Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U· COM:ANU

  Welcome   Community portal   Help desk
Upload help
  Village pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)


Note

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


User:Hiku2[edit]

Hiku2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

There are THOUSANDS (maybe tenthousands, I failed to browse through all) flickr2C uploads of license plates, hardly in scope, submitted on just one day (12 May) within a couple of minutes. All of the uploads blatantly violate COM:OVERCAT, hundreds of categories that actually should be empty are now overflooded. What to do? IMO, heavy abuse of automated upload tools… --A.Savin 11:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I really have no idea how to proceed but shouldn't we modify this tool so that only authorized users can use it? This prevents mass uploads of bad quality content. Natuur12 (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
We should. --A.Savin 11:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Numberplates are within scope, imho. Wikipedia has articles in various languages about their various types for various purposes in various countries. When I realised that the upload tool gives wrong categories automatically, I stopped using this functionality. The problem seems to be the "Auto-detect categories: (default is 'yes', can also be changed individually)" in Flickr2Commons. Cheers, Hiku2 (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This is problematic. Please don't do that again. Natuur12 (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. But then you should change the guidelines. --Hiku2 (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Which guideline gives you the right to close DR's where the subjects are your own uploads? Should be closed als delete imho. Natuur12 (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It states: "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial." --Hiku2 (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
You have neither a good understanding nor is it uncontroversial.... Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
They have also removed {{copyvio}} from this file, instead of opposing it on the file talk page. Bidgee (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, if you really stopped, you did it much too late… I'd say either you clean up all your uploads by hand, or they have to be nuked. And no: some kind of license plate photos may be in scope, but I don't believe yours are. --A.Savin 14:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should restrict actions (upload, edits) for non-autopatrolled users using abusefilter (example: 2000 actions per day if not in autopatrolled group)? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem with me. Note, however, that this here is an extreme case. If Hiku2 had uploaded 10.000 in 5 days, the problem was in the end the same. So, we rather need a guideline which says that mass flickr2C uploads are in general shit (apart from some few special cases, which we obviously don't have here). Nothing against selective transfers of encyclopedically useful freely licensed material from Flickr, but for anyone who transfers 10.000 at once for their own upload count, I cannot assume any good faith anymore, sorry. --A.Savin 16:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a serious problem with the closure of the Deletion Nomination of your own pictures. That's in very poor form, shows lack of judgement and understanding of the rules of commons. I personally suggest nuking all these uploads as non-encyclopedically useful and intended only to boost users edit count. I also request that DN be examined by an administrator and reviewed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Done (for the uploads). --A.Savin 00:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
A three-month block? Three months⁈ All considered, this seems too harsh! -- Tuválkin 01:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support the three month block because of:
  • a lack of caution when mass uploading - better to upload a few at a time and check them
  • an unwillingness to undo potential errors - I see no comments from the user to suggest they are willing to clean up after themselves
  • the DR closure and subsequent comment that the guidelines should be changed so that they fit Hiku2's action rather than accepting that the uploads might be controversial because someone has nominated them for deletion
  • the removal of a copyvio notice without following the procedure outlined on the notice
  • the frankly unapologetic response to being blocked, without acknowledgement that there might be a problem with their uploads.
Nothing in the user's actions suggests that they have taken stock of the criticism of their editing and will be more careful in future. Green Giant (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seeing that this is a first block, 3 months seems a bit long. I would support a one-month block. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
And what exactly should a block reduction bring us? The damage of Commons caused by Hiku2's mass random uploading is enormous. There are still some >15.000 uploads left, most of them uncategorized or improperly categorized. So, the only alternative to a full block is to revoke their right to use flickr2C, VisualFileChange, cat-a-lot, and other automated tools, because otherwise further abuse has to be expected. --A.Savin 20:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Given the lack of self reflection I believe that 3 moths is fine. Not the term I would have picked but the block length is defendable. Natuur12 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
We have had people uploading much worst junk without any category or description, and nobody never really raised an eyebrow. Just my 2 Rs. Yann (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
True and that's why we should make automated tools for users who know what their are doing only. Natuur12 (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
That's very, very bad. That does not mean we should repeat our faults. Automated tools are for advanced users only. Any maloperation (including even such done in good faith; not to mention intentional abuse/vandalism) is able to do a lot of hard-to-repair damage. Users who misuse flickr2C to boost their editcount from ~0 to 20.000 within some minutes (like here, obviously) should be blocked from editing Commons. (Or, at least, excluded from using automated tools.) --A.Savin 22:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that automated tools should be given only to experienced users. It doesn't mean that a 3-month block is needed here. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Either we think that this user has some redeeming qualities and should be encouraged to work on Commons again after some time off to consider, or we believe this user is a vandal and deliberately acted outside of the rules. If it's the former, then even Yann's one month is too long -- blocks are not punishment and longer terms do not punish more. If it's the latter, then just block him indefinitely and maybe reconsider it after a long while if he exhibits contrition on his talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@3 months: I can not say this is right or not (sure it is uncommon high and I also thought even one month would be sufficient). I wanted to tell this not really. Perhaps he is now a little annoyed, but it's also difficult to talk in German with him (he got also an admin warning there). Then we should made in effect the guidelines more concrete (to the DR)⁉ I mean the question is here, is it good faith or spam? w:WP:WPSPAM #Assuming good faith User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  08:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Luischanel[edit]

