Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 71

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

User:Catpain Barbell

They have recently been blocked because of overwriting existing files and uploading copyvios. After returning, they are continuing the same behaviour as before unfortunately. File:RadyoPilipinas2-logo.png (woman beside the logo), File:RadyoPilipinas1-logo.png (man beside the logo), File:NGC Reverse Notes and Coins.jpg (man, flower, and herbs among banknotes and coins), File:PHP 2010 New Generation Currency Banknotes.jpg (man and flag among banknotes and coins; also note the first version in which pictures of people have been forged on banknotes), File:PTVLogo2017.png (other networks beside the original one), File:JPY Banknotes.png (issuing new Japanese banknotes which do not exist in reality according to Japanese yen). 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Admins, what are you waiting for? I don’t see literally any single upload by this person which abides the policy. Every second upload is copyvio, most break OVERWRITE, and few new uploads that are not copyvio (due to ineligibility) have wrong authorship data anyway. Rid Commons of this contributor, at last. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked. --Ruthven (msg) 06:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: could you please supply a reasonable block rationale? Or do you like when sysops embarrass the whole Commons project with baseless accusations against problematical users? Unfortunately Commons (yet) has few sysops who do it routinely. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: I reckon that "Vandalism" is a reasonable block rationale. --Ruthven (msg) 15:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

OG_VA$

BevinKacon (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Two weeks block, uploads nuked. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Kyung-heeu2030

Kyung-heeu2030 (talk · contribs) Uploads anything but copyvios. Has been warned already. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 week block, uploads nuked. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

عمري اميمة

عمري اميمة (talk · contribs) Uploads copyrighted files just after end of second block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Not a net contributor and not communicative either. De728631 (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

To be natural

BevinKacon (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: blocked. --A.Savin 10:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I also revdel'ed the edits at User:BevinKacon. De728631 (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Isn’t this user (NSFW!) a reincarnation? Can anybody compare it against To be natural’s face? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

These actually seem to be different persons. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Austrianbird and Polish POW photographs

Interested parties: @Jcb and Tm:

See page histories and edit comments:

  1. Biskupia Gorka executions - 14 - Barkmann
  2. Warsaw Uprising - Soldiers from Parasol on Warecka Street.jpg
  3. diff for aggressive post on Tm's talk page

Could someone please review the recent apparent campaign by Austrianbird (talk · contribs · logs · block log) changing the language used on holocaust photographs with Polish POWs. These changes seem to directly relate to the "Polish death camp" controversy.

Should their desired changes have merit, I believe this would require a proposal and a consensus to avoid continued edit warring. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Related: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#Austrianbird and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#Dreamcatcher25. I blocked Austrianbird now for one week for continued edit warring. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Also this edit comment is clearly unacceptable. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Request to block User:Jonny84

I'd like to ask that User:Jonny84 is blocked for repeated vandalism to the File:Idioma alemán en Europa.png (created by me) [1] map's Description box, here [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. I repeatedly told Jonny84, that he can tag the map if he feels there are inconsistencies with it, and initiate a discussion on the Talk Page. However, Jonny84 repeatedly inserts his own text into the map's Description box, which should be reserved for basic information such as title, source and creator, and not to insert his opinions or views about the map. I don't even do that to the disputed Postmann Michael maps, instead I go to the Talk Page to raise issues there, instead of vandalizing the basic description of the map. Again, this type of belligerent behavior by Jonny84 should be stopped. --E-960 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Does anybody agree, that it's vandalism when I'm inserting sources to a file? Even official ones by the Polish State? I guess it's more vandalism to erase sources... --Jonny84 (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I protected the file for 3 months. @Jonny84 and E-960: Do not edit war, or you might be blocked. Please discuss on the file talk page, or any other appropriate venue. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

My proposal would be to block E-960 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for repeated use of the V-word in such context as Revision of File:Idioma_alemán_en_Europa.png and merge the discussion with his/her unblock request. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done I have blocked Jonny84 for a week and E-960 for 3 months for edit warring. Both were previously warned and E-960 was already blocked twice during this conflict. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, these two users already have a “history”. The interaction ban is somewhere near. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Also here and some file talk pages. It's been ongoing for at least a month now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Cοlin vs Colin

There is another user with the name "Colin" which is causing confusion. They are using different characters to form "Cοlin" in their name.

I can't read German. It seems they perhaps once had the same Colin account name as me and got their account renamed. But it now looks like they've got it renamed to be visibly identical to mine, even though it uses other characters. When other people write [[User:Colin]] then it pings me rather than them. This does not seem like a desirable thing to allow. Do you know what can be done? -- Colin (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Acted upon. Seems to be a good-faith user, although with severely ill-conceived ideas about his Internet identity. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@DerHexer: As renamer. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This is textbook phishing, well meaning or not. At User talk:Cοlin we can read:
2015-04-26T18:41:08‎ DerHexer (A/S) (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (234 bytes) (0)‎ . . (DerHexer moved page User talk:Colin~dewiki to User talk:Cοlin: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Colin~dewiki" to "Cοlin") (undo | thank)
Well, speaking of phishing, someone deserves a trout. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Rename back to Colin~dewiki - Globally or locally a check should've been done prior to renaming ..... I'd support either moving Greek Colin to Colin~dewiki or allow him to pick his own name here and now .... –Davey2010Talk 21:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Colin: were you ever contacted about a de.Wikipedia user with conflicting username? Did DerHexer (or another third party) consult with you about it? The case seems indeed to be a serious judgement error by a Wikimedian holding elevated rights—namely, global renamer rights—rather than just a collision of nicknames of two Wikipedians. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I like Tuválkin's joke about the phishing, and at first thought that someone was actually trying to impersonate my account to cause mischief. That doesn't appear to be the case. I don't recall any requests from de:WP. I presume they want to use the name Colin but having found it to be taken via the big interproject-rename that occurred years ago, they've come up with this scheme to use a Greek character. DerHexer would have known that this user's desired account name was in-use because the Colin~dewiki has a standard suffix when that occurred. I assume they didn't spot the Greek character and didn't check properly. I have to agree this is concerning wrt their global renamer rights, and would like to hear some explanation from them. Perhaps we need some software (Javascript) help for renamers to highlight if non-Latin characters are appearing in a Latin name. There must already be such algorithms for domain names to help browsers spot phishing, so perhaps these can be used for usernames? -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: We already have those algorithms:
−
Colin~dewiki
+
Cοlin
−
Colin~dewiki
+
Cοlin
Okay this is just diff, but actually detecting these characters is also possible. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The request to rename one with the name in Latin script to a similar name in Greek would be a perfectly valid deal. DerHexer’s blunder was not about renaming “Colin~dewiki” to something containing a Greek letter, but about his failure to realize that the “~dewiki” suffix is a collision alert which may not be bypassed with phishing techniques. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
That too, but perhaps DerHexer assumed the username Colin was available again because the rename was possible, not realizing he wasn't renaming the user to Colin. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
In the hypothetical case where our Colin was asked to rename himself and Colin refused, I would suggest renaming both users, who are both committed Wikimedians and have similar age. But lack of consideration by the German-speakers makes de.Wikipedia a blameworthy party. Let the blameworthy pay for all damages to the community, at the end. Support for Davey2010’s proposal. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
That actually is interesting. In the meantime, here is a rudimentary check, {{Test of character}}:
−
Hi реter, where are Нaиk and Сοlin? Aяe they цnderway?
+
Hi pеter, where are Haиk and Colin? Aяe they underway?
−
Hi реter, where are Нaиk and Сοlin? Aяe they цnderway?
+
Hi рeter, where are Нank and Сοlin? Are they цnderway?
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm currently out of the country so that I cannot easily check what happened back then and I cannot remember how this account was renamed (FYI, I helped realize the global SUL finalization in my volunteer capacity, spending hundreds of hours solving thousands of conflicts like this one on various channels). I may be willing to dig deeper into my protocols and communications with the WMF about why, when, and how that could have happened but only in case the rude wordings against my best-faith action stop immediately. And I am more than willing to find a solution that fits for both of you (which could, e.g., also be keeping both names as is but getting the Greek character marked) although it is the WMF who is responsibly for the SUL finalization and name conflicts (therefore pinging Keegan (WMF)). Thanks, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool.
  1. “helped realize the global SUL finalization in my volunteer capacity”
  2. … but it is WMF who is responsible for everything.
  3. “am more than willing to find a solution”
  4. … but only if Incnis_Mrsi shuts up now.
Is this big-man admin style appreciated on Wikimedia Commons? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Pointing out that we are all volunteers and that mistakes happen, even though we all act in good faith is very much appreciated. As is pointing out when people are unnecessarily rude. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
“but only if Incnis_Mrsi shuts up now“ is nothing what I said and does not help here at all (in fact, there were a couple of comments very irritating to me and I didn't look who said what). Please reconsider what would be the most helpful response and change it appropriately regardless if I made a mistake in that case (which is possible and which I would deeply regret, can never excuse but can only ask for understanding—but, as I said, atm I cannot tell what really happened and why) or not. Thank you, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, our Colin claims that wasn’t approached about the collision (either imminent or already happened) with his German homonym. Never. I don’t think that Colin’s memory has such large holes that he lost such an event. The Foundation may be culpable for “incorrect” resolution of the Colin (English-speaking photographer) vs. Colin@dewiki collision, but… it is some unhealthy inventor of this omicron crap at fault for the current trouble, and also DerHexer who proceeded with it without safety checks. This episode does not indeed pertain to the “SUL finalization”, it was from its aftermath. By the way, I found several objectionable renaming by DerHexer namely during the SUL finalization phase—such as T0rtuga, Yambaru, 0rquidea—but no traces of phishing comparable to C-omicron-lin. It was some external influence on DerHexer, I guess. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I would be blocked, if I would say, what I actually wanna say, @Incnis Mrsi: . The way you talk to other volunteers i unacceptable, shameful and just impudent. Please tamper with another tone! Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
User:DerHexer please forgive me if I have offended you. Remember that most of us are ignorant about what admins do, and how often they do it. I had no idea if you are a rename expert who does thousands a day, or just someone with the bit who helped out a mate and hasn't done a rename for months. As far as who gets the name is concerned, that was decided 10 years ago and I'm not prepared to change my user name. Particularly so when the other account has requested a visually similar name in a devious and deceptive manner that is against policy. I don't think they were phishing or attempting to deceive people into thinking the accounts were linked but I do think they knew what they were doing when substituting the Greek character, and were trying to achieve their desired username in a dishonest manner. I hope that if their account is otherwise in good standing, we resolve this and put it behind us. My main concern wrt the process is that the use of Unicode characters to deceive is prevented by our naming and renaming processes. Obviously properly Greek names are permissible, but the mixing of Green and Latin characters appears to be a red flag (though perhaps again I show my ignorance and this occurs naturally). I don't think it would be impossible for someone to write some Javascript that highlights potentially problematic names. This could also be used when choosing the name for a new account. -- Colin (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
What namely should this script do? Just highlight confusion-prone non-Latin characters? Or make checks for homographic accounts via API? Also, I disapprove Colin’s sarcastic tone. DerHexer made a blunder, but “most of us are ignorant about what admins do, and how often they do it” is patent bollocks, frankly speaking – MediaWiki is remarkably transparent compared to many other Web systems, some of those used on public sites with millions users. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Can I make it absolutely clear that my tone was not sarcastic, my apology was genuine. I was critical of DerHexter, and it turns out they are an expert in this area, so rather than be concerned about their renamer rights, it seems this is an isolated mistake among a large volume of good quality renames. I never like it when Admins are picked on over one mistake when it turns out they are 99.9% getting it right, but as a non-admin, I genuinely have little way of knowing this sort of thing up-front. Wrt the rename or username page, a script could highlight characters that belong in different character sets, with a different background colour, or spot if most of the characters were in one set but one or two were in the "unicode confusion" characters, or for a Wikipedia, it could highlight if characters were used that are not typical for that Wiki language. It wouldn't be perfect but could help. I don't really know how much of a problem this is, whether it is worth the effort. -- Colin (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Don’t exaggerate. Since SUL finalization DerHexer made 374 account renamings, and not all of them were caused by username collisions. For more than three years. Are 374 admin actions really a great load of work for as short as one month? For these 374 actions we discovered one egregious blunder, but (as I already said) if we consider renames performed during the SUL finalization proper, then more questionable actions emerge. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Incnis could I kindly ask you to butt out. 374 renames is considerable experience of the process if you ask me. You're entitled to your own judgement, my opinion may be wrong, but to claim I am exaggerating implies I am deliberately inflating things to make some point. That's now twice you are assumed bad faith on my part. Go chill somewhere off Commons. -- Colin (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: no Javascript needed, {{Test of character}} basically does this. I ran into a wiki limit that I currently don't know how to get around (other than adding more stringdiffs) so I can't test more characters, but it shows the general idea. Something like Test of character and an inverted version of it (for Greek names trying to use Latin characters) should be shown to any renamer before actually renaming someone. @Incnis Mrsi: I honestly don't see the problem with renaming Tortuga to T0rtuga. It would only be an issue if they were trying to impersonate Tortuga, but they are (were) Tortuga. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: this specific is currently not problematical because one user exists on en.Wikipedia and another on de.Wikipedia. But if both users will eventually reach Commons, then we may have a trouble distinguishing them. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Tortuga
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/T0rtuga
How is that even possible? Tortuga on dewiki registered on 17 March 2015, Tortuga on enwiki was renamed to T0rtuga on 26 March 2015. So before that, there was Tortuga on enwiki and a different Tortuga on dewiki? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
First, Alexis may be ignorant of troubled history of Wikimedia logins. Before 2008 each wiki had its separate registry. CentralAuth with its complexity and overhead was born from that situation, as a programme for gradual (in fact, 2008–2015) transition to a reasonable identification system. Why do you think there were thousands of renames during few months? Second, never rely on Special:CentralAuth for timeline of an account registered in 2008 or earlier. It reports the data of respective CentralAuth account. Technically, each wiki still has its separate registry, but any of these local accounts is synchronized with CentralAuth unless a steward gives a contrary order. Can you now get why does CentralAuth report “2015” for many old accounts? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
17 March 2015 was the day we (the WMF) automatically made global any account not previously made global that had either no conflicting accounts, or the conflicting account did not have a registered email address. You'll see this global creation date for quite literally millions of accounts, and as Incnis Mrsi explains the history is quite complex. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I always forget where I can see the real registration date. CentralAuth is easy to find. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The "other Colin" has edited de-wiki four times since this was posted. There isn't a post on his de talk page but I assume he's got the pings from Commons and is ignoring them. Could a German speaker (Steinsplitter?) post a message on his de wiki page just to be sure he's got this? If he continues to ignore it, is there someone with authority to rename his account back to Colin~dewiki? After today, I shall be travelling for the next two weeks so may not have reliable access to Commons. -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I've notified the other Colin on his :de talkpage and invited him to comment. --Túrelio (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Greek Colin is upset we didn't come to his talk page first and not interested in taking part in the discussion here. (did you know the German word for "disgusting" is widerlich?) I suggested to Greek Colin to request a rename themselves. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: the technical aspects of SUL finalization that the WMF is responsible for were completed, the conflicting "Colin" at the time was renamed. Any further actions with regard to re-namings are up to community processes. That being said, having worked with DerHexer, having formerly been a Global Renamer as a volunteer myself (I didn't perform many, but watched many be done), I can confidently assume for myself that this rename is an aberration. I'm encouraged to see this conversation moving in the direction of communicating with the other user and resolving this incident. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
According to Other Colin's dewiki talk page, he is not active on Wikipedia anymore (although he replied to the thread there). In light of this, I'd recommend to rename their username back to Colin~dewiki or something similar unambiguous. That said, I find the behaviour of several participants of this discussion here on Other Colin's talk page both here and on dewiki disgusting. Instead of seeking a solution, there were accusations, demands and allegations. This is absolutely not a way to find a solution in a civilized manner. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Srittau: many users have that template. Greek Colin seems to very much be active on dewiki. I doubt you are referring Túrelio's responses on the dewiki talk page, so you are probably referring to my response (regarding the dewiki talk page). I made no accusations or allegations. The only "demand" I made was:
"If you fail to do that, you will probably find yourself soon having a different username anyway, but not one in which you had any say."
But I read what Greek Colin said. A more friendly (not that I was that unfriendly) suggestion isn't going to work here. And you are suggesting here to rename Greek Colin to "Colin~dewiki". You think my response will infuriate them? It quite possibly will, but wait until you see what happens after he gets renamed to "Colin~dewiki"! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The username conflict has never been symmetrical. The former Colin@dewiki was aware of the collision since 2015. Our Colin was not informed by anybody. Then DerHexer issued a “solution” which violated the “civilized” username policy and erupted after three years. I deem it was done with consent (and, likely, direct instigation) from Colin~dewiki. Sebari urges to seek a solution, but (given all circumstances) the most straightforward one is renaming the omicron user back to Colin~dewiki wasting no more resources of Commons volunteers. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Srittau: the other Colin is active on de-wiki based on his contribs. He does also participate on Commons but not so frequent. Commons seemed a natural place for me to post a request for Admin help, as it has a multi-lingual userbase, where both users have active accounts, unlike if I posted on de-wiki, where I would be at quite an inconvenience being unable to read or write German. I wish Incnis Mrsi would delete the nonsense that wrote on the guys's Commons talk page about usurpation. I tried to delete already but he restored it and it looks hostile yet is totally confused about which "Colin" he is arguing with (rather hard to argue with the other Colin, since he hasn't posted anything to his Commons talk page). I'm on holiday now so not wanting any long argument about issues that are already settled in naming policy. We all agree that this appears to be an mistake rather than an agreement by the renaming admin that it is in any way acceptable to have two accounts that are only visually identical. I think the other Colin has tried to be too clever, but of course I am sad he can't keep a name he wants. -- Colin (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Concerns seem overblown: the overlap between the two accounts is minimal. Nothing compared to w:en:User:Nemo, who gets a lot of pings directed to me even 10 years after I decided not to usurp their username and despite no less than 4 visually different characters. :-) --Nemo 11:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: No wonder, considering your signature. --Nemo 18:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC) screws with your head doesnt it

