(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 495:
Line 495:
User:Tm has been harassed by User:Rereader1996. I have blocked the latter for a month, with the comment in [[Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism#Tm], that "User:Tm has been harassed by User:Rereader1996. I have blocked the latter for a month because I’m increasingly inclined to agree with User:Tm that this may be a case of sockpuppetry". [[User:Tm|Tm]] ([[User talk:Tm|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Tm has been harassed by User:Rereader1996. I have blocked the latter for a month, with the comment in [[Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism#Tm], that "User:Tm has been harassed by User:Rereader1996. I have blocked the latter for a month because I’m increasingly inclined to agree with User:Tm that this may be a case of sockpuppetry". [[User:Tm|Tm]] ([[User talk:Tm|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
* {{oppose|Strongly oppose}} any action against [[User:Rereader1996]]. [[User:Tm|Tm]] is very clearly in the wrong here. [[User:AshFriday|AshFriday]] ([[User talk:AshFriday|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
== [[User:Tm]] ==
== [[User:Tm]] ==
Line 512:
Line 513:
*{{comment}} My last comment in this thread, but for full disclosure, that after i warned Green Giant about the [[User_talk:TheCommonsCorrecteur#Question|last edits of TheCommonsCorrecteur]], that, after previous warnings, has blocked this user for "Edit warring after warnings" for 1 month and blocked Rereader1996 also for 1 month but for Intimidation/harassment, with the comment in [[Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism#Tm], that "User:Tm has been harassed by User:Rereader1996. I have blocked the latter for a month because I’m increasingly inclined to agree with User:Tm that this may be a case of sockpuppetry". Also if anyone thinks the same that Rereader1996, that i "could be the alleged sockpuppeteer behind TheCommonsCorrecteur", i would gladly support opening a checkuser against me. [[User:Tm|Tm]] ([[User talk:Tm|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
*{{comment}} My last comment in this thread, but for full disclosure, that after i warned Green Giant about the [[User_talk:TheCommonsCorrecteur#Question|last edits of TheCommonsCorrecteur]], that, after previous warnings, has blocked this user for "Edit warring after warnings" for 1 month and blocked Rereader1996 also for 1 month but for Intimidation/harassment, with the comment in [[Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism#Tm], that "User:Tm has been harassed by User:Rereader1996. I have blocked the latter for a month because I’m increasingly inclined to agree with User:Tm that this may be a case of sockpuppetry". Also if anyone thinks the same that Rereader1996, that i "could be the alleged sockpuppeteer behind TheCommonsCorrecteur", i would gladly support opening a checkuser against me. [[User:Tm|Tm]] ([[User talk:Tm|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
* I would {{support|strongly support}} an indefinte ban for [[User:Tm]]. [[User:AshFriday|AshFriday]] ([[User talk:AshFriday|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
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.
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.
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.
User moves pages of royals without any discussion, mistranslates from potuguese to english (the term "Grã-Cruzes da Ordem de Nossa Senhora da Conceição de Vila Viçosa" badly translated to english as "Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Immaculate Conception of Vila Viçosa") and insists in this error even after being called to reason, accuses me of vandalism in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism, keeps reverting proper editions. For someone that started editing on 9 of March he shows to be more than a new user and is using a sock in Wikidata as between two hours ago and now he was logged in in Commons and logged out in Wikidata, so hidden his tracks as he was removing valid statements from Wikidata, and given the weak excuse of being logged out. As others have called it this is a vandal or SPA and user of socks. Tm (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AshFriday, given that you almost edit on deletion requests about sexual imagery and by your own words are "Fighting a never-ending battle against copyright vios and smut" and given that your edits resume almost to something in the region of "Out of scope, poor quality and educationally worthless", what is your experience of what should be a action or not. I´am felling that you are you mad that several times i (and others) have pointed this and you are merely trying to take revenge against my votes and pointing your purpose of moral crusade in Commons. This is pretty low and will be taken into to account in future interactions. Tm (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCommonsCorrecteur and Tm: I’m not sure what is going on here but I have protected several categories and files to prevent any further warring. Where I am, it is late at night, so I will look into this in the morning. In the meantime please avoid doing anything which might be construed as edit warring. Anyone who does edit war will be likely to be blocked from editing. -Green Giant (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems one of these users has gone from about a hundred edits a day to zero. If there is a need to reopen this, we can do it but for now let’s keep an eye on things. -Green Giant (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2020 (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.
Abuse of sysop privileges/desysop discussion - Zhuyifei1999
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 can't believe I'm doing this.
In the ongoing saga over the checkuser block of Alexis Jazz, Zhuyifei1999 has unilaterally unblocked them against policy. For abusing their blocking/unblocking privileges and refusing to reverse their actions per COM:AN#Notice of Block Reversion I regretfully launch this desysop proceeding against Zhuyifei1999. Per our blocking policy, Unblock requests for blocks marked with {{Checkuserblock}} will be reviewed by a checkuser. Zhuyifei unilaterally undid a checkuser block without authorization from the checkuser team. This is as clear cut abuse of that ability as our policy provides. Second, they unblocked the individual without community consensus to do so. Again against the blocking policy: To avoid wheel warring, another administrator should lift a block only if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block.