User uploading the same copyrighted FC logo multiple times. I have reason to believe the have also done so under different account names, as this logo has been uploaded at least 10 times in the last month. No other contributions, should be blocked. Fry1989 eh? 23:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yo, Luischanel sólo lo he hecho dos veces, lo volví a subir porque me lo reportaste y no me das una explicación exacta, a parte es un logo de licencia libre, todos los equipos de fútbol lo tienen así, para la muestra un botón: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ANlog.png
Just because one FC logo is free of copyright does not make them all free from copyright. This image is indeed copyrightable. Fry1989 eh? 23:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
En la página http://www.derechodeautor.gov.co/web/guest/home no se le han encontrado derechos de autor.Luischanel (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Luischanel, 1) you should not have stated "own work", when the logo clearly is NOT your own work.[1] 2) the copyright of logos is a rather complicated matter and varies from country to country. As Commons is an international project, which tries to host only material that can be freely used in all/most countries, we take a restrictive/conservative approach. i.e., when something is copyrightable, we considered it to be copyrighted. See also Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Trademarks. In case of "your" logo: as is contains not only text, I consider it to be copyrightable. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yo subí el anterior archivo con los derechos de autor normales, es decir, refiriendome al autor pero como lo eliminaron busqué los logos de varios equipos de fútbol y todos lo colocaban de trabajo propio, por lo tante decidí subirlo así ya que fue un compañero de una pagina quién lo realizó, total acá no trata de esto, pero yo sólo he hecho eso dos veces y fue por lo mencionado, las acusaciones de Fry1989 son falsas, así que creo que este reporte debe ser borrado de acá y además que Fry1989 se retracte de sus acusaciones. "Luischanel (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Fry1989 and symbols by country overcategorisations[edit]

