off commenting, got some fresh air and hoped I would see things more differently than I did yesterday evening, My thoughts are this:
Christian had supported Rod's first unblock[9] as well as made comments at AN[10][11] so he already formed an opinion on the situation so therefore he should've left the unblocking to someone who didn't form an opinion on the situation. Christian didn't consult the blocking admin either which is another issue on its own.
Everyone makes mistakes but had I seen the death threat and then the AN thread - Would I have unblocked someone who made one ? = Not a chance in hell .... so in that respect I can't understand why on earth Christian did (Surely they would've known unblocking would've only made things a thousand times worse?)
Honestly yesterday when I typed my original comment out I supported desysopping Christian and sort of still do but on the other hand despite his actions I feel it's a bit OTT to desysop over one mistake, As far as I know prior to yesterday Christian has never jumped in head first into controversy like this and hasn't made a huge mistake like this before. I honestly dunno whether a desysop should happen or not. –Davey2010Talk 16:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup unfortunately they've since stated it wasn't a mistake. They've also since stated they're proud of their actions. If a desysop was held I would unequivocally support it. –Davey2010Talk 20:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a bad unblock and RH&E should be reblocked --Guerillero 16:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a mess. The original block was fine. Whether the threat was legitimate or not, it was completely unnecessary. We'd be quick to slap down a newer editor who said something like that, and a veteran shouldn't be treated differently. As for this, Christian Ferrer shouldn't have lifted the block unilaterally since he was involved and a discussion regarding Rodhullandemu's behavior was ongoing. Any unblock requests should have been dealt with by a completely uninvolved admin. clpo13(talk) 20:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original block was NOT fine. It was based on COM:NPA, which is an under-construction essay, a copy of wp:NPA which is NOT policy here, merely an opinion in its context. Imposing sanctions based on an opinion, however you may think it's true, is monstrously improper. This is because anyone could write an essay saying "this is how I think things should work", and you could be sanctioned for failure to comply. That has got to be nonsense, and why I proposed on Commons talk:No personal attacks that this is a vast hole in the our (or your) processes. Users have the right to know their obligations and rights, and if something is not specified as mandatory, it's obviously moot and unenforceable. It's a horrendous lacuna and should be fixed. But not retrospectively, because you can't play games with policy and users' expectations in that manner. There is no reason to reblock me on a faulty premise. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the <big> coding and bolding from your above comment as putting it in huge big black letters doesn't help matters here. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original block was entirely justified and long overdue, and undoing it against the obvious consensus was a serious error in judgement. That being said, what I'm not seeing is any evidence that it is part of a pattern of poor judgement by this admin, which is what I would expect to see in a desysop request. striking perChristian's subsequent comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this discussion and the discussion on the neighbouring board are proofs that there is no consensus, not even speaking about "obvious consensus". And the original block was not OK because according to COM:BP Accounts and IP addresses used solely for severely disruptive purposes such as automated spamming, serious vandalism or harassment may also be blocked without prior warning, in simple words: only obvious vandals, LTAs, etc. are not required to be warned first. Rodhullandemu is not any of these. Additionally Controversial blocks may be discussed at the blocks and protections noticeboard, preferably before they are applied if at all possible. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block. --jdx Re: 05:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jdx Harassment can earn you an instant block, but death threats cannot. Good to know. Brianjd (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Instant block where? On what basis? BTW, looking at mentioned discussions, by definition (en:WP:HA, COM:HA is not a policy or a guideline yet) it is Rodhullandemu who should rather feel to be harassed. Face-grin.svg BTW2, AFAIK threats of physical harm, including death threats, are forms of harassment. --jdx Re: 06:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jdx On the basis of the passage that you quoted. And you have now acknowledged that death threats are a form of harassment, which means that based on your own comments, the block was justified. Brianjd (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is in your opinion Rodhullandemu’s account used solely for harassment? Because I do not get it how else these quotes could justify an instant block for harassment. --jdx Re: 06:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jdx: I missed that bit. I still think a block, even without warning, is clearly in the spirit of this policy. Of course, such a block should be lifted quickly if the blocked user demonstrates an ability and willingness to change, but we have not seen that here. Brianjd (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also question whether a specific warning is necessary, or whether, for example, being desysopped for uncivil behaviour is enough of a warning, as others have suggested. Brianjd (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The original block was out of process, for which the original blocking Admin should be sanctioned, although perhaps it hasn't been brought to the fore until now. So, maybe a forgiveable lapse of judgement, even given that Admins are supposed to know what is policy and what isn't. Even so, Admins are not always governed by consensus otherwise their role would be merely a rubber stamp. I've already pointed out that consensus does not govern discretion, where that discretion exists. It's indicative, but Admins should not be slaves to it otherwise there's no point having them. The alternative is to do everything, and I mean everything by consensus. See how far that gets you on DRs, copyvio deletion nominations, dealing with vandalism. Please don't be silly. We've already long passed that point. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support desysop. I was leaning against it until I saw this in Special:Diff/610855515:
All this for an IP only acting as a vandal
No, this is about death threats, not vandals. Also, IP addresses can be shared between users, and those users can change over time. All these issues were made clear at the COM:AN/BP discussion, and an admin should understand all of them anyway, yet Christian ignored them. Brianjd (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Christian is still at it in Special:Diff/611179247, a long comment made just a few minutes before my comment here (they made a series of follow-up edits to correct typos, but the main points are all clearly shown in this diff). They are digging in on their claims that the IP address is just a vandal, that the threat was not real, and that the blocked user promised not to repeat their behaviour, in all cases ignoring the extensive discussion about these points. Brianjd (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced a desysop is an appropriate response, I am now. it is alarming to see an admin so bound and determined to defend indefensible behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Christian also seems to believe WHEEL WARRING took place[12] and hasn't bothered to retract that blatantly incorrect statement. Not to continue this whole thing on but it's one thing ballsing up and admitting it ... but it's another to pull this stunt and then despite the opposition faced they still defend their actions and then start making random things up in order to try and justify their actions mistake.
Their actions are unbecoming of any admin and honestly if a desysop was held tomorrow I would support it as sadly this doesn't look to have been a mistake but instead an admin completely ignoring everyone just to suit themselves.
I shall say no more here but Yann reblocking them confirms death threats aren't okay and that's good enough(ish) for me. –Davey2010Talk 12:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that I have stricken out my previous opposition to a desysop procedure. I don't expect admins to be perfect, and I don't expect them to be robots in perfect lockstep with one another, but I do expect them to be open to the idea that might act outside of what the community expects of them once in a while, and to be willing to listen when such criticism comes alonng. I'm not seeing that here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Sunday's hatch[edit]

