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
copyrightʉۢ proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismʉۢ user problemsʉۢ 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.


Adminship of Magog the Ogre[edit]

This needs to be dealt with, and since Magog the Ogre appears to rescinded their retirement that time is now. I also have zero faith that any admins will do this themselves.

Magog the Ogre's recent behaviour brings to question their level of clear and impartial judgement when it comes to their access to the administrator tools. These actions include:

  • Rage-quitting in which they twice blocked themselves indefinitely and then for a third time on a temporary basis after which they would re-evaluate if they wish to remain on Commons.
  • Attempted extortion of another admin, commanding them to block another user or else they themselves would block that admin and initiate an immediate de-admin request.
  • Indeed blocking that admin after their refusal.
  • Not only reblocking the user in question (myself), but also in effect tripling that block without consensus from 3 days to 9.
  • Attempting to justify the inappropriate use of "cool down" blocks which are against policy.
  • Most likely abusing their access to the checkuser tool as part of their rage-quit to see whether Fastily and myself were socks of each other.

Now I am aware that the first thing that will be said here is that I am just attempting revenge. However, these are serious actions, and I ask everyone to consider whether if another user or admin raised these issues, they would be able to say the same thing to excuse it away. What I think should happen really doesn't matter, because even in a full de-admin procedure the ultimate decision is up to the wider community. However, over the past week I have raised the issue of inconsistency in dealing with admin misbehaviour. Considering INeverCry acted in nearly the same way (rage-quit, blocks other users/admins, possibly misuses checkuser, blocks themself) and a nearly immediate de-admin was initiated, Magog the Ogre's similar actions also demand proper review. Fry1989 eh? 01:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I behaved extremely poorly that day, no arguments. So, I'd like to make a statement, with several bulletpoints:
  • With what I am about to say, I do not by any means want to give the impression that I am not contrite or unrepentant about the whole affair. I am also not trying to save my skin (as I will explain below, I have only one objective in mind: keeping Commons a better place).
  • I have not performed a checkuser on Fry, Fastily, or anyone else with whom I've ever been in a dispute. Any other CU can verify this.
  • Apparently I set a bad example, and INC has followed it. Either that, or it is just a coincidence. In either case, to the community, to INC, I'm sorry.
  • My reblock of Fry and my block of Fastily were wildly inappropriate. This is the reason I blocked myself for two months. I thought I deserved censure for my poor behavior. I realize this sounds odd, but I figured someone ought to do it, and no one would want to touch it with a ten foot poll.
As for my administrator and checkuser rights, if only for my personal happiness, I would be glad to give up all rights, and I probably would have done so. Nevertheless:
  • Several very kind and gracious users posted on my talk page, in spite of my poor behavior, to let me know they didn't want to see me go, and they thought we would be better off if I didn't follow through.
  • When I considered the number of deletions and blocks, etc. that I perform, and the already staggering lack of manpower we have for Commons administrators, it seemed to me like Commons would be worse off if I were to give up my administrator rights. For what it's worth, between my time off and with Fastily gone, already I see a ton of problematic files laying around that no one is catching(Example of vandalism that sat around for 11 days). I even see some problematic checkuser ranges which operated for a while with impunity while I didn't catch them (here are two: [1] [2])
So I am going to be bold, and to propose a solution:
  • I will never ever ever block Fry again (or Fastily, should he return). I will not speak poorly to him. If I engage with him, I will be politer to him than would be the Queen of England.
  • I will never block someone when I am upset with them or with whom I am not impartial.
  • Should I violate either of these clauses in any capacity, I will voluntarily give up all administrator rights. No need to bother with a deadmin request.
If Commons is not OK with this, that is fine. Like I said, I am not doing this for me. I am doing it for Commons. I do not want to see us turn into a place where copyvios and selfies take over.
With that, I throw myself on the mercy of the court. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • First: I don't think INC followed in your ogre-footsteps. IMHO a coincidence, nothing more. Nevertheless, the situation created is a big mess. For further blocking you and/or removal of certain rights: In the grand scheme of things, the transgressions are outliers. You performed so many admin/cu actions without fail before. I hope Fry is OK with your proposal. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Fry didn't lose much in the grand scheme of things; it is Fastily who lost much, and it is Fastily whose feelings that you and others should be considering when it comes to Magog's proposal. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think Magog's proposal would be fair to Fastily, who is both desyopped and gone. Do you believe that if Fastily had made similar promises, the community would allow him or her off the hook? Let's face it: the reason that Fastily was desyopped while Magog was not is because Fastily is unpopular while Magog is popular. I don't believe that popularity should me equal a "get out of jail free card". Allowing Magog retain his sysop privileges doesn't do justice to Fastily or INeverCry. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Michaeldsuarez: difference is that Fastily showed poor behaviour for years and that desysop would have happened sooner or later. INC made a promise and broke it while Magog's actions are a "first time offence". He appologised, made a plan of action and he showed a huge amount of self reflection. If Fastily dealth the same way with critisism as Magog does he would still be an admin. Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Magos is a human, humans making errors. Magog the Ogre has excused for his behavior. Desyopping him because he made one time a (big) error is not fair at all imho. Magog is doing a lot for commons (admin + cu actions and all the code(bot) work). I think we should forgive him. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Steinsplitter and Natuur12. --Leyo 13:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I am not familiar with the event in question or in Magog's history here. I also don't think I have interacted much if at all with them elsewhere so I don't have much experience with them either way. I do share concerns about the actions and suggested at IRC within the last few days before they started editing that perhaps the admin and CU permissions should be removed, at least temporarily. Now that they have returned the situation has changed somewhat but this does seem to have the signs of "I'll just leave for a while and when I come back things will be settled down and everyone will have forgotten about it" mentality. That's a tactic I have seen a lot from experienced editors and admins over the years get out of troubling situations and I would only suggest that we treat them no different than any editor. Regardless of status or access, if an action would not be tolerated for one individual and is for another, that isn't how we should operate. If the community decides that the action was inappropriate then their status as an admin or CU shouldn't be a get out of jail free card. That happens on other WMF sites a lot and I would hate to see this one fall into the same habit. With all that said, if the community decides to forgive them for this one time error in judgement I am ok with that. Commons seems to be losing a lot of experienced admins of late and I would hate to lose another one. Reguyla (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • How about we ask Fry for his opinion? He brought it up and I really would like to hear from his side as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
As requested, I will respond. I have not only refrained, I have not even read the progress of this discussion since my initiation as I felt any further comment would only add to the sense that I was just trying to get revenge on someone it is well know I don't get along well with. I will say that I find the recent loss of 2 admins and possibly a third in less than 2 months is unfortunate all ways around. I am also quite sure that there are many users whom hold Magog the Ogre in the highest esteem. My experience with them however, and Fastily's experience with them as I understand it, has been relatively negative. That's no different than most users' experiences here however, you get along with some and you don't get along with others. My reason for initiating this however comes from three main concerns.
  • Inconsistency in approaching admin rage-quits, which I raised both on INeverCry's de-admin and on the main de-admin discussion
  • Threatening another admin to do a course of action or else
  • Increasing the time of a user's block 3-fold, an action that can either be interpreted as an incredibly poor release of judgement, an oversight as part of their highly emotional state during rage-quit, or as being vindictive
What I desire is for the community to take these actions seriously, and decide what is appropriate in dealing with them. I do not want excuses that "Fry brought this up, so let's give it a pass" which has been my fear but am happy to see has not been the case. Fry1989 eh? 17:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
This still needs a proper conclusion, not to be swept under the rug by an archive bot. Fry1989 eh? 19:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I think an apology has been given by Magog and any further demands for sackcloth and ashes is beating a dead horse. Use the time saved from typing another book on this topic to help the project instead. All this drama of late - and even more amazing as all the dramaturgs profiles claim they are grown men - is unbecoming to users of this project and unnecessary to the goals and outcomes of Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Fine, then don't ask for my opinion next time and summarily ignore it for a week until the archive bot sweeps this away! I wouldn't have even commented on here if Hedwig in Washington had not requested I do so. I have been incredibly restrained in my reaction to this situation, your claim of my demanding sackcloth and ashes I find really over the top. Fry1989 eh? 03:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Ellin is exactly right. This can be archived safely. Yann (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I for one hope this isn't another example of Admins being extended extra latitude over editors which its shaping up to look like. This appears to be a clearcut case of an admin doing whatever they want, people get upset, they leave for a while till things cool off and then come back and apologize when things have cooled down. I also know that if an editor screws up and does something like edit warring, personal attacks or maybe even editing through a block they would not be treated the same way if they just leave for a couple months and then come back and apologize. They would not be extended the same "courtesy" regardless of how long they had edited the project or how much they did. They would be cast aside. So to me this goes back to the statements I made above. If we are going to treat one class of editor differently than another, then we need to stop doing that and treat every editor consistently and according to policy. What we need to do is show that this project doesn't care if you are an admin or editor, if you screw up, there are consequences even if you storm off in a huff and come back after a break. Reguyla (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I do want to clarify that I don't think a desysop is necessary in this case. Had he simply left and came back I would feel differently. In this case he knew he screwed up, blocked himself for a lengthy period and stayed away the duration of the block. My reasoning just isn't of the he is an admin so we should let this go variety as seems to be some folks feelings above. Reguyla (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with points made by Steinsplitter, Natuur12, Ellin Beltz, Yann and Reguyla above. I think archiving this discussion is appropriate. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree to with Steinsplitter, Natuur12, Ellin Beltz, Yann, Reguyla and Walter Siegmund. -- Geagea (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It's nice to see at least Reguyla gets what this looks like. Fry1989 eh? 19:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
You are indicating that everybody who doesn't agree with you is stupid. That's not really an appropriate way of discussion. To me it looks like Magog knows he behaved badly and I trust he'll do his best to have no temper at Commons in the future. If he doesn't succeed they can still remove his admin privileges.--Stanzilla (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm indicating that there is an appearance which many users sense that admins get preferential treatment in these situations. I haven't asked for any specific course of punitive action against Mogog the Ogre, and I really don't hold any desire to see one carried out (after-which we have all had time to breathe, which perhaps was best after all). What I do have a problem with is how this has been dealt with. I take issue with how it's being closed. Whatever you think of Magog the Ogre, this is a case of a admin misbehaving, and that is always a serious issue. What should have happened, is that after Magog the Ogre stated their apology and their response on how they will act in the future, is that there should have been some sort of a consensus response of "this is what we expect from you, and we will hold you to it in the future" and then this AN should have been properly and officially closed by an admin. It shouldn't be left open from ignorance, and swept away without official closure by a bot. That's my complaint. Fry1989 eh? 01:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Reguyla to a point - users should be treated equally but this is also a matter of trust. Everyone is human and can make mistakes but the fact is that some of us take criticism better than others. Irrespective of his/her contributions, Magog has made an error, apologised for it and offered a pathway for future conduct. I know some of you will have raised hackles when you read this but AGF comes to mind. Let us accept Magog's statement and move on; if there is cause for concern in the future, we can always revisit this issue but let this be water under the bridge. Fry, you had a disagreement with FDMS and in the end you went and discussed the issues. Now is a good time to put grievances to one side and get on with the things we value you for - your contributions. For what it's worth I would rather have Magog stay on and do the admin and check-user tasks that are being sorely missed. I would also have been happier if we hadn't lost INC, Fastily and yes even Russavia. Green Giant (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (1)[edit]

