Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U · COM:ANU

Community portal
introduction
Help desk
uploading
Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks 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, 54, 55, 56, 57
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, 56, 57, 58
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.


Misunderstanding[edit]

Every time when we try to solve any problem with User:Wesley Mouse, I feel some pressure from this user. Every time he accuses me in something. This time he accuses me of stealing, which I did not commit. Between us exist a language barrier, and I find it hard to communicate in English with him. Please, could you explain the problem, which is set out on his talk page. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 06:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • If the problem is a language barrier, then the solution is to avoid communication and/or simplify what it is you are trying to say so that people can at least try to understand you. Quite simple really. The other problem that Alex is failing to understand is that he is claiming File:Pan Celtic Festival winners map.svg to be his own published work which can be seen at User:Alex Great/Work, which holds the header "My Work" and contains the aforementioned file. However, the original file itself was uploaded by myself on April 12, 2015. Alex is still claiming the file to be his work and therefore claiming authorship by placing such on his "my work" page, without correctly attributing that someone else uploaded the file. I don't mind the file being placed elsewhere as I released the file under "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International". But Alex should at least show that he did not create the file and that someone else did.
Also he accused me of being incapable of working with SVG format, which in my eyes is very much a bad faith comment to make against anyone. I have worked with SVG files for 5 years now and been taught by an experienced user on how to handle, create and modify such files. Alex has been known for a while now even on English Wikipedia for his actions to "claim ownership" of map files and changing established colour schemes without putting forward any proposals so that others may discuss the proposed changes. How difficult is it for someone to simply put forward any proposals, rather than jumping the gun and doing things on a whim without taking into consideration that others may disagree with the proposals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the standard of operation around here, is to seek a consensus? Alex has demonstrated that he lacks the capability to work on consensus building. Also Alex, if you're going to complain about a user then it is polite to notify the user that you have made a complaint, and where the complaint has been submitted, so that they are able to comment. I had to search through your contributions in order to find this complaint. Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Where? Where said that Pan Celtic map is "mine"? Where? "My work" means only that I worked with it, or interested with work with it. If I put userboxes at my user's subpage and named this page as "My userboxes", it means that I created this userboxes? No, it's not. My work ≠ created by me. Accused you? Realy? If you don't understand that I fix bugs at your map. You revert my version and said "That is a lie as its impossible to "codyfied" any image onto an already existing file". You realy think that SVG map is imposiible to codyfy? I don't understand you. What about consensus? I discus some changes if this changes ic critically changes map. But it's not. I fix bugs at map, redesign Spain communities and unified colorscale with another winner maps. You think that I need a consensus. When I tried to discuss you every time said me that I need to discuss any changes at English WikiProject. Why? I discuss it at Commons, because this maps exist at Commons. I do not know English as very well, but I try. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 14:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I have never said you must discuss at English Wikiproject. I said you need to discuss proposals in general, at a venue that is more appropriate. As you are proposing changes to a file that may have impact across various other Wikipedia, then one needs to discuss the proposal with others. So in this case, as the file is at commons, then you should have opened a discussion on the file's talk page and then if required, notify various Wikipedia projects too so that they are aware there is an active discussion taking place. Not everyone checks commons has frequently as you. So letting people know about a discussion is a polite action to carry out. But you never opened any discussion. You just made a change because you like it. All the winners maps used the same colourscale as is being used on the Pan Celtic map. However, you changed the colourscale on all other maps to a version which you prefer, rather than seeing if others agree that a change is required. Therefore you made mass-changes across various maps without A) discussing the proposal, and B) without seeking a consensus with users at commons on whether a change is required or not. Follow procedures and discuss proposals, rather than just going about things without taking into consideration what others may think. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The color scheme has been changed at one of the same map in 2014 by Cmglee. No one objected after the colors is changed. Plus, this change has been a discussion on my talk page. In two years of existence of these colors, no one user has not complained. As long as it does not suit you at the Pan Celtic Winners Map. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 06:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