Is this really how you want to recall my presence? The metal on the building has been there for nearly twenty-five years. The singers on Sunday have the same friends. Are you admins proud of yourselves? Does your self-respect still exist? Yes, I got emotional but you were the ones smoking the cigarettes. I won't be editing Wikipedia tomorrow night. What are you even thinking now?--BeachFather (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Yes, we are proud of ourselves, and to show my pride I blocked you for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: Is there some deleted, hidden, or oversighted basis for that rant?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BeachFather has no deleted edits. Taivo (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would have ignored them. --A.Savin 12:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree, a block for one weird nonsensical comment, the user's only edit here, is a bit heavy handed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to unblock him, let it be. Taivo (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want, and it's not worth wasting time. Exactly for this reason I would have ignored them. Regards --A.Savin 11:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would think that just removing the comment as obviously misplaced was the only response warranted here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppetry[edit]

Leonthis (talk · contribs) is a new sockpuppet account of Luis camilo álvarez vega (talk · contribs). It makes the same edits as the master account on the same articles. made a request on Meta to lock it globally. --Bankster (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this user cannot be blocked because I never violate the edits Leonthis (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bankster, Great minds think alike :) - I asked the global-blocking admin at Meta if these were the same person[13] but never got a response (although I've only just seen Trijnstel's not been on since 7th Nov). Anyway looks like the exact same person. –Davey2010Talk 17:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cvrgy 80 – continuous copyvios[edit]

Cvrgy 80 (talk · contribs · logs · block log), a new account of Cvrgy (talk · contribs · logs · block log) – not ban evasion, that's fine – still isn't concerned by Commons' rules about copyright and continues uploading copyright violations (logos, portraits, screencaps with more than 40 bad files since April.--TFerenczy (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EugeneZelenko[edit]