This is one of the gravest actions I have to take here on Commons and I don't take it lightly. I regret having to do this but I don't see any choice and Zhuyifei has not left me with any. I must do what I believe is right and I believe that all administrators should be held accountable for their actions. In that light, I formally launch a desysop discussion against Zhuyifei1999 per our requirements. --Majora (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Will, not must. An indication of expectance, not an declaration of requirement. Words mean exactly what they mean, not what they imply. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator on any project who undoes a CheckUser block not only violates policy, but is not competent enough to be a sysop anywhere. It’s simple: you do not know everything a CU does. Full stop. You cannot know everything a CU does. Unblocking without knowing what you’re unblocking or what you are doing is something that should require a desysop and a new RfA to have access to the tools. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the opening of an de-adminiship request. The blocking policy is clear when forbids the unblock taken by "Zhuyifei1999": "Unblock requests for blocks marked with {{checkuserblock}} will be reviewed by a checkuser". In no way this rule can be more clear. The fact that the administrator continues to defend his actions (including on this page) only makes the request more necessary and urgent. Érico(talk)00:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note As Zhuyifel1999 has reversed their unblock I believe that this discussion is now moot. As others have responded I don't want to close this myself. But I do believe that this discussion is now moot. --Majora (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The abuse of tools is quite severe and the overall behavior during this affair has been far from optimal. The community should have a chance to either state they trust Zhuyifei1999 with the tools, or not. Natuur12 (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more of the mind that, as humans are oft to do, mistakes happen. Emotions run high and people do things that are not the wisest of actions when looked at in hindsight. Yes. Zhuyifei made a mistake when they unblocked Alexis. They also said some things that were inappropriate for an administrator to say. But I don't see a pattern of that, at least not that I'm aware of, and I can forgive people for making mistakes if they admit to those mistakes which Zhuyifei did when they reversed their action. The only reason for this desysop request was for the out of process unblock of a checkuser block without community consensus. That unblock is no longer in play so in my mind I can chalk this up to "a mistake was made, a mistake was rectified (after it got to the point of opening this thread sure but the mistake has been rectified), time to move on". I know that others may not feel that way which is why I left this thread open but that is where I stand at this moment. --Majora (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zhuyifei had recognized their blunder. AFAIK this is their first major mistake ever done as an admin, therefore I don't believe a de-admin is necessary here. Personally I believe the block of Alexis' main account is unjust and overkill. Zhuyifei's action wasn't malicious because he felt that there was no other choice. If you would see the talk page of Alexis, no CU ever responded there. If even just one CU assured us that the block is being reconsidered, it wouldn't go down like this. But it seems they will never do that, because as Magog says, "period, end of discussion." This is a very disappointing and ignorant response. They never even asked Alexis to clarify their words, instead they immediately threw off all AGF and dropped the indef block hammer. To be honest, I have been thinking of initiating a de-checkuser request of the whole CU team, but this will probably just crank up the temperature higher than it should be. pandakekok903:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zhuyifei1999 is a victim here, not an admin maliciously using his tools. His unblock was wrong yes (I believe he is right in interpreting CheckUser blocks that it is not a requirement, because it clearly states "will", not "must". But there was no consensus to unblock Alexis. That's the only problem), but he is not the only one to blame here. If Zhuyifei ever changes his mind and wants to retain his admin privileges, I will strongly support it. pandakekok903:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Magog is abusive in this whole incident. He thinks he is above everyone else and can stop discussion whenever he wants Special:Diff/406773015Special:Diff/406978786, even declaring "bans" (doesn't this need an RFC?). This is the worst unprofessional move I've seen in a while.
The idea that only CUs may reverse CU bans is wrong. If everything that is relevant for the CU decision is known to available to the general admins there there is absolutely no reason a general admin may not reverse a CU decision. It's not like CUs are above admins in terms of block hammer power. Also, likely not applicable to this incident, but other confidential groups like OS, WMF-NDA, T&S may hold information that CUs don't. It's not like CUs are god.
Anyways. Too much talking for no good. I've been wanting to leave for a really long time, but Brian pushed me away from that direction for a while. I'm sorry, but the last straw was just pulled. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Useless. Just useless. Start the de-sysop vote now and you will see that users will show up with Keep votes. Common sense is above these poorly-written policy pages. It is obvious to any rational mind that Zhuyifei1999 acted out of goodness and that is something that resonates with people. Ouote me on that. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, especially after them reverting their action. Zhuyifei1999 is, in my opinion, one of our best administrators. They made a decision, they reverted a CU block. I don't think of this as something that can always remove the bit. Of course, sometimes this can be an immediate bit remover, but in this case? I don't think so. Now that they have reverted their action (and, on a side note, admitted that it was a "mistake"), I don't think a desysop request is needed. Ahmadtalk12:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement from Zhuyifei1999
I'm terribly tired of this political game. Yes, I made a mistake. Emotions were extremely high and I did not consider, which Majora pointed out on IRC, that there are people who still want Alexis back. I felt someone was abused and I had to act. I also did not wait for more time, unlike INC L2013 case which I was thinking of when I did the action.
And no, I did not read the wikisource post before doing so. I don't want to have any involvement on wikisource.
That said, I have lost all confidence on the Commons CU team and lost most of my last remaining interest in Commons. Resignation is inevitable. The tools to me are just... tools. I don't want any more involvement in politics. Can someone just take my stuffs so I can leave?
On IRC, I said, when I resign I shall stop all involvement on any bots or tools I maintain, including stopping bots, it wasn't a threat -- I would be constantly pinged to fix stuffs. I've handcuffed myself to Commons. Please let me go.
You need to stop helping commons NOW. Sometimes people don't understand your worth until you leave, maybe {{Retired}} would have been better IMO but I think semi retired is also a nice start. And you will prove yourself wrong "there is little one could affect the project". What will be affected includes : No-POTY-2019-R2, maybe then Flickr-reviewer, then sign-bot, delinker, V2C will never upload anything directly from YouTube ... then everything else. And don't forget to change the preferences, nobody likes spam emails from an unwanted websites. I Support Zhuyifei1999 stop helping commons anymore. A more appropriate title would be "Kill useful bots and tools on commons" instead of "Abuse of sysop privileges/desysop discussion - Zhuyifei1999". I don't care about hat's ; I have the courage to speak free, but I can assure you there are many others who think that what's happening with you is unacceptable. // Eatcha (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I will ask revi to make sure R2 happens. POTY is too dear to me :), but yes, if it breaks I won't do anything. Delinker is still steiny's, similarly, it's just if it breaks don't ping me. v2c chico is helping (maybe? I hope? probably gonna rot though). quarry if for framawiki. The rest are stopped (mostly a few bots). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zhuyifei You can add me, but I am not going to fix anything until they don't realise the problem with harassing away talented developers, who is working for free. This also applies to being disrespectful to WMF developers, it doesn't help. Many users just write "this feature is shit", "crap tool", "incompetent developers", and everything else required to kill their motivation. I don't know how these users react to their subordinates, maybe they are either students or don't have a job.// Eatcha (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really hate the idea prohibiting ordinary administrator to undo a CheckUser block without consent in small wikis with only two CheckUsers (though CheckUsers should still be consulted), just like INVOLVED is meaningless for wikis with only one administrator; but it should be prohibited in Commons (as {{Checkuserblock}} said). Therefore this is not a correct use of admin tool. However I don't think a desysop is really required.--GZWDer (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would reccomend closing now that the block has been reversed by the unblocking admin, I 110% support unblocking however gaining a consensus for it is better than unlatterely just unblocking someone. –Davey2010Talk13:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea, the closing part. I haven't decided if I would support a desysop or not but if there isn't room for properly discussing the abuse, an administrator loses part of their legitimacy, regardless of the outcome imho. Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support to Zhuyifei1999. I really don't want to see you go, but I respect that you wish to withdraw. I too feel that way sometimes, moreso recently, but it ebbs just as it flows. I do hope to see you back in the future. — Huntster (t@c)17:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's even handed to say that a sysop can be baited into wheel warring in a way that absolved them of responsibility for their own actions, but closing a ongoing discussion by unilaterally claiming to rewrite site-wide policy is pretty darn close to daring someone to undo your admin action. GMGtalk18:52, 26 March 2020 (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.