OK a discussion of sorts took place. But not in a neutral venue such as the file talk page. Holding a discussion regarding mass-changes on your own talk page is not exactly the best place to carry out such debates. Mainly because not everyone would be aware to check your talk page for a discussion taking place regarding the proposal to change the colour scheme. Also, one may wish to note that the discussion you linked to in your archives is not exactly a fair and open debate on any such proposals. It is merely another user who first assumed you are AxG, and then giving you praise and a change that you made without putting forward the proposal to make such changes. So I would strongly suggest that a new discussion be started in a neutral venue, as the proposed changes are going to have a bigger impact across similar files and other Wikipedia languages too. For example, French Wikipedia may object to the change, or Dutch Wikipedia may have a better proposal. But to make the changes based on your personal point of view is not acceptable. Wes Mouse | T@lk 11:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

They could roll back the consensus version and to begin a dialogue, which they did not. The discussion in this topic is of a different character. You accuse me of lying and stealing. And you're claiming that the page with the title "My work" it is the same as "Files Created by Alex Great". At the same time, you do not even bother to read the description under sections of this page. "Конкурсные карты" = "Competitive map"; "Ниже перечислены все конкурсные карты, которые меня так или иначе интересуют." = "Below listed all competitive maps that I somehow interested." I respect the authors of all maps and every time when I have to edit the description of the file, I always put the original author, if possible, and if it required by license. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 04:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
And they are all descriptions written in Russian. How do you expect someone to know what they say? Remember that not everyone can read Russian, and I for one cannot read the language, nor do I have any interest in learning. Perhaps the mistake here is on your part in having text written in a language that not everyone understands. Maybe providing an English translation would have been helpful not just for myself but for others who do not read Russian text. Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please review COM:OVERWRITE. "When in doubt, or to resolve inter-user conflicts, upload as a new file." Wesley Mouse, Commons is a multilingual project, please see COM:LP. Our contributors have the opportunity to work collaboratively with people worldwide. You may find that Google Translate and similar services help you understand those whose first language is not English. File:Europe countries.svg is a source of File:Pan Celtic Festival winners map.svg according to the metadata. Consequently, the source field of the latter's information template is incomplete and misleading. Please use the {{Derived from}} template when appropriate. The author field should list first the author(s) of the base map, e.g., Júlio Reis (User:Tintazul). Your authorship may be indicated as "*derivative work: username". Perhaps one day the helpful and much-missed derivativeFX tool, will be resurrected. COM:MELLOW has suggestions for working constructively with others. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Walter Siegmund, I think that the best way it upload new file already. At least it will not violate anyone's interests. I fully agree about authorship. But, Walter, if I put template {{derived from}} than I still must put the name of the original author? ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 07:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Wsiegmund: I feel that Metadata has sourced the wrong file, as I never used File:Europe countries.svg. The original version is File:ESC-JESC-EDC XXXX Map.svg, which I then zoomed the map so that is only shown the British Isles and the 2 Celtic regions in north-west Spain. The latter version that I used was created by AxG who is an established and knowledgeable editor when it comes to maps. Hence why I knew the file would have no hidden errors or bugs. I appreciate and understand that Commons is a multilingual project. But I shouldn't have to keep frequenting Google Translator. Alex already noted that there has been a historical factor of a language barrier between he and I, so he could have easily have noted the Russian text and what it meant a lot sooner so that it would have saved this waste of time coming to an admin board. And it would be appreciated if an admin would explain to Alex why it is important to notify a user that they have a complaint made against them - and not the way Alex carried out his conduct by making a complaint and not even notifying me that A) a complaint was made against me; and B) the venue that the complaint was submitted. If it were not for me having to check his contributions, I would never have known about this complaint, and admins would have assumed I was being ignorant.