Imag93

User in question is replacing .svg files with low-quality .jpg upscales, alleging these images portray "fake logos". He has been continuously reverting users using this argument since at least 2014. I've warned him about this in the last 10 days and he was reluctant to comply. --Bankster (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand how a user uploading anything but SVG-encoded raster images (see e.g. File:Logo_RNE.svg #filehistory) can hold here for as long as four years. The case of File:Logo_RNE.svg (hist • logs • abuse log) is a pure subversive wrecking with no plausible excuse. It is a regrettable mishap that no Commons admin indefblocked Imag93 earlier. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately, after this any random sysop may indef the waste-maker, at the end. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Relax, these fake logos will not be touched by me anymore. Long life to fake logos. I love you too. --Imag93 (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Fake or not, it is a blatant disrespect for vector designers to overwrite a vector image with a raster image. The raster version, if warranted, can be uploaded separately as image/png or image/jpeg, and incorrectness notes can be placed into all affected «File:….svg» description pages. Imag93 made no attempt to negotiate except this message, unsigned and unspecific. Admins, don’t hesitate and fulfill your duty. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
If vector designers make a logo like that, who is committing a blatant disrespect? Anyway, it's been funny. But yes, admins, fulfill your duty. --Imag93 (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bankster: where is your notification at user talk:Imag93 about this thread? Please, don’t provide disruptive users with pretexts to defend themselves on a technicality. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't be nervous. It's all solved now and do not worry about me. Look at all those beautiful fake logos in SVG format. What a great work from a vector designer. He DOES know all the technicalities. They are wonderful. I almost begin to like it. Don't you? --Imag93 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Imag93: you’re the one enveloping raster data (some of it with JPEG haze) inside an SVG container. On the face of that, any attempt at sarcarsm will not fly. Upload your JPEG files as such, separately, and manually change their use, if necessary. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: To be clear and for your information, I haven't uploaded, nor will I, JPEG files. And now, let's enjoy the remaining logos. Made in China, I suppose. And let it be, it's over, I have more important matters to do. Let the FBI take care of me while you keep chasing those dangerous criminals that threaten SVG files containing authentic pieces of shit. Sarcasm? Where? Cheers. --Imag93 (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    There is a long-standing consensus of Commons graphics editors and users that an SVG-encoded raster image (or, in Tuvalkin’s wording, raster data inside an SVG container) is worse than respective raster image (PNG, or JPEG) in their native format. Nobody “to be clear” discusses uploading an image/jpeg onto file:….svg, although it is theoretically possible. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    I haven't enveloped or uploaded raster data "with JPEG haze inside a SVG container". That's what I'm saying. The rest is the never-ending story. It's OK, but tell me something new. What part of "let it be" don't you understand? Sure you have better things to do. --Imag93 (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Blocked for ignoring an official warning from an admin. A window left open for reconsideration of the block if there is a genuine change to more collegiate behaviour. Green Giant (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant: It seems that you don't have good reading comprehension. After that official warning I've said several times: "These fake logos will not be touched by me anymore", "these vector files will be the logos that remain", "it's all solved now and do not worry about me", or "let it be, it's over". I take this as a compliment but let's be rigorous. Take it easy. --Imag93 (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.162.47.72 (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For the record, here’s some blatant JPEG haze in the pixel pattern of this raster data chunk enveloped inside an SVG file and mslabelled therin as data:image/png. The user in question should learn that the use of sarcasm is not a proxy for technical competence. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Why in hell is important whether is the haze encoded in JPEG or else, if it’s a haze?
$ perl -mMIME::Base64 -ne 'print(MIME::Base64::decode_base64($_));' |hexdump -C
iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhE
00000000  89 50 4e 47 0d 0a 1a 0a  00 00 00 0d 49 48 44     |.PNG........IHD|
0000000f
@Tuvalkin: be more careful next time bragging about “technical competence”, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Incnis Mrsi: I am not bragging about my technical competence (which is not showcased, at all, by discussing this entry-level matter), I’m deploring Imag93’s lack of one while being all snide against people rightly schooling them. And now I’m deploring yours, too: Do you really need to ask why JPEG haze on a non-photographic raster image is a problem?!
This phenomenal crap was, at a given point in its lineage, saved lossily, and it patently shows (that’s JPEG haze). It would be acceptable as an alternative for the other file (it does show an obvious difference in the order of the gradient, rotated 180° — and maybe that’s accurate; I found nothing useful at tve.es, though) but as the replacement of a clean SVG, it’s appalling. Especially because it is trivial (and here’s Imag93’s poor technical skills showing up again) to edit the SGV file as text and swap the shades of blue that make up the gradient.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
A PNG image presented as image/png is not m[i]slabelled. Whether does it contain haze is irrelevant to this specific point. What can we say about “technical [in]competence” of the uploader of file:Cropped_poorly.png, for example? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Incnis Mrsi: you’re a piece of work. The fact that a non-photographic pixel pattern shows JPEG haze, evidencing that it was previously stored/resampled in a lossy manner, is the whole point I am making. Labelling that mess as PNG internally in the SVG source code only compounds the “sin”, and gives credence to the notion that Imag93 is full of it.
Your reference to file:Cropped_poorly.png is mere obfuscation. Obviously an example of a mistake needs to look mistaken, and obviously a lossless format should be used to store faithfully a given pixel pattern, even when said pattern depicts the tell tale artefacts of lossy storing/resampling.
As for your crafty highlighting of my typo, all I have to do is point to your intentional mangling of all typography by interspersing hardcoded serifed capital eyes… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: your intentional mangling of all typography by interspersing hardcoded serifed capital eyes is very annoying, please stop it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Imag93, you should have been blocked ages ago. The fact that Green_Giant’s block was anachronisticial and more punitive than preventive doesn’t make you right. Imag93 continued with the upload war two hours after Sebari’s warning are is now in no position to negotiate anything but unblocking conditions. Read again what the blocking admin wrote at user talk:Imag93. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Who told you I want to negotiate anything? Seriously, I'm not the one who should read a little more here. But relax, you have achieved what you wanted. Everything is fine. --Imag93 (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.162.47.67 (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Not the smartest move by evading your blocked account by using an IP and refusing to acknowledge why you got blocked. Bidgee (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Isn't 5 years a bit long for an IP block? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Very long blocks are pretty standard practice for open proxies since the company buys a set of IPs to use and they remain pretty static over the long term. --Majora (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Another IP from the same range was only blocked for a week, five years would be too long if Imag93 was just getting a new IP from their provider. If it's all open proxies I understand, although five years still seems rather long. IPs can be repurposed at any time. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately most Wikimedia admins are confused about what exactly an “open proxy” means and abuse this term for troll houses or, generally, anonymizer services (presumedly paid). In fact, many open proxies proper are short-lived because appear by mistake or for testing only. But when a user pops from three distinct IPs during minutes and the /24 range is blocked on many sites for a long time, then there is something worse than just a security problem. Such setup is created on purpose. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The /21 currently has a 2-year block on en.wp (as a https://www.micfo.com cloud) where colo/web-hosts are routinely blocked for years at a time. DMacks (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Ahonc

User:Ahonc abused sysop tools: unblocked out of procedure a user who was blocked by me for clearly disruptive editing (for similar behaviour they already have been indefblocked on Russian wikipedia), without any unblock request by this user, without any clear explanation why this user will not continue the same behaviour when unblocked, and without my agreement to lift the block. This happened while I was going to revoke the user's e-mail too, since I have received treatments from them via e-mail (I have saved these e-mails and can proof it on request). --A.Savin 22:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

User may request unblocking not only on talk page. He may ask it via email (according COM:BP). The blocking was make with abusing of rules. COM:BP says: For blocks based on disruptive behaviour, such as vandalism, repeated copyright violations and manual promotional activities, ensure that the user has been appropriately warned, preferably using a block warning template. But I do not see any warnings on his talk page. If there were no warnings you may not block him. And also on COM:Форум user:Sealle agreed that indefblock is not appropriate in this issue.--Anatoliy (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Commons policy does not requires that only a blocking admin may unblock a blocked user. In fact, our policy allows blocked users to appeal via e-mails to another administrator. If Ahonc received an appeal from the blocked user and they believe there is a reason to unblock, how does it translate into policy violation? Which of the policies have been violated? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    As I see in user contribs, he nominate for deletion two A.Savin's photos. And than A.Savin block user indefinite without any warnings. I consider this issue as violation of COM:BP.--Anatoliy (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The behaviour of none of the three participants here (A.Savin, Ahonc, Sergkarman) looks particularly great to me. The initial deletion requests of Sergkarman for some of A.Savin's images are very dubious and their motivation is suspect. A.Savin's indefinite block (as affected user) without any obvious communication attempt or warning or involvement of other admins is not up to the standards I expect of an admin. Ahonc should also have discussed the issue either with A.Savin or the larger community before unilaterally lifting the block. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I tried to discuss with A.Savin but understood that he does not know policies, and he did not want to discuss it (said "Do not touch me").--Anatoliy (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not true! Here is the discussion, where my point was, that I would like to read an unblock request from Sergkarman first before considering further action such as block shortening. Never said "Do not touch me" -- that is either deliberate fake by you, or at least extremely poor English knowledge. Both things are not good for an admin. --A.Savin 23:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
You said: Прошу оставить меня в покое. Admin should not have good English here. Commons is multilingual project.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
LOL. --A.Savin 00:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Ahonc, What do you meant by "I tried to discuss with A.Savin but understood that he does not know policies, and he did not want to discuss it (said "Do not touch me")"? I can see a discussion on A. Savin's talk page in which User:Sergkarman is a subject. Is this not related to the unblock? It seems you started that discussion on A. Savin's talk page prior to unblocking the user and it doesn't appears that A. Savin agreed that the block be lifted. As another user correctly pointed out above, you should have involve other admins especially when you noticed that A. Savin disagreed or bring the case to the attention of the community. Your action is clearly unacceptable and I consider it disruptive. I suggest that the block be restored immediately. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, discussion was about unblocking. A.Savin said that user should request unblock only on talk page, and he will not unblock user. But he allows neutral sysop to unblock him: Если нейтральный администратор решит дать Sergkarman шанс -- не проблема. Прошу оставить меня в покое. - If neutral sysop decide to give a chance to user - no problem. Please do not disturb me. And other admins already said their opinion on Commons:Форум. Sealle agrees that block should be decreased. --Anatoliy (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Sergkarman harassed me via wikimail during the block, sent dubious threatments. They are absolutely not willing to cooperate constructively, as it currently seems. Instead, they are willing to behave the same way for which they already have been indef'ed on Russian Wikipedia. For example, mass RfD's as primitive revenge action for legitimate deletions (that's why I immediately blocked them -- it was actually an emergency block, because they obviously were going to vandalize much more files). And the fact that they wrote nothing on their talk page during the block, but contacted Ahonc for unblock instead, may well indicate that between both there are some connection (possibly in Ukrainian wikipedia where both are active too) so that Ahonc is in no way neutral in the issue and the unblock was not only unfortunate but also abusive. --A.Savin 08:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
You didn't write any warnings of user's talk page. And you did not say about harassing in our discussion. Well, I reinstate block to the end of this day. And let other sysops to make decision: continue block or not.--Anatoliy (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The threatments they sent during discussion with you on my talk page, and I saw them just shortly before the unblock (and was going to revoke their wikimail access too, but it was too late). How shall admins decide about the block, when there is still no unblock request by the user? --A.Savin 08:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
They may discuss here.--Anatoliy (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Ahonc I am happy you have reinstated the block. Thank you. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
They mailed me for an unblock as well. I guess they just mailed every admin who speaks Russian.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
That strikes me as canvassing.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Ironically, the same A.Savin who was recently reprimanded by three Commoners for incorrect use of sysop tools now comes forward to accuse Ahonc of wheel warring. Learn to make good use of sysop and then your admin actions will be treated with respect. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Whataboutism was never helpful to resolve user problems so far. Are you writing that, because you have been contributing your 2cents in nearly every meta discussion in the past few months in order to gain some awareness and then to run for sysop yourself? Not very helpful approach, but good to know for the future. --A.Savin 11:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Cookie

Cookie (talk · contribs)

Cookie didn't care I said on the DR I found this YT channel to be iffy, closed it and gave the image a license review.

Was I somewhat fed up with this sock (who still hasn't been blocked) when I started this DR? Certainly. Is that a good excuse for Cookie to close it within a few hours, ignore that the uploader is a long term abuser and give a LicenseReview to an image from a questionable YouTube channel? I asked Cookie about this on her talk page. Didn't help.

I said I didn't trust the source and was fed up with the LTA and the time I already wasted on them. That alone should be reason enough to at least not speedily close a DR. So now I waste some more time and found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqcZsdHBFc. A video that is not the same, but part of the same series. I'm guessing the band recorded a bunch of promotional videos for YouTubers. At least "Magic News Latino" is highly unlikely to be the author. Not saying I ever thought they would be. If you're going to review licenses just by clicking the link, seeing "hey, it says Creative Commons!" and adding the review, please, leave the reviewing to others. Or bots. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Alexis Jazz, there are five more files from that source reviewed by two other users. The first one uploaded two months ago was even approved by you a month ago, or so it seems, since you didn't question it. However, now you suspect from that same source that, after admitting it has a Creative commons license, you're trying to support your weak "I don't really trust the channel though" with a link to a 16 seconds video published the same day as the Magic News Latino one. Not months before, not even a day before, just the same day! What does that video prove? We need some more evidences to question a source and declare it as problematic. And the same with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gurpo Bronco.jpg. I understand your discomfort with the user but then, you'd rather leave the reviewing to others as well. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, said this, both DRs are opened again for further discussion and a subsequent closure by another neutral administrator:
Anna (Cookie) (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
"The first one uploaded two months ago was even approved by you a month ago, or so it seems, since you didn't question it."
@Cookie: WOW, hold it right there. I categorized it, which is far, very far from approval. I did look at that file at the time. I didn't trust it and I would have never given it a license review. I searched for that particular interview but couldn't find it. Even though I didn't trust it, I had nothing beyond "don't trust it" and it had already been reviewed. At the time, I didn't know the uploader was a sock. (now I found a clearly laundered video, so here is the mass DR)
"However, now you suspect from that same source that, after admitting it has a Creative commons license,"
You're making it sound like I denied it before. (ftr, I didn't)
"I understand your discomfort with the user but then, you'd rather leave the reviewing to others as well."
Don't say that! I applied for license reviewer. I was declined.
"you're trying to support your weak "I don't really trust the channel though" with a link to a 16 seconds video published the same day as the Magic News Latino one. Not months before, not even a day before, just the same day! What does that video prove?"
If you don't understand this your license review rights need to be stripped immediately. But I'm not sure that's technically possible because you acquired that right through your admin rights. (anyone: is this even possible?) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
It is possible, if not technically then certainly administratively. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The channel is not iffy at all. It's a claimed Disney channel (see here) and, although they might be a bogus channel, I don't think Disney and YouTube would allow it. --Discasto talk 10:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Cookie is a great admin. Drop the stick. Said that, AFAIC I have meaningful doubts on that channel too, but this thread seems unnecesary... strakhov (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I'll assume Cookie will be more careful with license reviewing in the future. This thread can be archived. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Endless over-Categorizing by Tm