Fry1989 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploadsblock user keeps rollbacking well-explained reverts (mostly of his reverts) on symbols by country categories and by doing so overcategorising them into their main country categories. Asked to stop and discuss, he responded "oh piss of". Needless to mention that this is not the first time a thread about this user's behaviour has been started on this noticeboard, I would welcome it if it won't get closed by Fastily.    FDMS  4    23:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, with an endorsement of good faith like that, surely this is worthy of attention!! I am not violating OVERCAT at all, symbols of countries is a direct subcat of the country itself, putting it under "culture of ..." is inappropriate because national symbols may or may not having anything to do with the culture of the country in question (many countries have designed their symbols to be devoid of references to their history and culture, such as China). I am properly categorising these subcats, and you are interfering. Fry1989 eh? 23:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
You couldn't gave this respond at your talk page because? Natuur12 (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
[edit conflict]
Glad to see that your attitude/mood changed so quickly, rollback and profanity can make it difficult to keep assuming good faith. Why can't you discuss content disputes at appropriate venues, talk pages? Having to use an administrators' noticeboard to get an explanation from you isn't exactly making collaborating with you more convenient.
Symbols itself is only categorised into arts (= culture) categories, and symbols are hardly hierarchically on the same level as society, geography or history.
   FDMS  4    00:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Anyways, this is editwar number 1000 and rollback has been used so I revoced his rollback tool. It doesn't matter who is right. There is no excuse for using rollback during an edit war. Natuur12 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Because I didn't want to, because I don't like FDMS4, because they're a thorn in my side, because they accused me of edit warring in bad faith, take your pick. I'd also love to know under what reasoning you think my rollback rights should be revoked. Do you have any evidence whatsoever of my systematic or deliberate abuse of this tool, or do you just not want me to have the tool in the same manner you don't think I should edit wikipedias if I don't speak the native language? Fry1989 eh? 00:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Who is acting in bad faith now? Natuur12 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
If there is ANYBODY out of all the admins on Commons who should not be using their admin tools in regards to me and should leave any sanctions to other admins, it's YOU. You who claims I shouldn't edit wikipedias in languages I don't speak the native language on and who went to far as to try and have me banned from the whole Dutch project, and who constantly harasses me anywhere we encounter each other elsewhere. Don't try and act like you're an innocent observer. Do you have any real examples of my abuse of the rollback tool or not? Fry1989 eh? 00:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
There's one right at the top of this thread.    FDMS  4    00:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No there's not, only in your playground. Fry1989 eh? 00:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Another one. Reverting a newbie with rollback while there is no vandalisme. Natuur12 (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
And care to tell me how that was abusive and worthy of tool removal? They categorised the DR which they shouldn't have done and I was trying to undo the categorising edit and accidentially (which you will never believe because you don't trust me any more than I trust you) rolled back both that edit and his answer. Now you tell me how you are not an involved party, when only days ago you called me sloppy and I told you I didn't want anything more to do with you, and you jump into this so rapidly I could bet you did so with glee to remove a tool of mine for where there is NO real evidence I have ever abused it. Fry1989 eh? 00:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, Natuur12?? How is it not inappropriate for you to have removed one of my tools so quickly when only days ago we had a spat, and when you have tried to have me banned from an entire project for the crime of not speaking Dutch? That's exactly what you made it about, you said I had no place editing a wiki if I don't speak the language, even for simple edits like adding images. I did that about 100 times just in the last two days ([2], [3]) doing invaluable work putting in missing images for wikis that I can't speak a single word of their language. You, of ALL admins, are the last one to claim you have uninvolved status regarding me and the right to enforce any sanctions regarding me. In fact I would bet money that you jumped into this so fast you have been looking for any excuse to act against me, and I find it very telling that you removed my rollback right BEFORE you responded to this AN. The best you have right now, is possible misuse, and even that's a stretch. Show where I have actively abused the rollback tool and under what authority you have to remove it so quickly without review by anyone else. Fry1989 eh? 00:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and this was after the piss off. O and than there are cases like 6, 7, 8 where the edits are not vandalism, just invalid namechange request. Using rollback to remove this request, especially when it are your uploads is wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
editwar, removing talk page message, content dispute and finally, January 31, this year, valid use of the rollback tool by reverting his own edit. Since than there has been no valid use of the rollback tool. Natuur12 (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
If you had really wanted to discuss or understand or get an explanation, you wouldn't have done so with an edit war notice as your header. Try asking me instead of accusing me, see where it gets you. Fry1989 eh? 03:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Usually it is the person who proposes changes that has an interest in discussing them. I'd have to be extremely naïve to expect a friendly collaborative atmosphere on your talkpage after the countless editwars you were involved in and your rollback abuse in this very case. However, should you have – against all odds – decided to start a discussion anyway, I'd have been a "good listener" and a constructive participant. As you haven't, you have at least been warned about the consequences.    FDMS  4    11:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