In future Alex Great, if you are to seek admin help and complain against someone, be polite and let that person know. It even states that at the notes section at the top of this page to notify the user(s). You failed to notify me. In the meantime Walter Siegmund, I shall correct the description section accordingly. Wes Mouse | T@lk 11:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, affected individuals should be notified of discussions that occur here. Administrators generally check. It may affect their perception of the initiator of the discussion. Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos, in the author field of the information template, please place the name of the original author of the work first. Below that you may add "*derivative work: Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos" to indicate your contribution. While the {{derived from}} template may suffice, you can't expect all readers to follow that link or to interpret it correctly.
Although it isn't part of this discussion, Commons:Threshold of originality may apply to the work discussed above. In particular, for File:Arkansas_map_by_Sean_Pecor.png, a US appeals court decided in 2007 that "additions to the preexisting maps such as color, shading, and labels using standard fonts and shapes fall within the narrow category of works that lack even a minimum level of creativity" and are not copyrightable. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Wesley, Why did you deceive people? A) Read the last sentence of this edit. B) See the first sentence of #Misunderstanding Topic, where I ping you when put [[User:Wesley Mouse]] at the text of my claim. Did you found this topic when I written it? Yes, it is. Once again, I tell you. I filed a complaint because you disrespect me. You have repeatedly accused me of lying and stealing. @Wsiegmund: thanks for the advice. I will try to correct the description of the iploaded bu me files. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 05:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Alex Great: I have not deceived anyone, I have spoken the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The last sentence of your edit only reads "I have to complain to administrators". You did not inform me where you was going to make your complaint. Writing [[User:Wesley Mouse]] is not a ping, and that is why I did not receive any notification that you had pinged me in a comment. I only noticed my name linked after I had to check your contributions based on your comment that I quoted earlier. To ping someone so that they receive a notification would require you to use the {{ping}} template. As you did not used this, then I did not receive a ping notification from you. And there has been no disrespecting of you whatsoever. Alex, have you forgotten that you have noted there is a language barrier, so you perhaps you have misunderstood. It is clear to anyone has fluent knowledge of English, that I was merely trying to establish what it is you meant, as well as informing you that I know how to work with SVG format, and I also asked you in my comments as to why you were claiming to be the original author of a file. The file itself shown my name as the original uploader. So to claim you were that person was basically stealing to some degree (although not unlawful theft, due to Commons:Threshold of originality). It was yourself who was being disrespectful towards myself. Using words such as "codyfing" (which is not even an English word). I had informed you that it would have been impossible to "codyfied" anything, unless it was done during the original upload process. All you had done was upload a new file to an already existing image. There is no "codyfied" action in doing that. You also used the word "usurped" in the wrong context. That word means to "illegally take force". I never said in any of my comments that you were illegally taking force; so I found it somewhat confusing as to why you were trying to accuse me of saying such comments. I think it be best that if we are to hold a written conversation in future that you be a little more explanatory. You know that you struggle to understand English, and that you have little experience in communicating in fluent English. So if you wish for things to be more understandable, then be more patient and not assume that everyone is going to understand your poor knowledge of English communication. Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, ping works fine. I received an alert. Secondly, I said that I would complain to administrators, but you don't know where? Of course at Administartors noticeboard. Thirdly, you are the only user in the whole of Wikipedia, who does not understand me. Fourthly, you are too carp at words. Fifthly, we can finish this debate, because I believe it to nothing lead. Sixthly, I have no idea how to solve the problem with the Pan-Celtic winners map. So I think, just upload a new file (no new version of existed).
I think that's it. And I'm sorry for my English. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 09:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

  1. The reason you received an alert @Alex Great: is because I used the correct template {{ping|Alex Great}} in order for it to send you an alert. If I had used [[User:Alex Great]] then you would not have received an alert whatsoever. If you had used {{ping|Wesley Mouse}} then I would have received an alert. However, you used [[User:Wesley Mouse]] which doesn't send an alert.
  2. You could have submitted your complaint directly to an administrator's talk page, rather than at a noticeboard. And an admin noted to you above that you should have followed procedure and notified me of the location of your complaint. Something which you did not do.