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)[reply]
If you feel threatened in real life, then you should contact emergencywikimedia.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. GMGtalk00:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(Edit conflict) @Érico: They weren't reviewing a checkuser block. They were edit warring and blocked someone to preserve their own edit. This is insanity. I'm fine with you removing the block if only to reduce the tension here but they cannot use their admin tools in this fashion. --Majora (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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. GMGtalk00:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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. GMGtalk01:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support a desysop for Magog, 1989 (rollback abuse) and Érico for tool abuse. If admins can't behave themselves and rather abuse tools and/or edit wars instead of finding community consensus, discussing the issue and following proper procedures they should just resign. All three should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Natuur12 (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever do you mean? Expressing my opinions? Disagreeing with a bad closure? That should get me desysopped? Good to know. 1989 (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GMGtalk01:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeany 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)[reply]
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. pandakekok905:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
Closing a discussion and revoking talk page access to enforce a "ban" that has no basis in policy
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
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
Deleting a user talk page which has no appreciable basis on policy that I can see
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. GMGtalk13:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ...... –Davey2010Talk15:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 talk17:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. Jee14:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.? –Davey2010Talk20:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. –Davey2010Talk22:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. GMGtalk23:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 talk21:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). 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)[reply]
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. Jee04:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.) Jee08:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 CellsTalk02:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. pandakekok911:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.Savin14:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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). --Rschen775417:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. Ahmadtalk19:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stop the user from gaming the system either by a block or a stern final warning. It should also be noted that the user is currently blocked at the English Wikipedia and has history of blocks on Commons and the Persian Wikipedia. Their talk page on Commons is full of copyright warnings.
Pandakekok9 already reverted the file to the previous version requested by you, and I have now protected it for a week. Also, GTVM92 has received a warning that other such actions will lead to a block. De728631 (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stay calm - relax
Someone is doing it right... Relaxing!A Richardson ground squirrel enjoying life, near Drumheller, Alberta, Canada
I see that a lot of shit is going on right now. I suggest all admins take a deep breath and stay calm! Many are frustrated atm because of Corona and other stuff. We don't need stressed admins blocking eachother! --MGA73 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: Pretty bold closure you performed today, in which does not address at all the disruptive actions performed by this admin + checkuser, but sweeps them under the rug. Their response to the actions was essentially “I don’t care, desysop me”. Not only is that problematic, but some of their actions that was discussed is still in effect right now. I do not agree with the closure at all, and recommend you undo it, please. 1989 (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been even been a full day since I opened it. Do you really expect everyone to jump it to form an opinion? Like I said, bad closure, please undo, thanks. 1989 (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
true you did not start this, at least not alone, but you contributed widely to start the climbing of the conflict (see AJ talk page), and for the part "maintain the fire" the evidence is the current discussion. Christian Ferrer(talk)21:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made three edits on that page. One supporting a duration reduction, one asking for clarification on something, and another thanking them for clarifying. I have no idea what you’re on about... 1989 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Insisting on accountability, obviously! Everything will be fine and dandy if we just come together and sing Kumbaya. (Insert unnecessary link to COM:MELLOW as an excuse to ignore bad behavior.) clpo13(talk)20:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear about some things here. I have violated no policies and I take it seriously when others do. I do not appreciate the condescension inherent in closing this discussion prematurely by recommending we all not worry our pretty little heads so much. GMGtalk21:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against you Christian or Ymblanter. I've worked with you both across projects. But we are a community governed by consensus and policy or we are not. GMGtalk21:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and the consensus at that time is much more to calm down than the opposiste. We, you are administrators, and you are not administrator to say "I don't like vegetables" ("I do not appreciate the condescension inherent in closing .."). Christian Ferrer(talk)21:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the major causes of turmoil the last days undoubtedly is forcefully and prematurely closing discussions. I wonder why people still believe that cutting yet another discussion short, instead of letting it either bleed out or let it reach it's conclusion is a good idea. Natuur12 (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the previous discussion which was let go cost us an administrator, and this one had a potential to take one or two more.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causality in this case. Though I'm really sad to see Majora leave. @Ymblanter: thanks for further explaining your closure. Natuur12 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the previous resignation was for "wheel warring" against a user who tried to invent a banning policy. So it's difficult to tick that one on the side of policy. GMGtalk22:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of you, go and do something the else. Be kind to someone. The irony of folk continuing to post "you did a bad thing, resign now!" messages under a "Stay calm - relax" section!! Log off. Goodnight. -- Colin (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't solve this in the proper way, it is likely to happen again in the future, and it's most probably going to cost us, again. This, *forcing* people to stop and calm down, is not the proper way to solve the problem. The closure has created more drama, and, if I need to remind, the second resignation wouldn't happen without the premature closure. We need to negotiate and come to an agreement that truly calms things down and solves the real problem. I don't see how stopping this right now, right away can help the project, and how it can solve the problem. Not to mention that we are almost forgetting the main point: it was actually a block review. Ahmadtalk23:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Block review is a review. In that topic, a checkuser was indefblocked in the fourth message of the topic, unblocked later by a different administrator, and there were suggestions to desysop at least five administrators, some of them just for dissenting opinions. It is not even a discussion. It is a completely unnecessary drama and bludgeoning. Well, if it is not going to stop, it would be a pity, but this was absolutely not the way to discuss things.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All those blocks and reverts were, in my opinion, unnecessary. However, the main subject of the thread was Magog the Ogre and their actions. If the thread was in the wrong direction, I think it's a better approach to ask everyone to focus on the main subject. I understand that you did it in good faith, and I appreciate that. But I think there is a better way to do it. The community either accepts or rejects the idea of desysoping Magog the Ogre. That's not my point. The point is that the community should be allowed to have the discussion. You see, a huge part of drama is there because of unnecessary, highly controversial administrative actions, such as administrators being involved in edit wars and blocking each other while being involved. I think we should all stop using the bit around this case for a while, except for obvious cases (e.g. vandalism in related threads), and perhaps propose our ideas before taking action. This, not performing administrative actions, could save us a lot of drama in recent days. Ahmadtalk00:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be so frank, but is there really no one here who gives a damn about policy more than they do about politics? Are we going to keep doing this or are we going to come to terms with the fact that policy was not followed and moreover policy was egregiously disregarded. I don't want to hear your argument that people are heated. I don't want to hear your argument that people should calm down.