For what it's worth, Fry, I don't think you're being at all vindictive or inappropriate. I don't think anyone else does either. As for the other positions (unequal treatment), I will refrain from comments here (unless someone asks me otherwise) because I'm not sure it's appropriate. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to hold a grudge, we have fought enough times that I thought I could, but that isn't fair. You have been the bigger man, and I am sorry. Fry1989 eh? 01:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Fry, it takes some guts to write this here on Commons. I hope the two of you find common(s) grounds. Let's go back to work!
Fry and Magog: Movicon2-good.gif --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Disputed map![edit]

Alternate history world map of 1964 from the novel Fatherland.
Alternate history world map from the novel The Man in the High Castle. Geography would have been much much easier and the world would have been a much sadder place.

For a long time, there is a controversial map on commons. Many similar language maps available but each different. No any reliable source .In 11 February 2014, User:HistoryofIran unilaterally fixed many changes within the borders of Iran. Removed Afshar language, Khorasani Turkic, other Turkic dialects from Fars Province, Azerbaijani retract up and partial regulation Turkmen languge southern Turkmenistan without any satisfactory exp. Similar changes have been made in other maps. [3] Also, an ongoing edit war the Turkish language in Turkish territories. This map should be deleted or supported by reliable sources. Maurice Flesier (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think images on Commons require reliable sources as do assertions in various language Wikipedias; the problem of accuracy arises when and if such images are used in articles, and it is then up to those with local knowledge to determine whether to use the image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks to me like you are one of two people who have been edit warring over this. Commons can have more than one version of a map. I strongly suggest each making your own maps instead of fighting over this one. If you want yours to be the one that gets used in encyclopedias, then providing some decent citation for yours will definitely help. - Jmabel ! talk 06:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
We have very creative maps of all sorts including imaginary nations. I posted two examples of fictional maps from novels. What language starts where and ends where is a topic debated by linguists far and wide so I wouldn't worry too much about it. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 00:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Serteko[edit]

I'm not sure what to make of this. Very odd edits for a supposed new user. He continued editing (equally oddly) while ignoring my question on his talk page. This may be the same person as User:Serkot, in which case these edits are a mix of OK and maybe in one case (changing a redirect to point to a page that doesn't exist) possibly less than competent, but if it is someone else, then this looks like vandalism to me. Posting here because I may not be able to keep an eye on this myself over the next day or so. - Jmabel ! talk 06:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose account for self promo. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Ibrahem (talk Â· contribs)[edit]

Uploaded a lot of recent books as {{PD-old}}. Many them on Arabic. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

DR created: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mr. Ibrahem. Yann (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I blocked him for a week and nominated one book more for deletion. Taivo (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Taivo, I would assume good faith here. See comments in the DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cynocyno[edit]

Cynocyno is uploading images of en:A. P. J. Abdul Kalam‎ that are web grabs, but after manipulating them, and then listing them as own work. Since this is a recent death, they are then repeatedly reinserting these copyvio images on to the en.wiki article. I've tried explaining to them on en.wiki, but they don't seem to listen. File:APJ ERODE.jpg is an example of the manipulation being done. where they are over writing the background, so it's difficult to find the source. I'd also tagged another such manipulation yesterday. Can someone please do something? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The deleted manipulated images are: File:APJ.jpg and File:Kalam at Chennai.jpg, the former a crop of a syndicated news image and the latter a TV clipping crop. —SpacemanSpiff 15:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
User on enwiki, certainly able to understand the information and warning. I left a very last warning on his talk page. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Russavia (talk Â· contribs)[edit]

Since we currently lack a community decision on the matter. I am starting a discussion for this here. The user is clearly avoiding a WMF Legal enacted global ban. I honestly am confused what is going on with this user which I hope this discussion will clarify.