And yet there are plenty of other users where I have a polite, happy, collaborative environment with all the time. If what you say is true, such an environment could not exist and there are plenty of examples proving your massive generalisation false. It's how you approach me, and you chose to accuse me right from the beginning which is why I told you to piss off. If you had asked me, this could have been completely different. TRY JUST ONE to ask me instead of accusing me or threatening me or saying I'm wrong or whatever else and see what happens. Fry1989 eh? 18:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you have to establish consensus before reinstating contested changes does not have anything to do with your happiness or other emotions.    FDMS  4    20:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see how this works, just ignore when I point out things that don't comport to your sense of reality. You deliberately imply that I can't not participate in or create a friendly collaborative environment, and when there are examples that show you are mistaken, you go off on a tangent about how it has nothing to do with whether I am happy or not. Nice try. Fry1989 eh? 20:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hi, It seems that Fry1989 is not willing to understand. Accusing Natuur12 of abuse is clearly not the right thing. I blocked Fry1989 for 3 days. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Regardless if Fry isn't willing to understand or not, cool down blocks should never be done per COM:BP. I should know, I got slammed for it in the past (when I was an Admin) and rightfully so). Bidgee (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Your interpretation of the policy is quite weird. You can also take it as a preventive step avoiding further escalation of this issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No it isn't, you gave a reason for the block as "take some rest and come back", it wasn't preventive but in fact it was a punitive one. Remember in COM:BP ""cool-down" blocks are not condoned". Also you've poured more fuel on to the fire. Bidgee (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh a cool-down block, "take some rest and come back" - like they always work! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh please, spare us. Just because someone utters the words "cool-down block" does not mean we have to immediately go misquoting policies and turning our brains off. It was not a cool down block; it was a block for continuous disruptive behavior. If you need any evidence of this, please look through the history of this noticeboard and note the dozens of times this user has been brought here. I doubt he admitted fault in more than one or two of those (if that). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Andy, don't you know that Commons is not English Wikipedia? Would you like anyone beginning to link to policy pages in Esperanto, Polish or Thai Wikipedias? --Leyo 22:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
So you think that a good principle long-recognised at en:WP should be ignored at Commons because there are pictures instead of words? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, or alternatively, we may also apply principles/policies of e.g. de.wikipedia. --Leyo 22:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Not that it matters, but WP:COOLDOWN says that an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption, and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS explicitly includes repeatedly disregard[ing] other editors' […] objections to edits. As Fry1989 is cocksure he did absolutely nothing wrong, further disruption was to be expected.    FDMS  4    23:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hi, anyone.
@FDMS4: I am helping with that Fry1989, and you are correct about his swear words causing bad faith. It is better to have rollback rights removed for this time until he must learn about good faith here. Fry1989 must stop working disruptively and using so many swear words, and must act in good faith here.
@All: Adding invalid kinds of blocks to the current policy about user blocking, such as "cool-down" blocks, must work with this case. Anyone may propose and discuss additions of inappropriate reasons for blocking a user to the current policy at its talk page. This must be resolved as soon as possible.
@Yann: For the block, it is based on COM:MELLOW, an essay, not an official policy/guideline. You're perhaps incorrect to use that essay as basis for blocking Fry1989 since that is advice by one or more Commons users and not an official guideline accepted by the community. --TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 09:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've unblocked Fry, on a matter of principle, because cool down blocks are inappropriate without question. I can see Fry has been no saint here, and since he has been blocked for 24h (at time of writing), I would argue that time has been served. I've cautioned him to stay clear of trouble and avoid drama, because that's what seems to have launched this debacle in the first place. With that said, I strongly recommend that all involved parties apologize to one another, drop their respective sticks, back away from the horse carcass, and find a backlog to start working on. We are a collegial community, and not a battleground. Cheers, FASTILY 21:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Fastily: There was no consensus for that. This is the third time you've made an inappropriate unblock of Fry, and that doesn't include the many inappropriate thread closures on his behalf, and I for one am tired of your abuse of administrator powers. So I will give you three options:
If you do not respond within a few hours, I will go with the latter. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