Is there a single person here who would disagree in good faith that policy was egregiously violated? That's the only question I care about. GMGtalk00:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the number of likes I got, yes, there are people who think my closure (which is btw not an admin action) is not an egregious violation of policy. And they are not in any way involved. They are just not vocal and do not want to go into this shit.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very weak statement given that you received 3 likes so far after making this closure (based on information from the public like-log). --Schlurcher (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Three is not equal zero, no? For me, "a singlke person" would mean "at least one"? Anyway, if there is such a huge majority around thinking I abused my administrator privileges, start a desysop proposal discussion. I am already prettu fucked up with all thjis anyway. I wish I would have left the thread go and you guys just blocked e4ach other indefinitely and be done with that. Commons would hardly lose anything at his point.-Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 "Go and continue fucking yourself if you can not behave" would get most contributors blocked as it 100% meets COM:BP as a reason to block abusive accounts. As an administrator, apparently, you get a free pass to tell others to go fuck themselves and you are accountable to nobody. --Fæ (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I overreacted and now crossed out my comment. Still, I find harassment in this thread against me unacceptable. I will reduce my administrator activity to a minimum. At this point, I am not interested in serving the Commons community. I will continue uploading files because I rely on them in my real life. I will not edit any village pumps anymore until at least June 1.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other day I proposed a cooking videos theme for the monthly challenge, inspired by the pandemic and also by the current FPC to the right by W.carter. I don't know if it'll actually become the monthly challenge, but here's an offer: I will award a nice shiny barnstar of good humor to anyone in this thread (or the related threads) who takes a picture of your home cooking/baking and uploads it to Commons. This isn't a call to stop talking -- there's no easy fix to any of this. I just think more sharing food (online as it may be) couldn't hurt. Let me know if you take me up on it. — Rhododendritestalk | 12:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Praveenp: I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this master. You may have to idiot-proof things a bit more here, or consider filing at COM:SPI. There's a lot of information in the links you provided, and it's not clear behaviorally exactly what it is the key thing that is supposed to be giving this new account away. GMGtalk19:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. They apparently speak perfectly good English. I dunno. But there's not much that can be done giving warnings after warnings that don't do anything. GMGtalk19:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reuploads here already deleted files on Vietnamese Wikipedia (File:A Hoàng1.jpg) and reuiploads now here files deleted here (File:A Hoàng.jpg, at least 3 times and File:Nhà rông Kon Klor.jpg, 3 times too). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I reverted the user's Revision #407670395, overwriting File:Judit con la cabeza de Holofernes (Nicolas Régnier).jpg, I noticed that the original version was from the Prado's older website (until December 2015), with bigger size and resolution. This precise file wasn't saved by Internet Archive, but lots of similar examples can be found here. However, he has nominated the file for deletion, stating that "the source information is false" (accusing me therefore of having lied), and that the "real" Prado image is another one, when it's not the "real" one, but just the "present" (and worse) one.--Outisnn (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
`Then, at least you know that he/she has noticed the message. Anyway, as I've asked Breskit directly at the DR page, we should wait for his reply. --Túrelio (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but take into account that my revision was precisely a reversion of a revision of him, so in this case he was for sure notified of the message, no need therefore for another notification, I think.--Outisnn (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my view that this very ugly image is not a Prado pic. In any event the uploader's argument which he made on Spanish wiki would then be that the Prado would have replaced a better quality image (the supposedly earlier one which he alleges to have uploaded from Prado) with a lower quality image (the one that I uploaded directly from Prado where it can be traced). That is nonsensical. Why would Prado do that. His aggressive replacement on Spanish wiki (and my immediate blocking by him/her/their on Spanish wiki) of a better quality image with a poorer quality one gives me the suspicion that this is possibly his own pic or from someone else's website. There are questions regarding the uploader, not meBreskit (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your view just shows you know very little (even more, nothing at all) about Prado's website. I've provided an Internet Archive link where there are available lots of files from the older website. Just compare with the ones of the current one. By the way, in fact the image's url,s of the former website were all the same, the difference was just the accession number. Nonsensical? Just reality. Moreover, you lied once, stating the source was false, with no proof at all, as you haven't got and cannot have, since it was the real one. And now, you lie twice. You say I blocked you on Spanish wiki. When? I'm not administrator, neither on es.wiki nor in Commons, and have not reported anything on the Administrator's noticeboard of that Wiki, just here. The only aggressive, and slander, behaviour, is yours. One more thing. You say the former image is "ugly". I see you don't realize, but it's clear that in fact the new one is the same image, with lower resolution and size, and even more, overcoloured and too reddish (I suppose that's why it "pleases" you more). I've seen personally that painting (have you?), it's not usually on view but sometimes when others are sent to temporary exhibitions it has been hung (Room 4, precisely). And I can witness that the most faithfull reproduction is the one from the older website, the newer one just doesn't correspond to reality.--Outisnn (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither Outisnn nor Breskit has acquitted themselves well in this dispute. Outisnn for overreacting here instead of simply responding to Breskit's DR notification on the Talk page, and Breskit for taking it to DR saying it may be a copyvio, when in fact both are reproductions of PD-Art. As well, it falls a bit short of COM:AGF to assume that the file source provided by Outisnn in 2015 was deliberately misleading. After all, it is not unheard-of for a five year old link to go dead.
Indeed, the Prado Museum's
current source file states, "Fecha de actualización: 25-07-2019 | Registro creado el 28-04-2015" (that is, the registry was created on April 28, 2015 and updated on July 25, 2019).