Continuously over-categorizes more than 200 files from the Caramulo Motorfestival category, even if asked to stop. "Silently" re-overcategorizes (here, here and here, among other examples) after each de-overcategorization. What could be done to make them understand that this conflicts with the no over-cat recommendation?
(I just "met" Tm in this "Caramulo case". But as they seem to be a regular "candidate" in the COM:ANU pages for categorization problems, there must be lots of other examples of their disruptive behavior in Commons...) - BarnCas (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Let it be. Tm knows what he’s doing. After he’s done, there will be no overcat left, and there will be more in each photos than just one single cat. (As for BarnCas’s parenthetical remark, please avoid gossip. Tm shows up in many other places, too, many of them positive.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Such kind of overcategorization is worrisome. I do not see reason for it. Taivo (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Neither do I. This user has been a subject of this noticeboard over categorization multiple times. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 09:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
+1. The user commented on their talk page: "This images do not show only the Caramulo Motorfestival, but also streets and the automobile museum, so they are not overcategorized." But this is wrong. If you feel that there are not enough categories in the picture, you should put further categories there like "Streets in Caramulo" or "Caramulo automobile museum". If they are missing -- be bold and create them. But overcategorizing and then saying like "Someday someone will create and move" etc. is unacceptable. Editwarring for that is vandalism. How long should we tolerate Tm's totally unacceptable behaviour? --A.Savin 09:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
A ban from categorization for at least 6 months? Maybe yes! T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 10:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I also noticed this overcategorizatin in Caramulo category and I tried to solve it, but I was reverted by Tm. I had the same problem in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream, where I was also reverted. I think there is no possible justification for such a blatant refusal to follow a commonly agreed rule (COM:OVERCAT). So I think something should be done. This is highly discouraging for users to try to respect and apply the rules to deal with users who deliberately decide not to follow them. BrightRaven (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Funny the comments of some, like A.Savin that has blocked me out of process and was reverted (like the case below), called me a crook and thieve and has since tried to get me banned. Also BrightRaven forgets to mention that he moved from Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream only the files that had semi or nude images, but forget to move all the others keeping the so called "overcategorization". If you speek, speek wth all the details, dont omit what is not favorable to you. Tm (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I really do not understand your point. Is there a rule somewhere that you have to sort all the images in a category immediately? I started sorting them, then you reverted all my edits. I do not understand how this could be in any way unfavorable to me. BrightRaven (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
(ec) The "point" is in fact quite easy to get; it's called whataboutism and is considered especially useful when there are no arguments left in the actual issue. (And yes, it is in fact very commonly used by the Russian crooks and thieves, whose names are Putin, Medvedev, and so on; but that's an other story.) --A.Savin 15:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
A.Savin, funny that you repeat here the "argument" of whataboutism, the same "argument" that you used previously in a case involving you below. Quoting you, this is a card that you throw when "is considered especially useful when there are no arguments left in the actual issue", aka rinse and repeat. I merely pointed that your intervention is not a neutral one, as after blocking me, calling me a crook and thieve, corrupt, etc, your try from times to times, to get me blocked. This is called a conflict of interest, when you have a private interest that collides with a public one and you do not disclose it to others, so they can judge what you say in a proper context. Tm (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not trying to fget you blocked, I'm trying to make Commons categories a more usable feature. And you are making it a mess with your mass actions --A.Savin 16:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
"you are making it a mess with your mass actions"??????????. My edits speek for myself, more than two million edits and hundreds of thousands of edits related to proper categorization, probably more than you and several others combined. A mess, you say??? If i hadnt made all those edits, several categories would be a real mess, but just your accusations make clear why your participating in this discussions, and they are not related with categorization. Tm (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
You took your time to move 400 images of nude and semi-nude to a subcategory, but bll other 135 images not moved by you, albeit they were inside a single subcategory. Why didnt you moved them in one stroke, if they were overcategorized? Also my case is right one of "is there a rule somewhere that you have to sort all the images in a category immediately". The files have been moved, other users take years to properly categorize their files, upload them without categories and nothing happens to them. Guess who made hundreds of thousands of edits in categorization without problems? Me, but it seems that os easier to point to me. Tm (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Fhsig13

Fhsig13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Out of a previous block Fhsig13 removes a deletion tag from File:Conejo SKM Stock Photo CustomCropped.jpg and even add a "Kept:Per discussion. Fhsig13 (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)" as he were an Administrator. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: Per Commons:Deletion requests, Non-Admins may close nominations as "Kept", as I have done. Fhsig13 (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't do that please. The close was improper and it has been undone. Permission confirmations must go through OTRS. --Majora (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
My apologies, I did not see that rule listed anywhere on Commons:Deletion requests, however I will watch for that in the future. Fhsig13 (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
It would probably be best if you leave administrative tasks to others until you become more familiar with Commons processes. Feel free to comment on DRs with any insight you have on the situation but closures should probably be left to others for now. Thanks for your understanding. --Majora (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Joshbaumgartner‎

Joshbaumgartner‎ keeps changing the names of established categories or introduces new categories with questionable titles or use. This, and other seemingly unconstructive edits, happens particularly at pages concerning aircraft. This practice has been challenged multiple times at Joshbaumgartner‎'s talk page, e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10].

In another discussion, I pointed out to Joshbaumgartner, that such fundamental changes should rather be discussed beforehand at Commons talk:WikiProject Aviation. Apparently, though, this advice has only been adopted once, but Josh goes on changing established categories without any apparent need and without pior discussion. As this is becoming disruptive, I was asked to take action against Joshbaumgartner. However, since I am somewhat involved, I would like to raise the issue here. De728631 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Each of the items you listed above has been resolved through simply raising any issues that arise and dealing with them individually. In fact at least one of them was not even something I did, but the result of later edits by others. The fact is I am very happy to engage in discussion on any item and the vast majority of the time I am more than happy to acquiesce to others' ideas. If I get the sense that something might be controversial or violate a consensus or guideline of a project or otherwise, of course I would seek a discussion before taking action. I may occaissionally be to bold in cases where it does not seem controversial, but I am happy to correct course should that be pointed out. This is hopefully apparent in the full discussions of the above topics. Josh (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that your edits seem to have become too bold on a regular basis. I think nobody is questioning your ability to discuss and resolve any issues, but the main issue is your habit of changing established category systems or diffusing categories where others think that there is no apparent need. Long-established categories are an especially sensitive topic, so changing them will often be controversial. That is why you should consult other users or the relevant WikiProject more or less any time when you intend to make changes to naming systems. De728631 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate that and I will include more discussion in the process going forward. Josh (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Breduardokramer

Breduardokramer (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Maybe sollol. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

His user page claims he used to use account Edukramerbr (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) .   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
3D patent nonsense is, of course, incorrect license. This is textlogo and en.wiki mentions it 6 times, so maybe it is even notable. Maybe not. Taivo (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Sol-lol wasn’t observed to speak any language but Spanish. Latin America is large enough to provide many distinct users attempting to forge licenses ☺ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it was very much a maybe. After some socks were blocked recently, I would sort of expect them to show up again at some point. I don't see users messing with license reviews very often so it stood out to me. Breduardokramer also has a temporary block on ptwiki, so it's not just a language barrier. Breduardokramer started apologizing to me in response to this report. Frankly, if he manages to stay out of trouble and learn how things work on Commons I'm fine with it. I'll try to keep an eye on him. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • His user page claims native possession of both Portuguese and English, but the latter is clearly not a fact. His bizarre style and content do seem more articulate when expressed in his actual native language, judging from his Facebook postings, but I would say that we’re facing here a case of either a very young age and/or of some mental impairment. To be monitored closely (@Guanaco: p’ra você?) and likely indef blocked soon. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think it's Sol-lol or any LTA I've seen. I'll keep an eye on his edits and if such problems continue I'll block. Guanaco (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The block on ptwiki has been changed from 1 day to indefblock before the first block expired. Breduardokramer asked the blocking admins to be unblocked on meta. This guy claims to be 21 years old by the way (and also to be a native Portuguese, Spanish and English speaker). I've asked him to fix his signature to include a link to his user or talk page. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Blue Hair Kylie Jenner.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edukramerbr&diff=prev&oldid=316089123
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Breduardokramer&diff=prev&oldid=316183823
m:User talk:Breduardokramer
my head
it hurts - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done. I've seen enough. Both accounts are blocked indef. Guanaco (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

A Lisbon bar named Pavilhão Chinês is well known for its eclectic decoration, its halls decked with display cases filled to the brim with toy trains, model airplanes, mannekins in historic uniforms, assorted china sets and all kinds of such bric-à-brac. It caters mainly to a clientelle that’s likewise both diverse and eccentric — what is commonly termed in English as hipsters (and previous incarnations in bygone decades, such as rockabillies, goths, and vanguardas, down to old time’s janotas and pataratas).

I categorized Category:Pavilhão Chinês under Category:Hipsters and, later, under Category:Kitsch, after I created this category in July. Since then, almost all of its 13 edits consist of User:Beaumain removing those two categories and me putting them back. One of us needs to be told to stop.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Categories like "hipsters" are often misused, and this is an example of such misuse. Nothing but the user's opinion indicates that Pavilhão Chinês is related to hipsters. There's no sign that either the bar owners or its patrons identify as being part of hipster culture. The "toy trains, model airplanes, mannequin in historic uniforms, assorted china sets" have nothing to do with Wikipedia description of being "associated with indie and alternative music" and "flaunt a varied non-mainstream fashion sensibility". Hipsters are mostly a media stereotype that is often used derisively, and to put anything so loosely related to this category can be seen as offensive towards the people depicted or the bar owners. This is just like categorizing cross-dressed people as "gay" because they "seem to be gay", for example. Beaumain (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Beaumain and Tuvalkin: that may well happen and would not be entirely unuseful. If you search for "gay man", such pictures probably serve well to illustrate what you are trying to illustrate. But I won't oppose it if you move photos from Category:Gay men to Category:Males in female clothing for this reason if there is no reason to assume someone is actually gay. But don't bluntly remove categories. Some more specific categories may be useful and more clear: Category:Hipster bars and Category:Bars with kitsch maybe? Also, note that Commons categories and content in general are not held to the same standards as Wikipedia articles. Commons is very much a separate project in this regard. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Srittau - Abuse by admin

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Admin Srittau blocked User Jonny84 for a month and commented it with the words "I upped the block to a month so they can hopefully relax a little and use the time to reflect". It's obviously a punitive block..

How does this fits with the guidelines of the Commons blocking policy? "In this way, blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one; cool-down blocks are not condoned". relax/time = cool-down.. So if this is not condoned, there should be at least some consequences for breaking this standard..

Besides the first block was unnecessary, the second block was a strong abuse of admin rights and completely disproportionately.. Especially to a long-term contributor of Commons.. This is also a harmful behaviour to the project..

Briefly: In fact these blocks were not necessary to prevent damage or disruption, especially not the one month block.. Therefore these blocks are violating the block policy in a great way. --Radan (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

1) Radan is a Confirmed as a sock of Jonny84; this is block evasion. 2) It is practice to notify users concerned; @Srittau: . Эlcobbola talk 15:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Closed - user is blocked and cannot raise things here - Jcb (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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


Allforrous

Allforrous (talk · contribs)

Allforrous's last edit to his own talk page was in December 2016. Since then, he has received many communications from users about issues with his categorization edits. Most recently, I posted there when he reinstated an OVERCAT violation with no summary; noticing several posts above on similar issues from other users with no response, I came here. These behaviors (not using the talk page and introducing categorization issues) seem at least a little bit disruptive. I'm not recommending a solution to this as I'm not a Commons regular, but I just wanted to make the editors who read this noticeboard aware of this issue. Enterprisey (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Corrected.--Allforrous (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Enterprisey

Nonsense retaliatory request with zero evidence. CU is that way if you have evidence of such things. Otherwise, lets not launch unfounded accusations against people please. --Majora (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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.

Enterprisey (talk · contribs)

It bothers me with your puppet. Ref.: [11] [12] --Allforrous (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

B dash

B dash (talk · contribs)

No déjà vu.

User talk:B dash#Mass "no permission" tags on Lankiveil's uploads

User:Bidgee told B dash in very clear words why dead people don't clean up their uploads. In response to that, B dash tagged some more of Lankiveil's uploads with "no source" (a problem that was easily solved, something B dash could have done themselves anyway). As well as removing some old messages from Lankiveil's talk page, no idea why.

Well, you know me. I told B dash in even clearer words to watch the parrot sketch. B dash replied on my talk page. Please, tell me, was this instruction not clear enough? I guess not. And what did B dash say?

"I admit the no permission is my fault, I apologise here. However, the no source is tagging right. The file is missing the source, the user has the responsibility to add it."

Parrot sketch. Watch it again. Watch it for ten hours. Watch it however long it takes for you to get it.

I honestly don't know what to do anymore. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@B dash: Lankiveil = 死, 去世, 尸体, dead, muerto, patay, halott, overleden, tot. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
It concerns me that B dash thinks it is "No big deal". There is clearly issues that keep arising and going on a mass tagging spree with zero care that the user has passed away saddens me. Bidgee (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No big deal is not for this ANU, you misunderstand it. --B dash (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I really, really don't know what to do about this. For example, deletion nominations like:
  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:MTR URL C-Train Newsline Express.jpg (photo shows the television set in the train, what happens to be on isn't really important)
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:MTR MLR InfoDisplayBoard.jpg (trusted user who probably cropped/photoshopped their own photo before uploading. Go ahead B dash, nominate all my photos for deletion. I doubt any of them has EXIF)
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:NSA Scandal Caricature.jpg (derivative work of what?)
  4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:HIV-non-esiste.jpg (B dash was seeing invisible stickers, but granted, the nomination has been withdrawn now)
There's more, but my point has been made. Starting poor or just wrong DRs is not forbidden, but I feel like I should be babysitting B dash to prevent these DRs from being accidentally closed as "Deleted: per nomination". I don't want to babysit users. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I don’t see poor judgement by B_dash for the C-Train Newsline Express case. Compare it to e. g. this picture uploaded by a sock puppet, similar in composition and eventually deleted (without a formal delreq at all) as an unattributed derivative work. Read stuff on its inbound links if are interested in the story.
The MLR InfoDisplayBoard shows a poor intuition which would be a severe counter-indication for sysopping, but IMHO not a severe problem for a user. The remaining two cases are very regrettable, sure. I recommend B_dash to avoid files about unfamiliar topics. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
And look what does upload the same B_dash who lawyered about invisible stickers in an example above. Look which license template did B_dash supply, the template explicitly stating it isn’t applicable to two-dimensional works. I am frustrated that Commons may currently entrust B_dash even with the rollback privilege (see below). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: File:"I want free love" kim jong il (148022318).jpg too. He removed FoP-US, which is good, but it's not DM either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

As Alexis noted, B_dash has an extensive “history” on Commons. And it isn’t limited to proficiency specifically in English. Look at this five-months-old story. On his rights request B_dash argued that certain example of Cat-a-lot disruption is “normal cleaning up” and rollback should not be used against it. By the way, the bureaucrat Krd eventually overrode the discussion and granted rollback. And what do we see nowadays? B_dash undid modifications made by two users without uttering a word, not even in Yue or Chinese. Why on Earth is rollback discouraged for non-obvious cases? Namely due to shortcomings with verbalization. Well, we all make mistakes sometimes. When I requested an explanation, guess how did B_dash react? Posted some stuff on user_talk:Incnis_Mrsi, without a single piece of specific data, with a dumb heading, making the posting utterly unintelligible for an onlooker. Now look at user_talk:B_dash closer. Except the template notice above, the only thing authored by B_dash on it was… added by Alexis Jazz. Hence, B_dash was already warned about his inappropriate user_talk practice. I am sure, the community must exert a pressure on B_dash to make him use his user_talk for bidirectional communication. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a very weird but very common practice over at Chinese Wikipedia of replying on the poster's talk page, rather than on the original thread, when the thread is posted to the replyer's user talk page. I made some people who I interact with more regularly convert, but the majority of the community are just used to this scheme / convention.
@B dash: 既然你说你英文不好，那我中文说。两点问题：第一，如果上传者已知已死亡，那么你让他增加文件信息是没有任何意义的。如果你不能证明文件侵犯版权，那请你不要没有考证的情况下乱标记。第二，在C区如果我们有人在你用户讨论页增加话题，我们的惯例是在原有话题原位置回复，而不是在对方讨论页增加一个新的“回复”话题。这样有利于讨论的清晰度。如果对方没看见你回复，我们惯例也不是在对方讨论页提醒，而是{{Ping}}。很多人非常不喜欢讨论的散乱，所以请你遵守我们惯例。 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: thanks for the note about cultural differences. The Chinese user_talk practice looks weird from Europe, whereas the Chinese certainly deem our European system of personal names grossly redundant… and both would find the Japanese writing abhorrent. But do zh.Wikipedians really use such dumb headings as “Re”? Do such replies often begin with pronouns whose referent is cryptic? In short, is B_dash’s reply to me a good practice even by zh.Wikipedia standards? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes and yes and afaik yes. Some (may be a majority) do have context though. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Incnis Mrsi: I doubt that this reflects any significant cultural differences, rather than mere inertia after an initial case of computer illiteracy. That very same unefective way of threading ongoing two-party discussions was extensively used until recently in the Portuguese Wikipedia, for one. (Or cf. the whole matter of w:top posting in e-mail…) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This does look like a user who is trying to be vigilant. If some admin would delete a file nominated with insufficient checking as "per nomination" perhaps we should look into that admin. That's what admins are there for, to double check nominations and make these decisions. I am very much against shaming somebody for nominating files for deletion in the same way as many others do. Perhaps we should rename "Nominate for deletion" to "Bring to attention" and make it very clear that a this is not the only reason that the admin needs to delete a file. There was also an issue about a dead person being unable to fix the source of some image, but then we should look at the policies and clearly state that if a file has been uploaded by inactive user then it cannot be deleted because the source isn't provided. In other words something seems wrong with this whole thing here. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 14:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gone Postal: All users become inactive a moment after their last post. We have a huge backlog of files that haven't been checked for all sorts of problems. Where do you draw your line? We already drew a line at 1 January 2007 per COM:GOF.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Good point, that is why I think that bashing a user for asking somebody to fix the source when the user has died is unreasonable. Maybe B dash (talk · contribs) could have been a little more careful, but it's best to mark for attention and be wrong than to just more on. Much of the stuff I nominate for deletion I start with the phrase that I wish I am wrong and we can keep the file. So nominations or templates like "no source since" are not damaging to the project. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 14:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: Many admins delete files "per nom", especially when the nominating user isn't a newbie. It just happens. I'm not happy about it either. I would be happy to see something like FFD (Files For Discussion) like enwiki, but right now we don't have it.
"but then we should look at the policies and clearly state that if a file has been uploaded by inactive user then it cannot be deleted because the source isn't provided"
This is not what I would suggest. Though especially files from users who have passed away should probably be better protected somehow. In this case, the "source" field was empty but the author was clearly stated to be the uploader. Tagging that as "no source" instead of simply fixing the issue does not help the project in any way. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I agree that some different approach would be better, however, I disagree that it doesn't help. If marking as 'no source' or nominating for deletion is something so bad, then make it a special right and remove it from the left panel. But we need to let users easily bring files up for deletion. So what we have is the user who did what our whole community constantly telling every newbie to do when they see what they perceive to be an issue; and then we bring that user up on "User problems". I am currently using {{Crop video}} on those videos that have borders, imagine that tomorrow somebody would come, wrongly remove too much of the border, and then another user would bring me up for attention on Administrators' noticeboard because it was I who has damaged the file. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 08:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 Comment B dash appears to do his best to learn and improve, which I applaud. The issue often seems to be that when B dash has learned about one thing, he starts making a new but different mistake and the cycle repeats. Or maybe I only find them after he has learned something, who knows. Ultimately he's learning though. Here we go again: File:Greta Van Susteren interviews Donald Trump (3).jpg. The source is "Greta Van Susteren interviewing Donald Trump in the Singapore summit". What to do with that? Did B dash get the photos from Greta? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Tyler de Noche: abusive use of {{Speedydelete}} (Thousands!!!)