  3. I am not the only person in the whole of Wikipedia to not understand you. Others have had to ask you to be more clear in your words as they too have struggled to understand what you mean.
  4. I'm too carp with words? What do you mean? Carp is a fish. I am assuming you meant I am crap - which I would like to remind you is a derogatory, attacking, and insulting word to use against any user.
  5. The debate shouldn't have even been started in the first place. More so if you knew yourself that it would lead to a stalemate situation.
  6. You now insist on uploading a new map file? Why do that? Where would the new file be used? You intend to make the current file redundant and orphaned so that it becomes deleted. That is a spiteful manoeuvre to make and one that can be perceived as a selfish threat in order to gain your own way.
  7. At least my English is perfect enough for others to understand clearly; and I am not relying on a mechanical translator to make it look poor and incomprehensible. A consensus debate should be initiated on the talk page of the current file in question. That way others can see both sides to the debate and reach a consensus decision on which version would be more suitable. Uploading a new version with the aim of having the current file permanently deleted is a waste of time and a malicious attempt to gain "ownership" in a petty childish fashion. We follow procedures and reach consensus, we do not act in vindictive ways which would be seen as file-wars. Wes Mouse | T@lk 11:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
3) Who had to ask me? You speak for others or express your opinion? 4) I mean that idiom that hardly to translate into English from Russian. 5) At this point it still came to nothing lead. 6) What are you talking about? I can upload any number of files, and it will not be deleted from the Wikimedia Commons, because you think that orpahned file is a reason to deletion. Do you remember what happened with OGAE winners map.svg? "spiteful manoeuvre"? Are you seriuosly? 7) Do not jump to conclusions. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 10:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Jcb and his recent actions[edit]

Jcb has the last month(s) been speedie-deleting files without a valid (or any) rationale in clear violation of out speedy deletion policy and been name-calling and harrassing using block commments, saying things as "Russavia suck". These kind of things are unbecoming for an admin and should not be tolerated. An admin should not circumvent our policies, not fall to harassment, that is just wrong. I think it is time for Jcb to take a step back from this HOUNDing and start being mellow. Josve05a (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

WMF was asked (by more than one party) to interfere in this case. They promised to do so within a few days. So no need to provoke escalation. Jcb (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This post isn't actually if the files should have been deleted, but that you did so without just cause at the time. Acting out of community established policy in hopes that WMF will find that they should be delelted some time after the file's been deleted,is still breaching our policies for how deletions should be. On top of that there is the clear hounding by you towards this user. Josve05a (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I have not performed those deletions after a discussion was started about it at the Denniss user talk page, and I'm sure you are well aware of that. Now it's up to the WMF to tell whether my interpretation of their ruling is either correct or incorrect. We will know very soon. Jcb (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
It has never been up to WMF employees to tell the Commons volunteer community how their administrators should behave, or to dictate project policies. -- (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
My problem with these actions was that they never should have been done to begin with and certainly not at the rate that was done? I find that to be a problematic use of the admin toolset. Reguyla (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, it was extensively discussed in many places and now on Commons:Village_pump#Russavia; so just another forum shopping (if I'm lending my friend's words).
"An admin should not circumvent our policies". The fact is that we've not enough or well established policies. Commons is still just a baby project depending EN wiki for guidance. Our admins occasionally quote their policies when they feel suit. What we have are some established practices and use of common sense. Our blocking policy say nothing on how to handle blocked user's edits. It says nothing about topic bans or interaction bans. It says nothing about confidential blocks by checkusers or oversighters. BTW, I'm trying to improve COM:BLOCK now.
I saw some people saying we don't know why that user is blocked; so we can't accept it. Well, I don't know why FDMS4 was interaction banned; I don't know why many users are blocked by CUs/OVs. But still I believe them. (I had seen an IP tried to defame him on his talk and asked oversighters to suppress it. They did it.)