The question of which reproduction is "better" or "ugly" is a matter of taste and personal preference. Some commercial publications, for example, may prefer Outisnn's original 2015 upload version because of its much higher resolution. Others may prefer Breskit's version from the Prado's current website, which has now been uploaded to Commons as File:Nicolas Régnier - Judith with the head of Holofernes.jpg. The choice of which one to use is not something ANU decides and the DR should be closed as Speedy Keep. JGHowes talk04:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JGHowes: I have not overreacted as I had already explained in the summary of my revision that the original image was from the older website. If he calls me a liar (he didn't even say "may be", he said "is" false) and acts against any good faith taking as granted, with absolutely no proof, that the source was not real, what can I do? Setting apart the question of the keeping of the file, his behaviour is absolutely unacceptable, he cannot calumniate other users when he has absolutely no evidence.--Outisnn (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But this is not fair. If I state that the source was from the older website, and he, without providing any kind of evidence (even when another administrator requested him to do it), assures that it "is false", that's a frontal violation of COM:AGF. And it should not be permitted.--Outisnn (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Due to large number of copyvios I blocked him/her for a month. Thank you for nominating the copyvios for deletion! Taivo (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this person is crazy. He protests all the images.He also insulted me that I would never forgive him.I object . Is this encyclopedia really free or is it a dictatorship site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBSR\QCRSDBSR0199 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User is also doing nonsense edits on their files by switching back and forth the caption from "Main data" to "Main data info". pandakekok908:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well... There are things I'm not keen on on en wp however the phrase "not here to help build an encyclopedia" is one I've always liked and covers this well enough. One account indef'd and one blocked for a months. If someone adds the other image to the DR I'll stop by later and atttend to that. Thanks folks --Herbytalk thyme09:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not acceptable that an admin spending time closing DRs get insulted by a frustrated user. I pinged Mattbuck that participated in the discussion, but any fellow admin can act on the matter (I'm directly involved, so I prefer not to block the user myself). --Ruthven(msg)16:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not frustrated and I did not insult Ruthven. I merely noted the objective facts in the matter - there was no indicated the items in question were published before the cutoff date at all (they would have to have been published before 1 January 1946 in order to be PD in both Russia and the US per Russian copyright law and the URAA). But the admin closed it with the extremely vague comment choosing to keep them, saying only "PD-Russia", despite the fact that it was pointed out in the deletion nomination that there was no evidence of early enough publication for the files to be PD-Russia. I have no idea why they decided that. No user, admin or not, has the right no unilaterally override Russian copyright law and decide that items do not have to be legally published before the cut-off date in order to be PD in Russia. This case very clear. We have policies that the burden of proof is on the uploader to provide proof that an item is PD (ie, publication dates when copyright law of the country of origin is based on publication date, not creation date). There is also consensus that photos created before a cut-off date cannot be assumed to have been published before such cutoff date. Only the duma can amend Russian copyright law and change the requirement about publication date to the creation date. No Wikimedia users have the right to ignore the clearly outlined terms and conditions of publication requirements under Russian law. If an admin wrongly keeps files that lack proof of being in the public domain, they are morally obligated for correct their mistakes upon being informed of the details of copyright law that they were previously ignorant of. Dodging the issue at hand by complaining of perceived tone/attitude issues does nothing to address those fundamental problems. Also, I did post on the admins userpage before renominating the deletion and I did my best to explain the copyright issue in details. But the admin that replied clearly must have posted that comment without seeing my explanation. So far, Ruthven has yet to explain themselves for their "keep" ruling in blatant opposition to the terms and conditions outlined by the template and mentioned in the deletion nomination, and as of yet they have failed to respond to my comments on their talkpage, only responding with complaints of personal attacks without addressing any concerns about copyright matters mentioned in the follow-up deletion nomination.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fact that you seem to be requesting a block for someone bringing legitimate copyright issues to attention is very questionable. (given your comment "I'm directly involved, so I prefer not to block the user myself") Blocking me will not change the fact that you chose to keep files that clearly lacked any indication of publication before the cutoff date contrary to the provisions of Russian copyright law clearly outlined in the template you cited in your ruling.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry, google-translate) At least in the second picture it is completely unclear where it comes from. Source is a forum and Google doesn't deliver anything better either[13]. Soviet copyright law is very complicated, you can't just write "PD-Russia" on it. For World War II participants, 74 years of pma apply, just as an example. The release date is completely irrelevant. --Ralf Roletschek16:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC) I see here: File:Sergey Vladimirovich Ilyushin.jpg also a problem.[reply]
File:Sergey Vladimirovich Ilyushin.jpg is fine beacuse I found a 1945 publication of the photo without attribution. Russia is 70 years pma for photos with no attribution (it was 50 years PMA at the time of the URAA so the item was PD on the URAA date, then re-copyrighted after the extension, then PD again after the 20 year extension expired) The 74 years pma is for photos with KNOWN authors that participated in WWII. The photos I nominated for deletion had NO indication of a pre-1946 publication date, which is required for the item to be PD in both the US and Russia per PD-Russia-1996 (because of the URAA). There is no evidence that the two photos I nominated for deletion were published before 1 Janaury 1946, and because the uploader did not provide such information, those two will have to be deleted. The publication date(s) is the crucial matter here. Files published before 1 January 1946 lack ing attribution are safe. If is is unknown if the file was published before the cut-off date, the image will have to be deleted. It is unaccepatble to slap a PD-Russia tag on an old Soviet photo just because it looks like it was taken before 1946, there must be a pre-1946 publication found, and the author must remain unknown.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such important people were not photographed by "anyone". If the photographer was Евгений Халдей, the photo would be protected until 2072. The Soviet army had only a few photographers, we don't know it. --Ralf Roletschek17:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Army actually had MANY photographers. MANY photographers (and that's just a tiny fraction of the list). And many photos actually weren't taken by high-profile photographers, but ordinary people. But legally speaking, because there was no attribution in the publication, and the photographer remained unknown after the cut-off date, it is public domain. Even if the photo was hypothetically taken by Khaldei or someone we know of, it would still be public domain right now becuase he was not known as the photographer before the cut-off date. Because the photo was published in 1945 AND photographer of the photo remained unknown to the public on 1 January 2016, it is public domain. We are not obligated to assume who a photo "could" have been by when there is no attribution just because the person is famous. Works by unknown photographers do not have the same rights as those by known photographers, not matter how famous the subject of the photo is or how likely it is that some famous photographer took it. Unless photographer of the photo was credited in a source available to the public before 1 January 2016, it is public domain. That's because works by unknown authors, regardless of who is in the photo or when it was taken, are not subject to the additional 4 years pma.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these two files ought to be deleted per the current state of information. While it is justified to ask for reconsideration of the DR, there is no necessity for personal attacks: “You clearly do not understand the requirements of PD-Russia in order to be an admin” ([14]), “demonstrated incompetence” ([15]). In addition, I agree with Mattbuck that it would have been appropriate to contact the closing admin first on his talk page ([16]) and wait for a response. PlanespotterA320 contacted Ruthven ([17]) but re-opened the DR three minutes later ([18]) without waiting for a response within some reasonable timeframe. And the talk page message included personal attacks and remarks like “Either you were willfully ignorant and are completely unaware of the difference between creation date and lawful publication date, or you are willing to turn a blind eye to such copyright violations unilaterally despite no evidence of public domain status”. Why this outburst of bad faith without the least bit of wikiquette? It is always possible that a DR is closed incorrectly because something was overlooked or misunderstood. It is better to ask in friendly terms and wait for a response before jumping to conclusions. Ruthven is working hard to reduce the backlogs of the deletion requests. Mistakes happen and should not be the cause for drama. Staying mellow would be helpful here. PlanespotterA320, could you agree to that? --AFBorchert (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