No admin action required here except to process the duplicates. Guanaco (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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.

Is there a way of massively reverting a {{Speedydelete}} tag, on the grounds of duplication, that has been inserted by Tyler de Noche. IMHO, such a tag (related to duplication) must be only added if the duplicated file is provided. This time, only a vague "Duplicates exist. Best to delete and allow the rest to exist. (Please revert if there isn't)". Is there a way to revert this? --Discasto talk 07:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC) PS: I thought is was just some files. I'm talking about literally thousands of files sent to speedy deletion without a valid reason.

I've processed quite a number of these 3600+ files, and so far there was only 1 without a corresponding duplicate. When scrolling down on the image-page one can easly see the automatically provided filename of the duplicate, if there exists one. For deletion of duplicates usually the template {{Duplicate}} should be used. But in this special case of a huge number of recently uploaded unused files, the used tag is o.k. IMO.--Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
My mistake then. Sorry, I didn't notice!!! --Discasto talk 08:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Discasto: I notified Tyler for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Мөнхзориг

Мөнхзориг (talk · contribs) Every single upload by this user is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Shizhao

Shizhao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Admin since 2006, but there are some problems.

Do I need to continue digging through this history? As a note: Shizhao does good work as well, and I am grateful for that, but the good to no-so-good ratio is.. not so good. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed the connection between Commons:Deletion requests/File:Opening Ceremany of a political reeducation camp in Lopnur County.jpg and File:Number of re-education related government procurement bids in Xinjiang.png. The latter is obviously PD-ineligible, for the former much greater care should have been taken before deleting it due to the censorship in the source country, but in fact, it was tagged as copyvio by shizhao before it was converted to a DR by KokBayraq. Luckily enwiki was able to recover it anyway. The PD-ineligible graph is used in the same article: w:Xinjiang reeducation camps which makes me question if that DR was politically motivated. Which would be Very Bad. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
It makes me a bit sad that @Shizhao: doesn't even try to defend himself here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
So please specify your desires more clearly. His English may not be very good.--Jusjih (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Neither is my Chinese. But if @Shizhao: would just acknowledge here they made mistakes, that would be a start. The number of issues is so big that the most appropriate solution would be (my opinion) to resign as admin for now, become familiarized with the policies and guidelines as they exist today (rather different from 2006) and once they have, apply for adminship again. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
"Jesus Christ" ? Please let Him in the Heaven, and don't involve Him with our poor things here, thanks. (Fortunately, you did not name the prophet of an oriental religion I know, or "Commons" would have risk an auto-bombing for blasphem reasons...)--Jebulon (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
No worries! Jesus is on my side. He told me.[citation needed] - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I know this discussion. I just didn't quite understand what the purpose of this discussion, so I don't know how to answer it. I will check more carefully for some pictures that may have problems.--shizhao (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
About OTRS: Because I was an OTRS member in the past, and the previous Commons did not have such strict requirements for adding OTRS tags. I didn't notice this change, this is my fault. OTRS self-reverted is thinking about this change, the operation.
About Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Works of Li Mei-shu: Because a large number of images do not have an OTRS tag added. I thought it was strange after submitting the deletion, so I immediately asked WMTW. I learned that they encountered some problems when dealing with OTRS, so for a while, many images did not have OTRS tag. So I closed the delete request myself.
About Xinjiang reeducation camps images: This is only a copyright issue. I don't know why it is a political issue?

--shizhao (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Shizhao: additional care should have been taken for the photo, it's a special case due to the censorship. You could have asked someone (or ask on COM:VP) to check if it could be transferred to Wikipedias as fair use. So far that's just suboptimal, policy doesn't strictly require this but it would be good practice in this case. The subsequent tagging of a related obvious PD-ineligible file as "no permission" is what worries me. And why you had tagged File:Rexsee logo.jpg? Beats me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz, "logos" are generally a messy issue for us, as what is protected or above TOO varies strongly from country to country. --Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
File:Rexsee logo.jpg not cc license--shizhao (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Shizhao: can such handwriting-style words in Latin script be copyrighted in the PRC? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: "Charles Bigelow" and "Kris Holmes" sure don't sound Chinese to me.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Shizhao: While in some cases regrettable, adding a license review to PD-mark content from Flickr is not the current practice on Commons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Popthemop27 ‎

Despite already having every file uploaded to Commons deleted as a copyvio, Popthemop27 ‎still doesn't seem to understand COM:L. Their latest upload of File:Seizo Oh Baby.jpg has just also been tagged as a copyvio. An attempt to explain the types of files Commons accepts was made at User talk:Popthemop27#Why are you trying to delete my pictures? and en:User talk:Popthemop27#Uploading files to Commons, but that didn't really help things. I'm not sure if a block is needed at this time, but perhaps an admin could add a {{End of copyvios}} to their user talk page, or post a more friendly personal warning to advise this editor to continue this type of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Anyone can send a warning because of copyright violations, but ✓ Done Yann (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: the wording of {{End of copyvios}} has been changed a while ago at my request to make it more suitable to be used by both users and admins. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that Yann. I'm aware of that recent change Alexis Jazz, but figured I'd ask another to do so in this particular case since I've not had much luck reaching this editor with previous posts. Moreover, their last post on their Wikipedia user talk page sort of indicates that they don't really understand quite a number of other things in addition to COM:L. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes people need a big red warning. Sad, but true. Hopefully it will work with this user. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Bacavima (talk · contribs)

Probable block evasion of Gm924 (talk · contribs) (check the contributions of the later to :es:wiki), who is seemingly back to business uploading copyvios.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Mugnezz

They keep overwriting File:Iron Wolf (Six Flags Great America) 01.JPG. They have not engaged in the discussion (see their talk page). They have overwritten several files over past years and have been previously warned by User:Túrelio on their talk page [13]. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the upload and blocked Mugnezz for 3 days for edit warring. De728631 (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe it could be explained to Mugnezz (talk · contribs) that additional images, possible replacements in Wikipedia articles, can (indeed: should) be uploaded as new files, instead of overwriting? Seems that’s what this user’s trying to do, not just plain nihilist vandalism. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done by colleague De728631. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hassanamin994

  • User: Hassanamin994 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  • Reasons for reporting: The user regarding is not frequently uploading copyvios or doing other things wrong, but instead uploads a lot of files with insufficient information (eg.1) and distorted format(eg.2). I believe these are some good-faith editing, but helping to cleanup every of his uploads is quite tiring. I have also tried to contact the user(See User talk:Hassanamin994), but the user regarding seems to ignore these advice (probably language barrier?). Can an administrator explain the situation to him?

廣九直通車 (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

廣九直通車: You should inform a user when you open a thread here. I did it for you this time, and I added a warning about copyright violations. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Exclude my block

Леонид Макаров (talk · contribs)

I was blocked for 6 months [14]. I believe that this blockage was unreasonably long - 6 months! Please exclude this block from my Special:block/Log.--Леонид Макаров (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Леонид Макаров. Someone can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I do not believe it is technically possible to remove the entry from your block log. By this I mean that it's not an issue of finding someone with advanced user rights, but that there is no functionality in the software that would allow anyone to do this, regardless of the level of access they have. GMGtalk 16:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I guess what Leonid means is revision deletion. Revdels can be made by administrators even in the block log, but a block will still be shown in the target user's record. Only the reason will be hidden. Therefore I don't see why this request should be granted. A complete removal of the blocking event from the log is not possible for technical reasons as GMG wrote. De728631 (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree that visibility should not be changed; for example: 1) the request is not timely. The block was in 2015 and there's no evidence the log entry has been a hindrance or disruption; 2) the request is only related to duration, implicitly acknowledging the block reason was proper; and 3) the issue was discussed with the blocking admin with no contemporaneous reference to a concern about duration or request for shortening. Эlcobbola talk 16:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No, it's not an exception. There is no requirement that first blocks be a certain length; per COM:BLOCK: "As blocks are preventative rather than punitive, use a block duration that is proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behaviour. Also consider the user's past behaviour and the severity of the disruption." This is really a question for Sealle; apparently his judgment was that six months was the time required (a possible measure of "past behaviour": at the time of the December block, you had warnings as for back as August--ca. 5 months.) One wonders why you've not discussed the duration choice with him. Эlcobbola talk 17:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
* Because this is the pattern of behavior of the administrator Sealle. To block on Commons and to remove for the same flags in the Russian Wikipedia. His behavior causes some friction among the participants in the Russian Wikipedia in relation to the project Wikimedia Commons.--Леонид Макаров (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Seems to me that the block was reasonable due to copyright violations. And it was in 2015. Requesting to hide it just now -- seriously? --A.Savin 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Savin: I don’t try to pass as friendly, at all, so your “exposing” of my bluntness is frivolous. As for the matter at hand, you claim that your asking (and achieving) for your block to be hidden is completely distinct from the o.p.’s. Well, it is, I’m sure, because you enjoy the advantages of cronyism and the o.p. does not. Which proves my point: Why are you entitled to have your past blocks expunged from the records while refusing the same to others? Also, @Odder: What’s your position on this request? (To be clear, I think no blocking records should be expunged, ever.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I object to your allegations of cronyism, @Tuválkin. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary, I would like you to withdraw this statement. I judged @A.Savin's request to suppress that block log entry—with agreement from other oversighters—not to fall under any criteria of the oversight policy, and I said so in the linked diff. As a courtesy to A.Savin, however, I decided to hide the log entry reason using RevisionDeletion, particularly given this post. As any administrator can confirm, the log entry was subsequently revdelled as a whole by @Revent who was the blocking admin. As far as this request is concerned, I agree with A.Savin that the situation is completely different (for one, the block reason is entirely factual) and I would not grant this request. I do, however, welcome this additional scrutiny of my actions from 2016, even if it's a little late. odder (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Absolutely not. Unless it is one of the reasons listed on COM:REVDEL any modification of the logs outside of that approved scope is simply an attempt to cover something up in my mind and should never be done. And yes, I can read, and I know that it says that list is "not exhaustive". But covering up a valid block is certainly not something we should be approving. At all. --Majora (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 Not done This is technically possible for any admin (use "Hide target and parameters"), but it simply is not supported by current policy. Although blocks are preventative rather than punitive, there is some level of stigma associated with being a formerly blocked user. I would be open to considering a policy proposal whereby block logs can be redacted after some months or years of good behavior. This would not truly cover up the fact of a past block, as there are usually block notices in the user's talk page history, but it would show a clean record to non-admins who glance at the user's block log. Admins can see revdeled log entries, so we could still consider the full block history when applying new blocks. To propose such a policy change, I recommend Commons:Village pump/Proposals. Guanaco (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a terrible idea. Record keeping is the cornerstone of the whole wiki editing philosophy. Old blocks may be a stigma, but they also can be a showcase of one’s personal growth and improvement, or of unfair treatment. Opening this kind of glaring hole in publicly available records props only some people’s vanity and serves no useful purpose. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Tuvalkin: the topic starter is from ru.Wikipedia. Some notorious members of it managed to force sysops to hide their block log, as a show of influence over that diseased community. On the other hand, the very idea of “unfair treatment” is alien to modern ru.Wikipedia – almost all users who could make such cases emigrated, are exiled, nearly inactive, or silent. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Why are these flagged?

I uploaded these eleven public domain images:[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] and I think this] is the best.

Immediately these eight came up with false positives for some Flickr deal: [25][26][27] [28][29][30][31] and [32]. I posted "This image was copied from a PDF of the cited Army Technical Manual by me in the last week." on some but have no idea how to correct it.

I contacted the talk page the bot directed me to and got this.

After showing diffs for false positives I was referred to some board that I have no understanding of. After posting "Even if I had any idea of what that link means" and "I don't understand" I got a completelnonsense (to me) reply, apparently blaming me for some initials.

"Read the diff again" and "to someone who can't read diffs"? I wrote the diffs to specifically show the problem. They show a

This image was originally posted to Flickr by at https://flickr.com/photos//. It has been reviewed on 2018-09-04 02:48:38 by FlickreviewR 2, which could not determine what the Flickr source image was.

dumping a dramatic red cross on the image.

Upload eleven, eight are flagged, no explanation, no fix. Sammy D III (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This looks related to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 70#Possible problems with User:FlickreviewR 2 bot?, though the problem was supposed to have been resolved already. The warning is there because the UploadWizard put the template {{Flickrreview}} on the files and the bot that reviews such files couldn't find a Flickr link. Since these files were never on Flickr, the warning can be removed, leaving only {{PD-USGov}}. Also, if you haven't done it already, you could upload the entire PDF to Commons as well, which would be useful for showing the provenence of the images you extracted from it. clpo13(talk) 21:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Why would anyone delete something for failing FlickrReview, when there's no Flickr link? It's either a 'bot failure or (as here) was never even on Flickr. Any competent human admin should recognise such, not plough ahead and delete it, just for the lulz. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I undeleted the image, seeing no valid reason for deletion, especially speedy. Guanaco (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 Comment You can just remove the warning, and add {{Own scan}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you people. I think it looks exactly like: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 70#Possible problems with User:FlickreviewR 2 bot?. This is being worked on at a higher level?

I have used Yann's "{{Own scan}}". I don't think I have ever touched any flag before but this seems to be a specific failure and not any judgment call. I have "Edit summary"ied my changes as such.

Again, thank you all. Sammy D III (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It is still doing it [33]. That image was a test from this morning. Fail. I hope some bot-repairman notices this. Sammy D III (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Well, since there is no link to Flickr, it is quite normal that the bot adds a failed review. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It shouldn't do that. Maybe tag it into some other category, but not the same category (leading to deletion) as a false claim of a Flickr licence. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I made an account at a bot-repair board, they knew about this. I showed them what was happening to me, maybe something will get fixed. Broken bots are just so stupid so fast. This one has me spotted, 100% failure now. No big deal, I'll come back and pick up the pieces later. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem is the Upload Wizard, not the bot.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

deletion for copyright infringement

Already at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests, so there is no need to duplicate this. Also, this noticeboard is for serious problems you encountered with other users, not for generic help requests. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

Hi, The image[[34]] that I have uploaded was deleted claiming "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: non-free film poster" I have uploaded the image with a permission from the owner. And there is no copyright violation. The poster is made public and was declared "no commercial value, only for cultural purpose" by the copyright owner. In this case, what can I do to undelete the image, I would also like to provide valid sources and copyright documents so that the image is not deleted again. I would really appreciate your help in this matter. Sincerely, A

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.

Harassment continuing from the English project

An anon who has managed to earn a one-year block of several IP ranges for their behaviour on the English project has decided to come here to "out" me and attack me. The initial attacks started in April 2018 with reverts of some of of the nominations I had made (such as this, this and this, but also personal attacks on my talk page. Now I don't mind having my IP address revealed, especially since I edit using my real name and some of the information is easily available on the Internet, but when the editor starts "outing" my neighbours we have a problem. I would like to have the edit history that records their information removed from my talk page please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I think I got it all and blocked the new IPs for good measure. Walter Görlitz, please also contact oversight and in the future posting such requests on such a public board such as this when there is personal information is probably not wise. Contacting admins, or more appropriately oversighters, in a more private manner is for the best. --Majora (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Jcb

I'm going to close this now as now as topics are floating and no problem solving in favor of the project is expectable. If there is any issue remaining, please reopen an ANU discussion on a specific topic and in an explicit civil manner. Thank you. --Krd 06:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

According to Commons:Administrators/De-adminship: "De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible". Read this just in time to prevent the request from being declined on a technicality.

So here is the text I was going to use on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 4):

For reference: Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship), Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2), Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3).