I expect this to turn into a drama heavy discussion so I kindly ask everyone to take extra care in being polite and civil.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you rewrite this as a request for sysop action based on specific events caused by Russavia please? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a request to start a discussion on the matter. The community has not cast it's decision based on the WMF Legal action. User is avoiding said action (ex: [4]). These are enough of a reason for us to start a discussion on the matter. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 19:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
If there are legal issues, such as the actions of WMF Legal, or there is no action being requested, then the thread does not fall within the scope given at the top of this page. --Fæ (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Sockpuppetry in defiance of a global block is well within the scope of this page. Question is, does the community agree with the decision of WMF Legal or not. I am rather tired of hearing people complain about the absence of a community decision on the matter of Russavia. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 19:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess I am a little unclear on the purpose of this discussion. Is it to just talk about Russavia (which has been done plenty already IMO)? I'm not sure what the goal is here. Reguyla (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The question to asnwer is: what action should we take when we see Russavia. Do we block on sight or not? If not what activity is Russavia allowed to participate? Simple arguments over technicalities will not cut it which is why a community decision is needed. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 19:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ask WMF legal? --Diego Grez return fire 20:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
PS. I may be much in disagreement with Russavia's banning, but a global ban involves expelling them completely from the project. Blocks on sight should be performed. --Diego Grez return fire 20:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It should be obvious for anyone paying attention to number of WMF Office blocks of Russavia. First question is do we agree with that decision or not? If we agree with it, this ends the "lack of community decision" argument. If not we have a lot more discussion in our hands. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 20:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Question is, does the community agree with the decision of WMF Legal or not. No, this is absolutely not the question, as WMF legal cannot release information on the case. We cannot make an educated decision to agree or not agree on an action we do not know anything about. The real question is, do we trust the WMF legal team to make a good decision. If we seriously answer no to that we may as well stop contributing to this site entirely. --Dschwen (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
No, the legal team have never made any mistakes, so we should blindly support whatever they do, without questioning them in any way or asking that this community be consulted when they are making such high-importance decisions as banning a then-administrator in good standing. Sounds like a good plan, doesn't it. odder (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
odder, the test isn't whether they may or may not have ever made a mistake. In real life there are all sorts of people who make important decisions on our behalf, whether that's a head teacher dealing with pupils, or a brain surgeon trying to decide whether to remove just a little bit more of that tumour that is right next to a vital artery. Lots of times, we have no say in this. You don't employ your head teacher or the brain surgeon at the hospital -- someone else interviewed them and is monitoring their competency. The same goes for the WMF team that decided Russavia should no longer edit here. It is out of our hands. It is simply juvenile to think that every part of a "community" has full say in every other part. In real life, that head teacher has to deal with confidential matters that simply cannot be shared with parents. And the surgeon has to rely on training and experience that none of are competent to comment on. This is the order of things in life. Deal with it.
Oh, and Russavia was not "in good standing". He was appreciated for the large number of images he sought and uploaded for Commons, but not for his mellow and understanding personality, and had been de-cratted by a community who were ashamed of what he did and wanted to distance themselves from him. -- Colin (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Colin: I don't appreciate being schooled about life, so stop it. At no point did I say that we as community should have a say in everything that the Foundation do, so your metaphor is quite far-fetched. However, the issue here is what kind of decisions the Foundation can make on our behalf.
I can't count the number of times I've said this, but traditionally, the Foundation have not gotten involved in everyday running of the projects, including the granting and removal of administrator privileges to volunteer contributors (as opposed to granting of CheckUser and oversight privileges and granting of admin rights to their own employees). However, with regards to russavia, not only have they removed admin rights from a volunteer for the first time in the history of Commons, but they have also banned the person entirely from all projects, without informing the community—or a part thereof—in any way whatsoever, and are still refusing to do so.
Surely you can see that this in itself is setting a precedent and is therefore hugely controversial and can be seen as the Foundation expanding their power into a territory that was previously entirely volunteer-managed. That some people are trying to use this opportunity to silence russavia—and those concerned by the circumstances in which he was banned—due to their personal dislike of him is just disgusting and has nothing to do with community building or community healing but everything to do with going on a witch hunt. There ought to be no place for this sort of behaviour on Commons, and it happening for the past six months is simply appalling. odder (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
odder, your previous comment was entirely sarcastic. Do you really expect to be treated like a grown-up after making comments like that? If you just want to sound-off about how unfair life is, buy a t-shirt with a slogan and walk about a bit. You ask "the issue here is what kind of decisions the Foundation can make on our behalf.". Well look at the Terms of Use: "In certain (hopefully unlikely) circumstances it may be necessary for either ourselves or the Wikimedia community or its members (as described in Section 10) to terminate part or all of our services, terminate these Terms of Use, block your account or access, or ban you as a user". So, they can ban people independently of the community. That's the ToU you sign up to on every single edit you make. If you have a problem with that, have a dialog with WMF and if they won't change their ToU (unlikely) then fork the project. No other options. Russavia is not alone in being banned by WMF. I agree it is controversial, but simply for reasons I have already explained: that the culture here is infantile in its approach to dealing with hard problems. You may not like it when I put it like that, but that's how it is. As for your rhetoric about silencing russavia, I don't see you campaigning that the other WMF-banned people should be given a platform for their views? There's a whole other internet out there for Russavia to express himself. He's banned and should no longer edit here, particularly so on any forums that involve dialog. That's just how it is, odder, and WMF have made that quite clear to Russavia and to any admin who thinks they could unilaterally permit Russavia to do so by unbanning a sock or restoring deleted content.
