Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
Latest comment: 4 hours ago by Bidgee in topic A.Savin (de-adminship)
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (
~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp. - Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s).
{{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~is available for this. - Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
A.Savin (de-adminship)
- A.Savin (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Per Special:Permalink/987304932 at out of process Commons:Administrators/Requests/A.Savin (de-adminship): "Per this discussion. Commons has become a toxic forum, largely due to A.Savin's arbitrary and problematic behavior. For years, his actions and provocative attitudes have seriously damaged the environment and driven away good contributors, myself included. I barely participate here because of these constant tensions. I hope Commons will one day regain its original purpose and become a fairer place, but that can only begin by revoking A.Savin's privileges. I would like to ping users who participated in a previous discussion @1989, GPSLeo, Christian Ferrer, Charlesjsharp, Ghilt, and Barkeep49: -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfredor (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)". We need consensus first. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Support This right here is completely unacceptable. Along with the other issues with this user, he is clearly not acquit to be an administrator. 1989 (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)- Support per above A.Savin has since long time the little word, the little verbal jab, the behavior, ect... to be unpleasant towards anyone (experienced users, administrators, ect..). Create a safe environement for every one need a minimum standing at administrator behavior level, this is not a punishment, but a clear lack of A.Savin at this level. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- My comments are not always friendly, particularly as a reaction to an unfriendly comment a response might be unfriendly too. At least they are genuine and not ChatGPT-generated like those by Wilfredor. And unlike Wilfredor, I never insulted someone xenophobic and narcissist --A.Savin 12:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that I may have done something wrong in your view does not justify calling me "hopeless," "coward," or comparing me to Vladimir Putin (a clear example of the tu quoque fallacy). This behavior has been directed solely at me, not to mention the treatment of other users. I would have appreciated an apology from you, but your refusal to acknowledge these actions leaves me no choice but to vote in favor of the continuation of this process. Wilfredor (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Neutral I think we need the vote on this to end the discussion. But I totally dislike the process we came here and how the initiators of the process behave. I am also not sure if however the outcome of the vote will be that this would solve the problem behind. I think we need a discussion on our conduct policies as suggested by the U4C and decide on sanctions after we have our policies improved.
- GPSLeo (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's how I feel too. I don't think having A.Savin desysopped would solve anything. Wilfredor cites a toxic ambience but I don't feel that in general on Commons. Bedivere (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Question What the initial reason(s) to start this in the first place? All links given in m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/A.Savin are either old or not really convincing to me, but I may have missed something. Yann (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yann: For recent conduct, one just needs to look at Special:Diff/987717785. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Certainly it doesn't help A.Savin's cause but I don't find it gross or disrespectful enough to justify his deadminship Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. Not very friendly, but not a reason to start a de-adminship discussion. It would be much better for Commons is everything step back for a day, go fishing or hiking, instead of starting a process I see as revengeful. Please do not start digging out old bones to prove that someone did something bad in the past. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- We’ve known each other for quite some time, and while I don’t share your opinion, I want you to know that I respect you. This process is not being initiated out of any spirit of revenge but rather to address a chronic and ongoing pattern of mistreatment—not just toward me but also toward other users. I only decided to open this process after the case against 1989 was initiated, not after the most recent attack from A. Savin toward me, which, honestly, I chose to overlook entirely at the time. However, the situation has now become unbearable. I understand you have a special fondness for A. Savin, as do I, but this is not a complaint against him as a person—it is about his actions and repeated instances of disrespect Wilfredor (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I don't have "a special fondness for A. Savin". This is quite nonsense. Yann (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes and also I wrote "as do I," referring to the time we shared on FPC and not some kind of additional special treatment. The real nonsense here is the idea that I have some kind of revenge in this process. Wilfredor (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Wilfredor: As mentioned by A. Savin here, you are very far from being irreproachable. Did you apologize for this? Anyway, you should keep a low profile, otherwise this may very well turn against you. Yann (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with A.Savin? That comment has nothing to do with him. And if it has to do with him, which is not true, does that justify A. Savin's degrading behavior? Wilfredor (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Wilfredor: As mentioned by A. Savin here, you are very far from being irreproachable. Did you apologize for this? Anyway, you should keep a low profile, otherwise this may very well turn against you. Yann (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes and also I wrote "as do I," referring to the time we shared on FPC and not some kind of additional special treatment. The real nonsense here is the idea that I have some kind of revenge in this process. Wilfredor (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I don't have "a special fondness for A. Savin". This is quite nonsense. Yann (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- We’ve known each other for quite some time, and while I don’t share your opinion, I want you to know that I respect you. This process is not being initiated out of any spirit of revenge but rather to address a chronic and ongoing pattern of mistreatment—not just toward me but also toward other users. I only decided to open this process after the case against 1989 was initiated, not after the most recent attack from A. Savin toward me, which, honestly, I chose to overlook entirely at the time. However, the situation has now become unbearable. I understand you have a special fondness for A. Savin, as do I, but this is not a complaint against him as a person—it is about his actions and repeated instances of disrespect Wilfredor (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. Not very friendly, but not a reason to start a de-adminship discussion. It would be much better for Commons is everything step back for a day, go fishing or hiking, instead of starting a process I see as revengeful. Please do not start digging out old bones to prove that someone did something bad in the past. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Certainly it doesn't help A.Savin's cause but I don't find it gross or disrespectful enough to justify his deadminship Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yann: For recent conduct, one just needs to look at Special:Diff/987717785. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this is not about A. Savin, why do we discuss about A. Savin? And, per Yann, where is the evidence? Krd 16:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- I told, Its not JUST, please let us focus on the case, the evidence was meticulously collected by 1989, whom I would like to thank for taking the time to do this. [1], Also in this same complaint, their behavior of diverting attention towards me with out-of-context and unrelated topics demonstrates a continuation of the same behavior being reported. This leads me to seriously question their ability to recognize the harm their attitude is causing to the community. Wilfredor (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this is not about A. Savin, why do we discuss about A. Savin? And, per Yann, where is the evidence? Krd 16:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I am only posting here because I was pinged. I have recently been blocked and warned about a possible indefinite Commmons ban, so I am too afraid to say anything. Sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Charles. We fully understand your position, and I'm truly sorry you had to go through all of this. If you feel that your sense of security within the project is compromised, there's no need for you to continue commenting here. Your well-being and peace of mind are what matter most. Wilfredor (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment A.Savin is certainly not anything like the friendliest or most polite admin here, but that alone does not seem like a reason for de-adminship. If someone is going to make a case here that would at all convince me, they are going to have to show something like repeated abuse of admin capabilities. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in convincing anyone, especially any administrator, as this is not about my ability to persuade. The evidence has been clear since 1989. What matters here is stopping the repeated abuse by making use of the administrator's functions, which the user seems to fail to acknowledge. Wilfredor (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment to the closing bureaucrat, the Commons:Administrators/De-adminship policy says there only needs to be some consensus for a request, and I think that relatively low threshold has been met. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 19:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)- Shouldn't another request be filed? At the time of the filing of the original one there was no discussion. Bedivere (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- "some consensus" obviously is more than the consensus within a small group of plaintiffs. I currently don't see consensus, this is boiling up an old personal conflict without new evidence. COM:POINT. Krd 07:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm with Krd on this one. Wilfredor is doing most of the talking and there aren't any biters that weren't already involved. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- fair enough —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 22:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- "some consensus" obviously is more than the consensus within a small group of plaintiffs. I currently don't see consensus, this is boiling up an old personal conflict without new evidence. COM:POINT. Krd 07:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Shouldn't another request be filed? At the time of the filing of the original one there was no discussion. Bedivere (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose AFAICT, this looks like a personal dispute (or worse revenge). No evidence of admin tools abuse was shown so far, so I don't see any reason to start a de-adminiship. Yann (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you insinuating that this is a group of users seeking revenge? I fail to see any so-called revenge in their actions. An administrator should be a representative of the community, serving and supporting it, not threatening or disrespecting its members. Even if they haven’t misused their administrative tools, their lack of respect toward the very community that entrusted them with this role is reason enough to reconsider their position Wilfredor (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please do not reply under every comment with the same statement you already made. GPSLeo (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem, from your point of view, is not that I allegedly trolled someone, but more the fact that I happen to be an admin? Right? Because otherwise you would be contradicting yourself -- you are persistently advocating Charlesjsharp, who really trolled someone and was blocked for that, but isn't an admin. --A.Savin 01:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you insinuating that this is a group of users seeking revenge? I fail to see any so-called revenge in their actions. An administrator should be a representative of the community, serving and supporting it, not threatening or disrespecting its members. Even if they haven’t misused their administrative tools, their lack of respect toward the very community that entrusted them with this role is reason enough to reconsider their position Wilfredor (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This looks very much like a revenge action. A.Savin is one of our best admins. I trust A.Savin, and I have good reasons for that. I do not trust Wilfredor, and I have good reasons for that. Punishing or (even worse) banning A.Savin would rob Commons of one of its best admins. – Aristeas (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I also trust A. Savin. I cannot see enough evidence for either harrassment or abuse of admin tools. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I haven't found A.Savin's action to be abusing or justifying a desysopping. I tried to understand, however, the feud between A.Savin and 1989. And this goes back, at least, to 1989's request for adminship in 2019, which was successful, but with the opposition of A.Savin. It would be A.Savin himself who would request 1989's desysopping back in 2020, which resulted in 1989 resigning. All I can say is that everyone should cool off and deescalate this situation instead of making things worse. We all can understand you are not going to be friends or buddies. You should just stay away from each other's feet and that would make Commons "less toxic" as Wilfredor desperately claims (I don't think Commons is particularly toxic, but some areas such as FPC, if not intervened, are on their way to make Commons one toxic dump). Bedivere (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, Wilfredor is a bit behind the curve and stuck in the past. He has a lot of things to say about FPC, even though he is no longer active there. FPC is much better now that some of the worst agitators and disrupters have been dealt with. It doesn't serve the project to linger on old grievances. Today there are instead users hell-bent on being welcoming to new participants and re-building FPC into a positive page. But this will all be for nothing if old combatants can't let go of each other.
- Also I strongly Oppose oppose this (yet again!) attempt to "have a go" at A.Savin. I've left my opinion on the UCoC discussion if anybody is interested. Cart (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Neutral on deadminship at this time, but I would 
Agree with an IBAN between A.Savin and 1989. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 19:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment This entry, re-requested by Jeff, has nothing to do with any kind of revenge against A. Savin, as I have clarified multiple times. In fact, I was not the one who suggested it; there are users who are afraid to do what I am doing. I remember that several years ago, I had a public conversation with Jimmy Wales in which he described Commons as a "toxic community." At the time, I defended it, and the community supported me. However, today I am forced to agree with his perspective: the level of tolerance for disrespect has reached an alarming point, and this is not just about A. Savin. It is unacceptable for an administrator to treat other users in such a manner, nor was the blocking of Charles or the way Adam's block was handled appropriate, among others. Perhaps those who support these actions believe they are gaining something, but the truth is, I have not seen anyone apologize for these actions or demand respect. When such behaviors are allowed, there are no winners: we all lose. For now, I will continue to avoid any communication with A. Savin. I am not doing so out of cowardice, as he suggested, but because my objective here is clear: to contribute quality photos for Wikipedia, and nothing more. There was a time when we were a more united community, but recent events involving Arion, Charles, Adam, myself, and other users leave me with no choice but to step back. I have no doubt that sooner or later, someone will come up with any excuse to block me. But until that happens, I will continue to fulfill my role. --Wilfredor (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've already been told you don't have to respond every single comment in this thread Bedivere (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not answering to anyone Wilfredor (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd also support an IBAN between A. Savin and 1989, if both parties consent to it. Abzeronow (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've already been told you don't have to respond every single comment in this thread Bedivere (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Mostly as nomination. I've found A Savin, for as long as I've been aware of them, to be a far from impartial admin with too much of an inclination to personal biases. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sad
- About the procedure: At the beginning of the report, when the notification was sent to A.Savin, you can verify there was no "2025" section. I would then retrospectively agree with A.Savin's feeling of "harassment". At least it is a legitimate "feeling" that may be listened (and not automatically sentenced), as part of this process, since this section claims to solve the problems of "harassment", precisely. Oddly enough, the "2025" section actually came later, by 1989: "f.y.i have not spoken to this dude in years". "Dude"?! See Policy:Universal Code of Conduct#3.1 – Harassment Trolling: Deliberately disrupting conversations or posting in bad-faith to intentionally provoke.
- Another accusation from "2025" that also came later is the use of the words "snitching" and "utter nonsense" by A.Savin, as if the other part had no right to share their own point of view and by the way in this text we learn that 1989 wrote "fuck off" to A.Savin. Between "fuck off" and "harassment", let me guess what is most appropriate as part of a "Code of Conduct"?
- We can also see that the first reproach in this long list is "On December 2024, he compares another users comments to Vladimir Putin". But read also Wilfredor's political (re)view on "Putler" (= Hitler + Putin) at COM:FPC: "Supporting that image is defending justice and freedom." In the same thread, A.Savin was right to notify us "Such a heated political discussion but no one notices possible copyright problems?". Indeed, the file was deleted.