Thanks for all your work. Please retire now. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

So you disagree with a DR closure and instead of e.g. starting an COM:UDR you are attacking closing admin? First with a threatening message at my user talk page ("I'm not planning on asking twice" and then immediately asking for desysop? I have left a clear closure statement to the DR. I think my statement was more civil than the banner you posted in that DR. Are you planning to propose desysop for every admin you sometimes disagree with? Jcb (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I will make an undeletion request. But right now, how useful will that be? You will oppose it, no unanimous support, probably no undeletion. So I start here. This was the straw that broke the camel's back. You have contributed to two long-term contributors leaving Commons. You just deleted over 1000 photos that were fine. Some had to be deleted, but most of that was already sorted out. In fact, some already were deleted due to the work I had done. And it was quite some work. It wasn't finished. I asked you to undelete, but you refused. "I'm not planning on asking twice" was no threat. I just told you exactly how it is. I wasn't planning on begging you. If you had admitted your mistake and reverted your actions, the camel's back would still be intact now. Bruised, but intact. I gave you a chance, but only one. You didn't take it. Dropping a 1500+ file deletion after weeks of silence without asking if there have been any developments is not civil, regardless of closure statement. The banner describes your action on that DR like nothing else. You just destroyed I-can't-even-begin-to-imagine-how-many hours of work, I post a banner. Didn't yell, didn't call you names. If that's not civil I don't know what is. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I just looked at the delinker log and the damage is even bigger than I realized. You have bluntly removed everything, which included several verified public domain works like File:Moliere2.jpg. You didn't read before pressing your buttons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support starting another request.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support sadly, seems to be a patten that continues and is enough to be seen as an unbecoming of a administrator. Sysop is not a right but a privilege, and one where the community will be ensuring it isn't being abused. Bidgee (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Jcb is the most prolific deleter on Commons. I think this is in part because he invests a great deal of time into this project. I appreciate this and I know our backlogs will rapidly expand if he is desysopped. Unfortunately many of his deletions have been batch deletions (NASA photos, nsd, npd, etc.), undertaken without sufficient consideration. Looking at his deletion log, one can see many files deleted per minute, and no human can do this with the amount of care we should expect. We have lost good files to Jcb's carelessness. Some we have undeleted, but others are unnoticed and probably lost forever. This needs to change. I  Support this discussion but would prefer to come to a specific agreement with Jcb about what needs to change. If he is unwilling, he should not be an admin. Guanaco (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Guanaco: Did you take the time to have a look at the supposed problems as presented above? If so, please tell me what you think that I should change. Alexis refers to several DRs from the past in which they disagree with the outcome, but they were all after a long discussion with several experienced users commenting. In most cases nobody saw a reason to start an UDR. Only in the TechCrunch case there were several UDRs, but they all failed. So although I will of course make mistakes sometimes, in the cases presented above my closures had sufficient community support after all. Regarding the issues with two different users as mentioned above, a closer looks tells that their actions were indeed problematic and that admin action was needed. Then the event leading to this AN/U-topic. This was about this 5 months old DR. In the past months I have reviewed this DR several times. In July I decided to not yet act on the DR, to give Alexis some more time. But unfortunately Alexis did not disclose/explain any of their efforts to the community, nor did we receive anything at OTRS. So in my opinion the closure yesterday was very late rather than too early. Everything that could have been said had been said months ago and no evidence was presented in any way. What followed was a message from Alexis more or less saying: "I disagree with your closure of that DR. Undo your actions immediately or I will try to get you desysopped". I really hope you agree with me that such intimidation not is the established way to handle a disagreement over a DR closure. Instead, they should have gone to COM:UDR, where everybody can voice their opinion. If in the end the conclusion of the UDR would be different from the DR closure, we can always undelete the files. Jcb (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
      • This reply answers Guanaco's question: unwilling to change. TechCrunch wasn't deleted because of consensus or anything, it was deleted because of Jcb.
"Regarding the issues with two different users as mentioned above, a closer looks tells that their actions were indeed problematic and that admin action was needed."
So you bullied them away from Commons. Good job.
"But unfortunately Alexis did not disclose/explain any of their efforts to the community,"
There were plenty. Some comments on the DR itself as well as a VP thread. The thousands of categorization edits were not exactly stored in a vault either. Either way you could have asked me if I had forgotten, was planning to continue, needed help, etc. You're not banned from my talk page you know.
"and no evidence was presented in any way."
You didn't read the DR.
"What followed was a message from Alexis more or less saying: "I disagree with your closure of that DR. Undo your actions immediately or I will try to get you desysopped". I really hope you agree with me that such intimidation not is the established way to handle a disagreement over a DR closure."
You're actually paraphrasing me here, not quoting. This isn't just about this DR. As I said, straw that broke the camel's back. Or de druppel die de emmer doet overlopen if you have trouble understanding that. I had er schoon genoeg van, that's why I started this discussion. Not just that DR.
"If in the end the conclusion of the UDR would be different from the DR closure, we can always undelete the files."
Deletion is often a one-way street: deletion is easy. Undeletion is hard, because the file is no longer visible. Whenever asking for an undeletion, I often don't even know for sure what I'm asking to be undeleted, I can only guess most of the time. And too often, consensus needs to make room for your opinion. Starting a UDR isn't too hopeful as long as you are an admin. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb: I think the statement by Alexis Jazz, "For the record, I'm not planning on asking twice." is not the most friendly, but the threat is implicit at worst. We can talk about Alexis in a different thread if needed. Here is what I believe needs to change:
  • When a file has a problem tag (nsd, npd, nld), the reviewing admin should determine whether deletion is actually the correct outcome. Sometimes the source is obviously easy to find. Sometimes the specific origin of our particular copy of an image is missing, but there is enough evidence on hand to confirm public domain status. Yes, it is the uploader's responsibility to add this information, and files missing essential information are speedy candidates under F5. However, admins should use their discretion to save useful, in-scope content wherever possible. "No permission" in particular requires a fair amount of attention and consideration. Sometimes the permission is visible on the source site, but the patroller didn't see it. The tag is also often used to dispute a claim that a file is the uploader's own work, and the only way to clearly resolve it is OTRS, which is worse than useless when a file's claimed creator is a non-notable individual. When processing these categories, only rapidly delete obvious junk and copyvios. Other files should be properly investigated. If you don't want to look into something thoroughly, convert it to a DR instead.
  • When there is a large, complex batch DR with different authors and likely varying copyright status, either investigate it before deleting files, or let another admin handle it. If a discussion is incomplete but has grown inactive, you can comment on it rather than closing. The Huntington case goes beyond this. There were even files noted to be clearly public domain in the discussion, and other files which had been individually vetted by trusted users. They should have had their copyright information corrected, not simply deleted. The recent NASA case is another example of overly bold and destructive deletion. Stop throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
  • When a file has questionable copyright status but there is room for doubt, start a DR. F1 speedy deletion is for obvious cases only. It is improper to speedily delete such files, then direct the uploader to UDR or OTRS when they object. No, they should have had the opportunity to easily respond in a DR.
  • Most generally, you should slow down. Your deletion log reflects bot-like behavior, often deleting many unrelated files per minute. Sometimes this involves VFC. I will grant that most are valid deletions, but your false positive rate is higher than the norm and it is harmful to the project. Guanaco (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Jcb, the above analysis and points raised by Guanaco seem reasonable, well argued, and highlight areas where there are likely problems with your actions. This is the sort of "discussion leading to improvement" that I was looking for, rather than the accumulation of votes by people who already wanted your head, which contribute absolutely nothing useful. I fully expect you to respond here and point out how you are going to improve/change and agree on what areas you got wrong. In addition to criticizing Alexis for inappropriate escalation, I also think creating a huge DR with heterogeneous files/permissions/owners that is likely to require splitting and salvaging in bits is a dumb thing to do. We can see that every other admin "barge-poled" this DR for months. Please help out the admins by doing some homework yourself and raising smaller more cohesive DRs in future. Remember that there is no rush. Jcb, if I don't see an appropriate response, I will join the others in supporting your de-admin. -- Colin (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • So the main issue seems to be that the error rate may be higher than needed especially in the 'no permission since' and the 'no source since' category? I must say I am not a fan of these two tags, because basically they move the responsibility for telling what's wrong from nominator to processing admin. In the past I have proposed to dismantle these two processes and demand a regular DR instead for all cases. That proposal did not receive sufficient support, so that the processes remained in place. In principle I do look at the individual files when handling these cats and untag some files instead of deleting them, e.g. if they can be kept with PD-textlogo. I am willing to take more time for these cats in order to reduce the error rate. On the other hand it would be great if people could contact me at my user talk page if they think I made a mistake. We all need feedback in order to learn. Jcb (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Too many long term repeated issues and unhappy long term community members affected by their poor sysop actions.
(Use of sysop deletions) The speedy deletion of NASA public domain photographs were unnecessary and responses overly defensive, "go to UDR" with its aggressive archive-in-24-hours is inadequate consideration or self reflection. Speedy deletions on files like File:Handicapped! Women's suffrage poster, 1910s.jpg are inappropriate sharp practice , and images like this which are available from the Library of Congress as they are the creation of an organization rather than the possible artist, should invariably be properly discussed by the community as they are not "obvious" copyright violations but have a potential rationale for a public domain status.
(Use of sysop protections) Use of sysop tools like the unexplained indefinite sysop only protection on File:Aktiva engineering.jpg should be correctly justified and accountable, not happen like the actions of secret police without edit comment or opportunity for community review.
(Use of sysop blocks) Blocks of accounts like the one month block of User:Darwish203 are required per COM:BP to have both warnings and a block notice, yet in that case Jcb has never edited the users talk page. Jcb appears to routinely skip policy required steps which is a direct misuse of sysop tools.
Overall Jcb's responses to problems and complaints is defensive and dismissively arrogant, this is a direct failure to comply with COM:Administrators per "Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends. Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies, and where appropriate, respect community consensus." Sadly, despite several desysop proposals on AN/ANU and long tedious discussions about Jcb's unacceptable behaviour, I know of no other non-confrontational way properly and credibly to hold Jcb to account than a desysop discussion and vote, even though such a vote is unlikely to result in any other outcome than entrenchment of behaviours. --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: you know where COM:REFUND is. I just don't feel like I can right now. Issues like these are too much for me. And Jcb has seen this thread. He has seen my message above. He didn't undelete Moliere2.jpg himself. That tells the whole story right there for me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I support troutwhacking User:Alexis Jazz for initiating de-sysop procedures (combined with collecting past issues so we can all get a chance to bitch) rather than initiating a discussion on the case he is personally upset about. This is nothing less than a revenge de-sysop and should be speedy closed by the 'crats. We need to stop these wargames, because it is disruptive and harmful to the project to keep attacking each other all the time, and for admins to have to keep defending themselves against not only the issue-at-hand, but also all prior complaints, all the time. By all means start a discussion on the deletion of these files and keep it on that topic. If, at the end of that discussion, there is a consensus (not a fucking vote!) that Jcb has made a huge mistake and does not appreciate that or does not agree to change, then escalate things. But the alternative that the DR was complex and we could do with learning lessons constructively about how to improve procedure or behaviour or communication of all participants.
The DR Alexis is upset about was created by Alexis in April and the images deleted in August. I ask Alexis why they couldn't have done the homework to determine which of 1729 files were legit, prioritising those in-use on Wikipedias, prior to creating a DR. Or that the intervening months were sufficient for Alexis to have done this? Do you think other people should do this work? If they haven't, why are you only blaming Jcb? -- Colin (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I had categorized most of the files in ways that allowed selective deletion. I won't dignify the rest of your message with a response. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see a pattern of behavior that requires immediate desysop at this time. One would wonder why Alexis did not file a UDR but a de-sysop request and why they felt it does more good than harm to Commons to desysop Jcb. If you disagree with a sysop action, there are better ways to resolve it than to request immediate desysop. For example, you could bring the issue to the attention of other admins or the community. I am not happy that what follows your query on Jcb's talk page is a desysop request. I now understand why you wrote I'm not planning on asking twice on Jcb's talk page and why they perceived it as a threat. I am sorry but I have to oppose this request at this time. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 Comment @Alexis Jazz: How many admins have you brought here in the last weeks? I can count three at least, but they're possibly more. --Discasto talk 21:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Cookie erred on a license review (reviewing something that was likely laundered) and the issue couldn't be resolved on her talk page, but I admit I had erred as well on a detail. The license is still most likely laundered and Cookie needs to be more careful when reviewing. That was all. Again, I had erred myself on a detail so not all of my words in that report still reflect how I feel about the case. Shizhao is more like a Fanghong-light. Shizhao became admin in 2006, when becoming admin was easier. If Shizhao requested adminship today, they would never get it. Shizhao's lack of response so far means a desysop request will possibly follow, but such a request requires "some consensus for removal" and so far nobody has responded to it yet. The third admin is Jcb, this thread. If there is a problem with any of these reports, please tell me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:T Cells - UDR is the correct venue for this, Desysopping over something so trivial as this is laughable at best, I suppose I'll be dragged back here later on!, I'd suggest closing this as "Wrong venue". –Davey2010Talk 22:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, you can imagine how unimpressed I am with his use of the monkey selfie (which anyway ought to be deleted under COM:PRP) to troll Bob Vila [35]. Why are admins permitted such things, which would promptly rsult in blocks for regular editors? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
A Wikipedian Andy Dingley accuses somebody of bad conduct in some obscure Bob Vila incident while having habits to write such things as “Incnis Mrsi is one of the worst sort of destructive trolls” and edit-war over keeping it online. I have no idea how serious is the problem with PD-UK-unknown mentioned in the paragraph above, but all the “troll” part should be entirely dismissed if only because of its origin. My preference is strongly with Jcb with all his shortcomings rather than the rampant Wikipedian hypocrisy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Grudge much? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
An error: typo / 'bot, whatever has led to a lot of useful images (flooding on the Missouri) getting uploaded here from Flickr, checked by FlickrReview and then accidentally the tag getting deleted during a cat change. They then get flagged automatically into Category:Media without a license: needs history check. Note the name here, needs history check – nearly everything in here is a valid file which has had a valid licence accidentally lost. They need restoration, not questioning their veracity or deleting them.
So what does Jcb do? He tags them for immediate deletion.
We've been admonished here for "wasting company time" with this deadmin request. Yet how much time does this careless deletion waste? Let alone if it goes further and they do actually get deleted?!
We do no need another admin here whose operating principle is to simplistically find things that he might get away with deleting, rather than fixing whatever the real issue was. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud, Andy, would you stop wasting our time with this? A user, a human being, not a bot, using VisualFileChange, removed the CC licence template. That's the error here and it was made by a person, not some bot as you claim. Sixteen hours later, the US Army template is added, and all is well. No files were lost. The user who made the mistake, and fixed it, has not complained to Jcb, or anyone else. You make an issue of it and first mention of the issue is here. You also falsely claim the category they were put into. It was actually Category:New uploads without a license which just requests the admin look for "easy to fix typos, already added license templates or problem tags" before adding the {{No license}} tag that Jcb added. So he followed written procedure. If you think that procedure should additionally require the admin to search the description/categories to see if, by some chance, there's a licence they could guess would apply, then by all means open a discussion on that. They can't, for example, restore the removed CC licence, since the material is in the PD and so cannot be CC licensed. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I have "without a license: needs history check" watchlisted, maybe Jcb was watching them on "New uploads without a license". Either way, there are plenty of them.
A good admin would realise that they're bulk-tagging images from the same uploader and would look deeper to see if there was an underlying reason. Otherwise they shouldn't bother doing anything, they should let a 'bot do it. We don't need admins to do mechanistic stuff without judgements. This reason is obvious, and it's uncontentious. Your claim that admins are somehow prevented from looking deeper is crap. As is your contention that the CC- licence is inapplicable because you think the material ought to be PD (besides which, Jcb is busy deleting PD material that's Flickr sourced too, because he is one (sadly of several) who disagrees with how Flickr annotates this - a separate question).
A competent admin would not turn an obvious and easily fixed typo into a series of deletion requests. A good admin might even restore them themselves, although that's onerous. Jcb is a bad admin - he just sees an excuse to get his deletion on, because that's Serious Admin Bizness. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Andy, I based my comments on the first image that appeared on the user talk page at the time which was this file. The file has now been tagged by the uploader as "PD-USGov-Military-Army". I take no view as to whether this is correct, so your claim above ("you think the material ought to be PD"), isn't fair. I'm just AGF that the uploader is correct on this matter. I see you also wrote "Colin seems to want them deleted as they shouldn't be CC-by" which is a very odd claim I'd like you to strike please. What appears to me to have occurred is that the uploader mistakenly tagged them CC, meant to replace that with the PD-US tag, but accidentally removed all copyright tags. My comment about CC was merely that any admin can't/shouldn't just revert the edit that removed licence tag, because as it turns out, that licence tag was wrong and cannot be used for PD images. I agree that many times Jcb appears to do less investigation than an ideal admin would do, and many people would wish he did more and took more time. But the template spells out the required admin steps, and Jcb followed them. If you want admins to be required to do more, on pain of losing their bit, then open a friendly civil discussion at the appropriate forum, and the admins can all agree on documenting "best practice". This would benefit not only Jcb but also every other admin, including newbies. From the above, all we can see is you are upset and have an axe to grind, and are making mistakes yourself when it comes to understanding/reporting what other people have said/done. The above scenario you link, where everything worked out fine, and the only person who got upset is you (a third party), is not going to convince anyone here. -- Colin (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • since the material is in the PD and so cannot be CC licensed. is your claim, no-one else's, that material in the PD cannot be licensed under CC.
Why not? It's not necessary, but that's not the same thing. I know of no reason why someone cannot CC license PD content for which they hold the rights (and being in the PD doesn't mean that one loses all rights to it, particularly not moral rights to be identified as its author). That's not to say either that anyone else can't still come along and use it as PD (ignoring the CC-by).
But what we don't do on WP is to mess with the originator's expressed licence, unless there's a damned good reason.
Besides, this is a digression. The point here is about Jcb.
Should an admin, who encouters a trivial technical glitch, and then turns it into a series of automatic deletion requests instead, still have an admin bit? If they were a 'bot script, we'd either fix that or withdraw their 'bot permissions. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The CC license (which, as would be immediately obvious from the license review) is there on Flickr. And it's a worldwide license, so it shouldn't be removed. It is valid for any country which is not certain to recognize PD-USGov. It is also valid in case the work turns out not to be covered by PD-USGov for any reason or if PD-USGov would be retracted in the future. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Well it turns out to be nuanced. "May I apply a Creative Commons license to a work in the public domain?" I am correct that you cannot apply a CC licence to material that is in the public domain, but the nuance is that that is "worldwide PD". CC point out that the "U.S. government works" => PD is a US law and not necessarily applicable elsewhere. For works that really are PD worldwide, adding a CC tag could be considered to be copyfraud, and not acceptable on Commons. I note that our template states "As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." and does not warn it is only PD in the US. I'm interested in investigating this further but will ask on another noticeboard. I don't think it is at all reasonable to speculate that "PD-USGov would be retracted in the future" with retrospective effect.
Coming back to the case. Our Commons:Deletion policy clearly states "If there is some licensing information missing, then the file gets tagged as missing information and the uploader is informed and given 7 days time to correct the problem.". Notice, as always, the onus is on the uploader to demonstrate the file can be legally hosted here. It goes on to say "Files missing source or licensing information should be tagged with one of the following messages. " and lists several templates including the "No license since" one Jcb added. Contrary to what Andy said above, this is not "tagged for immediate deletion", but the start of a 7 day process that is absolute written in our policy. There is no requirement or even suggestion in our policy that such images must be investigated thoroughly by the admin before tagging, or even for that matter, before deleting. If the uploader, after 7 days, has not supplied the information, "After this period the file can be deleted by an admin on sight without further debate, if the information is indeed missing.". We could debate what "indeed missing" is intended to imply, but the point is these files did not reach that stage. If you wish to place more burden on the admin at any point in that procedure, go get the policy wording changed. The procedure, as documented in policy, worked perfectly and the uploader fixed the missing licence information within a day. The point of all this is that you guys are making this out to be yet another reason why Jcb should hang, when in fact, this is very much an example where things just worked fine. Now, go and do something more useful instead. .. -- Colin (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Statistics and analysis to illustrate patterns of behaviour