also noted that I did not expect an admin to understand Russian copyright law - as long as they are not making rulings in deletion requests regarding it on Commons. Russian copyright law is probably the most complicated copyright law in the world because of the multiple retroactive re-applications of copyright and other complicated things. I brought the issue to the talkpage and the new deletion request, but instead of answering me directly there, Ruthven went here and got another admin involved (and completed disregarded the copyright issues at hand). If they have time to come here, they have time to explain their rationale for saying "PD-Russia" after it was pointed out how those images were not. As for some of the things I said - it's not personal! This is a problem with the entire Wikimedia community. It is not just a problem with Ruthven. Lots of people (including myself in the past) uploaded photos with the PD-Russia tag hoping that everyone would conflate creation date with publication date. It is not "assuming bad faith" to think that many users, including one here, don't want to delete the many copyright violations in the PD-Russia category. All this could have been avoided (including creating a second deletion request) if Ruthven simply acknowledged that the files contain no evidence of being public domain and that the keep ruling was a mistake once given a detailed explanation of Russian copyright law. But instead of trying to correct the error of keeping copyright violations, we here are only worrying about tone used at an admin who ignored the terms and conditions of copyright. Maybe I need to be more mellow. But my attitude does not alter the civil code of the Russian Federation (no matter how much we wish the retroactive extensions were revoked). I propose that Ruthven volunttarily refrain from closing deletion requests involving copyright law of CIS countries given his demonstrated confusion at what constitutes PD here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are going on with your attacks: “given his demonstrated confusion”. Given the timeline, Ruthven had no opportunity to reconsider the closure of the DR. We surely all agree that we want to take care of copyright even in challenging variants of PD-Russia claims. You are writing “we here are only worrying about tone used” but forgetting that we are volunteers. The least we can do to support each other in working through the huge backlogs of Commons is to stay mellow. Otherwise, you will find less admins willing to work through the backlogs. PlanespotterA320, you need to reconsider your approach here. Ongoing violations of netiquette will not be tolerated. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ruthven did have time to reconsider the closure of the DR. He posted here quite prompty, but still hasn't done anything about fixing his mistake in the DR. Given his repsonse at the DR complaining about my attitude, it is clear he is now aware of the issue, and has been for many hours. But his response in the DR, which was entirely about my attitude, lacked any indication of an attempt to rememdy the copyright issue at stake. It is not an insult or attack that the admin in question doesn't understand Russian copyright law. Most people don't. Like I said before - I do not expect every admin, or even most admins, to understand it. Only those who participate in DRs involving Russian copyright law. It is perfectly reasonable to expect people who participate in a DR to understand the copyright law at hand. Telling them that they are wrong, clearly misunderstand, and should not handle DRs related to copyright laws that don't understand is not meant to be insulting or demeaning. It is about basic sense. I am not an expert in French or Italian copyright law (which seems to be Ruthven's area of expertise), so I do not get involved in DRs involving it. It is an objective fact that I know little about the copyright laws of those countries. I am sure Ruthven would be rather dismayed if the situation here were reversed. Nettiquite is not something to hide behind to deflect from the fact that one ruled wrongly in a DR, saw text explaining that the ruling was wrong, and failed to correct the problem. Frankly I am rather surpised that this small and straightforward matter was taken here. I have received a variety of very plesant remarks from other users over the years, but I pushed forward with supporting the case for or against deletion using facts instead of dropping everything and trying to get them blocked for nettiquite. If we tried to enforce the strict netiquite standards insisted by some admins here, Russian wikipedia would not exist. Remember, Commons is an international project, and not everyone is accustomed to such high friendlyness standards that discourage blunt, truthful, straight-to-the-point discourse needed for a project like this.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) We’re all volunteers here, yeah. Both admins and regular users are, be reminded, though. Yet admins can block users (and even other admins, but I digress), while the opposite is trivially false: There is an asymmetry in power, here, that should be accompanied by a matching asymmetry in accountability and behaviour. But when, in the context of a copyvio discussion, sentences such as «Is that a personal attack that I read above?» are uttered and are soon followed by an AN/U case, while there’s no reason to presume bad faith — then for sure we have a… “user problem” indeed: Regular users, I think, are feeling ever increasingly anxious with this kind of unchecked admin disciplining, where even a minor slip can lead to disproportionate consequences at a blink of an eye, at the drop of a hat. To paraphrase the above, «you need to reconsider your approach here» and «stay mellow. Otherwise, you will find less» and less regular users willing to be tossed around in what often feels like discretionary treatment, due less to the merits of each case and more to thin skin and random, momentary grumpiness. -- Tuválkin✉✇02:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the original reopening of the DR and commented there about the tone which was used. PlanespotterA320's language to me was needlessly inflammatory, and the reopening of the DR was inappropriate without talking to the closing admin and asking - politely - for them to reconsider.
Regarding the opening of this discussion, I can understand Ruthven's method here - the personal attacks (intentional or not) have created a situation where either acting to delete the files or refusing to delete them is inappropriate, and I can understand why they would want further eyes on both the files and the situation as a whole. Blocking would be inappropriate for an involved admin, and quite possibly not warranted anyway. If you make personal attacks, then having your name brought to this noticeboard is not itself an attack, it is a sensible response.
My thoughts on all this: PlaneSpotter, be calm, be mellow, be clear in why things need to be deleted. No one here wants copyright violations on Commons, but in a complex situation perhaps more than a sentence of explanation should be used when requesting deletion. I understand the frustration that both users feel (and this pervading environment makes everything worse), and everything could be resolved if we just communicated in a civil manner. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question here has never been about Russian copyright, but about the aggressive behaviour and the immediate reopening of a DR done by a user that cannot content his anger (for what? for a file? this is ridiculous!). As said above, we are all volunteers here, this is why no one has to be insulted or abused. If a regular admin task - like closing DRs is - becomes burdensome, then no admin will be willing to perform it. The result will be that copyvios will accumulate, as well as DRs opened with no ground. And this would harm the Project as a whole. Thus, it is mandatory to protect admins (because they're in the first line usually), and any other user, from such angry attacks. Many users wrote that Commons' is becoming toxic: having ill-mannered users free to edit around is surely one of the causes. --Ruthven(msg)15:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are protected by their high status and great power. With that power comes inevitable responsiblity. Let's flip the situation here. Right now, filing deletion requests on blatant copyright violations is already incredibly burdensome, something I take no pleasue in doing. Having to constantly deal with admins who do not understand the copyright laws in question further deters people like me from doing what needs to be done. Admins are not superior to regular users, and are flaiable, flawed, and often miskaten as much as the everyday user. Going on a power trip against a low-ranking user because they pointed out your lack of understanding of