Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Resolved
Content deleted Content added
| Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
Well, we may want to resolve this highly unpleasant issue, if 1) [[User:Andrey Korzun|Andrey Korzun]] promises to refrain from controversial "borderline" RfD's like that of Nesterov's paintings (since he obviously doesn't know English language and there are still more than enough obvious cases like "monuments with no FoP" etc. where English skills are not necessary), 2) [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] promises to stay away from Korzun's uploads and not to nominate any further for deletion, because at the moment we have somewhat a spiral of mutual allegations of copyvio, which all has nothing left to do with improving Commons but only with some personal animosities. Just my 2c, as I'm also a part of Russian community. --[[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 19:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC) |
Well, we may want to resolve this highly unpleasant issue, if 1) [[User:Andrey Korzun|Andrey Korzun]] promises to refrain from controversial "borderline" RfD's like that of Nesterov's paintings (since he obviously doesn't know English language and there are still more than enough obvious cases like "monuments with no FoP" etc. where English skills are not necessary), 2) [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] promises to stay away from Korzun's uploads and not to nominate any further for deletion, because at the moment we have somewhat a spiral of mutual allegations of copyvio, which all has nothing left to do with improving Commons but only with some personal animosities. Just my 2c, as I'm also a part of Russian community. --[[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 19:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
: I would be fine with that.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:53, 13 July 2015
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- 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. - It is usually appropriate to 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.
User:Ymblanter
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I don't see any benefit from keeping this thread open, so closing this per A.Savin and Geagia. As always, keep off-commons topic off-commons. — regards, Revi 10:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Ymblanter could not accept my decision to delete the images of files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov. See also User talk:P199#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov. Now he is making bad-faith vengeance nominations for deletions, see my talk page. Since I am involved in this issue, I don't want to act unilaterally but seek the input from other admins. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- All my three nominations are perfectly valid.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- The point here is that your vindictive harassment that should not be tolerated. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry you do not like it. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: you realise that this looks a bit fishy at best? Nominating the files of someone you had a dispute with moments ago even if you believe that the nomination is valid is seldon a wise and diplomatic move. Natuur12 (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- 2 of the 3 files are not even mine, so I have no vested interest in the deletion nominations. What really is troublesome here is that User:Ymblanter is an admin and should be setting a good example to the community! Moreover, as an admin, he of all people should understand better than anyone that there always will be difficult or controversial decisions to be made. Admins making such decisions in good faith should not be harassed by other admins. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your decision is not controversial. You just plainly made a bad call, refusing to understand and to address the arguments, and then defended this bad call. If you really addressed the arguments I would have no problem with your decision. I regret that I voted for you at your RFA.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't justify your actions. As an admin you should know that the right action is to ask for undelete. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Too late. Everything was removed from the projects by the Delinker. It does not matter, whether we restore the images now or in 2017.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't justify your actions. As an admin you should know that the right action is to ask for undelete. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your decision is not controversial. You just plainly made a bad call, refusing to understand and to address the arguments, and then defended this bad call. If you really addressed the arguments I would have no problem with your decision. I regret that I voted for you at your RFA.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- 2 of the 3 files are not even mine, so I have no vested interest in the deletion nominations. What really is troublesome here is that User:Ymblanter is an admin and should be setting a good example to the community! Moreover, as an admin, he of all people should understand better than anyone that there always will be difficult or controversial decisions to be made. Admins making such decisions in good faith should not be harassed by other admins. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: you realise that this looks a bit fishy at best? Nominating the files of someone you had a dispute with moments ago even if you believe that the nomination is valid is seldon a wise and diplomatic move. Natuur12 (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- The point here is that your vindictive harassment that should not be tolerated. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