Deletions in 2018

In 2018 Jcb has deleted 50,620 files. The largest in a day was on 2018-07-09 with 2,515 deletions with the mathematical average being over 200 files per day. There has been no day in 2018 when Jcb has not deleted files. The monthly summary: 

+----------+--------+
| Deletions| Month  |
+----------+--------+
|     5670 | 201801 |
|     7906 | 201802 |
|     6013 | 201803 |
|     6750 | 201804 |
|     7781 | 201805 |
|     7327 | 201806 |
|     6501 | 201807 |
|     2672 | 201808 |
+----------+--------+

Restorations in 2018

Numbers of file restorations per month of files deleted by Jcb in 2018, but later overturned:

Restoration
not Jcb		 Restoration
by Jcb		 Month
264 374 2018-08
250 640 2018-07
374 37 2018-06
89 61 2018-05
258 13 2018-04
139 566 2018-03
Not sure what you want to tell with this. I guess the majority of these files (granted that the numbers would be correct, which I doubt), are files for which we receive OTRS permission after deletion, so that they are restored by an OTRS agent. Jcb (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be missing the more common event that rather than changing your mind, users have to go to an full undeletion request and some other administrator then reverts your deletions. At the time of writing this, the table is not yet complete, there will be six months showing both files you restore and those that others have to restore.
As for the numbers, these are straight off the Commons wiki database, others can check my SQL if they want to. --Fæ (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but these numbers a. are clearly too high (and the numbers in the deletion table clearly too low), so probably you use the wrong query and b. say nothing. And also your statement about the 'full undeletion request' is mistaken. Most active OTRS agents are admins. They undelete the files without going to UDR, often even without giving the files a final clearance, many undeleted files are in Category:OTRS received, because a permission came in via OTRS but it was not (yet) sufficient. Most undeletions probably do not mean at all that the original deletion was wrong. Jcb (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I have no reason to doubt the database. I know how OTRS works thanks, I volunteered there for 2 years. User:Faebot/SandboxJ --Fæ (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
It's very easy to check for everybody that your numbers are incorrect, e.g. by checking the history of Commons:Database reports/Users by log action. Jcb (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Then no doubt Steinsplitter can highlight why the differences exist. Amongst other things, the data that Steinsplitter tabulates cannot be used to calculate a count of files that you have deleted and others restored, nor does the deletion count limit itself to files, or files that appear in the filearchive table with unique values rather than, say, counting multiple deletions or revision deletions. --Fæ (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: The script is just counting logs (from the logging table). Basically what you find on Special:Logs. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, this was my presumption. Unfortunately it is easy for folks to confuse log_actions such as deletion with naturally understood things like file deletions. I recall an old WMF dev d/b scheme which was how I started to understand how the underpinning structure worked, but it is hard to imagine a non-technical user making much sense of the descriptions on MediaWiki simply in order to interpret local handy metrics. --Fæ (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Does your script correctly filter files that I deleted after restoration instead of before restoration? Jcb (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
You can read the SQL, the bit that goes u.log_timestamp<l.log_timestamp means that others are restoring the file after your deletion. --Fæ (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The numbers of restorations this month (so far) is quite interesting. Jcb deleted 5,670 unique files this month (based on the filearchive table). Though most people will find this is an impressive number, one has to question if it is a good thing that also within the same period, 11% of that total have been undeleted and 4.6% undeleted by other administrators. That looks like a lot of "premature" deletions create work for collegiate uploaders and fellow administrators. A more positive approach for pending OTRS tickets or simply encouraging meaningful discussion before bureaucratic deletion for non-obvious cases, especially for uploaders with good track records, could avoid much of this work creation. --Fæ (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Fae the numbers alone do not tell us much, and are contested by Jcb. A DR of 500 images with the same problem requiring deletion and a DR of 5 images with the same problem requiring deletion are just two DRs and may require similar time to analyse, yet the former appears as 100x more in your stats, equivalent to an admin performing 100 DR deletions each of 5 files. Jcb claims there are legitimate per-process reasons for some files to be undeleted by him and others. One cannot tell, from your queries, whether these undeletions were due to a problem with Jcb's original deletion. For that, you need to work out why each of the files were undeleted, and you may have to ask an actual human being to find out, and to collate files into the DR batch they came from rather than counting them individually. Bare numbers are useless: there are some users here who exceed my yearly edit count in an hour simply by using automated tools to move files around the categories. -- Colin (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Account blocks over the last 6 months

Analysing the most recent six months of Jcb's use of the account blocking tools, removing anonymous IP blocks and changes to existing blocks, shows that Jcb has blocked 73 different named accounts out of a total of 90. The pattern demonstrates that Jcb never gives the required block notice, a step clearly required by Commons:Blocking policy.

Cases where the account is a newbie, more often than not there has never been a warning or block notice with Jcb never having made any edits to the user's talk page, e.g. User:Intisar Ali was blocked but despite the block log showing the block was given after warnings, Jcb has never edited the user's talk page, there was no block notice and the only "first stage" notices that are not the standard warnings that a block may be forthcoming. This appears to be an extreme form of biting the newcomer.

Other cases where the user is a long time contributor such as User:WPPilot who contributed since 2009, there was no block notice, nor any advanced warning for the one-week block of their account. This incorrectly processed block led to an escalation of debate with the user marking their account as inactive a month later.

In some cases the user has appealed the block and Jcb has responded to that, even though it is bizarre that there never was a block notice that explains the rationale of the block that the user can sensibly respond to in an appeal. E.g. User:Rbworld528 was blocked and then had a lengthy appeal discussion, but none of that discussion was based on any block notice. The initial unblock decline was based on previous notices, but the block itself was not defined as being based on these, naturally becoming a source of confusion as shown by the blocked user's first question "Why did you guys block me again?".

In a small minority of cases the absence of any warning or block notice can be justified as the user is clearly a sock account of a long term abuser, e.g. User:Liza Veniza Wiki Fucker, where the creation of a talk page would be redundant. This does not excuse the poor application of sysop tools against required policy on the significant majority of blocked accounts.

List of 6 months of named accounts with new blocks by Jcb
  1. 27 August 2018 LuizLuz (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  2. 25 August 2018 Aiolos78 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  3. 23 August 2018 Afia Bi (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Disruptive edits after warning)
  4. 18 August 2018 Homa007 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  5. 18 August 2018 Truerockstar77777 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Disruptive deletion nominations after warning)
  6. 15 August 2018 VV2310 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  7. 11 August 2018 John Roland Mew (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  8. 11 August 2018 Intisar Ali (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  9. 22 July 2018 Truerockstar77777 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Disruptive deletion nominations after warning)
  10. 20 July 2018 Darwish203 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  11. 17 July 2018 Kokomo Lesotho mounted (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (vandal)
  12. 12 July 2018 Lapinboxeur (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  13. 11 July 2018 שבלול חמוץ (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  14. 8 July 2018 Helsing90 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  15. 5 July 2018 Yankee Doodle Dandelion (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (vandal)
  16. 5 July 2018 Majosoes (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  17. 4 July 2018 Please 'em all (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (vandal)
  1. 2 July 2018 Rbworld528 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  2. 29 June 2018 Johnnpaultubig (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  3. 26 June 2018 The Unknown Horror (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  4. 26 June 2018 Fhsig13 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  5. 23 June 2018 ZangyPineapple (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  6. 22 June 2018 Rbworld528 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  7. 22 June 2018 Lizia Veniza fjuck TegeI tengil and Oleg3280 porn00 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (vandal)
  8. 22 June 2018 Jcb changed block settings for Liza Veniza Wiki Fucker (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (vandal)
  9. 22 June 2018 Liza Veniza Wiki Fucker (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (vandal)
  10. 21 June 2018 Spremi (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  11. 19 June 2018 Womennns (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  12. 18 June 2018 Zhxy 519 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 day (account creation blocked) (Disruptive edits after warning)
  13. 15 June 2018 Onan peyon (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked) (Adding out of project scope content after warnings)
  14. 12 June 2018 T-Houda86 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  15. 9 June 2018 Mohammad Mujibul Hoque Khan (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  16. 7 June 2018 Kiko Juncaj (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  17. 7 June 2018 金鹰泰 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Adding out of project scope content after warnings)
  18. 7 June 2018 ZangyPineapple (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  19. 5 June 2018 AYTgraphics (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  20. 1 June 2018 Oolonga (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  21. 1 June 2018 Umeyou (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  22. 29 May 2018 Bololabich (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  23. 27 May 2018 Henrik Boy2 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  24. 27 May 2018 Sourlemoning (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  25. 26 May 2018 Ckck (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked) (Disruptive deletion nominations after warnings)
  26. 22 May 2018 Thimoty Freick (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  27. 19 May 2018 Мой Псевдоним (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  28. 18 May 2018 The Ringits (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account)
  29. 17 May 2018 Вы не можете остановить коровий вандализм (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (vandal)
  30. 6 May 2018 Michaelaleo (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Disruptive edits after warning)
  31. 3 May 2018 Sourlemoning (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  32. 29 April 2018 WPPilot (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Removing warning after clear instruction to not remove warning)
  33. 29 April 2018 Nina07011960 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (vandalism at [[COM:UDS])
  34. 29 April 2018 Wilsoncleveland (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  35. 27 April 2018 Kiko Juncaj (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  36. 26 April 2018 Philippe Simard (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  37. 25 April 2018 Sagnickacharya (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  38. 25 April 2018 Wiklib14 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  39. 25 April 2018 Jacksuck (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Adding out of project scope content after warnings: also copyvio)
  40. 22 April 2018 Mezhin (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  41. 21 April 2018 Mohammed Amine Bourkadi (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  42. 21 April 2018 Eulucasmateus (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  43. 13 April 2018 Ckck (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Disruptive deletion nominations after warnings)
  44. 13 April 2018 SockPuppetry INC. (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Apparently a sock of an LTA)
  45. 13 April 2018 AcaPetrina1775 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 day (account creation blocked) (To stop upload bot)
  46. 9 April 2018 Bilal Barbon 1997 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  47. 7 April 2018 Henrik Boy2 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  48. 7 April 2018 Editors34 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  49. 6 April 2018 DreamShooter7 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  50. 5 April 2018 Vandãlism Beetle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account)
  51. 4 April 2018 Olsen24 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account)
  52. 3 April 2018 T-Houda86 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  53. 2 April 2018 DanielFreitas (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  54. 1 April 2018 Ckck (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Disruptive deletion nominations after warnings)
  55. 31 March 2018 BearSatterstrom (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account)
  56. 29 March 2018 CrossYourself (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Vandalism-only account)
  57. 29 March 2018 Sandulacki (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  58. 26 March 2018 Achmadmaulanaibr (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Violations of COM:OVERWRITE after warnings)
  59. 24 March 2018 Henrik Boy2 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  60. 23 March 2018 GabrielStella (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 year (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  61. 14 March 2018 Vishwajeet ratoniya (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  62. 13 March 2018 Abolfazlmb98 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  63. 13 March 2018 Fabriciofffs (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Disruptive edits after warning)
  64. 12 March 2018 EnzoLopes01 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  65. 10 March 2018 Eulucasmateus (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  66. 10 March 2018 Dipanshu Kalyan (Student) (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (vandalism/spam only account)
  67. 7 March 2018 Tunghoanhzz (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  68. 7 March 2018 LeAnMeFa (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  69. 5 March 2018 Wil13 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  70. 5 March 2018 Yarheli JG (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  71. 4 March 2018 Taenarra (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  72. 4 March 2018 Angeljihoon (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)
  73. 4 March 2018 Magnus Aukland (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings)

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This report is inaccurate. In principle, before I block there has been a clear warning at the user talk page, normally containing the word 'warning', consistent with the block reason. While I did not check the whole log line by line, I did check several from the list above and found no errors. A look at User talk:Intisar Ali, explicitly mentioned above by Fae, shows that this one is no exception. Different from the Fae statement, a clear warning was (and still is) present at the user talk page here, saying: "Consider this your last warning. Continuing to upload copyright violations will result in your account being blocked." - Not sure what could be ambiguous in this message. Jcb (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually there are plenty of cases in this list of blocked accounts where you never edited the user's talk page. This case is one of those.
In the case of Intisar_Ali, you have never edited the user's talk page, either to add notices of any kind, nor has the user ever received a block notice despite being blocked for a week. The notice you refer to here was left by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs) a month before the block was given and Intisar_Ali challenged that judgement at the time, but nobody bothered to talk with them about it. There are later notices about other files, but no other warning notices. By failing to provide a warning and not being bothered to add a block notice, you have failed to meet the most basic requirements of COM:BP and failed to act in a courteous manner for this user.
The fact that you never use block notices for the user accounts you block is both surprising as this is a firm requirement on all administrators, and should be justification to remove your use of these sysop rights in the light that you fail to see this is a problem, nor seem willing to change or improve your behaviour. --Fæ (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb: for the case of AcaPetrina1775 (talk · contribs) you never produced an appropriate notice in spite of my explicit request to do so. You neglected to place the message and, worse, you evidently don’t care about events on the user_talk in dereliction of the blocking policy. It is sad to read for you, but Jcb isn’t a popular person on Commons despite a great performance with admin actions; because the quality of said actions is questionable. If you lose sysop (now or on next similar incident), then you will not get it back in a foreseeable future. Therefore, if you want to retain a position on this site, then you must carefully follow the policy and hence avoid attacks on formal pretexts. Please, change your attitude at last. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

While there may well be something amiss from Jcb's blocking practice, it would be helpful if several admins commented here, rather than just one user with a grudge and too much free time presenting spurious numbers and demanding removal of Jcb's bit.

I think there are probably no admins who follow our blocking policy correctly. I know of one crat who thought Commons has "cool down blocks" despite the opening paragraph of our policy clearly stating it doesn't. I know another admin who edit warred to restore text added by a globally banned user and then blocked the user he was edit warring with, with no warning, and I remember Fae being very very very upset when WMF removed that admin's bit. I do think Jcb's block of User:WPPilot was incorrect, and have had a similar situation where a random admin demanded they be acknowledged and responded to personally, and blocked out of anger -- so there are probably a lot of admins who get a god complex at times, and think that the peasants must respect and talk to them or else lightning bolts and plagues.