- There were / are mistakes in the dates and facts in this report, a few bugs, and it looks like a collection of "bad gestures" or borderline cases. I find this one added by 1989 quite spectacular. Look at the links (example of fair revert by A.Savin indeed "Ponds in Pakistan" shouldn't been included in "Category:Waterfalls in Pakistan") and read the following discussions: COM:ANU#User:1989 and 1989 (desysop). Was the consensus wrong? I don't think so. Then, why is it a problem in 2025? A.Savin was right to revert, 1989 made a mistake by blocking A.Savin, and 1989's desysop was deserved. You don't block an admin like that, when you've been in function just for 1 year, and because the answer to your question doesn't satisfy you.
- Completely agree with Yann's point of view, above: "AFAICT, this looks like a personal dispute (or worse revenge)". And it is also my personal feeling regarding this opportunistic and unsuccessful request. I also agree with all others who find Wilfredor's action(s) extrememly problematic. Here I share most of Aristeas's views. I also share W.carter's opinion: "FPC is much better now that some of the worst agitators and disrupters have been dealt with. It doesn't serve the project to linger on old grievances."
- Please save us the next step. We don't need "A.Savin's de-adminship" based on these old, weird and complex elements. We need this user to improve maybe, and continue learning peacefully. We need the administrators here (not just A.Savin, especially the others) to do more useful tasks. Happy new year to everyone. -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- I respond only to the point where I was mentioned (point 3). I will never support any authoritarian regime, regardless of its ideology, be it left, right or otherwise. These are two completely different conversations and, although I understand your effort to link them, I am concerned that you are trying to justify a direct disrespect towards me with something completely unrelated. I come from Venezuela, a country devastated by an authoritarian regime and, in particular, by the influence of Vladimir Putin's regime, which has openly supported that dictatorship. I have lost relatives, families have been separated, food shortages have caused the deaths of many, and millions have had to flee. Because of all this, I find it unacceptable to be compared to Vladimir Putin, and your argument besides wrong, if not completely disconnected from the topic. BTW, Since there has been no apology from A.Savin, I also request an IBAN between the two of you. Thanks. Translated with DeepL.com Wilfredor (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you place so much value on apologies, why don't you go ahead with a good example and apologize to Basile Morin for "xenophobic, narcissist, Anti-Brazilian" etc.? --A.Savin 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- @A.Savin: , Wilfredor apologized in March 2024, but then made the same mistake in December. Not to mention "sick mind". -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. That's indeed very shameful. --A.Savin 22:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Extremely shameful, yes, because this comment is pure defamation. Deliberate libel. Isn't a user like that likely to be harmful to the project? Wilfredor is "looking for psychological help", ("I am not well psychologically"). But inventing such plots is very damaging. And it is not the first time that Wilfredor imagines completely absurd scenarios that harm other users. -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the event that I have made mistakes in the past, and I'm sure you will find many in my thousands of comments here that have nothing to do with A. Savin, it does not transform A. Savin's mistreatment and disrespect towards me and other users into something good. Wilfredor (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please, let's put things in context, and according to their chronology. Here A.Savin's response likely was a shock reaction to hear from Wilfredor "there's a clear intention to create a toxic environment, almost like a witch's den". Surely many of us have made a connection with Wilfredor's previous "witch hunt" allegation: "This was no less than a witch hunt, driven by a narcissistic, xenophobic, anti-Brazilian user" [...] "A sick mind".... Excuse-me, but I understand A.Savin's frustration. The words were poorly chosen, however we should not take readers for fools either. 1) Proof that ArionStar was blocked for very fair reasons, after this sanction the disrupter continued by creating sockpuppets. 👺 "Witch hunt"?, 2) There is no intention on the part of the FPC participants to "create a toxic environment", just Wilfredor's fake images had to be delisted (or withdrawn) because they were wrong FPs (1, 2, 3, 4... and more). My subjective interpretation is that this shift may have caused a certain resentment inside. 3) When a clear warning "please stop" (April 2024, link above) is legitimate, accepted, and completed, there should be no need for Frank Schulenburg to send another (legitimate) one in October. It's infuriating, yes. Following these repeated slip-ups, Wilfredor took the decision to take "an indefinite FPC break", now please don't come claiming: there are toxic users who kicked me out. On the contrary, Wilfredor was abundantly supported and cared for in this specific context. This exit is the simple consequence of their own harmful actions. 4) Yes, everyone makes mistakes, of course, and being able to apologize is a virtue. But if an apology only serves to start over, it is a sign that there is a real, deep-rooted problem. When an apology is sincere, it should normally be accompanied by a real change in behavior. But when you read the history of events, and the repetitions, you understand that these feelings are not genuine (or not sustainable). There were also some pretty vicious tricks with this user on the FPC talk page. Bad tricks have consequences. 5) By repeating lies, it ends up affecting the other participants. "Xenophobic"? I have lived for 17 years with a person of a different skin color than mine, from another culture, another country, another religion, and I myself live on a different continent than the one where I was born. Why accuse me of xenophobia when I embody the complete opposite? 💡 I even congratulate and encourage a Brazilian user here. It tarnishes my reputation on this other page, and the damage is irreparable. Anyone reading the discussion could now have the impression that Wilfredor is a lone hero denouncing a conspiracy, when it is nonsense. Anyone can have doubts, reservations, and use these false speculations for the purpose of targeted harm. This is an extremely serious event, much more serious than insults. 6) There is no "sick mind" behind the discovery (for example) that "Satan / Santa" is an anagram (like "Evangelist / Evil's agent", "Listen / Silent", "The eyes / They see", etc.) It's just a coincidence. Please come back down to earth and stop attributing bad intentions where there is only poetry or entertainment. 7) At the top of this page, Wilfredor begins: "Commons has become a toxic forum, largely due to A.Savin's arbitrary and problematic behavior". See The Mote and the Beam. When you look at where the hostility started and what form it took, you understand quite well who the main actor is. Like others, I also don't think Commons is a "toxic platform". But there are certainly people in difficulty, even in great distress, who contribute to it. And it is essential to protect oneself. Here, I think above all that Wilfredor was not in a sufficiently stable situation to engage in such conflictual terrain. A bad opportunity was taken, in my opinion, a sad move. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know this discussion revolves around A.Savin, and as I mentioned before, no action of mine, nor those of 1989, Charles, or Arion, justifies mistreating users. I didn’t want the topic to be derailed because I believe it is a separate issue. But I want to speak with an open heart. At the time, I felt hurt and frustrated by the way my modifications in FPC were debated—I believe it was excessive.