A few questions. First, can you point to the consensus for the block in the first place? You claim there was no consensus to unblocking me, but where was the consensus for the block itself? Several users have raised questions about the validity of this block, none of which you can claim are my friends and therefore somehow in my pocket. Second, how is threatening an admin to use their powers in a certain way or else not extortion? Third, you really want to make that much of a scandal out of nothing just because I only served a 3rd of a 3-day block that had no consensus, no policy to back it up, just because you think I need to be punished (for what btw? I wasn't edit warring requiring immediate intervention and I wasn't personally attacking anyone, I was just responding to FDMS4 when I was blocked) or need to learn some lesson? If this had been a month long block (or longer), or a block for a serious offence of some sort, your reaction would make sense, but seriously all that over a 3-day block with no real backing? Wow, taking it to the extreme. Fry1989 eh? 22:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
A few other questions also come to mind. If you think the block somehow has consensus and was valid, why didn't you reject my unblock request yourself? You either thought nobody would actually grant it, your were waiting for Fastily to do so in a trap, or you weren't willing to go that extra step to reinforce the block as valid. Also Bidgee as a a former admin had extreme reservation about this, enough that I can safely assume they would have lifted the block immediately. Would you have the same anger if Bidgee had removed my block demanded they reblock me or else you will use your Crat tools to block them and seek de-adminship? And if not, how does that not make this look even more like you just having an axe to grind against Fastily? Move on, I already have. Fry1989 eh? 22:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Magog: a pity, to see such a threat/attempt at extortion coming from one of my past mentees. I taught you quite well I suppose. Please allow me to clarify my position; it is not as radical as you might imagine:
  • Blocks are intended to be preventative, and not punitive. I did not find any evidence of such behavior from Fry at the time of the time of his block, which was intended as a cool down block. Can you please provide some diffs from Fry that demonstrate egregious behavior in this thread? Can you please point me to the clear consensus that Fry should be blocked? Also, even when doing a head count, I’m not finding a clear consensus for the 'cool down' block.
  • Note that I have not restored Fry's rollback privileges after they were removed by Natuur12.
  • Fry has already been blocked for 24 hours, and considering that the the block was made on illegitimate grounds (cool down), I would argue that any inappropriate behavior that could have occurred by not blocking him has already been prevented, hence my "time served" remark above. If I have missed something (e.g. blatant violation of policy) which would mean Fry should be blocked for a different reason, please let me know so I can re-block him with that reason.
  • Note that my unblock statement to Fry was quite impartial. Now, as I have said time and time again, if I observe Fry violating policy, let me make it clear that I have no reservations in blocking him myself. I have previously blocked him for one month on en.wikipedia for edit warring, see here.
  • I'm not actually on "Fry's side" as some would like to believe. Yes, I have closed discussions pertaining to Fry and have unblocked him, but if anyone cares to sample the archives of AN, ANU, VP, then one might find that I actively close discussions pertaining to others as well. I believe that part of the role as admin role means helping to foster a collegial work environment where everybody can contribute to the best of their abilities. A lot of the times, this means shutting down counterproductive drama or toxic little disputes that are blown out of proportion because this is how we lose active contributors. It is neither the easiest job, nor does it make everybody happy, but it sure does keep us chugging along.
Kind Regards, FASTILY 22:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I must say that I do not see how a block would help at this stage. The edit warring ended when the discussion on this page started, so the only things the block achieves is that it prevents Fry from participating in this discussion and from doing unrelated edits elsewhere. If there is a dispute, then don't block if the involved editors are willing to discuss the matter on this page. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Per commons:blocking policy: Controversial blocks may also be discussed at the blocks and protections noticeboard after they have been applied. To avoid wheel warring, they should only be lifted by another administrator if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block. I am almost never afraid to dive into controversies and I new I would end up in some kind of turmoil after I acted and that I would put my neck on the line. I don't mind but Fasitly who has been asked in this post and previous topics releated to Fry not to close them (and in previous topics to act in general) and yet he does. It makes me worder why I participate in the more controversial topics. Fry is unblocked, the first thing that happens is Fry making a rude comment thowards Fastily and others and the second thing what happens is an attack against Magog. Natuur12 (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't make ANY attack, I asked some very serious questions that a lot of users will be asking if Magog goes through with a de-adminship and blocks Fastily. Second, trivial blocks don't need consensus to be lifted at all. If I was an admin and blocked a user just because I wanted to with no policy to support it, another admin would be fully within their rights and I would expect them to lift it. Now clarify what exactly I was blocked for here that wasn't trivial? I was blocked for being "angry" and needing to "cool down", not for edit warring, not for personal attacks, not for some massive policy violation, simply because Yann thought I was a little too high-strung. So gang up on Fastily if you want, but at least 4 users have made if clear they're against this block and think it was at best trivial and at worst a violation of the blocking policy. Fry1989 eh? 23:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
BTW Natuur12 I notice you still haven't answered my question of how I and Dutch-speaking users on the Dutch Wiki can make the exact same edits but only I am am reverted and get quoted policy. I gave you multiple examples. Fry1989 eh? 23:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't discuss stuff from other projects at Commons. You have a talk page there. Perhaps you could ask one of the local admins. Natuur12 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You were happy enough to discuss it below, so obviously not a blanket principle. Fry1989 eh? 23:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