As P199 says, that doesn't justify revenge DRs (an unjustifiable action in any situation). The proper procedure would've been to take the case to COM:UDEL. The delinker could be reverted/the images could be re-added if the close was overturned at UDEL and the files undeleted. This was an inappropriate reaction, especially by an admin. INeverCry 21:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to add. I was the nominator of the files Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov. Today, after being deleted, user Ymblanter nominated for deletion my photo and one scan. Photo nominated with absurd explanations. As if the street lights is a sculpture, and therefore can not be freedom of panorama of Russia. Clearly this persecution and attacks on opponents. I remember user Ymblanter in Russian Wikipedia, I remember that he wrathful man. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, you nominated Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov, clearly in bad faith.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominating copyright violations for deletion is never an inappropriate reaction, even for an admin. It would be good for P199, instead of blaming me, to go through their contribution and nominate everything which does not comply with the FoP for deletion - and to hope that the closing admin will be competent enough to take an argument-based decision, and not just blindly apply the precationary principle, as they themselves did.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- You keep passing blame and making accusations, while calmly avoiding any admission of possible inappropriate behavior on your part. Your accusation that Andrey made that DR in bad faith is unsubstantiated, as is your accusation that P199 closed the DR "blindly". If that was the case, bring it to UDEL and it should be quickly overturned, but you won't, and it would likely stand if you did. As for your revenge DRs against P199, you've already withdrawn one, and the Philippine FoP DR was of a skyline, an obvious DM case. Revenge DRs aren't appropriate, especially when 2/3 are are weak/invalid in P199s case, and 1/2 is weak/invalid in the case of your revenge DRs against Andrey. INeverCry 06:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fine. You remain with your opinion, I remain with mine. I am not going to take the case to UDEL. You are welcome to initiate the desysop procedure against me.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think this situation warrants such an extreme measure as a de-sysop request. I'm sorry to see you suggest it rather than honestly addressing the concerns brought up here. INeverCry 06:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am not quite sure what concerns I really should address. One user is on a crusade against Russian origin files and FFDes everything which even remotely can be inappropriate for Commons. Without even attempting to upload used files to the projects they are used or to slow down, so that users could do it themselves. When he is asked to slow down, he responds that this is not his problem, and he does not care about the projects. Accidentally, this user had serious problems in the Russian Wikipedia before he left it and was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for systematically disregarding the policy about consensus. He files a FFD request with several dozens of files, very poorly motivated. A new administrator closes the request in such a way that it becomes clear that they did not even try to understand the argumentation of the sides. When I come to their talk page, they say smth like this "You know, you did not agree, and I decided that it is safer to delete the files". Period. Damage done: files are removed from the articles, users alienated, Russian Wikipedia community (which I am no part of) discusses boycotting Commons. This damage can not be undone, and we are talking about files which are to be undeleted on Jan 1 2017, so this is not worthwhile to spend another hour of my time to try restoring them now, however bad the close was. I look at the contribution of this administrator and the first thing I see are copyright violations. Should I nominate them for deletion, as I always do with copyright violations, or should I make an exception for P199 just because they have badly closed a FFD request? I am not going to look at their contribution systematically, though I am afraid there could be more copyright violations. For the Greek file, it was apparently my error, I misunderstood what was on the picture and only realized after the reactions on the FFD. Then I immediately closed the request. The Belgian one is on its way to deletion. The Filipino one is debatable; it was certainly not appropriate to close it so early, though I admit in the end of the day it likely would be kept - because the administrator would analyze the arguments, and not just look at the fact that me and P199 disagree. I believe in my eight years here this is the second FFD request with respect to which I have done any action at all, though there are hundreds of closes I disagreed with - the previous one was a clear error, and the closing administrator restored the file immediately after I politely pointed her out the error. Well, may be looking at the contribution of P199 was wrong - indeed, I should have done it before supporting them at their RFA. I believe so far I voted at all or almost all RFAs. Now I will be very cautious with RFAs of users I never came across. What else?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Accidentally, this user had serious problems in the Russian Wikipedia before he left it and was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for systematically disregarding the policy about consensus. — User Ymblanter unfortunately lie. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Your attacks are unworthy. The accusations are not true. My nomination for deletion were relevant, I rarely wrong. Files checked, administrators, and they agreed with my arguments. All nominations have been supported all conform to the rules of the Commons. Not my fault that Russian segment of Commons has accumulated a huge amount of violations of copyright files. This problem must be solved, but some prefer to turn a blind eye. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- You may want to get your facts straight before accusing somebody of lying. And since I was an arbitrator, I might know what I was involved with. w:ru:Арбитраж:Деструктивное поведение участника Kor!An и грубое нарушение правил википедии администратором Wanderer, User:Kor!An = User:Andrey Korzun .--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- The decision to write minor single warning (october 2009 :)). You wrote “systematically disregarding the policy about consensus” and “serious problems” — you yourself have proved that you lied. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry that even since you have been warned in 2009 you still have serious problems understanding policies in 2015.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm in the Russian Wikipedia has never been a serious problem. I never were blocked I had no restrictions on the rights and topic-bans. Do you want to cast a shadow my reputation, it is not worthy, and you do not get. Judging by the title of this topic, serious problems in understanding the policies and rules do you have, not me. Discuss your behavior, not mine, is not it? --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry that even since you have been warned in 2009 you still have serious problems understanding policies in 2015.