[2] It wasn’t just the criticism itself, but the feeling that, despite having acknowledged that I didn’t act in the best way, I was treated as if I had tried to deceive the community, something that never crossed my mind. I always tried to be transparent about my changes, but I recognize that it wasn’t enough, and perhaps I didn’t express it in the best way. I know I mentioned that I would apologize privately, but I prefer to do it here, openly, following A.Savin’s recommendation and considering that he has also done so in his own way. If at any point my words hurt you, if I gave the impression of attacking or belittling you, I sincerely apologize. It was never my intention to create conflict or resentment. I see the effort and time that each person invests in FPC—especially you—and even though we’ve had our differences, I know we all share the same goal: to make this a better space. That is why I decided a while ago to step away. Not because I don’t care, but precisely because I want FPC to work better. I feel that my presence no longer contributes to that purpose, and I prefer to step aside rather than continue fueling unnecessary tensions. That being said, I cannot ignore that the atmosphere in FPC has changed, and not necessarily for the better. The departure of critical voices has given the impression of greater harmony, but I wonder if it’s simply because there are now fewer opposing votes in the nominations—votes that actually help improve the technical level. Carter once spoke about the excessive number of men and testosterone involved; perhaps female participation should be encouraged as well, though I don’t know how and maybe there is some alternate reality where these problems never happened.. IMHO, yes it's a technical section, it feels like a pursuit of personal recognition. I don’t say this with resentment, but with sadness, because, we are all here for the same reason, the love of photography. Wilfredor (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please, let's put things in context, and according to their chronology. Here A.Savin's response likely was a shock reaction to hear from Wilfredor "there's a clear intention to create a toxic environment, almost like a witch's den". Surely many of us have made a connection with Wilfredor's previous "witch hunt" allegation: "This was no less than a witch hunt, driven by a narcissistic, xenophobic, anti-Brazilian user" [...] "A sick mind".... Excuse-me, but I understand A.Savin's frustration. The words were poorly chosen, however we should not take readers for fools either. 1) Proof that ArionStar was blocked for very fair reasons, after this sanction the disrupter continued by creating sockpuppets. 👺 "Witch hunt"?, 2) There is no intention on the part of the FPC participants to "create a toxic environment", just Wilfredor's fake images had to be delisted (or withdrawn) because they were wrong FPs (1, 2, 3, 4... and more). My subjective interpretation is that this shift may have caused a certain resentment inside. 3) When a clear warning "please stop" (April 2024, link above) is legitimate, accepted, and completed, there should be no need for Frank Schulenburg to send another (legitimate) one in October. It's infuriating, yes. Following these repeated slip-ups, Wilfredor took the decision to take "an indefinite FPC break", now please don't come claiming: there are toxic users who kicked me out. On the contrary, Wilfredor was abundantly supported and cared for in this specific context. This exit is the simple consequence of their own harmful actions. 4) Yes, everyone makes mistakes, of course, and being able to apologize is a virtue. But if an apology only serves to start over, it is a sign that there is a real, deep-rooted problem. When an apology is sincere, it should normally be accompanied by a real change in behavior. But when you read the history of events, and the repetitions, you understand that these feelings are not genuine (or not sustainable). There were also some pretty vicious tricks with this user on the FPC talk page. Bad tricks have consequences. 5) By repeating lies, it ends up affecting the other participants. "Xenophobic"? I have lived for 17 years with a person of a different skin color than mine, from another culture, another country, another religion, and I myself live on a different continent than the one where I was born. Why accuse me of xenophobia when I embody the complete opposite? 💡 I even congratulate and encourage a Brazilian user here. It tarnishes my reputation on this other page, and the damage is irreparable. Anyone reading the discussion could now have the impression that Wilfredor is a lone hero denouncing a conspiracy, when it is nonsense. Anyone can have doubts, reservations, and use these false speculations for the purpose of targeted harm. This is an extremely serious event, much more serious than insults. 6) There is no "sick mind" behind the discovery (for example) that "Satan / Santa" is an anagram (like "Evangelist / Evil's agent", "Listen / Silent", "The eyes / They see", etc.) It's just a coincidence. Please come back down to earth and stop attributing bad intentions where there is only poetry or entertainment. 7) At the top of this page, Wilfredor begins: "Commons has become a toxic forum, largely due to A.Savin's arbitrary and problematic behavior". See The Mote and the Beam. When you look at where the hostility started and what form it took, you understand quite well who the main actor is. Like others, I also don't think Commons is a "toxic platform". But there are certainly people in difficulty, even in great distress, who contribute to it. And it is essential to protect oneself. Here, I think above all that Wilfredor was not in a sufficiently stable situation to engage in such conflictual terrain. A bad opportunity was taken, in my opinion, a sad move. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the event that I have made mistakes in the past, and I'm sure you will find many in my thousands of comments here that have nothing to do with A. Savin, it does not transform A. Savin's mistreatment and disrespect towards me and other users into something good. Wilfredor (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Extremely shameful, yes, because this comment is pure defamation. Deliberate libel. Isn't a user like that likely to be harmful to the project? Wilfredor is "looking for psychological help", ("I am not well psychologically"). But inventing such plots is very damaging. And it is not the first time that Wilfredor imagines completely absurd scenarios that harm other users. -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. That's indeed very shameful. --A.Savin 22:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is not only one, but two points above, where Wilfredor is mentioned (point 3 and point 5). About point 5, Wilfredor must face the consequences of their own actions. We are humans, sometimes compassionate, sometimes forgiving, but sometimes also exasperated (for good reasons), and you should understand that. Kind regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- @A.Savin: , Wilfredor apologized in March 2024, but then made the same mistake in December. Not to mention "sick mind". -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you place so much value on apologies, why don't you go ahead with a good example and apologize to Basile Morin for "xenophobic, narcissist, Anti-Brazilian" etc.? --A.Savin 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- I respond only to the point where I was mentioned (point 3). I will never support any authoritarian regime, regardless of its ideology, be it left, right or otherwise. These are two completely different conversations and, although I understand your effort to link them, I am concerned that you are trying to justify a direct disrespect towards me with something completely unrelated. I come from Venezuela, a country devastated by an authoritarian regime and, in particular, by the influence of Vladimir Putin's regime, which has openly supported that dictatorship. I have lost relatives, families have been separated, food shortages have caused the deaths of many, and millions have had to flee. Because of all this, I find it unacceptable to be compared to Vladimir Putin, and your argument besides wrong, if not completely disconnected from the topic. BTW, Since there has been no apology from A.Savin, I also request an IBAN between the two of you. Thanks. Translated with DeepL.com Wilfredor (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/removal/File:Château_Frontenac,_Quebec_city,_Canada.jpg){kind=link}
Comment I've just eaten an hour of my time at work sitting here trying to catch up on what's been going on. Can Commons be toxic? No doubt about it. I'm simply amazed that after moving into passive involvement between 2010 and 2024, when I got my admin bit back, that things had not gotten any better in 15 years. And then I immediately run headfirst into a wheel war with another admin. 🤷
What we have here are people overworked and underpaid (ha-ha!) because there are too few admins around and too few file reviewers and too few active editors and way too many users uploading files who have no connection with the community. And you get into our little areas and then someone comes along and does something that you weren't expecting and makes your work even harder, and things are already so tense, it gets really easy for neurodivergent people (let's admit it, most of are) to let our emotions get out of control and say or do something stupid. And some people have less of a filter than others.