Finally, Josve05a said "[I'm hereby] publicly recuses myself from further comments." Please don't make promises that you can't keep. Jee 01:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Further comments about the FDMS4 interaction ban, which was for him against me. Josve05a (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Every edit requires the contributor to accept the ToU which state that one can no longer edit [or upload content] if they have been banned. The very act of a banned user editing through either socks or IP accounts, post ban enforcement, violates those Terms.
As we've said before, the Wikimedia Foundation will not seek to force administrators to enforce the Terms of Use (just like an admin is rarely 'obligated' to block a vandal), but does appreciate the work of administrators who choose to do so. Admins who do should not be subjected to threats of removal of their admin rights, when their actions are based on a good faith belief that they are merely upholding the Terms of Use (and any action in support of enforcing a WMF or community global ban is, by definition, upholding the Terms of Use). (If community believes that their good faith efforts are misguided, the issue may need discussion and resetting of approaches if necessary. We are always happy to join in such conversations.)
In regards to the deletion of Russavia's (sock puppets') older files, the Terms of Use has an option for enforcement here where we may "Refuse, disable, or restrict access to the contribution of any user who violates these Terms of Use". In more normal terms, it means we (and, therefore, an admin) can choose to enforce the Terms by reverting or deleting contributions from users violating the Terms. Some sites, such as English Wikipedia, have policies in place already which generally support this, while Commons has, historically, not. When we first started WMF Global Bans we decided initially to try not enforcing that globally with User:WMFOffice, leaving it to the local community to decide. That decision does not, however, mean that it is not a valid tool in the arsenal of a local admin attempting to enforce the ban.
As far as un-deleting content uploaded by banned users (through their sock or IP account), this is considered as an equivalent to assisting the banned user in evading their ban. For this reason, administrators who un-delete such content may be subject to sanctions from the WMF. Contributors can, of course, always feel free to re-upload the image themselves (under their own name and, therefore, taking responsibility for the edits themselves) as long as it does not turn into a case where they are editing on the request/direction of the banned user. Obviously I know that some of these images were already un-deleted; we realize that we need to better communicate our position on doing this and cannot fault any admins who have acted in good faith to this point in that regards.
We understand that current OTRS policy is that volunteers follow a do-not-respond approach for licensing requests sent by Russavia. However, some OTRS agents do respond directly to the photographers, as the photographers are cc’ed in the communication to begin with, and so his tickets do sometimes get resolved. We are going to talk with the OTRS admins and suggest that that policy get revisited. While no one ever wants to inconvenience innocent photographers, he is, in the end, not welcome on our projects in any form.
On another note, the Wikimedia Foundation may need to take a harder stand on content uploaded by banned users and delete it when we lock the confirmed sock of the user that uploaded it. This discussion isn’t the place for that broader conversation; we would address that separately in advance. Of course, even then, no requirement would exist for volunteers to also retroactively delete such content. But if community members want to enforce it, they will be (as they already are) permitted to do so without repercussions. Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
“Contributors can, of course, always feel free to re-upload the image themselves (under their own name and, therefore, taking responsibility for the edits themselves)”
@Kalliope (WMF): It is my belief that all undeletions made by an admin is that they take "responsibility for [the undeletion, in turn the edits] themselves" by leaving their username in the deletion logs, but having the "sock" username in the uploaders/history field. Is that a naive assumption, or isn't that what all admins who are undeleting do, assume responsibility that they do it in good faith? Josve05a (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kalliope (WMF): So just to make sure that everyone, including yourself, is aware of what's going on in here. We're talking about an administrator, @Jcb, deleting in-use, in-scope and highly educational files from Commons because they were uploaded by a user whom you have banned in secret. Are you telling me that if I proceed to enforce the policies of this project, ie. undelete those files, then I might be subject to sanctions from WMF? Do you realize how this sounds? Do you realize that the Foundation has never threatened us volunteers with sanctions for anything other than reverting official office actions? Do you realize that this is highly questionable behaviour that might risk your safe harbour status? Has this even been cleared with the legal team? I still can't believe I'm seeing this. odder (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
As I understand this official threat by the WMF to block administrators, they have decided to throw away their safe harbour argument by taking positive responsibility for project content, overruling all volunteers in the process. From here on anyone in taking out a civil case can refer to this WMF policy statement as sufficient to sue the WMF for damages as they can be claimed to facilitate copyright infringement by users of the Wikimedia projects. It's fantastic news for copyright lawyers wanting to get their hands on the WMF's money.