I keep repeating, odder: what do you hope to achieve? Do you think the community can reverse this ban by moaning enough? If Russavia has committed something for which a WMF global ban is deserved, then that's pretty serious shit and I don't understand why you think those who are deeply uncomfortable with such an editor returning should be subject to continued harassment from you and others over that viewpoint. Indeed, it is getting to the point where you being a 'crat is unjustified. You should be part of the solution and trusted to keep us safe, rather than part of the problem and seeking to expose us again to users who bully, intimidate and harass. If you don't think Russavia has done anything justifying that WMF global ban, then that's entirely a matter between you and WMF and not my concern. -- Colin (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Harassment is a very serious accusation that should be accompanied by corroborating evidence and should not be used lightly. It certainly is not something that should be a passing comment. If you genuinely feel harassed or someone else is harassed, that should be a separate thread and perhaps escalated to WMF legal if you think is very serious (by which I mean stuff like real world harassment). I think both of you should take a deep breath. We should be discussing the conduct of Russavia, not each other. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Colin: Repeating your opinions doesn't make them any more true. I would very strongly suggest you withdraw your comment about me harassing anyone over anything. It is despicable, and I would never expect you to accuse me of anything like that unless you can prove it (which you can't).
The culture here isn't "infantile", as you say, because it cannot deal with hard problems–it's infantile in its assumptions that anything that the Foundation do is God-given law that cannot be questioned or commented on. The truth is, the Foundation have given themselves a right to ban people and then swiftly and secretly proceeded to use it towards a Commons administrator, without consulting us in any way. They also made the actions permanent and non-appealable, which is totally disgraceful. It's just mind-boggling to me that a quite reasonable request to have some information about the ban released to the community, or a part of it, is met with shouts of protest from the community and a defiant "no." from the Foundation. You speak about healing the community and finding a solution so often — don't you think that getting the Foundation to release at least some information about that ban is required to reach any compromise here? odder (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
odder, your sarcasm in the first comment wasn't helpful. Your hyperbole in the above "anything that the Foundation do is God-given law that cannot be questioned or commented on" is also not helpful. It's verging on trolling to frame other's viewpoints in that manner so I'll ignore it. I don't see where there are "shouts of protest from the community" about requesting information from WMF. You're quite entitled to ask WMF for the information. The Global Ban Policy may be new, but the ToU has for a long time given WMF the ultimate authority to ban users -- back in the history to the first version on wikimediafoundation.org or further to the first version on meta. Do you object to the operator of a website having ultimate authority over who may use their facilities? It is possible that a release of information about what led to the ban may satisfy the community. The lack of information is certainly being used as an excuse by a vocal group to maintain their campaign, and prevent the community moving on. But I can also understand there may be legal reasons it cannot be disclosed, and possible that sufficient disclosure that the community fully understands all the issues would release information about third-parties which subjects them to unfortunate consequences. I can also understand the position WMF finds itself in where choosing to disclose some ban cases but not others leads indirectly to a release of information (or rumour) about the others. If this is your main problem, the lack of disclosed information, then make it your mission to get it. Go set up a petition and ask people to add their names to it, if that might make a difference. Give WMF an idea of how the community feels that goes beyond half a dozen vocal users. Then figure out how you deal with the response. As far as I see it, your issue is entirely with the WMF, so stop making it about Yann or me, or any other user on this site. Because, if one assumes Russavia really did so something seriously f***ing terrible, as WMF imply he must have in order to be banned by them, then I hope you appreciate that our position is quite rational, and it becomes inexplicable that a respectable functional community should have anything more to do with him. -- Colin (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have thing more positive to do than hunting Russavia, so I am not going to do so. But he should not be allowed to do any action, specially edits which are aimed to disrupt this project. I don't care as long as he only edits his own files, but he should be blocked and reverted if he contests any decision, including deletion requests. Harassment and intimidation are not acceptable here, whatever the number of edits made. That should be clear. Yann (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I am specifically refering to his last reopening of deletion requests: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Norton Rose Fulbright.png ,Commons:Deletion requests/File:Northeast airlines uk logo.svg. I don't mind if anyone think that these DRs should be reviewed, but Russavia's edits there should be reverted. It is particularly disruptive that a bureaucrat like Odder supports a banned user. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Clearly you do mind that russavia thinks these DRs should be reviewed, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to speedily close them like you did. It is particularly disruptive that an administrator like you would try not to let this be discussed. Regards, odder (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I generally agree with that statement from Yann. WMF legal made the decision to block so I would let them chase him around. If you feel like doing it then that's on you but its clear that he can just create another account so as long as the edits are positive and helping the project I wouldn't bother with it. Its better to keep the devil you know so to speak. At least we will know which one is his. That's just my opinion though. Reguyla (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Per Yann. He should have zero community involvement. Persona non grata. His friends should encourage him to find another hobby. Users here cannot "allow" Russavia to participate (e.g. engage with him, unblock sock accounts, etc), no matter whether they agree with the block or not. Anyone doing so is extremely likely to find themselves also blocked by WMF. It's basic ToU stuff. -- Colin (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: The big question... Why Russavia has been blocked? I understand his block evasion is policy violation, but considering his great valuable contributions to Commons (including uploading high quality files, one of them the Image of the Year 2014), may be actions against the unfair actions from the WMF.
Most of the users (includeing me) disagree the WMF actions against Russavia, because we (the communbity) didn't decided his block. By contrast, the many users that agree with the Russavia block are very likely to know why he has been blocked, deffending the position of the WMF instead of the Community, I think.
I don't support his policy violation (socks and others ones), but I condemn totally the actions by the WMF by hidding the actual reasons to the Community. While WMF still hidding the reasons, neither user have the rights to deffend the WMF actions instead of the Community (in particular, INC that appears to have personal problems with Russavia, and done clearly disruptive and bad faith actions like blocking two admins). Don't forget that We are the Community, the base of the WMF, not the other way, IMHO. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Just repeating what I wrote elsewhere, no disruptive accounts should be allowed here (or elsewhere for that matters), whatever the number of edits. Any account which main purpose is to create issues should be blocked, even if he has done one million edits. Yann (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Some feedback on a few comments above. As I don't want to get pulled into the drama-mongering, I'm making a separate statement.