A. Savin should absolutely be accountable for his behavior and at the very least apologize for it. But taking away his admin role seems overly punitive and is not going to make Commons any better. I wish there was a way to do it like a block, take away his admin privileges for 30 days and then he gets them back. But that's not an option.
@Wilfredor, my friend, please don't armchair diagnose people around here. Again, we are a lot of neurodivergent people and many of us already see therapists and don't need that kind of insult added on. I hope you find it in your heart to apologize to Basile Morin for that. I know you in real life and think you're a great person. And that's something a great person would do.
I'm saying this even admitting I'm no better than anyone else but I do try to take my own advice. When I use words or act in ways that hurt someone else—and that can be propagating an argument for an extended length of time—I apologize and try to do something to make up for it.
Commons can be a toxic community but each of us has to do our part to remember we do exist in a community and have similar goals (in general) and there are better ways to handle disagrements. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- And if any of this sounds condescending, I'm sorry about that. In real life I'm a 58 year old pastor who thinks they know a few things about getting along with others. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Pastor, for your words. Truly, there are things that only God can change when we choose to place His will above our own. I am a Christian, I believe in God, but I know that this doesn’t make me better than others. God's grace calls us all, and it is in Him that we find true transformation. Wilfredor (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve just realized very well where you’re coming from. It’s difficult to balance all the work and responsibilities, especially when there’s a shortage of admins and active contributors, perhaps because of how confusing and bureaucratic everything has become. The frustrations really pile up, and it’s easy for emotions to get out of hand when things feel overwhelming, which is why I decided to step back from FPC—it was causing me a lot of stress. I agree, there are definitely aspects of Commons that can feel toxic (as Jimmy mentioned a few years ago), and it’s a problem when people feel completely disconnected from the community. As for A. Savin, I believe accountability is important, but I also agree that permanently removing admin privileges might not be the best solution. An apology would have been enough, but the user seems not to understand. A temporary suspension could allow for reflection and growth without causing too much harm to the community in the long term. I also really appreciate you pointing out the issue with armchair diagnosing. I now see that my comment was inappropriate, and I sincerely apologize if I hurt anyone. Then, privately, I’ll reach out to Basile and make sure to offer a sincere apology. You’re right; we all need to be more mindful of how we interact and try to make Commons a better place for everyone. Thanks to Basile for your patience in collecting all that evidence, and you Cari for your interest in making things work better, and your understanding. Wilfredor (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- I apologize for the comparison with Putin's friends, as this really was a completely unnecessary taunt and in general political comparisons should be avoided in user interaction on Wikimedia projects.
- My opinion on your past (problematic) actions remains the same of course. --A.Savin 07:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding my behavior, I have already taken specific actions such as stopping participating in FPC indefinitely, if you have any other more appropriate solution, I am open to discuss it. I accept your apologies, I hope you can improve your treatment of other users as well. We come from sometimes different cultures where bad treatment in one is completely unacceptable in another. Wilfredor (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I ended up here after trying to understand how File:Frankfurt-Rödelheim, In der Au 14-16 a.jpg got deleted with the summary "(WMF-banned user, not eligible to contribute anything)" because that isn't a good reason to delete an image. And if an admin is doing that, they shouldn't be an admin. Mujinga (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to undelete that since it was in use when it was deleted. It was uploaded by a sock of a LTA so the rationale would be en:WP:DENY. You're welcome to request undeletion of it at COM:UDR. Abzeronow (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- I believe a sockpuppet account should be blocked immediately and prevented from editing. However, its contributions should not be reverted if they do not violate any rules or constitute vandalism. Am I correct? Wilfredor (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- I believe there is a some sort of underpinning on deleting uploads of socks of globally banned users. I have said to User:MGA73 in the past that I have ambivalent feelings about that as I'd rather see that evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than massively deleting in such cases. (Edit: User:Abzeronow/Archive3#Notice_about undeletion request is where I discussed that.) Abzeronow (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- I believe we should not base our decisions solely on the user's status, but rather on the value and validity of the content itself. If the files are educational, properly licensed, and meet the requirements, they should be kept regardless of who uploaded them. Deleting useful content simply because a user is blocked goes against the purpose of Wikimedia Commons, which is to preserve and share valuable media. I agree that each case should be evaluated individually, without allowing sanction policies to interfere with the preservation of important content for the community. To provide more context to this situation, could you indicate which user uploaded this image and what it contained? Perhaps there was a reason for its deletion. --Wilfredor (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- As A. Savin says, it was uploaded by a sock of Messina. The photograph is of a building with bare trees in front of it and showing part of a street and sidewalk where cars are parked. Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether the edit is vandalism or not, as a user directly blocked by WMF, do we automatically have the Foundation's support to revert all of their contributions? Wilfredor (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Wilfredor: I can imagine no circumstance where WMF would require us to keep any content added by a banned user. I can imagine only cases where (1) they would specifically want the content removed or (2, more commonly) they wouldn't care which we did. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see anything written about reversing non-vandalistic or non-copyrighted contributions from blocked users. I support the position of simply blocking the new sock, but whether the content is valid or not is another matter and should not be related to the block. If that were the case, then all the contributions from the user would have to be reverted. Wilfredor (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Wilfredor: From meta:WMF Global Ban Policy#Implications of a global ban (which A.Savin linked immediately below roughly 20 hours ago): "Any contributions made by a banned individual, directly or indirectly, may be reverted or removed as part of ban implementation." Now can we move on? - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see anything written about reversing non-vandalistic or non-copyrighted contributions from blocked users. I support the position of simply blocking the new sock, but whether the content is valid or not is another matter and should not be related to the block. If that were the case, then all the contributions from the user would have to be reverted. Wilfredor (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- As A. Savin says, it was uploaded by a sock of Messina. The photograph is of a building with bare trees in front of it and showing part of a street and sidewalk where cars are parked. Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- I believe there is a some sort of underpinning on deleting uploads of socks of globally banned users. I have said to User:MGA73 in the past that I have ambivalent feelings about that as I'd rather see that evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than massively deleting in such cases. (Edit: User:Abzeronow/Archive3#Notice_about undeletion request is where I discussed that.) Abzeronow (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to undelete that since it was in use when it was deleted. It was uploaded by a sock of a LTA so the rationale would be en:WP:DENY. You're welcome to request undeletion of it at COM:UDR. Abzeronow (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Messina is banned by the WMF, deletions were correct. --A.Savin 07:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I had been neutral here up to now, because I've had my own issues with A.Savin's approach to adminship, but Wilfredor's continual posting here—over 20 separate posts so far, including several lambasting A.Savin's completely appropriate removal of content added by a banned user—leave me feeling like this is something other than an effort to reach a fair result over specific grievances. Plus, for all of the amount Wilfredor has posted here, the one time I asked for specifics, he provided nothing but a dismissal. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with what Jambel has said above, therefore I also Oppose. Bidgee (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with what Jambel has said above, therefore I also
Discussion of Interaction Bans