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- The decision to write minor single warning (october 2009 :)). You wrote “systematically disregarding the policy about consensus” and “serious problems” — you yourself have proved that you lied. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- You may want to get your facts straight before accusing somebody of lying. And since I was an arbitrator, I might know what I was involved with. w:ru:Арбитраж:Деструктивное поведение участника Kor!An и грубое нарушение правил википедии администратором Wanderer, User:Kor!An = User:Andrey Korzun .--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Accidentally, this user had serious problems in the Russian Wikipedia before he left it and was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for systematically disregarding the policy about consensus. — User Ymblanter unfortunately lie. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Your attacks are unworthy. The accusations are not true. My nomination for deletion were relevant, I rarely wrong. Files checked, administrators, and they agreed with my arguments. All nominations have been supported all conform to the rules of the Commons. Not my fault that Russian segment of Commons has accumulated a huge amount of violations of copyright files. This problem must be solved, but some prefer to turn a blind eye. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am not quite sure what concerns I really should address. One user is on a crusade against Russian origin files and FFDes everything which even remotely can be inappropriate for Commons. Without even attempting to upload used files to the projects they are used or to slow down, so that users could do it themselves. When he is asked to slow down, he responds that this is not his problem, and he does not care about the projects. Accidentally, this user had serious problems in the Russian Wikipedia before he left it and was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for systematically disregarding the policy about consensus. He files a FFD request with several dozens of files, very poorly motivated. A new administrator closes the request in such a way that it becomes clear that they did not even try to understand the argumentation of the sides. When I come to their talk page, they say smth like this "You know, you did not agree, and I decided that it is safer to delete the files". Period. Damage done: files are removed from the articles, users alienated, Russian Wikipedia community (which I am no part of) discusses boycotting Commons. This damage can not be undone, and we are talking about files which are to be undeleted on Jan 1 2017, so this is not worthwhile to spend another hour of my time to try restoring them now, however bad the close was. I look at the contribution of this administrator and the first thing I see are copyright violations. Should I nominate them for deletion, as I always do with copyright violations, or should I make an exception for P199 just because they have badly closed a FFD request? I am not going to look at their contribution systematically, though I am afraid there could be more copyright violations. For the Greek file, it was apparently my error, I misunderstood what was on the picture and only realized after the reactions on the FFD. Then I immediately closed the request. The Belgian one is on its way to deletion. The Filipino one is debatable; it was certainly not appropriate to close it so early, though I admit in the end of the day it likely would be kept - because the administrator would analyze the arguments, and not just look at the fact that me and P199 disagree. I believe in my eight years here this is the second FFD request with respect to which I have done any action at all, though there are hundreds of closes I disagreed with - the previous one was a clear error, and the closing administrator restored the file immediately after I politely pointed her out the error. Well, may be looking at the contribution of P199 was wrong - indeed, I should have done it before supporting them at their RFA. I believe so far I voted at all or almost all RFAs. Now I will be very cautious with RFAs of users I never came across. What else?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think this situation warrants such an extreme measure as a de-sysop request. I'm sorry to see you suggest it rather than honestly addressing the concerns brought up here. INeverCry 06:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fine. You remain with your opinion, I remain with mine. I am not going to take the case to UDEL. You are welcome to initiate the desysop procedure against me.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- You keep passing blame and making accusations, while calmly avoiding any admission of possible inappropriate behavior on your part. Your accusation that Andrey made that DR in bad faith is unsubstantiated, as is your accusation that P199 closed the DR "blindly". If that was the case, bring it to UDEL and it should be quickly overturned, but you won't, and it would likely stand if you did. As for your revenge DRs against P199, you've already withdrawn one, and the Philippine FoP DR was of a skyline, an obvious DM case. Revenge DRs aren't appropriate, especially when 2/3 are are weak/invalid in P199s case, and 1/2 is weak/invalid in the case of your revenge DRs against Andrey. INeverCry 06:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to add that Andrey Korzun demonstrated extreme rudeness to people who spent hours of their time and tons of their effort on organizing images from WLM Russia here on Commons. This year we consider very seriously the option of not extending our support to Wikimedia Commons at all because of the extremely selfish and essentially unproductive activity on massive file deletions. At the moment, there is a lot of strain between Wikimedia Commons and the Russian-speaking community on Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. It is essentially the fault of users like Andrey Korzun who failed to discuss anything and refused to search for compromise solutions by openly insulting people and chasing them with the deletion requests instead of thinking how to solve the problem without making damage to Wikipedia and other projects. --Alexander (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- You knew very well about my nominations for deletion. Who's stopping you to participate in discussions, who's stopping you to express valid arguments? Why now, you begin to slander? And do not talk on behalf of all Russian users, you do not have this authority. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I can talk on behalf of the WLM organizers, and the above statement was official in this respect.