This user [[14]] has arbitrarily, and with no reason whatsoever, decided that three photos I had uploaded were "unlikely" to be my own work. He says that "I" have to prove that they're mine. On what basis? I think "he" should prove that they're not mine, since they do NOT appear anywhere else on the Internet. Suspects are free: I don't think I should be the one to spend my time to prove something only because "he" suspects, following complicate procedures explained in long technical-detailed service pages half of which I don't understand. I notice that spends a lot of time doing similar things on every file he finds, and I find his work disruptive. Please stop this person: his work is damaging the work of other editors AND Wikipedia. Thank you for your intervention. Acqueamare (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user, who you are accusing, is an administrator of Commons and he has been entrusted by the community to care about the maintenance of Commons, which is exactly what he is doing here. A view on your talkpage suggests that this may not be unjustified. In addition: Filing an image for deletion does not equal deleting it or automatically lead to its deletion. To the contrary, the DR-discussion provides a platform to discuss the legitimacy and evidence wrt to it. --Túrelio (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case the community should seriously reconsider the people they entrust. What should "a view on my talkpage" ever suggest? Because, instead of being a good girl, I'm reacting to suspicions based on nothing at all? Again I ask: on what basis does he declare that my photos are not mine? On his impressions? I don't think "I" should be the one to discuss this following long and complicate procedures, which I will have to learn by myself since nobody ever bothers to explain. The fact that filing an image for deletion does not equal deleting it or automatically lead to its deletion is irrelevant: it still involves a long procedure that I should follow to prove that yes, I have shot some photos with my mobile phone and uploaded them on Wikipedia. I have done nothing wrong and this is insane. The suspicion of this user "entrusted by the community" has no ground other than his Sacred Word. And please don't support him only out of "esprit de corps". Acqueamare (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Acqueamare: If these images are yours, why don't you upload the original files with EXIF data? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god. Not again. Because I DID upload the original files (with the exception I have explained: I cut one of them because I appeared too, and I didn't want my image on Wikipedia), I don't know nor do I want to know what EXIF data are. By the way, I have also asked that the files be removed, since I withdraw my consent to the publications. What I put in question here is the totally uncontrolled behavior of the user I have reported. He should not be allowed to stress people by forcing them into complicate procedures and trials to prove something that doesn't need to be proved. This is NOT good for Wikipedia. Acqueamare (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Acqueamare The whole point of Commons is to provide free cultural media, and Commons takes that responsibility seriously. You have repeatedly claimed that it is not up to you to prove you have the rights to these files, but a Commons policy says otherwise. Brianjd (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This DR gives as justifications "Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. "
"Unlikely to be own work" is an easy accusation to make. It's hard to prove otherwise and it's very easy to prove that they're not your work, by giving links to their original sources (but no such sources have been provided). Yet the mud sticks.
"small/inconsistent resolutions" and "missing EXIF" are favourite reasons for DRs. You could read the policy-based reasons that such files should be deleted, except that there aren't any. Despite being raised at Village Pump, we have never produced such a policy and it has been repeatedly rejected. Yet the deletions continue.
A further reason (not given in the nomination) is "Facebook".
All these images seem to have come from it:WP. They might be better left there, rather than allowing Commons to delete them.
The real reason for their deletion is of course the title of the nomination: "Files uploaded by Acqueamare". You are not known here. You do not have friends here. You are not welcome here. Therefore it is tidier if all your work is deleted. This is the Commons way. Most usually, files uploaded some years ago will have been forgotten by their uploaders and so may be quietly deleted. There are few Italians active on Commons, there are even fewer who follow obscure filmmakers. So these files are not seen by Commons as having any value, so no-one here will miss them. Their deletion gives Commons admins something to do, which they do enjoy greatly.
I'm sorry that you've been treated this way, but you are far from the only one. I suggest that you keep them on it:WP, where they might be appreciated more. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I'm finally reading something that MAKES SENSE. Thank you @Andy Dingley, indeed. Acqueamare (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carolalitta[edit]