Since Wilfredor has requested an IBAN between them and A. Savin, and someone else made a suggestion of an IBAN between A. Savin and 1989, a new subsection discussing IBANs seems appropriate to me. Abzeronow (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should any admin be having IBANs imposed upon them? Such a need would seem like a warning that maybe they ought not to have that role. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see it rather as a compromise from both sides, rather than an imposition. Bedivere (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not that A.Savin is without fault, but the longer this thread goes on, the more convinced I'm becoming that Wilfredor is the primary problem here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I'm an admin, and there are probably about half a dozen users here with whom I've basically informally put myself under a one-way interaction ban, where I don't interact with them unless they directly address me. Why? In general, because I don't like them. None of them are people who've done something so bad I think they should be blocked, but all of them are people where interacting with them makes my day a little worse, and would probably not make anything better. - Jmabel ! talk 04:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- But you didn't need to have that imposed upon you, implying that you have the judgement to not need it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: } and no one is imposing this on A.Savin. There is little or no chance of A.Savin being blocked here, whether he agrees to this condition or not. People are just suggesting that maybe he's not the best one to engage with this particular user. - Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- But you didn't need to have that imposed upon you, implying that you have the judgement to not need it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, my last interaction with 1989 before they recently initiated
(out of the blue)a U4C complaint against me, was a contra and comment in their further RfA nomination as of January 2024. --A.Savin 07:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Files by CodsodorsWriter
All of the files have been uploaded by a sock of SleepyHollowGuy1999, and should probably be deleted per CSD G3. Leonidlednev (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Done indef-blocked, user page deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: The vending machine photos could also be nuked, as they are not used anywhere. Leonidlednev (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. I decided to delete all uploads. Taivo (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: The vending machine photos could also be nuked, as they are not used anywhere. Leonidlednev (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Someone may want to look at what's going on here. I did a short-term block to stop what appeared to be an out-of-control bot, but there may be larger problems, and I don't expect to be back on Commons for at least 12 hours, maybe more. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely running a script. Why the script is being run, I have no clue. I think you should increase block to 24 hrs unless we can make contact and leave a note on talk page. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- I deleted all 5,000+ of their recent uploads and expanded on the warnings already on their talk page. Let's see what happens. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't think any sanctions are in order at this time. I think we are just dealing with a confused, relatively new, but well-intentioned user, which is why I didn't bring this to COM:AN/U. They have engaged on their user talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good, then we can close this and move on. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 22:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Rampant image scrapes from flickr being added - is this normal?
Greetings all, I will begin by saying that I am not intimately familiar with the intricacies of the Wikimedia Commons project aside from what is stated in the Welcome page and project scope page. That is the only perspective I have coming in to what I perceive as being a possible issue. If indeed I am incorrect in my suspicion and subsequent raising it here - then please by all means let me know, purge this request for admin review, and accept my apology for raising the alarm.
In reviewing contributions from other editors, I have noticed that User:Tm has amassed over 4 million edits to the WMC. From what I can see - the bulk of these are simply uploads of entire image library sets from flickr, using the flickr2commons tool. While user interactions demonstrate that it is not a bot account, it is evident that the tool is being employed with some automation, as there are between 10 to 20 image uploads per minute to WMC, and the activity is continuous.
There doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason to why these particular images or entire libraries are being grabbed, and Tm is not employing their usage elsewhere within Wikispace. Many of the libraries are multiple views of the same person, place or event. Further - a quick look through random archives of his talk page reveals thousands upon thousands of deletion request notifications for many of the images he has uploaded.
This kind of activity just seems odd to me... it does not seem to be in alignment with the project scope page statements. I didn't see anything in them that part of the project was to mirror openly licensed content at flickr in a redundant repository. It also does not appear to be the best utilization of WMC resources - including storage and the need to check the image for license compliance and the addition of image details. Seems like a lot of wasted time, space and effort - especially if the bulk of them are being deleted anyhow.
So - am I barking up the wrong tree here? Happy to accept if I am, and would love to better understand what I am missing if so. This just kinda stuck out to me and seemed to be a bit of a red flag, so - that is why I am raising here. Thank you for your time and insight. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Picard's Facepalm: You must inform users when you report them here. I did it for you this time. Yann (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, apologies. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bulk mass imports of files are a good thing and it needs more of these as long as people make sure the files have proper titles and categories. I think many of the most useful files are missing and additionally with increasing numbers of files, enabling users to easily see high-quality files would be good...e.g. enabling/showing files used multiple times in Wikimedia projects at the top. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting. So is the only criteria & driver for bulk/mass imports is that they are appropriately licensed? There is no other driver associated with conducting image acquisition for this project, such as they are being used or otherwise attributed towards other Wiki projects? It really is just a "grab everything" type initiative? If so - ok, I will rescind this AN right away. But it might be good to update the project's scope page to reflect something to that affect. It certainly doesn't read like that now. Understand - I am not at all being argumentative... I am just trying to make sure I full understand and appreciate the scope of this project. Thanks. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- It should be potentially useful and things that aren't can be deleted. It's a 'grab everything useful initiative' more or less, I mean there are over 111 million files, how could it not be so? However, it's actually rather a 'integrate everything useful into an aggregation system initiative' (the part about the search, file-titles, categories, standardized formats, etc are key). Prototyperspective (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the further explanation. To be honest - just from the admittedly small sampling I have done - the "useful" part of the criteria is not being observed. This is the foundation for my concern and raising it here. Entire collections/libraries/folders - however you wish to identify it on flikr - are being harvested and uploaded at a time, seemingly indiscriminately. Again - there is some obvious automation or scripting behind it, as the uploads normally clock at 10-20 files per minute and do not contain any details when added. The details look to then be harvested and attached afterwards by further automation or script. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Entire collections/libraries/folders […] are being harvested and uploaded at a time
Yes, that seems like the way to go. Good that somebody takes care of that instead of overburdening users who would do it more manually and waste their precious volunteer time on that. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)- ok - but is 75 photos of the same object, person or event from slightly different angles = "everything useful"? TBH unless the mission was to be a mirror of everything vs. be a collection of everything useful - then I would see how this kind of approach qualifies. One way or another - manual review will need to be done of the upload(s)... either before it is snagged and uploaded, or afterwards - as is evident by the number of redlink deletion request notifs he has received. How is that not overburdening the users and their precious volunteer time? As @Omphalographer mentioned below - that is just a ton of busywork on the back-end. It is far more inefficient to have to run a file through the deletion process and get consensus from multiple users after the fact than it would have been to just determine the usefulness on the front end before uploading. A lot more of precious volunteer time is being used in the current method than it would if the files were manually screened by the uploader, before being uploaded. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- The inefficiency comes at most from users like Omphalographer nominating so much for deletion. Yes, your example doesn't sound useful so again you could link the album you're referring to but nobody is bugged by these photos if they are in the category about that object/person where they may be the only images. Just let things flourish and mind your own business or actual problems. If you think this is an actual problem, please describe why it would be. No, a lot more volunteer time would be used up if each file was manually uploaded individually instead of whole collections being imported. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wow... that's a bit of an unnecessary jab at @Omphalographer, who in my opinion is actually doing that work in good faith, and in lieu of it not being done on the front end. Pruning is never a bad thing - in any realm.