If all the admins agree that leaving a block template after blocking is necessary then presumably that's something Jcb could agree to. Do all other admins do that themselves in all cases? -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that a block template after blocking is necessary. We discussed recently about this, and IIRC, the template should mention how to request unblocking. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: , Do you have a link to that recent discussion? I have missed it. I am not against using such a template if there is some consensus that it would be needed. As far as I am aware it's a recent tendency to use these templates, in the past is was hardly done. I have never used it till now, because it was IMHO not adding anything. The system clearly shows the block reason to the blocked user and a warning with the same reason was always already present at the user talk page. And instructions how to request unblocking, are they no longer in the system block message? Jcb (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb: I had to dig among archives of 3 different boards. It is clearly mentioned in Commons:Blocking policy#After blocking, and it was discussed at length in July, which resulted in this proposal: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Proposal to add additional language to existing block templates. See also Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Are there enough admins to handle a change in the process. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with other administrator working practices

In the previous week (22 August through to 28 August inclusive) there were a total of 39 account blocks for accounts that were not filtered out based on the block comment as spambots, open proxies or were on IP anon accounts. Breaking these down by the blocking administrator and checking talk pages for block notices shows:

  • Achim55, 2 blocks, all pages have block notices
  • Elcobbola, 15 blocks, all pages have block notices
  • EugeneZelenko, 1 block, has a block notice
  • Guanaco, 2 blocks, 1 missing block notice, 1 sockpuppet template. User:Manhumirim Lew is identified with a sockpuppet notice and Eportal is logged as spam-only
  • Jcb, 3 blocks, no block notices. Aiolos78 no notices. User:Jonny84 previous block notice about a block by a different sysop. LuizLuz a discussion thread but no block notice
  • Jdx, 1 block, has a block notice
  • Krd, 1 block, no block notice. Hkyhjurt is logged as abusing multiple accounts, but there is no sockpuppet template or other link to evidence
  • Magog the Ogre, 4 blocks, 3 block notices and 1 sockpuppet template. Two blocks in the 7 days were on the same account, each block has a block notice. Cnsmrsshp is marked with a sockpuppet template. Erineu Pedro Manuel has two block notices, one from the last 7 days.
  • P199, 1 block, username block notice
  • Rodhullandemu, 1 block, sockpuppet template
  • Ronhjones, 3 blocks, 3 block notices
  • Steinsplitter, 1 block, has a block notice
  • Taivo, 1 block, has sockpuppet template
  • Túrelio, 1 block, block notice given
  • Yann, 2 blocks, both have block notices

The conclusion from this reasonable sample over a week, is that Jcb is unique as an administrator that chooses to ignore the required Blocking policy and never uses the block notice for accounts that are not known to be spam accounts or sockpuppets. As a courtesy, pinging mentioned admins @Achim55, Elcobbola, EugeneZelenko, Guanaco, and Jcb: @Jdx, Krd, Magog the Ogre, P199, and Rodhullandemu: @Ronhjones, Steinsplitter, Taivo, Túrelio, and Yann: . --Fæ (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Most if not all of my user blocks are based on CU findings. I have to admit that some LTA cases rendered me a bit uncareful with block notices and sock templates, but I agree there is nothing against acting professional and following the rules even if the affected user may not earn that in one or another case. Thank you for pointing out! --Krd 11:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
On the topic of certain LTA cases: some LTAs see accumulation of tags and notices as tantamount to scoring points in a game, and create more and more accounts to that end. In these instances, declining to tag can play a positive role in dissuading future abuse (logic of DENY). I'm not a fan of writing policy to deal with fringe cases, so I hope there is an understanding that there exist (quite rare) circumstances in which strictly following COM:BP could be counter-productive. Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
It was for this reason I filtered blocks where the comments made it obvious we were dealing with socks and spambots. Certainly I agree that there is always some discretion in the administrator role, however the responsibility to act as transparently as possible and to be prepared to respond to questions about sysop actions in good faith will remain.
It would not hurt to consider a slight improvement to COM:BP better to reflect common working practices when handling socks with existing SPI cases or obvious LTA socks. These may be an exception to the policy to leave block notices, however leaving breadcrumbs such as the sockpuppet notice for other contributors, or later administrators handling or analysing related cases, is probably an unavoidable requirement. --Fæ (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
It is a pain to find the right block template and copy and paste it to the user's talk page, but I do try and keep to it. I just wish we had a similar system that I use on en-wiki, where the block and correct template are added in one action (with Twinkle) - this would kill this problem dead. Ronhjones  (Talk) 13:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not pain for me, because I use only 1 block template and I know its syntax from head. Taivo (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I use the Notify Gadget, where 3 options are available: 1. Simple block, 2. Indef. block for copyvio, 3. Indef. block for other reasons. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I recommend it also to non-administrators, who perform maintenance. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Good point, I use it occasionally to save time for standard notices like file overwrites. However, unlike Twinkle on en.wp which varies depending on your user groups, I had forgotten that I could leave formal looking notices like indef block notices even though I have no access to sysop tools. Probably better not to flag that unless we start to see misuse. :-) --Fæ (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I haven't read this thread, but it was only recently brought to my attention that it is against policy not to provide a notice. I have since started providing notice to all accounts I block other than blatant vandals, spammers, and socks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The above comment is a perfect example of how discussing, agreeing-on, and alerting admins to areas where they could improve or where policy has changed or where best practice has changed, could easily be done in a non-confrontational manner. I have looked over the last year on Jcb's talk page, and cannot find where Fæ raised this issue with Jcb. Perhaps it has occurred on another noticeboard. Surely it would be reasonable to leave a message on Jcb's talk, with a friendly reminder that policy requires a block notice, and a request to please add one in future? Instead here Fae has taken a discussion on deletion practice by Jcb into a tangent on his blocking practice, conducted his own private investigation, and dumped it here presumably because he thinks doing so adds weight on a desysop request that clearly isn't going anywhere.
Is it about time that Commons, for longstanding users who are in good standing, required that complainants demonstrate some attempt to resolve matters directly before coming to AN/U and certainly before requesting a de-sysop. Anyone not doing so, and making a practice of not doing so, should face sanctions. This whole topic by Alexis, and continued by Fae is a farce. From the "I requested these files be deleted and they were boo hoo" complaint to the "I'm going to dump random numbers regarding deletions and make huge leaps of logic to assume they mean what I want them to" nonsense further up. There are certainly areas where Jcb could improve, slow down, take a holiday, etc, etc, but I see absolutely no reason why the issue of requesting block notices could not have been done respectfully between users, rather than confrontationally as part of a de-sysop demand and silly vote. Of course, I'm expecting User:Jcb to confirm he'll be following this policy practice, where appropriate, in future. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I nominated all the files from The Huntington because small DRs for random files were being created. Randomly those would be kept or deleted, so I centralized the discussion. Your refusal to read and understand this DR was the straw that broke the camel's back, to keep pretending it is my only complaint, it's just not appropriate. That is not the word I would prefer to use, but I try not to let you drag me down to your level. The same for your comment earlier:
"I also think creating a huge DR with heterogeneous files/permissions/owners that is likely to require splitting and salvaging in bits is a dumb thing to do. We can see that every other admin "barge-poled" this DR for months. Please help out the admins by doing some homework yourself and raising smaller more cohesive DRs in future."
Oh yes, I should do my homework. When the DR created, there was no realistic way of splitting the DR in any sensible way. I have made many thousands of categorization edits since. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you think any admins are encouraged now to pick up a complex DR created by you? Do you think it fair for any admin to operate under conditions where every mistake risks thermonuclear war? It is ironic that Fae complains that Jcb isn't perfectly following block policy by adding block template (and unblock instructions) as a courtesy on the blocked user's talk page, yet does not himself do Jcb the courtesy of discussing this issue with Jcb on his talk page, but rather goes straight to an desysop discussion with some data lists he's spent the afternoon compiling. It is ironic that you are complaining about an admin deleting files you sent to DR. Yes, I know DR doesn't have to result in a deletion, but it makes for a very poor example with which to make your case that you are a reasonable sort of person and they are a bad sort of admin. This tactic is not constructive or encouraging. -- Colin (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: when there is a serious problem with files, a mass deletion request is created to discuss the matter. It is the discussion (not the nomination itself) on which a good administrator should found the decision. As for Colin’s nitpicking wrt Fæ… why should they inform Jcb explicitly when the user_problems thread is already underway? Alexis left a notice first and it is enough. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi the issue Fae raised (block notices) was not raised by Alexis. It was brought here purely to serve as "and another thing Jcb does wrong" to pile onto a desysop request. I have concerns about Jcb, but each time we see the same old grudge-merchants here, their behaviour is troubling. Here, Fae is complaining about etiquette but I'm sure no admin here would like it if issues with their actions were used as ammunition in a desysop rather than first discussed with them on their talk page. As for "nit picking", well block templates certainly fall into that category. I can see no reason why good faith editors and admins could not have resolved that issue outside of a desysop vote. Look, the current approach is not working. Jcb is doing things that piss off other users and admins and a lot of us (myself included) have lost patience with him. But this game of playing nuclear war each time is unhelpful and just causes a polarised vote and an opportunity for accusations to be made with no or faulty evidence. It is creating a really bad atmosphere and I'm sure contributes to Jcb not being as engaged in the discussion as we would like. It forces people to list all the mistakes made rather than examine their record as a whole and note the positives. It frequently brings up crap stats like the deletion numbers above, which serve no useful purpose. An alternative approach would be to open a discussion on specific issues, one at a time, and deal with each one in a respectful and non-confrontational manner. I can't see User:Jcb's response to the block notice discussion. It would be very helpful to have Jcb acknowledge the community view and that their practice will change in future. I appreciate the topic was raised in a most uncourteous manner, but we're here now, and it does not seem reasonable for him to ignore. -- Colin (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Colin, lemme see if I got the above right: You say it’s bad to bring to this discussion about Jcb matters concerning Jcb, but it’s okay for you to use this discussion to once more flaunt your bizarre obsession with Fæ… You dig from your thesaurus phrases like "crap stats" and yet you harp about a «respectful and non-confrontational manner». It will never change, will it? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I have no obsession with anyone here, and evidence shows I'm pretty dam critical of just about everyone. I even popped over to Wikipedia earlier this year to stir up some trouble over 300 sponsored medical training videos that a big-name-admin had inserted into the lead section of our top articles. Made me rather unpopular with a few people, though I got a fair number of thank-yous too. Anyone who wants to present "crap stats" about how bad someone is can enjoy the output from my thesaurus. Fae's a frequent offender when it comes to making outrageous pseudo-statistical statements, so you know, it can change if he stops doing that. And I've been just as critical of the opening poster, and pretty critical (see my talk page) of Jcb too. In fact, based on his comments on my talk page, I'm about done arguing to his benefit. -- Colin (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Bob Vila

While looking for something else I ran into https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ABob_Vila.jpg.

It would look like Jcb redirected/replaced File:Bob Vila.jpg (Bob Vila is an American home improvement television show host) with File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg (the famous monkey selfie). As it would seem, in an attempt to annoy a sock farm. In general, I would strongly disapprove of such methods. If simply deleting and blocking doesn't work, I would have no problem with replacing the image with something random like a map of Peru or a photo of a hairbrush. That would make any article using it or website deeplinking it look stupid without offending Bob.

If this wasn't a one-man action but coordinated with several admins who thought this was a good and acceptable idea, okay. But there is no proof of that (all I could find) and Jcb, after I asked him for it, said he is "not going to find that out. I have better things to do.", but maybe someone here knows where those elusive discussions are? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih, Barek, and Ivanvector: who were involved in that short enwiki AN/I thread and might know more. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz, can you finally stop stalking me? Jcb (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
It's kind of hard to tell from the deletion log here what exactly happened but the entry where Jcb suggests "Let's see if we can discourage this continued abuse. Free file from File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg" does seem like they were trying something like that. I don't think it's something that enwiki admins would have suggested - it seems like a poor approach when admins here can just protect the title from uploading, and if you were going to replace it with some kind of neutral unrelated image I wouldn't have chosen one so obviously fraught from a copyright perspective. But maybe it was worth a try, I don't know, it doesn't seem to have worked anyway. That's about all I can offer. Ivanvector (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Ivanvector's comments. I am not exactly sure what is being suggested here, as I have simply closed a discussion about obvious disruption. Alex Shih (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I protected again this page for one month. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
If Jcb did use the well known monkey image as way of trolling someone, especially when the image claims to be about a famous Cuban-American so any comparison to monkeys is bizarrely offensive, then this would be a misuse of sysop tools directly in contravention of the requirements of Administrators. If the only statement from Jcb when asked to confirm the facts is going to be "I am have better things to do", then the community must presume that Jcb is deliberately evading reasonable questions about their sysop actions. If as it appears in this thread, Jcb feels that reasonable scruitiny of their sysop actions is "stalking" then they should hand back the mop. @99of9: as recently commenting bureaucrat diff.
@Alexis Jazz: thanks for blowing the whistle on this case, your questions have been perfectly reasonable to ask and expect an answer. --Fæ (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
On reflection, I believe it should be required of @Jcb: to confirm this was not a deliberate racist joke, to replace a portrait of a Cuban-American with a monkey. Failing properly to respond with a credible detailed explanation, can and should be treated as serious incident. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I strongly discourage User:Jcb from responding to the obvious trolling wrt "racist joke "above. The image replacement choice seems odd, but AGF would suggest it was an image that popped into his head at random, and I suspect Jcb doesn't even know or care who Bob Vila is. Is there any reasonable evidence to suggest that Jcb, when dealing with a sock farm, might think of making a racist joke? This seems to me yet another example of Fae inventing something to get offended with. At this point, the only AN/U action I see justified is a block or topic ban from AN/U to both users who are now trolling this board. -- Colin (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Colin: so open a thread for me and Fæ here. I dare you. Replacing/redirecting an image that is supposed to show any person to a photo of a monkey is not acceptable in my book, no matter their descent. Although it's even worse if racism plays a role. And Jcb is not willing to explain what brought him to do this or even admit it was insensitive. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Alexis, perhaps you didn't spot the year in those logs you "just happened to find". September 2017 is a year ago. Wrt Fae's mention of User:99of9's comment to Jcb, I wasn't aware that it required the use of a TARDIS. Since the 'crat decision is already that there are "not grounds for opening a de-adminship discussion", I urge that this section be closed. Currently, it seems to be a placeholder for those with a grievance to keep digging for historical edits that they openly confess to not understanding. This seems little more than an attempt to turn this into a "sticky thread", which really isn't what AN/U should be about. -- Colin (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrapping up

I have the impression this discussion is near it's limits, thanks to all contributors, but I'm not sure how about the conclusion. Could anybody please summarize his interpretation of the above (in as few words as possible)? Thank you! --Krd 17:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: I started this thread, so very obviously involved.
That's leaving out the accusation of stalking and refusing to explain Bob Vila.jpg.
I want to see a de-adminship request. We shouldn't need a certain outcome to start such a request. If the outcome is that Jcb has sufficient community support to continue, I'll accept that, but why can't we have a request? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I see consensus that Jcb has had a pattern of bad admin actions which must not continue. We are more split on whether Jcb should have a chance to improve or should be desysopped now. Of those who want to desysop now, there is some long-term conflict and irreconcilable differences of opinion in how Commons should be administered. I agree with Alexis Jazz that we can't predict the outcome of a desysop vote. Guanaco (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It's clear that there are a substantial number of editors who support a desysop request. A formal discussion should absolutely be initiated. -FASTILY 06:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

  • It is clear there is no consensus for a formal discussion. A handful of users support it, essentially those with previous grudges, but an almost identical handful of users oppose it. On several points raised, there was no serious good faith (or any) prior attempt to discuss and resolve the issue with Jcb. The stats on deletion reversals are useless without additional information. A huge poll, which is what a de-admin becomes, is not a productive way for the community to resolve issues, nor a collaborative way to help Jcb improve, change or stop doing things that piss people off. -- Colin (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The summary would be that though the thread could have opened in a more civil manner, and has been unnecessarily poked by tangential and unpleasantly personal point scoring, the consequent discussion of Jcb's use of sysop tools has remained civil, and is supported by a verifiable series of cases, evidence and unbiased measurements that are of general concern. These demonstrate that rather than an individual case, Jcb's misuse of sysop tools and position is systemic and has persisted for years, entirely in disregard of endless good faith questions, requests and complaints as can be clearly read in Jcb's talk page history. Even while discussion has progressed, Jcb has failed properly to respond to valid questions about their actions, such as their as yet unexplained but apparently deliberately offensive redirect of a photograph of a notable Cuban-American to a photo of a monkey log, a shocking act of apparent vandalism that would see non-admins blocked on sight, and has persisted with the same disruptive behaviour of using speedy deletions out of process, by ignoring existing consensus on copyright in the example yesterday of File:990 official photo.jpg diff. There is sufficient community concern and genuine alarm at Jcb's use of sysop tools, and a pattern of being fundamentally unable to change behaviour in the face of years of feedback from distressed users, an unending series of complaints on this noticeboard, and a previous desysop vote, to accept that a desysop vote is required right now in order to either remove Jcb's use of the tools until they run another RFA, or the community can agree with Jcb's active involvement as to what changes are required for Jcb to continue to wield the mop.