@Fastily: I'm not actually on "Fry's side" as some would like to believe. You have shown us the opposite (3× overrulings, many disputable closings). You need to step away from any administrative actions involving Fry for at least two years. Really, you do. --Leyo 23:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, they're "on my side" for lifting an invalid three day cool down block without consensus and in which several users had a major problem with it on policy grounds. Fry1989 eh? 23:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The previous block was lift after two uninvolved admins had already declined.... Sorry, but it is starting to become a patern. Natuur12 (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I have made it quite clear in previous discussions why I lifted the blocks, you may refer to the separate ANU discussions for my rationale. If you cared to read my reasoning above, you'll see that I have undone a 'cool down' block of which there is no consensus for. Ignoring my rationale, jumping to a wrong conclusion, and suggesting that I have baselessly unblocked Fry now and in past instances is ridiculous -FASTILY 23:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I read it before commenting thank you. Sorry Fastily but it would be for the better if you leave the blocking and unblocking of non-vandal userss to other admins. There are other cases as well where you jumped in to quickly. Sorry, but I see different standards for different users. You reduce Fred the Oyster his block to one day after repeated personal attacks, you reduced Fry's blocks but yet you blocked Tuvalkin twice for comments that are not even close as being as disruptive as theirs. Natuur12 (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Obviously you have not, because you're still making unfounded accusations based on oversimplification of some very complex incidents. If you're not going to thoroughly and impartially evaluate my position, then don't evaluate at all. You have literally just oversimplified everything to the point where your interpretation is just disgustingly wrong, because clearly I only unblock bad users and block good users right? Yeah sure, 100% correct, A+, gold star. Think what you like, but I wash my hands of this discussion. -FASTILY 00:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Just leave decisions in cases involving Fry to the other 241 admins. I am sure you don't think that you are the only one who is able to judge complex incidents. --Leyo 00:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
241 other admins who may or may not have just let me serve my time out. Let's be entirely honest for a moment here: There are a lot of admins, but not many that deal with blocks on a regular basis. If this block was invalid, and those that do would rather just have me sit it out, they by their inaction are violating policy by upholding the block. So again, what was I blocked for and why was it not an invalid reasoning under the block policy? Where was the resounding consensus in support of the block? Where is it obvious that Fastily was just pulling a favour for me instead of lifting the block on very serious questions regarding its validity? Fastily didn't lift a ban, or a year long block, or even a week long block for some serious offence, they lifted a 3-day block because Yann thought I needed time to chill. ANY admin would have the right to lift it, and it's just because it happened to be Fastily that everyone is making it into such a big storm. If Bidgee or INeverCry or Hedwig or Dennis or Steinsplitter lifted it with the exact same reasoning that cool down blocks are not endorsed, I highly doubt there would be threats from my arch nemesis that they will be blocked and get de-adminned. If Fastily's reasoning is right if other admins had done it, it's right when Fastily does it, end of story. Fry1989 eh? 00:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The situation now is very unfortunate; asked for help at COM:BN. Jee 02:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Sadly, I don't see this ending well for many of the parties involved in this unfortunate mess. --Rschen7754 03:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This thread rather discusses a controversial block, and there is another admin issue here (involving Fastily), that leaked into another AN/U thread (below). This must not end up with more issues appearing here and leaking into new threads.--TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 12:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Natuur12 abuse of admin tools[edit]