  1. odder has done a huge amount of work keeping the project free from unlawful or unpleasant harassing material, helping to keep this a safer environment; he is not shy of lobbying the WMF for more open and transparent governance, making him a important and increasingly rare critical voice. If odder is outraged here, perhaps he has reason to be?
  2. Russavia did a lot of work behind the scenes keeping normal users safe and handling unlawful material, this thread is a good point to thank him for unpaid time he put in to that work, as well as his top notch educational content contributions. He never had the opportunity to reach "one million edits" but his "main purpose" (per Yann's phrase) was always to support the mission of this project up until the point when the WMF made that impossible.
  3. I have yet to see a single published allegation against Russavia of harassment that consisted of more than allegations of schoolboy level humour and bad language, nothing close to the sort of criminal bullying and truly nasty personal intimidation that some of our long term contributors are targeted by, including Russavia himself. Ill judged schoolboy trolling or offensive language are well within the authority of our community of administrators to handle. There was never any need for WMF employees to sweep aside community policies if this was the basis of their lock.
  4. Most of the community recognize that Wiki-politics and personal politics must have played a significant part of the unexpected and extreme WMF office lock of Russavia, even those that would have lobbied in a community vote to block Russavia from editing. We can do little more than tut and feel ashamed for the dis-empowerment of our community in the absence of the WMF stepping up to the mark to explain their actions, or to deny that this was a political lock, after a request by certain influential people who gave credence to extreme and unprovable claims against Russavia. This lock is counter to any spirit of natural justice as Russavia is denied a process of appeal or examination of evidence in order to clear his name, instead he and the rest of us are met with hostile silence. That is not governance, it is self-defeating complacency.

--Fæ (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with what Fae states above and I really can't say it better than that. I would also add that the statement that Yann makes about disruptive accounts should be allowed is true, if it were true. In this case it is not and its the WMF and the community making these accounts disruptive. We are perpetuating a cycle of disruption by chasing them around. Positive edits aren't disruptive and as long as this project is about editing and building knowledge then the contribution should be taken on its merits, not on the grounds it may have been done by an editor that was blocked against or without consultation of the community. Reguyla (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I've nothing further to add to the above comments, other than to say that I've been told by a WMF member of staff (on the usual condition of anonymity) that they believe the ban will ultimately be lifted and is essentially temporary in nature, but for undisclosed reasons, is considered by the WMF to be necessary in the short term. Nick (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've been told differently, and what I heard frankly made me want to throw up. --Dschwen (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I object in the strongest possible terms to seeing only a Selected Few being given information regarding russavia's global ban, and I second Fæ's request to have this information released publicly, or at least to a specific, agreed-upon part of the community, and not just to certain people meeting unknown criteria. odder (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) As far as I am aware the reason why WMF legal is so discrete about it is to avoid disclosing such personal information. We do not need to be told private personal details. It is possible to infer personal details even when such information is anonimized. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 19:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
If anyone has evidence then I would like to see it published and I can make up my own mind with regard to culpability, based on my ethical values and community agreed policy. The rest seems defamatory gossip, and we would do well to firmly discourage anyone spreading it. --Fæ (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Without taking in block polices in to consideration, since it doesn't seem to be on anyodys mind anyways(...), we need to think of the outcome of this. If this prolonged discussion continues it can only result in two outcomes. One, we chose to keep the block on the banned user in question and nothing else happens as a result, since the user isn't able to that account anyways. However, if the account is ever to be unbanned by the WMF (for some reason) the user would still be blocked on Commons. Blocking an admin, without evidence of said blocking rational, given with diffs as would be customary for all other blocks of its kind, isn't good. The second outcome would be to unblock the user, which wouldn't matter anything as of right now since, as I said the user is banned and not able to edit using that account anyways, and unless unbanned it will stay that way. So no matter what the outcome is, it will not matter in the end unless WMF unbans the user. If you want to add or change the blocking policy weither or not it should be allowed to block a user which is banned by a higher instance, then bring that proposal as a policy proposal, not like this with personal attacks and block out of precedence. (And if someone were able to follow my rederic, you will heerby be awarded one cookie!) Josve05a (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) IMHO, we can reconsider such matters when and if the global ban is lifted. The decision we cast here should hold true as long as the circumstances remain the same. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 19:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
There is not much to do here, though it would be helpful to reverse out of process blocks. Russavia may be WMF-banned, but that has no influence on the community. One of his accounts may be be blocked, but he (as a person) is not [community-]banned so the block doesn't have to be "enforced" on other accounts.
So everything continues as before, WMF takes out its own trash. --Nemo 14:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
That is kind of why I started this discussion, to give the community a chance to reach a community decision. The discussion here implies at least some users are willing to enact a community-ban on top of the wmf ban. We however are discussion other aspects of the issue below. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Random section break (and WMF comment)[edit]

This is a mostly a response to Nick's response above regarding what he supposedly heard from a WMF Staff member about our intentions. Because of the number of emails I've received over the past hour about this it is clear that multiple people would like me to comment on it and so I'm separating it out here to be more visible rather then have it get lost in the thicket of responses. I apologize in advance for the length, but I want to ensure that I'm clear. I added a section break to split it out but if anyone would prefer it organized some other way they are free to adjust it (into a part of the last section, bullets, whatever) as long as the content isn't changed.