the issue at hand further demonstrates why people are leaving commons. Admins are growing in power, questioning their authority leads to this mess, expectations for them are low, and it is harder and harder for low-ranking users to become admins even if they are highly competent. Did I flip out to much? Sure. Was it wrong to reopen the deletion discussion ASAP? No. I posted about the issue on your talkpage, gave a detailed explaination about copyright and why early enough publication is needed (which was lacking in this case). There is no minimum waiting period for correcting a mistake like this. The sooner they are deleted, the better. It's not low-ranking users keeping admins in check that makes Commons toxic. Commons is toxic for the same reason other Wikiprojects are toxic - high-ranking users go on power trips against those who question them; toxic nationalism is concentrated in niches; a vast majority of users are non-minority males (and the few female and minority editors who exist are blocked or wiki-stalked into retirement) who create their own little echo chambers and play by their own rules. If I were feeling "by-the-books" I could start a whole entire user problems/de-adminship discussion for you calling me names (like "ill-mannered", a rather subjective phrase) and still failing to correct the copyright problem (or even acknowledge that the ruling was incorrect). But I'm not. All I want is for either pre-1946 publication info to be found for those files, or for them to be deleted. Not unreasonable. But you are asking for me to be blocked after pointing out you made a serious mistake about copyright. You do realize what that looks like? Other users will be intimidated into not informing admins like you about copyright law for fear of being blocked all in the name of not being "burdensome" to admins who are supposed to serve the community.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) That admins “are protected by their high status and great power” is a myth. Not long ago a very prolific admin lost his bit. Among the reasons for removing his bit were his handling of deletion requests. Of course, admins are not superior to regular users – they have just been entrusted by the community with an additional toolset. You are still expecting that the closure of the deletion request is revised by the admin who closed it? This window of just three minutes was closed very early by yourself. If you re-open a deletion request, you are asking for another admin to review a case. That this deletion request will now wait for another week is not Ruthven's fault. PlanespotterA320, I want you to remind you to one of the pillars of the Terms of Use: You support a civil environment and do not harass other users. The term “other users” includes indeed all users along those with an admin bit. It is quite simple, if you follow these terms you will be more than welcomed in your undertaking to look for invalid claims of PD-Russia. This work is much appreciated. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that most of your DRs have nothing to do with your alleged competence, with incompetence of admins, or with Russian copyright. You demand deletion of old images because of general lack of publication details, i.e., strict enforcement of COM:PCP, and you do it by brute force, ignoring everyone and everything. You've just filed this DR, right after it was declined twice, and is still being discussed here. Materialscientist (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the DR pointed out by Materialscientist this user should probably be blocked per en:WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, There are plenty of ways of dealing with a disputed DR and creating multiple DRs is not one of them. –Davey2010Talk17:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My deletion nominations are exactly about the copyright status of the files. Yes, I do ignore people who think time a photo was created = time of legal publication, because they're not the same. I go by the official commons-wide policies, such as Precautionary principle, Evidence, and Commons:Licensing. Not the arbitrary opinions of users who vote keep based on desires to prevent deleting probable copyright violations because they "might" be public domain (although no required publication is found). The lack of enforcement of PCP and Evidence in certains niches of Commons is a problem and the reason for the deleion nominations, that's just commons policy. There will always be users who think Commons permits fair use, or that all old photos are PD by default, or that it's safe to assume a photo was published before a specific date without finding any such publication. Yes, I reopended the DRs, becuase they did not address the fundamental problem at hand - the lack of early enough publication information required by Commons. The first one was closed with the strangest comment (just saying "PD-Russia", even though the nomination was because there was no evidence they were) and the second one was closed despite the copyright issues at hand - rather because the closing admin did not like my tone. None of that changes the fact that there is no evidence as required by Commons that they meet the requirements to be public domain in Russia. As for "WP:IDONTHEARTHAT" - nobody is addressing the lack of known pre-1946 publication of the photos. The first deletion nomination was closed without sufficeient explanation. The second one was closed with a note basically saying that the copyright status of them was irrelevent because of my "tone". But somebody must address the fact they do not meet the requirements of PD-Russia (whatever certain admins may thing) by deleting them, finding early enough publication, or getting OTRS (which is unlikely since the Russian government rarely releases historic photos under CC licences). Just because an few admins close a deletion request (for whatever reason) doesn't magically change the fact that the earliest publication I could find for any of them was 1982. Remember, en:Wikipedia:Competence is required. --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PlanespotterA320, there is no question that conditions like work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 require a proof, i.e. a bibliographic reference to such a publication. Everything else is obviously in conflict with COM:PRP. We do not need to discuss this here. We could focus on this if there weren't civility issues which distract us from your interest in taking care of invalid PD-Russia claims. If you notice a large number of DRs ignoring this, open a civil discussion (i.e. without blame games) at COM:VPC and we will see what can be done to resolve this. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't obvious, I really don't want to get more "love letters" from Russian users by posting there and starting a whirlwind of people upset that I'm "ruining" Russian Commons, deleting Russian history, etc. Dragging me here has already gotten me more than enough unwanted attention. Now - hopefully we all agree that claims like "work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943/1945" require substantiation, but many people oppose having such requirement (contrary to Wikipedia policy) and prefer the unofficial policy of turning a blind eye to photos tagged with unsubstantiated PD-Russia claims. I will continue to file my deletion nominations case by case, and I expect admins to know that PD claims require substantiation (and not select "keep" on files with unsupported PD claims). I would like to be more civil. But my perceived lack of civility (relatively speaking) does not change the copyright status of anything. I apologize for using harsh words at that admin, but I stand by my decision to nominate copyright violations for deletion and I will never apologize for filing a deletion nomination on a file that lacks sufficient publication information, no matter what any other users think about a particular case or if it has been previously kept, because publication info requirements are a Commons-wide policy, and nobody has the right to decide a few files get exceptions.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the discussion on this nomination. I have several files that were nominated to be deleted due to personal opinion. I made several arguments that merit the dismissal of the nomination and retention of the files.
I have one administrator who sided with my presentation. Please check and dismiss the nomination for deletion if warranted.
Done. I hoped, that a checkuser pops up and investigates, but no. I blocked the user myself purely by behavior due to block evasion. I encourage checkusers to review my block. Taivo (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Ordinul Coroana Romaniei are cinci grade: Cavaler, Ofiter, Comandor, Mare Ofiter si Mare Cruce.
Membrii Ordinului sunt numiti pe viata. Numarul lor este limitat astfel, pe grade:
Mare Cruce: 50 membri
Mare Ofiter: 160 membri
Comandor: 300 membri
Ofiter: 600 membri
Cavaler: 1,200 membri"
I reverted his edits as, per source, there is not such a thing as a "Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Crown (Romania)" or "Cavaler Mare Cruce", but there are "Mare Cruce" or "Grand Cross" and "Cavaler" or Knight. After i asked for sources his only answer was "Oh please, cut the crap! The order is a dynastic order of a knighthood, hence the prefixes of Knight/Dame. Your edits will be reverted" but zero sources.
This user started editing since 6 November 2019, but has the same pattern of edits in the same categories as user:TheCommonsCorrecteur (active between 9 March 2020 and 2 April 2020) and user:ImperialArchivesRU (active between 27 September 2019 and 20 October 2019). This users have several warnings about their moves without discussion and errors.