- Otherwise, I will not waste time on talking to people who were rude and offensive to me. My message was mainly addressed to non-Russian-speaking users here who may not know about the dire situation with Russian images and the lack of communication between Commons and Russian-speaking WMF projects. --Alexander (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- You knew very well about my nominations for deletion. Who's stopping you to participate in discussions, who's stopping you to express valid arguments? Why now, you begin to slander? And do not talk on behalf of all Russian users, you do not have this authority. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to add that Andrey Korzun demonstrated extreme rudeness to people who spent hours of their time and tons of their effort on organizing images from WLM Russia here on Commons. This year we consider very seriously the option of not extending our support to Wikimedia Commons at all because of the extremely selfish and essentially unproductive activity on massive file deletions. At the moment, there is a lot of strain between Wikimedia Commons and the Russian-speaking community on Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. It is essentially the fault of users like Andrey Korzun who failed to discuss anything and refused to search for compromise solutions by openly insulting people and chasing them with the deletion requests instead of thinking how to solve the problem without making damage to Wikipedia and other projects. --Alexander (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment @Ymblanter: INC is right. You need to address the issue instead of blaming others. At least 2 of your DRs were wrong, and revenge actions are never good anyway. To all others: keep the issues from the Russian WP there. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- The issue is between Commons and several other projects. Ignoring this issue, as many of the Russian-speaking Commons admins do, will only exaggerate the situation. --Alexander (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
What should be the purpose of this thread? The DR's in question are to be decided as keep. There is no issue with an abuse of sysop flag (as it was necessary to start a desysop procedure). Rude tone? Well... If an active sysop even is allowed to say "Piss off into your hole" to a colleague and doesn't have to fear any sanctions for such obvious personal insult, then we have really nothing to discuss here. There are much worse sysops on Commons than Ymblanter! ;)) --A.Savin 10:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree and suggest to close this thread. While I agree that revenge DR's is not the standards we expect from admin but I do empathize Ymblanter's concern regarding the Russian speaking projects. -- Geagea (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Haziq man
ResolvedCopyvios since 2013. Also please nuke all user's uploads, the script does not mark some files for DR. /St1995 23:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Haziq man (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Done Blocked 1 month, uploads nuked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
INeverCry
I have no idea what is happening and I care even less [1] [2]. However stunts like this [3] [4] are surely reasons why if INC ever returns, it shouldn't be with a block button.
This is their third self-indef and exit, followed (previously) by a return. That's up to them, I don't care. However they don't get to let the door hit other editors on their way out. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- 06:07, 11 July 2015 INeverCry (talk | contribs | block) blocked Russavia (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (how you like them stiches bitch?) (unblock | change block)
- 06:05, 11 July 2015 INeverCry (talk | contribs | block) blocked Stemoc (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (hows that for balls? Bitch.) (unblock | change block)
- 06:04, 11 July 2015 INeverCry (talk | contribs | block) blocked Fæ (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts: User:Russavia) (unblock | change block)
Errrm.. Can someone explain what is going on here, please? (i have revdeleted the block reason of Stemoc, it is a some sort of personal attack) --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Some diffs to explain the background: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. M★Zaplotnik (edits) 11:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Do we think the self-block should be replaced with an an indefinite block for inappropriately blocking user accounts and leaving abusive block logs, pending some sort of explanation, apology and proposals to prevent a repeat performance ? The retirement (especially considering the history of INeverCry) can obviously be reversed, so should a proper desysop request be filed and if so, who would be willing to write that up ? I consider myself too closely involved with this to get further involved. Nick (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- What's the policy for indef-blocked accounts keeping the admin bit anyway? I thought we had something against that, just because dormant accounts shouldn't ever be left with elevated privileges (Comp Security 101). It would still be good to formalise it though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, there is no policy about it AFAIK.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Discussion thread raised at Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship.