Let me be very very clear: whomever told Nick that we believed any global ban to be temporary in nature is either mistaken or lying (my guess is mistaken or attempting to show that they understand. No one who has anything to do with the Global Ban process in Legal, the Community Advocacy team or the executive leadership has any plan or expectation to unban any of the Globally Banned users and even if they were I can promise you that someone who has refused to even accept the ban would never even have an appeal acknowledged as they have failed to show any good faith desire to change. The process of a Global Ban (compared to, say, an office action lock that my normal Jalexander-WMF account may occasionally have to do) is explicitly created for ban's that are permanent. More then 100 hours of staff time went into each and every one of those bans to ensure that we were absolutely sure that was the right decision.

While I appreciate a desire to know more details about the ban that just isn't possible. Doing so without revealing the victims and exposing them to more abuse is close to impossible and that is not a risk I am willing to take. While in theory I would have no concern some of the victims themselves who came to us talking to the stewards or the community (and I certainly wouldn't stop them) the reaction of people when harassment from him IS reported amidst all of this makes me have no confidence that it would help anything and so I can in no way blame them for feeling that the risk of more abuse and harassment outweighs the likelihood of getting the community to understand. In fact I know that some of the victims who approached us (and some who never did) have reached out to some users and while I appreciate the frustration that "not everyone knows" I honestly can not blame people who are concerned about airing their issues in public. I will, however, say one thing for the record: None of the people who approached us about looking into a ban for Russavia were from English Wikipedia. All of them were either members of the commons community or non-english users within the global community. I know that there has been a meme that this was all because of his issues on that project, it couldn't be further from the truth, and while I imagine that this statement won't change a whole lot of minds I certainly feel better having said it.