- Anyhow - my previous reply was being written at the same time you wrote yours - so I apologize for it being somewhat out of linearity. The point I am raising here is not if someone is bugged/bothered by the images or not - but more pointedly if seemingly indiscriminate, mass-harvesting is the correct MO & in alignment with the project scope. I think I have been pretty clear on that from the beginning.
- I will need to take a deeper look at his uploads/albums which are still active - but in lieu of that, there are many clear examples of entire albums, or large chunks of them which have been removed just by looking at the redlinks in his deletion notifications on his talk page archives.
- "MYOB" is not the correct response, here. It is contrary to the point of having a discussion in the frist place, and the communal nature of all of Wiki. To be honest - it is also rather inappropriate. I don't really want to go here, but I have to say that when compounded with your jab at Omphalographer - it seems you are getting pretty close to COM:CIVIL. Please - let's not continue to go there, ok?
- In a nutshell - I would say that efficient, appropriate usage of WMC and its hosting and user resources that is in alignment with the project's scope is everyone's business - and in their best interest, and in that of the project itself. That's all I am asking about, here. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, what do you refer to with "seemingly indiscriminate, mass-harvesting". Without examples we're discussing nothing. I think this kind of sensitivity hampers discussion of the subject. I'll repeat
If you think this is an actual problem, please describe why it would be
andso again you could link the album you're referring
. Until there is substantial reply to these two questions, the discussion remains intangible and unclear. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, what do you refer to with "seemingly indiscriminate, mass-harvesting". Without examples we're discussing nothing. I think this kind of sensitivity hampers discussion of the subject. I'll repeat
- The inefficiency comes at most from users like Omphalographer nominating so much for deletion. Yes, your example doesn't sound useful so again you could link the album you're referring to but nobody is bugged by these photos if they are in the category about that object/person where they may be the only images. Just let things flourish and mind your own business or actual problems. If you think this is an actual problem, please describe why it would be. No, a lot more volunteer time would be used up if each file was manually uploaded individually instead of whole collections being imported. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- ok - but is 75 photos of the same object, person or event from slightly different angles = "everything useful"? TBH unless the mission was to be a mirror of everything vs. be a collection of everything useful - then I would see how this kind of approach qualifies. One way or another - manual review will need to be done of the upload(s)... either before it is snagged and uploaded, or afterwards - as is evident by the number of redlink deletion request notifs he has received. How is that not overburdening the users and their precious volunteer time? As @Omphalographer mentioned below - that is just a ton of busywork on the back-end. It is far more inefficient to have to run a file through the deletion process and get consensus from multiple users after the fact than it would have been to just determine the usefulness on the front end before uploading. A lot more of precious volunteer time is being used in the current method than it would if the files were manually screened by the uploader, before being uploaded. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the further explanation. To be honest - just from the admittedly small sampling I have done - the "useful" part of the criteria is not being observed. This is the foundation for my concern and raising it here. Entire collections/libraries/folders - however you wish to identify it on flikr - are being harvested and uploaded at a time, seemingly indiscriminately. Again - there is some obvious automation or scripting behind it, as the uploads normally clock at 10-20 files per minute and do not contain any details when added. The details look to then be harvested and attached afterwards by further automation or script. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- It should be potentially useful and things that aren't can be deleted. It's a 'grab everything useful initiative' more or less, I mean there are over 111 million files, how could it not be so? However, it's actually rather a 'integrate everything useful into an aggregation system initiative' (the part about the search, file-titles, categories, standardized formats, etc are key). Prototyperspective (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting. So is the only criteria & driver for bulk/mass imports is that they are appropriately licensed? There is no other driver associated with conducting image acquisition for this project, such as they are being used or otherwise attributed towards other Wiki projects? It really is just a "grab everything" type initiative? If so - ok, I will rescind this AN right away. But it might be good to update the project's scope page to reflect something to that affect. It certainly doesn't read like that now. Understand - I am not at all being argumentative... I am just trying to make sure I full understand and appreciate the scope of this project. Thanks. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Without any comment on Tm's imports in particular, indiscriminate Flickr imports to Commons are generally discouraged. Many files on Flickr are inappropriate for Commons, often because they're not useful (e.g. pictures of common objects, vacation selfies, artsy filtered photos, etc) or they're not fully free (e.g. DW / FoP concerns). Pulling files into Commons just because they're available creates unnecessary busywork for Commons users who end up having to sort through it, attempt to categorize it, and tag it for deletion if it's not useful or inappropriate. Omphalographer (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- I believe this notion to be the case which is happening here, and why I raised it. The uploads are targeting entire collections/albums/folders on flickr, and are being uploaded en-masse by some sort of automation at a rate of 10-20 files per minute. It does not appear that any criteria regarding usefulness or application elsewhere within Wiki is being applied in this image harvesting. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the criteria is applied at the collections/albums/folders level. If you have an example of a collection that is unlikely to be useful at all, please link it. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- I believe this notion to be the case which is happening here, and why I raised it. The uploads are targeting entire collections/albums/folders on flickr, and are being uploaded en-masse by some sort of automation at a rate of 10-20 files per minute. It does not appear that any criteria regarding usefulness or application elsewhere within Wiki is being applied in this image harvesting. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
@Picard's Facepalm: "the bulk of them are being deleted" would mean a majority, probably a supermajority. That seems very unlikely to me. Do you have any evidence of that, or would you like to amend what you said? - Jmabel ! talk 20:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Without doing an actual count - I will defer to "a good chunk". Just randomly sampling his talk page archives reflects thousands of deletion request notifications where the nominated file is now redlinked, indicating it has in fact been deleted. I am not sure how to go about generating a report of that difference specifically to him - so I can only rely on eyeballing it at this point. In either case - it is an incredible - if not an unreasonable amount. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Tm: can you describe your criteria about what you bring in from Flickr, and what (if anything) you do to avoid placing a heavy burden on others of identifying files not appropriate for Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Picard's Facepalm, Yann, and Omphalographer: I notice that Tm has not edited at all in several days. I suggest we suspend this discussion until they can reply. - Jmabel ! talk 22:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's fine - however this is not specifically related to just him, as there are other editos who are as well. My original question was is this kind of activity within scope, normal and part of the intent of the project - regardless who is doing it? Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Picard's Facepalm: if by "this kind of activity" you mean mass-uploading free-licensed images from sites such as Flickr, yes, that is normal and part of the intent of the project. However, the issue is precisely what is being done by the uploader to make sure the content in question is at least preponderantly in scope (and what they are doing to make sure images are at least reasonably likely to get appropriate filenames, categories, descriptions, etc.). That is always going to be a case-by-case basis of how different uploaders are approaching such scraping. Since Tm is the uploader under discussion, my question is addressed to Tm. - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- That's fine - however this is not specifically related to just him, as there are other editos who are as well. My original question was is this kind of activity within scope, normal and part of the intent of the project - regardless who is doing it? Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Unacceptable threats by Yann
Yann (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Yann tagged File:Indy Fuel new logo.png with {{No permission since|month=January|day=24|year=2025}}. In the same minute, he speedydeleted it. Note that the template says
Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added and the uploader was notified. In my view, this logo isn't above COM:TOO United States. On Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Indy Fuel new logo.png, no opposing view was offered except by Yann himself (for five days so far). - Yann also tagged File:Finnischer Eishockeyverband logo.svg with Missing permission, even though a reasoning is provided on why this logo is in the public domain.