- As to a desysop request, I'd start one if I can find both time and paperwork for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: perhaps it is better to let things be for the next couple of days. Natuur12 (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- No. This needs to be rectified now. INC hasn't just quit, but he's left quite the trail of destruction behind him this time, he shouldn't be given a free pass and allowed to resume where he left off in a couple of days. Nick (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Better, how? As noted at the top, I don't care if they use self-blocking for breaks, but that sort of "I'm outta here, bitches" behaviour has no place for an admin. It's bad enough that admins are allowed actions that would be clear indef blocks for mere editors, but they certainly shouldn't get to keep the tools afterwards, or to be given removed tools back on simple request, after the fuss has died down. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- What's the problem with waiting a couple of days untill everyone is calmed down? It's not like that's the same as giving someone a free pass. At this moment a lot of people are probably quite angry and letting anger prevail is seldon a wise move. Especially at Wikimedia projects. I learned that the hard way by now. There is no direct threath right now. Natuur12 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't the de-admin page so let's not discuss that here. He's blocked, and if starts editing/deleting then I'm sure someone else will block him. There's no need for a panic-de-adminship in order to protect Commons. So rest your pitchforks down and we'll see if any information comes to light. Otherwise we are all speculating on what occurred. The Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship suggestion would also result in an automatic bit-removal so I suggest we discuss that and approve it. -- Colin (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: perhaps it is better to let things be for the next couple of days. Natuur12 (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, there is no policy about it AFAIK.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I thought our today's POTD was weird, but this, this is just sad. I believe INC was well aware that such actions would result in removal of their admin right, and we should accept this as their resignation. we don't need a de-adminship process. ■ MMXX talk 16:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- As noted by others I also find it sad, confusing and disturbing what INC did. I don't know why they did it and I don't really care. Its clearly not conduct an admin should do and as an experienced admin on multiple projects INC had to be aware of what the outcome would be. As many here are also aware, I have been a very vocal critic of the WMF projects tendency to let "admins follow different rules" than editors as User:Andy Dingley mentions above. If a regular editor had done something similar as what INC did, or even less, we all know they would be facing severe consequences including a likely lengthy block. I do not think we should treat INC any differently as an admin than we would do to him if they were a regular editor. Removing access to the tools from an admin after an incident like shouldn't be such a difficult thing to do. It should be expected and mandatory. Reguyla (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have no comment other than to point out that earlier this year Magog The Ogre did essentially the same thing (minus the language but probably abusing checkuser) and then also pulled a self-imposed time-out and are facing no repercussions. If INeverCry has their adminship removed without proper process, so should Magog The Ogre. Fry1989 eh? 16:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- The cases of these users should be handled separately, via a formal de-admin procedure. --Pitke (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- As a user who has no connection to the thing at hand or its roots, I have blocked INeverCry for 30 days, on grounds of abuse of admin tools, baseless accusations, disruptive editing, and (unlisted in block log) Pointiness. Admin tools have been abused, so a de-admin discussion is in order no matter what. --Pitke (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am rather sad and disappointed that the situation became like this. I am torn, and I cannot decide. He is a hardworking admin, diligently closing DRs and deleting copyvios everyday, but I agree that he is impulsive. I can understand his feelings because I know people do stupid things when they are angry, depressed and melancholic. As for someone who is epileptic, it is even harder to know what they will do when they are angry. He should learn to control his moods and feelings and not let it affect Wikimedia. I would like to end off with 2 verses from the Bible. They are Ephesians 4:26 (“In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry) and Ephesians 4:31 (Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice). This is why I am worried for INeverCry. We don't know what he will do next time when he is angry. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 17:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Jianhui67 it can't be stressed strongly enough that belief that epilepsy might affect someone's behaviour/personality or make them unpredictable when angry belongs in the 18th century along with other ignorance about race or sexuality. INC's health concerns are absolutely irrelevant wrt his actions. -- Colin (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Pitke I agree with changing the block time with a proper reason in the log. I have no idea what this problem is about and I don't have time to go through it, I value INC's contributions, but IMO the violation (resignation?) is clear, and there is not much to discuss in a de-admin. what would you do if a rollbacker abuses their rights? any other abuse of user rights should be treated the same. ■ MMXX talk 17:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Pitke. Given the user "retired" after a block and deletion spree, it's quite clear the user himself agrees he abused the admin tools and in practice resigned; I think we can just acknowledge it and get the flag removed. The user will be able to make his case and explains his reasons when he comes back and wants the flag again. --Nemo 18:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Pitke I agree with changing the block time with a proper reason in the log. I have no idea what this problem is about and I don't have time to go through it, I value INC's contributions, but IMO the violation (resignation?) is clear, and there is not much to discuss in a de-admin. what would you do if a rollbacker abuses their rights? any other abuse of user rights should be treated the same. ■ MMXX talk 17:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks to Rama for the mop-up job.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
De-adminship
Fry1989 raises a valid point, that there may not be consensus for a De-adminship discussion at this time. I'd propose we hold a quick poll here first, just to assess if there's consensus for a de-adminship discussion. Support for a discussion does not mean you support de-adminship, just that there should be such a discussion. This happened in the JurgenNL discussion, see [11]
Support Nick (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Colin: The process there was opposed on 'procedural' grounds. A quick poll here will address that concern. Revent (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- A poll to decide if we have a poll to decide if an admin who has clearly committed "admin suicide" should still be an admin? Too many procedures and obsession with bureaucracy. Somebody just press the button and be done with it. It would represent a level of maturity and common sense rarely found on Commons if a 'crat just short-circuited this farce and used their head. -- Colin (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Colin: As Commons bureaucrats, we do not have the technical ability to remove administrator privileges; such requests have to handled by stewards on Meta, and given their obsession with formalities, I'm quite certain they would refuse to remove INeverCry's admin rights if we were to ask them without having reached a consensus in the form of a de-adminship request. odder (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- odder, has it crossed your mind to ask? If four or so 'crats all agreed this one's obvious and a week-long de-adminship is only going to do harm, I can't see how a steward could reach a different conclusion. It isn't as though you are giving him rights out-of-process. As it is, we just get people making ignorant comments about epilepsy, speculating on his mental heath, and repeatedly listing all the bad things again and again. According to Denniss, bad language is a de-admin criterion. Who knew? It's a farce and should be stopped by anyone with respect for INC's good contributions. -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ironic, since you're exactly the same. Trijnsteltalk 00:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Trijnstel: I do agree I would make an excellent steward. I might even consider running now that I know you consider I have the necessary qualities! odder (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Colin: As Commons bureaucrats, we do not have the technical ability to remove administrator privileges; such requests have to handled by stewards on Meta, and given their obsession with formalities, I'm quite certain they would refuse to remove INeverCry's admin rights if we were to ask them without having reached a consensus in the form of a de-adminship request. odder (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- A poll to decide if we have a poll to decide if an admin who has clearly committed "admin suicide" should still be an admin? Too many procedures and obsession with bureaucracy. Somebody just press the button and be done with it. It would represent a level of maturity and common sense rarely found on Commons if a 'crat just short-circuited this farce and used their head. -- Colin (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Colin: The process there was opposed on 'procedural' grounds. A quick poll here will address that concern. Revent (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this straw poll should continue. There is a Commons:Administrators/Requests/INeverCry (de-adminship) already. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Everything said, de-adminship running, no need to keep this open. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Enriquealonso1
Only copyvios by this user, of official SEAT photos. Please delete all uploads.