For the most recent global ban we did indeed go to the stewards before we took the action so that they had a better understanding. We expect that we will do something similar for future bans, however doing so retroactively is not a suitable option because the victims at the time spoke to us believing it to be confidential and without their permission I'm not going to break that confidence. Jalexander--WMF 19:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is simple enough of a solution to the issue of the potential revealing of the victims. Give the information to oversighters who have all been identified to the Foundation and who have experience in dealing with confidential matters, including non-public personal information, harassment and illegal content. Make them sign the confidentiality agreement and, for additional protection, a specially-crafted non-disclosure agreement that would allow for legal action against them should they ever release any information relating to the issue. Having volunteers sign NDAs is a longstanding procedure within the Foundation, and it could easily and effectively be used in this situation, too. If the accusation against russavia are confirmed that way, I would expect oversighters to immediately start a procedure to community-ban russavia; as an oversighter myself, I would be the first one to start such a procedure. odder (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it that simple? If one communicates on an understanding of confidentiality, that the limits of disclosure extend no further than the necessary minimum of employees of WMF, one can't simply extend that to a larger group on the basis that they in turn promise not to tell. It seems you want a significantly large group to know, such that they could collectively persuade the community one way or another. But this in turn means that it is impossible to work out who leaked, should someone break their NDA. I think the best you could hope for is that those who gave WMF information in confidence are asked and agree to release it to some larger group (such as the oversighters you suggest). But you can't demand anyone does that, especially given your declaration that, as one of Russavia's strongest advocates, you are one of the oversighters who would be told. -- Colin (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Colin: I'm not demanding anything, actually, and I have no idea where you got that impression from. Other than that, you are entirely correct, and I am being told that the Foundation will try to work with the people directly involved in the russavia case on some sort of a solution that resembles my suggestion. There are currently 6 oversighters on Commons, so that's not a very large group, and given our experience in dealing with non-public information, we are the group that's best suited to deal with this. That you consider my being a so-called russavia advocate enough of a reason not to share the information with me is quite interesting; my opinion is quite contrary, that particularly because I am supporting fair treatment of russavia, I should not be excluded from receiving the information if it's shared with the other oversighters so as to ensure proper balance. But if you have a better suggestion of an existing group of Commons contributors that could be given this information, I'm all ears. And if you think I can't be trusted with this information, then perhaps it's time for a discussion on revoking my oversight access. odder (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
odder, earlier you said: "don't you think that getting the Foundation to release at least some information about that ban is required to reach any compromise here". So you think it is "required", and don't currently seem willing to let it be until you get that information. Sounds like a demand to me. But I hope now the statement from James helps you realise it isn't WMF being unreasonable but about confidences that should not be broken -- it is up to others to agree to extend the circle of "who knows". -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
What would be the advantage of odder revealing this information to Russavia? I mean Russavia is probably aware of the information WMF is aware of as it is information on his conduct. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 22:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The WMF is only aware of nonpublic conduct related to users who told the WMF about it.    FDMS  4    23:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a bit more than that such as checkuser info etc. but I get the impression multiple people complained to WMF Legal about Russavia. I would consider it very unfair if we are doubting Odder's conduct on the sole basis of his position towards Russavia. And even then, Odder is mainly complaining about a lack of info more than anything. Kind of like innocent until proven guilty... -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 23:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather doubt Odder's conduct based on a recent incident involving him and a severe breach of confidentiality.    FDMS  4    00:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
FDMS is being unfair. The "recent incident" is the opposite of the argument posed. Anyone with doubts should read the discussion linked for themselves, it explicitly dismisses an allegation against odder and provides no evidence of misconduct. --Fæ (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, my comment about odder and oversiter was not intended to spark a discussion about his suitability for that role or whether we trust him with confidential information. I mention it purely from the point-of-view of the victims who gave WMF information -- they may not trust odder to keep that information secure (either secure from russavia, or from the other russavia-supporters who continue to edit here). I can see advantages to odder knowing, in that as a 'crat I keep expecting him to show leadership (and keep being disappointed :-() However, we should be careful not to consider this group as a jury. I would be interested to know what role you think this group would play. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the situation - I've been told something wrong by a contact at the WMF, other people have been told varying degrees of information, either through their WMF contacts or from those people who complained about Russavia. That's an untenable situation which we really cannot afford to repeat. There needs to be a formal, properly constituted two-way mechanism for the WMF and the Commons community to keep each other informed.
I'd have said the Commons community needs to propose maybe six candidates, not necessarily bureaucrats or administrators, but a good cross section of the community, to serve as a "Communications committee" purely to be a formal channel between the Commons community and the WMF. The committee would be told about upcoming bans and expected to express their view concerning the ban in a way that helps the Commons community understand the issues, they would also be expected to canvass the community for viewpoints concerning new features, ask about feature requests and generally try and improve the relationship between Commons and the WMF. MediaViewer and Super Protect would be the sort of things that would be consulted on first, in a sensible organised fashion, by the Communications committee and feedback then passed to WMF for actioning.
The first task of this little Communications committee would clearly be to deal with the Russavia situation and explain to the community as clearly as can be possible in the circumstances the reasoning for the ban and what actions they would recommend. I don't envisage this being an Arbitration Committee able to undertake administrative actions as a body, only to make recommendations on how the community should choose to proceed.
I'll also add, I wouldn't serve so it's not a 'power-play' on my part. Nick (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Given the bum steer you just gave the community further up, you are the last person who should serve on any "Communications committee". There already seem to be moves to involve the community or representatives from the community in future such decisions. For reasons already explained, the information in the Russavia ban can't just be released to any random group of people we elect into some committee. It's quite a different sort of matter than some technical change to the UI or granting of certain powers. Let's see how odder gets on with getting more information about this case. Whether some extra group of user beyond the existing steward, 'crat, admin is worth creating as a communication interface, is probably a big discussion for another time.
Again, I'm nervous that this talk of "cross section of the community" makes me think people are setting up a jury that will reach some verdict on russavia and declare some sentence. They may report back an opinion, based on information seen (which may be incomplete), about whether russavia broke the ToU in a way that meets the WMF Global Ban Policy, but they have no power to change the WMF decision. This isn't a court where we can summon witnesses. It is quite possible that any extra information released would limited and not paint the full picture, leaving some still unsatisfied about the reasons for the ban. And quite possible this endeavour is futile and no further information is released. -- Colin (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
There is one thing I don't get: what makes the difference of informing representatives of any wiki community beforehand about global bans when they can't share the information and nothing can be done to prevent or appeal the bans? The only reasons I can think of is that people are (1) either curious about the reasoning, (2) disagree with one or more global bans or (3) don't trust the WMF staff/don't believe they made the right decision. None of these reasons are valid to then share confidentional information, so I think no community member should be informed at all about any ban. And it's also not helpful to repeat your arguments over and over and over... It won't help anyway as bans are permanent and non-appealable. Like Colin said: if you disagree, just quit editing. Trijnsteltalk 10:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Regarding a communications committee, I do not see the necessity as we have enough oversight users to fill the same role. What would be the point of providing confidential information to a user that the community hasn't granted oversight permissions in the first place?
I think the more logical option would be to have it the other way around where WMF staff would respond to inquiries from the community if such an action is deemed necessary. We can create a process for this if need be in the future. These people aren't the jury and really weather or not they agree with WMF Legal is fundamentally irrelevant. Everyone knew this from the start.
We currently have a deadlock between transparency and privacy and it is a good thing that this has polarized our community which proves we care about both. I would appreciate if we stopped calling each other names, question each others integrity or ask disagreeing users to leave the project simply because the other person is leaning closer to the other position. I am not blaming or accusing anyone and am merely asking you to dismantle tension by more careful consideration of posts.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 11:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
とある白い猫, I'm not at all sure we have a deadlock between transparency and privacy. Nobody is campaigning for more information surrounding the several other WMF global blocks. And I don't think anyone has seriously suggested breaking anyone's privacy or exposing confidential information without their consent. It is more what Trijnstel said, that there's a refusal to accept WMFs word on this particular block of this particular user, and a belief that a release of information might settle the matter. That comes down to trust and prejudice, and this is what divides us. The second division is the "shock" expressed that the owner of a site might have ultimate say in who uses their facilities. So there's a power battle and the russavia case used as a political football.
As an example is the claim that "Most of the community recognize that Wiki-politics and personal politics must have played a significant part of the unexpected and extreme WMF office lock of Russavia". Reality check: The vast majority of people who edit on this site and other WMF projects would respond with "Who?" or "Hmm, vaguely heard of that issue; not interested". They don't watchlist the drama notice boards. And many, if told that the owners of a website had banned a user for breach of ToU, the details of which need to remain confidential, would respond with "And?". This is already evident in the general lack of interest in the other banned users.