Comment My last comment in this thread, but for full disclosure, that after i warned Green Giant about the last edits of TheCommonsCorrecteur, that, after previous warnings, has blocked this user for "Edit warring after warnings" for 1 month and blocked Rereader1996 also for 1 month but for Intimidation/harassment and with the.
User:Tm has been harassed by User:Rereader1996. I have blocked the latter for a month, with the comment in [[Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism#Tm], that "User:Tm has been harassed by User:Rereader1996. I have blocked the latter for a month because I’m increasingly inclined to agree with User:Tm that this may be a case of sockpuppetry". Tm (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Constantly vandalising factual categories by reverting and undoing by abusing their rights as mover as well as also repeatedly removes vandalism template from their page as seen here, unless of course they have something to hide which may be the reason for removing the template after my having undid that more than thrice and as it seems, I’m not the only user who has had issues with this individual in the past few days, their talk page as well as history of block logs should provide history of this troublemaker/vandal who refuses to use discussion pages but instead opts to mass vandalism and when questioned, delivers their approach in hostile manners; I understand that this user has also created a user problem about myself of which I have no issue with and am fully compliant as I would rather resolve this issue as soon as. Rereader1996 (talk) 15:38, 03 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem that i had in the last few days was with one of your socks, as can be seen in the thread above, and your repeting the same exact words (instead of "factual and accurate ones" as said by TheCommonsCorrecteur, your now using "factual categories". And telling someone that edits for almost 14 years and has more than 3 million edits i´am do not "have something to hide", is repeting what as TheCommonsCorrecteur said of me having "obviously some sort of an agenda". Tm (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As i show above the same pattern of edits, on the same subjects, the same obsessions, the same refusal to listen to other users, the same attempts to hide said edits, the use of the same pattern of language, the same vandalism on other user talkpages, editions on the same categories and files, the disapereance of one user and the appearence of other with the same edits, as you admit being from the same country, etc, etc, etc, you can see why you dont hide well your footprints.
Add the fact that you persist in making move without sources or even against sources that where shown to you, shows that your obsession in creating categories like "Knights Grand Crosses" (in your three accounts), is just that, like i´ve showed in previous interactions- Tm (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We now recorre to vote canvassingusers that have previously asked for my banishment? How nice. Why then you dont give the all picture? Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive_13#Tm is clear when it says "My interim conclusion is that @Tm: was acting correctly in trying to minimise disruption to Commons. @TheCommonsCorrecteur: has not answered my question, nor those of other users. If there is further disruption of this nature, I shall not hesitate to act accordingly. -Green Giant (Discussão) 20:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)". I´ll repeat again "Tm: was acting correctly in trying to minimise disruption to Commons". Enough said as there will not be an lynching move as you want. Tm (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not just one user, but you left an attempt of vote canvassing, after i warned him about this discussion. Just classy. Tm (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tm: In no way do I mean any disrespect or anything, but it’s got to the point of me saying what delusions are you even going through? Your malicious assumptions and accusations are becoming ridiculous to the point where they now do not deserve a response! And I quote from yourself “ the same obsessions, the same refusal to listen to other users, the same attempts to hide said edits, the use of the same pattern of language, the same vandalism on other user talkpages, editions on the same categories and files, the disapereance of one user and the appearence of other with the same edits, as you admit being from the same country, etc, etc, etc”; first of all I would love to know your assumption of ‘obsessions’ as well as refusal to listen to others, as all my prior discussions have ended in agreement and closed discussion and never reached this stage like now with the constant hostility and lies of yours...also I would like to know which talkpages I have vandalised? And by saying that, I in no sense mean by adding warning topics, I mean actual vandalism so please provide sources for this or take back your lies and to be honest, for all I and others know, you could be the alleged sockpuppeteer behind TheCommonsCorrecteur if they are indeed a sockpuppet and if not, no disrespect intended to them, but I will absolutely not adhere or tolerate your malicious lies, bullying and hostility as well as stalking my every edit and undoing them based on your assumptions or whatever personal deep rooted issues you have to harass users! Pathetic. Rereader1996 (talk) 18:23, 03 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What talkpages were vandalized?????? Mine before and after you wrote this last text. What you call "delusions" are well sourced, besides what i´ve said above, me and other user is the fact (see talkpage of TheCommonsCorrecteur), of how this three accounts seem to know the inside out of Commons since what is supossed to be their edit an delusion? What you call as "refusal to listen to others" is called asking for sources, sources that you always failed to provide ever. As to the allegation that i "could be the alleged sockpuppeteer behind TheCommonsCorrecteur", please open an Checkuser, if you have the courage, one for me, another for you. and please, quote me in that aspect. I´ve nothing to hide nor i use any sockpuppet. Now it is me to say that "the point where they now do not deserve a response" has arrived. Tm (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My last comment in this thread, but for full disclosure, that after i warned Green Giant about the last edits of TheCommonsCorrecteur, that, after previous warnings, has blocked this user for "Edit warring after warnings" for 1 month and blocked Rereader1996 also for 1 month but for Intimidation/harassment, with the comment in [[Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism#Tm], that "User:Tm has been harassed by User:Rereader1996. I have blocked the latter for a month because I’m increasingly inclined to agree with User:Tm that this may be a case of sockpuppetry". Also if anyone thinks the same that Rereader1996, that i "could be the alleged sockpuppeteer behind TheCommonsCorrecteur", i would gladly support opening a checkuser against me. Tm (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I blocked him indefinitely. Thank you for nominating his uploads for deletion! Taivo (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose any action against User:TheCommonsCorrecteur. User:Tm is clearly in the wrong, not Correcteur. AshFriday (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment AshFriday, given that you almost edit on deletion requests about sexual imagery and by your own words are "Fighting a never-ending battle against copyright vios and smut" and given that your edits resume almost to something in the region of "Out of scope, poor quality and educationally worthless", what is your experience of what should be a action or not. I´am felling that you are you mad that several times i (and others) have pointed this and you are merely trying to take revenge against my votes and pointing your purpose of moral crusade in Commons. This is pretty low and will be taken into to account in future interactions. Tm (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep votes. Common sense is above these poorly-written policy pages. It is obvious to any rational mind that Zhuyifei1999 acted out of goodness and that is something that resonates with people. Ouote me on that. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Zhuyifei1999 stop helping commons anymore. A more appropriate title would be "Kill useful bots and tools on commons" instead of "Abuse of sysop privileges/desysop discussion - Zhuyifei1999". I don't care about hat's ; I have the courage to speak free, but I can assure you there are many others who think that what's happening with you is unacceptable. // Eatcha (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
Half done MywifiextsSeo indef blocked and uploads deleted. JGHowes talk 22:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done. --A.Savin 22:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