i upload 4 picas and after I can't continue[edit]

After my uploads, on the next page, I confirm that the pics were took by me, but so I can't do anymore, I don't have a key to go to the next page.. It doesn't work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcldesaopaulo (talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 May 2015‎ (UTC)

This doesn't really seem to be a dispute with another user requiring administrator assistance (which is what this page is for). It seems more like an issue for the help desk. But anyway: The Upload Wizard (the default interface for uploading files to Commons) is pretty much in a perpetual state of brokenness. It isn't broken for everyone all the time, but I don't recall a time since it was introduced that we went more than a few days without people reporting enigmatic problems with indefinitely spinning wheels, unhelpful error messages, or simply no way to move forward. Have you tried Commons:Upload? It tends to be much more reliable. LX (talk, contribs) 19:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Dggluz[edit]

User uploading the same logo again after warnings and temporary block. No other contributions. Fry1989 eh? 22:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done User got a two hours coffee-break courtesy of Turelio. I nuked the upload. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to re-open this, but the user uploaded the file I linked (the 10th such upload) after the 2 hour block by Turelio. Fry1989 eh? 19:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done One week block (looking at Special:DeletedContributions/Dggluz). --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad blocks[edit]


94.226.57.36[edit]

Hi, help for checking 94.226.57.36 (talk · contribs) contributions would be great. I already reverted some. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Kana Ueda (talk · contribs)[edit]

After I have been attacked as "German Pig!" by User:Kana Ueda in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kana Ueda.jpg, it would be better if somebody uninvolved would either follow-up or block the attacker, who also choose to remove every message from his talkpage[4]. It's all just about 1 image which had been published 3 months before upload to Commons and eventually might be a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk)

Reverted & insult hidden. Final warning, next time block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Image rendering/upload history bug[edit]

There is a problem I have noticed with the upload logs on a few files.

  • File:Flag of Ontario.svg The last upload was by me, but after I was blocked that log disappeared. If you now look at the upload log, it shows an upload by Zscout370 back in 2011 as the final upload, after Superbenjamin's upload in 2015, which makes no sense. The file is still rendering my last upload where I changed the colour of the spines on the leaves from black to green.
  • File:Flag of Manitoba.svg The final upload was by Superbenjamin, with the angular shield instead of the rounded one, however the upload log in the history section shows Episteme as the last uploader.

Neither of these make any sense. Fry1989 eh? 18:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Fry1989: This is not a user problem, so you should probably have reported it somewhere else. I tried purging the files and the upload history is now sorted correctly. If you find other files with the same problem, try adding ?action=purge at the end of the URLs. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Well it's a problem either way :P What I wish is that the purge button had never been removed, I used it quite often. Anyhow, thank you for your assistance. Fry1989 eh? 22:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a gadget with the purge button. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it not very strange that Commons power users don't know long-time gadgets? Maybe Commons need a more promoted gadget page? --95.90.212.88 11:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Admin status of Magog the Ogre[edit]