- Finally, Yann posted a last warning before blocking to the talk page of Xgeorg (talk · contribs) – a user who has been on Commons for 18 years and has ~150,000 contribs. This user had only cropped the former logo, not uploaded it originally. In the case of the latter logo, he had uploaded it 15 years ago to de.wikipedia, not to Commons.
- When I confronted Yann about his inappropriate actions, he directly threatened me with a block.
I am of the view that this behaviour of Yann is not acceptable. --Leyo 00:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- All three of these are absolutely typical of Yann and happen repeatedly. But they're an admin, therefore they're above any criticism. The blocking threat is particularly egregious.
- To highlight just one of them, Yann incessantly misuses speedy deletion. Rather than seeing it in the limited sense in which it's valid; i.e. a convenience when we can speedy delete something without controversy, they see it instead as an opportunity to ease the admin's dreadful burden(™) by doing deletions with as little effort as possible. They can be tagged and gone with only minutes between them, no matter how complex the issue involved. We have a specific prohibition for this over FOP cases, because they're recognised [sic] to be complex. TOO is not much simpler.
- The image here is another version of the same thing. A contested permission is not the same thing as a missing permission. There is no excuse for Yann acting like this (and doing it over and over). DR would be reasonable, speedy deletion is not. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- FYI, I undeleted File:Indy Fuel new logo.png, and created a regular DR. Yann (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- And File:Finnischer Eishockeyverband logo.svg is way above the threshold of originality for a copyright. There is no evidence why it would be in the public domain, so a permission from the copyright holder is needed. Yann (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but how does anyone know if it is speedy deleted before anyone else gets to see it?
- Yet again (I am tired of having this same conversation with you, over and over), this is not about whether this item should be deleted or not. It's about you short-circuiting our agreed processes here, because you clearly see yourself as above all the little stuff, and the little people (No-one else has a "God is busy, how may I help you?" banner). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Big LOL. This is supposed to be a joke, but your sense of humor is clearly lacking... Do you have anything serious to say? Otherwise, please stop wasting my time and others'. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- What exactly are the threats the headline speaks of? --Krd 12:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Krd: I think it is this response to, what I have perceived as a well articulated question on User:Yann's talk page. I have, however, no further background than what is stated here. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- … and also this (see 3rd bullet point above). --Leyo 14:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, I overlooked that. I'd admit that this is not the best move. Krd 16:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest that Special:Diff/990212786 was also uncalled for: a ‘last warning’ issued to a confused new user who had already stopped uploading, started engaging with an admin (who made it clear they believed that user was acting in good faith), and received firm but polite responses from multiple other admins. The situation had escalated rapidly because the new user was operating an unauthorized bot. See #User:Omar.idma and User talk:Omar.idma#STOP. Brianjd (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Commons administrator case suspension
A request regarding a Commons administrator was submitted to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C), you can read the the full request here. The U4C has passed the following motion 7-0 (with 1 member inactive):
The case request is suspended for 6 months to allow the Commons community time to incorporate the UCOC into its practices/procedures (e.g. desysop). Following unsuspension the U4C will consider how to further proceed (accept the case, pass a further motion, or decline the case). All editors who have commented on the case will be notified when the case is unsuspended.
- Further comments by U4C members on the motion are available to be read here.
On behalf of the U4C, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Yann closed this request as:
Not done: Obviously not. No recent naked pictures of minors are allowed. May be the montage should be deleted.
The only thing that is obvious here is that I end up looking bad. I did not know that the nominated file contained a naked picture of a minor, nor could I have known that.
No one else knew either, apparently:
- I do not see that the uploader is locked for child protection.
- The user who previously nominated this file for deletion with a generic scope argument did not seem to have any child pornography concerns.
- The user who incorporated this file into a montage clearly did not have any child pornography concerns either.
I suspect that the nominated file does not depict a minor at all, but Yann is somehow misreading the situation. Either way, this situation needs to be resolved urgently, which is why I bring it to this noticeboard after a very brief failed attempt to resolve the issue with Yann. Brianjd (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- The file page is in a Wayback Machine archive.
For some strange reason, that archive is missing both the preview and the thumbnail in the file history section, but that means that archive is safe to view.Now that the file has been restored, it should be correctly archived at some point. The description is (emphasis added):Young man taking a mirror selfie including his erect penis and removed pubic and chest hair
- That would explain it! Yann has a history of interpreting such things as meaning that the subject is a minor. Brianjd (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I reverted my closure. I misread this. Yann (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
LTA now socking with IP
Hello. The LTA Oirattas/Moroike/Orattas has returned under an IP address 78.162.130.48 shortly after being blocked on their latest sock Orattas: you can see identical of LTA "requests" to erase Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh from commons maps [4], [5], [6], [7], among other identical requests concerning Sudan. They have also reverted all of my reverts of them.
The IP even left a message to one of the users Orattas was making many requests to in commons, but the message was left on a different wiki project, with IP saying "Unfortunately, I have been blocked.", and making the same map requests that Orattas did. It's clearly them, this is just unhealthy. Also, on another user's page on a different wiki project [8] again confessing they have been blocked. The IP clearly needs to be range locked or the abusive sockpuppetry will continue and is sipping into literally every wiki project. All of their "requests" need to be reverted too which they display here: what they do usually is go to oblivious users pages and request edits to erase Nagorno-Karabakh from maps with disregard to context, upload dates, historical purpose, etc, see one of the users actually challenging them [3], [4] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Done IP blocked for a week, most edits reverted. Yann (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)