- Enriquealonso1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
mr.choppers (talk)-en- 13:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This editor has been very rude and uncivil on at least several occasions:
- Here he calls a person an "unbecoming clowning administrator"
- Here and here he tries to mock other's arguments instead of addressing them
This uncivil behavior renders communication very difficult. I think that at least a serious warning should be issued, and the editor in question should re-consider his tone. --Alexander (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- The user has a long history behaving like he is the only bearer of the Absolute Truth trademark. He was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Wikipedia some time ago exactly for his unwillingness to look for consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I'm someone personally touched. I do not know much English, use Google-translator, and can not always catch the negative personal meanings. Regarding defamation of Mr. Blanter I posted here and here. Good luck. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- This neither gives you the right to insult other people nor excuses your practice of mocking other's arguments instead of addressing them. --Alexander (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am afraid that insults in your imagination. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Calling someone an "unbecoming clowning administrator" is grossly insulting, there can't be two opinions about that. --Alexander (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. I explain. I mean unworthy administrator piracy protection. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Unworthy administrator" does not sound any better. I think it is clear now that you intentionally insulted an administrator, thus violating Commons:Assume_good_faith and being uncivil in general. This warrants an admin action. --Alexander (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is my personal opinion, which formed on the sum discussion. Protection of piracy and copyright violations under artificial prepositions is unworthy of the administrator. I think so. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like a clear-cut case of a personal attack that should be frowned upon in any normal discussion. --Alexander (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is my personal opinion, which formed on the sum discussion. Protection of piracy and copyright violations under artificial prepositions is unworthy of the administrator. I think so. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Unworthy administrator" does not sound any better. I think it is clear now that you intentionally insulted an administrator, thus violating Commons:Assume_good_faith and being uncivil in general. This warrants an admin action. --Alexander (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. I explain. I mean unworthy administrator piracy protection. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Calling someone an "unbecoming clowning administrator" is grossly insulting, there can't be two opinions about that. --Alexander (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am afraid that insults in your imagination. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- This neither gives you the right to insult other people nor excuses your practice of mocking other's arguments instead of addressing them. --Alexander (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- And yes, thank you for this request. I hope that due him more administrators pay attention to the horrifying situation with copyright violations in the Russian segment of Commons. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is another personal attack: "I think intelligent users will understand me" implying that those who do not understand the very awkward English produced by Google Translate are unintelligent. --Alexander (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Now he is nominating Ukrainian files citing Russian law. A block might be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your sense of humor, but the argument is absurd. The main thing is the author and country of origin of a work of art. Country of origin of the work of art - the USSR; In 1943 Crimea was part of the RSFSR (Nazi Germany occupied part). The legal successor the Soviet Union and RSFR - the modern Russian Federation. Never was Ukraine. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is bullshit. It became Ukraine in 1954.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- This happened after the death of the artist (1943), the author of the works. The law establishes the term "country of origin of the work of art". --Andrey Korzun (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is as ridiculous as to say that whatever was built in Taganrog in 1924 is not covered by FoP since at the time Taganrog was in Ukraine. Or whatever was built in Lviv in the 1930s is covered by FoP because at the time it was Poland. Try to upload such files and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- This happened after the death of the artist (1943), the author of the works. The law establishes the term "country of origin of the work of art". --Andrey Korzun (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is bullshit. It became Ukraine in 1954.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your sense of humor, but the argument is absurd. The main thing is the author and country of origin of a work of art. Country of origin of the work of art - the USSR; In 1943 Crimea was part of the RSFSR (Nazi Germany occupied part). The legal successor the Soviet Union and RSFR - the modern Russian Federation. Never was Ukraine. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't speak Russian, but I sincerely doubt that any Russian phrase which Google would translate into "unbecoming clowning administrator" is any more polite in its original language. If there's any doubt, I'm sure we have enough Russian-speaking users to assist with manual translation if the original phrase is provided. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Google is doing decent reverse translations, so I think that the original phrase was "недостойная администратора клоунада" (also consistent with the grammar form used) that is literally translated as "clownery, which is unworthy of an administrator". A human translation would be more like "you are playing fool, which is unworthy of an administrator". Some other phrases by this editor, which sound like a mess in Google-translated English, are also quite rude in their original Russian versions. --Alexander (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, we may want to resolve this highly unpleasant issue, if 1) Andrey Korzun promises to refrain from controversial "borderline" RfD's like that of Nesterov's paintings (since he obviously doesn't know English language and there are still more than enough obvious cases like "monuments with no FoP" etc. where English skills are not necessary), 2) Ymblanter promises to stay away from Korzun's uploads and not to nominate any further for deletion, because at the moment we have somewhat a spiral of mutual allegations of copyvio, which all has nothing left to do with improving Commons but only with some personal animosities. Just my 2c, as I'm also a part of Russian community. --A.Savin 19:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would be fine with that.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)