Ultimately, the WMF need to work hard to restore and maintain the community's trust, and form a better partnership that removes the prejudice we see displayed in this dispute. And also the community needs to come to terms with a hierarchy of authority that does indeed let the WMF permanently ban users without the community consent.
とある白い猫, wrt to your "leave the project" comment, this isn't a "go away please" request but comes from the the free culture meme : "you only have two rights on (this project): the right to fork, and the right to leave", see the essay en:Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia for example. -- Colin (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not see why you lay the extreme cases as the only course of action. We have a scale here on this issue. On one side there is privacy and on the other transparency. We are trying to argue what fine tuning would be a good balance where we do not sacrifice either value.
Take it or leave it remarks have traditionally been the source of escalating conflicts and are overall unhelpful. They never provide an added value to the discussion and only serve to upset some people. Ergo, I find them unnecessary in this discussion. I would suggest discussing privacy and transparency aspects more since that's what this discussion morphed into.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm in total agreement with Colin. The Wikimedia Foundation, through technical issues (Echo, VisualEditor, MediaViewer, SuperProtect and maybe Flow) and through the actions (behaviour and/or judgement) of several members of staff (Erik Moeller, Sarah Stierch, Oliver Keyes and Ryan Kaldari) has lost a lot of trust within the community. We need to be able to trust both the judgement of the Foundation as an organisation and the behaviour of the staff individually who are working for the Foundation. It will need those of us who are more critical of the Foundation to give them a bit more leeway and more benefit of the doubt and it will need more engagement from the Foundation. Nick (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Although its uncommon for me to say this I generally agree with Colin on this point too. Like Nick says the WMF has done a lot to lose credibility and trust from the community and it will take time to gain that back. Statements of "Trust us we know what we are doing" don't work when there is no basis of trust already present. Reguyla (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, the fact is "he is banned by WMF", and community has no chance to overcome it. So, ban should be enforced. End of story. — regards, Revi 11:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, When Wikimedia becomes a community driven project, then we will discuss why Russavia was banned and what he must do to get unbanned..and until such time (if it ever happens), the community has no say in this ..just drop it ..--Stemoc 11:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Fundamentally I do not disagree with the assessment. However, the transparency angle was brought up and I think that would be a productive outcome. I think from the start that has been what was lacking which got some users concerned, rightfully so IMHO. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 11:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The point for today, as raised originally, is that although Russavia is banned, excommunicated and cast into a pit of eternal flame, he's still here. So what do we do with all the socks? Technically no-one has a means to make them stop. If a sock pops up, says "Here's a helpful suggestion about this one image", then is that comment to be ignored, followed, or blanked with extreme prejudice, no matter how (as a single comment) helpful it is.
With "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it is impossible to exclude recurrent socking by the energetically committed. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
We do have means to stop him but in the process we would cause collateral damage where we end up blocking too many unrelated users. I want to think of the matter beyond specifics concerning Russavia. Normally if someone points out a copyright problem or some other issue, I would be hard pressed to ignore it. That said reliability of a globally banned user would be of suspect. For instance if said user is wiki stalking other(s) on wiki where he or she contests their actions constantly, I would then outright ignore the users suggestions regardless of merit. I have a very low tolerance to such gaming of the system and community patience. So I suppose my take is, it depends on the circumstances. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Korean Wikipedia has 10 years-old troll with +200 socks (lot less compared to rissavia's total amount) yet we suffer from Toarushiroineko's said collateral damages. (false positive) However, banned user is persona non grata defined by WMF, the operator. Whether you like russavia or not, this does not change. Unless you are going to create fork of Wikimedia Commons, you have to comply with the wmf decision (which sometimes I don't want to do, for example the f<censored>ing superprotect.) no matter you like it or not. — regards, Revi 14:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
That's incorrect. WMF complies with its own decisions. WMF can't give orders to volunteers. --Nemo 14:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
WMF can remove any volunteer. We as volunteers can choose not to help enforce such a decision since it is not required of us. What about this is incorrect? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
So in all this discussion we seem to be right where we started. The WMF banned him and we can't do anything about that, we also cannot do anything to stop him from continuing to contribute and we, he and the WMF know that. As noted above there are things we could do to "stop" it but those are unlikely to succeed unless we are willing to completely lock down the entire site and prevent everyone from editing, which isn't realistic. So, do we continue to chase him around? Do we just ignore it and let positive contributions be what they are or are and improve the project or are we going to revert positive contributions based solely on the source and create a bigger problem and more drama. I can't speak for others but I for one would rather have positive edits, banned user or not, rather than someone who gets frustrated and starts doing vandalism or other shenanigans. Not that Russavia would do that, but that is a common result from people when the community continues to revert positive edits. Reguyla (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is as hopeless as you claim. One possibility remaining (which I think is unlikely but...) is that sufficient information is released to sufficient number of trusted users to change the some minds about the ban. Odder has already stated that in that case he'd be the first to start the process of a community-ban. And I have to be hopeful that a community-ban, where russavia is no longer encouraged and supported by a disgruntled handful of users, would finally lead him towards getting another hobby. If that information-release doesn't occur, then we are left with our stalemate wrt trust. We're not talking about blindly thinking the WMF is infallible, as some have argued unhelpfully above, but about contemplating the probabilities and considering the statements by James and others about how much process went into the ban and the denials that it concerns certain areas one might consider political. If the ban is unfair and involves nothing more than Jimbo getting pissed off about a penis-painting, as some suggest, then we are being lied to and taken for fools on such an epic scale that I don't find that compatible with my continued contributions here -- and surely that is doubly so for those who are/were friends of russavia. Look at the WMF Global Ban Policy. That's pretty serious shit. It's time to stop denying what likely occurred, and time to stop using this issue in power games. -- Colin (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem here isn't in people supporting the ban, because the WMF has authority to implement those and there seems to be plenty of people willing to act to block him. I also don't think it really matters whether a few trusted users know or not, its still not going to change anything. As Nick has suggested I have also heard some stories about why and about how it may change in the future and I also know that my name was brought up for a WMF ban in relation to ENWP. I also seriously doubt that the WMF spent 100+ hours on a decision about whether to ban Russavia. I fully believe that politics had a huge part to play in it and although other factors also likely came into play, that was probably a significant contributor. The bottom line is as long as he is willing to create accounts to contribute then there isn't much we can do unless we are willing to go to extreme measures to prevent it and I would rather those contributions continue to be positive than to create yet another vandal. What I am saying is that as long as the edit is positive, then I wouldn't personally chase him around. I don't think he should interact in discussions, vote and participate in delete discussions and the like, but providing input via IRC or doing things like that in a more consultational role isn't a concern to me. The individual doing it can determine on its merits if the change is worth doing or not. As for the act of socking, again, I wouldn't waste my time chasing him around as long as the edits are positive. If they are not then that changes things. I also think a community ban is a waste of time. He's already WMF banned and we cannot change that, but if this community held a ban discussion and the outcome was no consensus or that he should not be banned its just going to cause more tension between us and the WMF. Reguyla (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that there is need to send information to any other group than functionaries of WMF. WMF functionaries are the ones that should deal with WMF bans. It's like an oversighter requesting information from a checkuser because they don't accept a checkuser's block. That's an inexistent procedure. It is not a choice; you have to accept it and checkusers are not forced to provide any information to those that were not chosen to oversee them. Oversighters are not employees and are not the ones to be called for Legal matters, are not selected for their expertise of Legal matters, are not even tested for having enough knowledge of WMF Terms of Use. So what if they disagree? Based on what?
We have to trust WMF when they act on their functions, otherwise there is no meaning if we are going to force them to break privacy rules whenever a group disagree with their conduct.
Also, Russavia has been breaking Commons' rules when he is creating abusive sockpuppets and harassing Commons users. We may have lost INC for that weird support some are giving to a banned user. Russavia's recent trolling on Commons, the way he responded to the lock, the disrespect to the work of volunteers and functionaries are enough reason to have him indefinitely blocked, no matter how many edits he had and are only a support to the ban decision. I can't see how a good user would great that amount of confusion. Not everything on WMF projects are publicly decided and there is nothing new on that. Like checkusers deal with checkusers' blocks, WMF functionaries deal with WMF bans. Move on.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 22:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga[edit]

Can someone please take a look at Krishna Chaitanya Velaga's uploads. A lot of copyvios have been deleted, but today I came across some that he had uploaded using his flickr account of Indian army images. I've tagged a few more, but Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga gives a background of the Indian army images. Perhaps there's some flickrwashing going on too, as they've uploaded book covers to flickr to move here also. —SpacemanSpiff 15:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The user was given a final warning by Yann. —SpacemanSpiff 15:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Yann, I'm not familiar with these government licenses but File:44th Airborne Division 2.jpg seems to be released under IWM Non-commercial license but uploaded here as Open Government License. As it's a scan of something that's probably out of copyright, it may be ok, maybe you can take a look? —SpacemanSpiff 16:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, also deleted. Yann (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)