As has been previously mentioned in "pre-desysop" discussion on this noticeboard, the current complex procedure has become an entrenched Super Mario effect, where administrators have special double protection by forcing the community to have a de facto supermajority vote in order for a bureaucrat to then act as gatekeeper and "allow" a desysop vote to run, which then bizarrely works on a simple majority vote. It is worth noting that bureaucrats making a decision to proceed to a vote is a recent invention, Commons:Administrators/De-adminship only includes bureaucrats closing out of process desysop votes, nothing else, so the discussion and decision to start a desysop vote is entirely within the authority of the wider community, no bureaucrat required. A reasonable external viewer would judge that we are attempting to run a broken process that is guaranteed to be ineffective at properly governing trusted roles, and so instead guaranteed to cause frustration and inflame debate due to the unnecessary force needed to make this move when the case is anything less extreme than a rogue administrator being demonstrably and persistently guilty of gross negligence. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb: Possibly we cannot avoid to do now what should have been done much earlier, getting in tuoch with the defendant: Jcb, what do you think, what do you suggest? --Krd 09:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

There are several things that Jcb needs to change. But the amount of hostility here prevents everyone to discuss all these issues in a constructive manners. So first stop the attacks, then we can start have a useful discussion. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Yann here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree with Yann. The level of hostility here is the exact reason I decided not to comment further on this issue. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Krd: Although this whole thread was difficult to follow because it was flooded with irrelevant and false information (luckely some readers did check the facts and often identified false claims even before I came online again, credits for checking the facts go mainly to Colin), I did try to extract something useful from it being:
  • Guanaco formulated concerns about how well two specific queues were handled (npd/nsd). I promised 28 August in this thread to take more time for files from these two queue. It's visible that I did, because both queue are backlogged now, they were not 28 August.
  • Attention was drawn to the recent tendency that most admins paste a template to the user talk page of blocked users, even copyvio only accounts. (Most admins did not, until recently). I told 29 August in this thread that I have no problem with following community concensus for such a thing.
If there are any other concerns, my user talk page is open as it always has been. Jcb (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Jcb for your message. It could help if you recognize that files like File:990 official photo.jpg have a valid license, and that your handling of File:Bob Vila.jpg was not appropriate. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I do not agree with you regarding File:990 official photo.jpg. The license template clearly states: "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." There is no explanation why this condition could somehow be ignored. The PD-UK-unknown template is often being misused to change the UK copyright term from PMA+70 into creation+70 for anything of which we cannot find the authorship information with Google, which is inappropriate of course. Regarding File:Bob Vila.jpg, this is too long ago, I don't remember exactly what was going on there. Jcb (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes it's ok, regardless of the context, to admit you made a mistake in handling something in an indelicate way. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The actions taken in the Bob Vila case are easy to understand, the log is open for anyone to view. Jcb redirected the photograph of a notable non-white person to a photograph of a monkey, and later deleted the page using their sysop tools. This was a highly remarkable thing to do, twice. It should remain of wide concern that the question about this case was originally refused on Jcb's talk page and is now given as "I do not remember". No administrator has so far come up with a potential good faith explanation of why creating a "monkey redirect" and then deleting it from view, might be considered a valid use of sysop tools. This was a year ago, but it should be obvious to anyone reviewing the evidence as to why this is deeply concerning. --Fæ (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Everybody can check that your description of how I responded at my user talk page is inaccurate. Jcb (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, in reply to Alexis Jazz you said "[...] It must have been documented somewhere at EN" and "[...] I have better things to do." As per your advice there, in an attempt to circumvent any drama, I did some background research and contacted @DMacks: off-wiki as they appear in the deletion history of this file, and though a Commons sysop is primarily a Wikipedian. DMacks was unable to provide any positive rationale for your repeated "monkey redirect" actions, nor point to any explanation on Wikipedia. Your action to choose to direct a non-white person's photograph to a monkey seems entirely your personal tastes, and appears to have no possible positive rationale such as being a mistake. Occam's razor must apply as to exactly why you made this extremely offensive redirect.
Addendum It may help jog your memory that this was no mistake to check the logs of File:Bob Vila Signature.jpg and File:Host Bob Vila.jpg where you chose to make the same offensive redirects to File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg even though these events were days apart. --Fæ (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I will not respond anymore to any of your comments in which you suggest that I would be a racist. I do not need to accept such accusations. Jcb (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are, and unless meeting in person am more comfortable knowing little or nothing about fellow contributor's personal lives. Your actions on this project are what I am asking about. The evidence, and your transparent and accountable use of sysop tools are of concern to the Wikimedia Commons community as per COM:Administrators. If you are unwilling to be accountable for your use of the tools, please voluntarily request a RFA to clear the air. --Fæ (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Fæ, Occam says: "When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions". You have assumed Jcb knows Bob Vila is a "non-white person". Since Jcb is from the Netherlands and Bob Vila is a US TV presenter on home improvement shows, I would think the fewest assumptions would be that he doesn't know who the guy is. I googled him and found this video. I don't know about anyone else, but other than when he describes his parent's background and states "as a Latin American..." I wouldn't have immediately classed him as a "non-white person". He looks, and sounds, pretty white American to me. Further, we all know the monkey selfie is a fun image, which lots of people (regardless of skin colour) use as an avatar, and has a big history on Commons wrt copyright. If Jcb had substituted some obscure ape portrait, then one might wonder "why did he search for a photo of an ape" rather than the more obvious explanation that this was just a well known fun Commons image. We all know that people should be extra careful not to cause offence even by accident, but I don't accept your repeated claim this is "a deliberate racist joke". You've got the wrong razor. Hanlon's razor says "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Changing approach or policy

It seems to me that the current approach to resolving issues with Jcb is not working. It is notable that none of the very active 14 admins pinged above went on to vote (one had already voted). I think all admins would prefer to see better good-faith civil attempts to discuss and resolve issues before escalating things here and calling for the admin's head. Perhaps even that should be required by policy.

I suspect one reason Jcb is not visibly satisfying complaints here is because of the uncivil and unreasonable behaviour. It could also just be because he's a stubborn bastard who won't admit when he gets things wrong. It is hard to tell.

When the issue has been that Jcb's practice is not similar to other admins, or considered "best practice", or even considered "careless", I seldom see efforts to document the desired best practice in our guidelines or policy. I think that would help.

Most de-admins have occurred because of serious misuse of tools, or where the community strongly feels they have behaved outrageously shamefully or acted deliberately against known community consensus. The individual "crimes" levelled against Jcb over the years have not tended, on their own, to be sufficient to sway community feeling, particularly when weighed against the very high level of activity that is presumably good and gets ignored. Perhaps our de-admin policy wording is only focused on big crimes? How do we judge "acting against policy" when it is a few editors disagreeing about how to judge copyright in a 70 year old work, or disagreement about what "no source" means wrt the effort expected of an admin prior to deletion. Lots of things admins do are not explicitly decided in policy. And lots of admins do things that are explicitly against policy (cool down blocks, blocking established users without prior warning, etc).

Based on previous discussions regarding Jcb that edged towards de-adminship, it seems to me that such a formal request should be initiated by one or two clearly independent trusted users, who have the time and ability to present Jcb as an admin in his entirety, good and bad, rather than angry users who want revenge of a recent upset, or to cherry pick historical issues (some of which they don't even understand), or users who like to make up stats or invent things to be offended about. We all know that when a poll is initiated by someone who is highly biased, much of the heat generated is by those arguing about how bad the opening arguments are and what an outrageous lies we have been told. We don't really seem to have any policy about how such a de-adminship page should be presented or written and by whom. It doesn't tend to matter if the reason is "He deleted the main page" but does if your argument is more statistical and long-term behaviour/attitude/ability. -- Colin (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

An idea

This topic seems to have become particularly nasty, and I can't support these allegations of racism. The ape/person of color thing is chiefly American by my understanding, and I've never heard of this trope targeting non-black people. The macaque redirect looks like an attempt to solve a problem where conventional methods had failed. I don't see the racial implications, but others do, so it's best to simply ask Jcb to pick a different image next time.

Anyway, I see he's taking steps to improve regarding the other complaints. This is what we want, but I know many here won't be satisfied without some kind of follow-up. I propose that we table this for three months. In December, we start a new thread and ask of Jcb's performance from a neutral perspective. If he's generally doing a good job and is responsive to advice and criticism during these three months, we award him a barnstar for his dedication and hard work. If his adminship is shown to be a net loss, we start the formal vote. Guanaco (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

With regard to the classic trope, "macaca" is specifically used across Europe as derogatory term against immigrants from Africa and calling black people monkeys is nicely illustrated in the article racism in association football by the large number of countries where throwing bananas at black football players is documented as primary evidence of racism, not just America. Whether Jcb intended this as a joke, or for some other reason has yet to be stated, but the choice of this image out of 33 million alternatives was not an accident. --Fæ (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Guanaco: the ape/color thing is sadly also known in The Netherlands. "Een deel van het ADO-publiek maakte afgelopen zondag oerwoudgeluiden als Bazoer in balbezit kwam." ("A part of the ADO-supporters made jungle sounds last sunday whenever Bazoer had the ball.") Racistische idioten in Spakenburg (36 seconds of "Racist idiots in Spakenburg" on YouTube, nice compilation) Vitesse-fans maken apengeluiden naar Ajax-doelman Onana (9 seconds of "Vitesse-supporters make ape sounds to Ajax-goalkeeper Onana" on YouTube). As to suggestions from Colin that Jcb didn't know who Bob Vila is, he would have seen a photo of Bob Vila, assuming that is what the socks were uploading. I don't know which one, on some photos his Cuban descent is more visible than others. I'm personally not accusing Jcb of racism, but I would equally disapprove of redirecting a photo of Jimmy Wales or Arnold Schwarzenegger to a picture of a monkey. This is what Jcb had to say about it:

As far as I remember, there was a case for vandalism at EN wiki going on for weeks. Several admins were involved at EN and Commons. When the vandal or vandals could not be stopped, a strategy was tried to discourage them instead. It worked, the vandalism stopped within a few days. I don't remember all the details. It must have been documented somewhere at EN.

— Jcb

No links could be produced to provide any evidence other admins were "involved" (unless deleting a copyvio is considered as "involvement") and even less so that this wasn't a one-man action. Yann asked Jcb to admit it was inappropriate, which it was, regardless of racial implications being involved or not. Jcb's reply can be found below. To the suggestion to see if things will improve in 3 months, I suggest looking back 7 years instead. Here is some suggested background music while reading. Miss Shirley Bassey.

Saibo in 2011 vs Guanaco in 2018:

Yes, I know (extrapolated since I really do not like to dig in your deletion log) that you do a big amount of work - mostly good work - but I would rather have a DR open for six month than have them closed with no or a not useful decision

— Saibo in 2011

Jcb is the most prolific deleter on Commons. I think this is in part because he invests a great deal of time into this project. I appreciate this and I know our backlogs will rapidly expand if he is desysopped. Unfortunately many of his deletions have been batch deletions (NASA photos, nsd, npd, etc.), undertaken without sufficient consideration.

— Guanaco in 2018

Geo Swan in 2011 vs Alexis Jazz in 2018:

Seeing administrators mock and bully newbie always disturbs me. I hope it disturbs enough of you that we agree that further mockery should trigger Jcb's resignation.

— Geo Swan in 2011

This was just insulting a fellow Wikimedian, contributing to D Ramey Logan no longer contributing photos to Commons. The way he handled Chaddy drove a 13-year contributor away from Commons. It didn't have to be that way.

— Alexis Jazz in 2018

Jcb in 2011 vs Jcb in 2018:

I don't remember the exact context, but also I don't think it's relevant to keep focussing on things from April or May, even far before the (unsuccessful) previous procedure.

— Jcb in 2011

Regarding File:Bob Vila.jpg, this is too long ago, I don't remember exactly what was going on there.

— Jcb in 2018

Jcb in 2011 vs Jcb in 2018: (partly bolded)

I'm not taking back this, be aware of that. So if you want to keep the possibility to communicate with me at this user talk page, you will have to stop spamming the page with your 'you forgot something' botlike messages. You're wasting my time a lot, thus harming Wikimedia Commons, because you waste admin capacity.

— Jcb in 2011

I follow the discussion, but I also do what I can to minimize the waste of time it causes for the community as a whole.

— Jcb in 2018

Jcb in 2011 vs Jcb in 2018: (partly bolded)

The fact that Saibo threatens with de-admin requests to enforce his continued abuse of my user talk page, feels like pure intimidation.

— Jcb in 2011

What followed was a message from Alexis more or less saying: "I disagree with your closure of that DR. Undo your actions immediately or I will try to get you desysopped". I really hope you agree with me that such intimidation not is the established way to handle a disagreement over a DR closure.

— Jcb in 2018

Jcb in 2011 vs Jcb in 2018:

When I started to deal with DRs this way, a lot of DRs were very old, up to one year. Now we have only three DRs older than one month. I didn't do all that work alone, but if you're honest you will probably admit that without my effort, the backlog would be way more than it's now.

— Jcb in 2011

Guanaco formulated concerns about how well two specific queues were handled (npd/nsd). I promised 28 August in this thread to take more time for files from these two queue. It's visible that I did, because both queue are backlogged now, they were not 28 August.

— Jcb in 2018

Please note that his "promise" was actually "I am willing to take more time for these cats in order to reduce the error rate. On the other hand it would be great if people could contact me at my user talk page if they think I made a mistake". This was a promise? Oh. But who knows, maybe in 3 months things will happen that didn't happen in the past 7 years. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Propose block and AN/U topic ban of Fae

Could an admin please block Fae or topic ban him from AN/U.

Repeatedly claiming Jcb made "a deliberate racist joke" and that the choice of image for a "non-white person" was "not an accident" when Fae has not a shred of evidence is nothing less than harassment.

  • Fae has not established that Jcb knows who Bob Vila is. Since Jcb is from the Netherlands and Bob Vila is a TV home improvements presenter from the US, this seems very unlikely.
  • Fae has not established that Jcb is even aware that some might class Vila as "non-white" (he certainly looks white in this interview, and most certainly would not be classed as "black").
  • Fae has not established that Jcb was deliberately choosing an ape photo vs using a fun happy image that appears all over the web as an avatar for people (of any skin colour) and is is well known to Commons folk as the monkey selfie that sparked a copyright battle and much foolishness from PETA.
  • Fae has not established that Jcb, in all the years we have known him, has ever indicated racist inclinations, which might suggest to us this was motivated.

We have seen this before with Fae's repeated claims that editors are homophobic. Years of harassment and never any evidence. Just crap stats and podium lectures. Fae becomes determined to only see the worst in a situation when a far simpler and harmless explanation is the easiest explanation. Is this "the famous monkey selfie" or "a racist trope"? Yes Jcb was careless to use this image, but that's all.

Time for this harassment to end. Either Fae strikes his allegation, apologises to Jcb, or is blocked for harassment and topic banned from AN/U. -- Colin (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

So are unwarranted allegations of support of child pornography.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • IMHO the interaction ban is not far ahead. Colin (without Fæ around) is a reasonable person with great contributions in photos, whereas Fæ is a powerful watchdog who can alert us about abuse. But when Colin discusses Fæ, nothing good comes from it. Note that Fæ deliberately avoids crossing Colin’s path. Seriously, a proposal of restrictions against Fæ submitted by their archenemy may not serve a foundation for the community decision. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This needs to be reopened. Krd’s argument for closing is preposterous and way, way below of what I’d expect from this admin. Topics are floating? Of course they are! Jcb has been messing up as an admin in many areas, and the discussion above “floated” (some of) them around. A de-admin procedure focusing on a specific topic would never be significant on its own (regardless of its outcome), as one could always argue that yes, on this particular topic this admin is terrible (or terrific) but in every other aspect s/he’s terrific (or terrible). A wide perspective needs to be considered and that’s what was being done (distractions aside) in this discussion. Better reopen it now and let the process run its course, or further degrade the collegiate environment here in Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Also note Srittau shredded the comment I added in which I said I'm not strictly against the proposal to re-evaluate later. I also suggested in that comment to let @Guanaco: decide over this thread. I wouldn't have reverted him because I know he wouldn't close it like this, killing off any possible follow-up. Now, my user page is fun and I have requested an indefblock. WPPilot, Chaddy, Alexis Jazz. Who will be Jcb's next victim? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for having compacted the message above too much. While I did request an indefblock, the actual request for that was more nuanced and for unhealthy reasons shouldn't be interpreted as permanent retirement. Things like the closure above however do not in the slightest contribute to me feeling good about being a contributor here. There are many solutions I could perfectly live with and I think for most of the supporters in the thread there would also be room for some form of a compromise. Guanaco saw that. But before we could reach any kind of agreement, Krd shut the thread down. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I support the decision to close this, as it had become little more than a place to personally attack one another. We will re-evaluate Jcb's actions in the near future, and I expect to see improvement both in our tone and in Jcb's accuracy. Guanaco (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Have to agree with the closure as well, this really has be come stale and while I think it was rather arrogant of Jcb really ignore the ongoing or repeated concerns other contributors have had regrading his actions and comments but I do hope he changes his ways. Fae hasn't helped the situation nor has Colin, in fact I'm disappointed that Colin thinks that those who supported the proposal who wanted his (Jcb's) head and "handful of users support it, essentially those with previous grudges", when in fact I do not want his head nor do I hold a grudge. I want to see that Jcb takes the communities concerns seriously and will take measures to ensure he can not just keep but built the trust of the community. Now I think it time to move on and do hope that this ends up being the last Jcb topic. Bidgee (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Bidgee I think you are right that the comment you quote is unfair. Too many people speculating about grudges rather than seriously reviewing user or admin behaviour, so that's bad of me to fall to that level. I would like to see admins/crats close such discussions swiftly when there appears to be no immediate consensus or where the proposer has failed to reasonably raise and resolve the issues without going nuclear. This kind of "X is bad, let's vote on having a vote" only really works when X did a really bad thing, and plainly isn't working for this kind of situation. -- Colin (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_71&oldid=320701736"