Carolalitta (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) keep uploading copyvio files even after two warnings, including a final warning. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 22:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those 2 last uploading are right! The rules says that famous people pictures can be uploading if it was pictures from events or public places. The picture are from public events and I even credited the person who took the picture. So If that's wrong I don't know what picture I am suposed to upload. She needs to take a selfie and upload?.... Carolalitta (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you misunderstood our rules. On Commons, you can only upload your own work or pictures/images/files that were released under one of the licenses allowed here. You can't simply take pictures from the internet and upload them here, like you did. These pictures are copyrighted and, therefore, what you did was a violation of copyright, a matter that we take pretty serious here. I warned you twice and, yet, you kept uploading these pictures. You didn't seek help to understand how Commons works, you just kept insisting in uploading these pictures. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:ラキたま[edit]

After receiving copyvio warning, this user posted the same copyvio images. --Netora (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked 1 month by Jon Kolbert. De728631 (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edelweiiss[edit]

This user have been blocked for a week once. No sooner than the block was over, this user restarted to post copyvio images. --Netora (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked 1 month. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Kingwarnen[edit]

With Jermboy now resorting to removing DR tags by IP address, I believe this DR should be expedited. Fry1989 eh? 21:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even get why you're trying to mess with that "Jermboy" kid right now. 161.35.52.21 22:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Multichill (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PD licence tagging by User:Storye book[edit]

I identified a problem with File:Giulielma Lister (3).jpg where Storye book (talk · contribs) had claimed PD licences for PD-expired and PD-old-70 despite the author being unknown and no evidence of publication prior to a modern internet blog. On asking on their talk page for any additional evidence they may have to support the PD licences, the answer I received[15] was that:

  1. PD-old-70 is perfectly fine when the author is unkown,
  2. it is okay to assume that a photograph was published shortly after it was taken; and
  3. that they are willing to insert additional PD licence tags when challenged when they "don't believe that it is needed or appropriate."

If this was just the one image, I would have taken this to DR but the user's replies imply that they have used licences for similar situations; "Evidence of date of publication has never been requested of me yet, although I have uploaded nearly 20,000 images to Commons." I am unclear on what proportion of those 20,000 images is problematic but their defence that they are okay to use incorrect PD tags because "90 percent" of the images on Commons have the same problem, suggests the same situation will be repeated in future uploads. Do other users see this as a problem and, if so, how do we resolve it? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For an image found on the Internet, there is usually no reason to believe it wasn't published shortly after being taken. Images from private or GLAM archives are a different case. Here we can use {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Thank you for your comment above, and thank you for your edit on Giulielma Lister (3).jpg.Storye book (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: It is a pity that you have felt the need to start a discussion based on misunderstandings. In your statement above, it would seem that you would wish to cast doubt on all c.20,000 of my file uploads on the basis of out-of-copyright licences, yet you made no effort to discover that actually most of them are my own photographs, most of which are under the self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL licence. The remainder (the minority) are mostly dated artworks, photographs and lithographs from the 19th century or even earlier. Where the author is unknown, that is normal in respect of almost all UK 18th to early 20th-century newspapers because all journalists and most photographers were anonymous in that era - and they remained anonymous. Another misunderstanding in your above statement is that one needs to respect the fact that the uploader probably knows more about the specific upload material than you do - for example the matter of dating UK photographs of women without makeup and without dressed hair, which are more than 100 years old. That would be different from US photographs, where female culture in that respect was different from UK culture. We are lucky that in this case we have dated photographs of Giulielma Lister at various ages, in her Commons category; that makes it fairly easy to date the photograph at issue here. Lastly, I did feel intimidated by your assumption that I had committed some sort of major crime in all my uploads when you had not even looked at my work, by your threat of communicating that to others via a public discussion, and by you actually carrying out that threat. The opening of this discussion does not feel like an attempt to improve Commons, to me. It feels like intimidation and hounding. If you put pressure on people and then use their distress and hopeless attempts to please as a weapon against them, then that is like the schoolyard bully threatening their victim that they will tell everyone all that their goaded victim has said when under pressure. I changed the licences in the hope that you would go away and stop pressuring me. You may have originally intended to put right something which you did not understand, but your own overbearing pressure has distorted the situation and made it worse. Storye book (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=612191902"