Per odder, Kalliope are you really, really sure you understand the history and legal precedent you are setting here? (I mention history as Kalliope states "I am new to the Wikimedia Foundation projects, as I joined in April 2015" on their profile, and so would have had several years of policies and consensus building discussion to look back over or have others summarise it.) -- (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kalliope (WMF): I am also very surprised at this statement and I also noticed that you say the Wikimedia Foundation may need to take a harder stand on content uploaded by banned users and delete it when we lock the confirmed sock of the user that uploaded it. I would hope that if the WMF decides to do this, its only part of a broader policy of making the WMF projects more civil and inviting and would not be based on one individual, on one project that the WMF does not like. I also think this statement puts us on a slippery slope. For example, if the WMF deleted some content, say uploads by Russavia and then some other editor innocently imports it back. That editor could then be harassed and accused of editing on behalf of a banned editor. Also as odder said, the WMF banned a high output and fairly well respected admin of this community (although not perfect) in secret with no input or discussion from this community. As long as the individual is contributing positively, on this project, I don't really care who does it or if the WMF banned them in a Council of Elrond. Reguyla (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely Reguyla, the harsher stand on content uploaded by banned users would be in an effort to mitigate disruption and contribute to the projects becoming a more civil place for contributors to spend time in. This is not a personal vendetta - the WMF's actions are not based on personal preference or bias [towards a specific contributor or a project]; they are based on the amount of abuse and disruption one causes, despite being banned. Any policy will also apply to our treatment of all WMF banned users (we do not make policy for one person). Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kalliope (WMF): I appreciate the response and I recognize that you are trying to do what you believe is the right thing based on WMF policy. Russavia is not perfect, he has his flaws and so does everyone else including me. Unfortunately the harsh truth is that how you describe this situation is not how it is in reality. In this case, banning Russavia did not benefit anyone. Not this project, not the WMF, not him and certainly not us. In many ways, it made things far worse. The thing is, there are a few vocal folks who want him banned including Jimbo, several vocal folks that think the ban was largely BS including me, several folks who don't care either way but think we need to support the ban without question and 98% of the community who doesn't get involved. I would also state that if the WMF wants to take a stand to make the sites a more civil place, and I am not picking on any particular project because each has its own problems, they should start with the admins and functionaries first. There are a lot of admins who are far more problematic both in terms of their use of the admin tools and general civility (like routinely telling people to Fuck off, go the Fuck away, calling people Fucking morons, blocking people to win discussions or as a threat, etc.). I can name some examples if you want.:-). Taking a hard stand against one editor who has such a long and valuable history to the project under dubious reasons is not the right way to ensure civility on the projects. Reguyla (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Reguyla, this isn't the place to go over old issues. There's been a year of some people telling WMF that Russavia should not have been banned and they haven't changed their minds. Indeed, Russavia's post-ban behaviour has hardened their already absolute no-going-back stance. It doesn't serve any purpose to keep arguing about it. Nor do I any purpose in speculating about the reasons for the ban and bringing up old conspiracy theories. It's done. Kalliope, isn't going to say "Well, since you put it like that, here, look, I've unblocked him". If there are other problematic admins then name them in the appropriate forum and see if the community can resolve the issues. I don't see WMF globally blocking anyone merely for being uncivil. -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, It serves the purpose of letting the WMF know that the decision they made was a bad one, that not only did it not benefit the project but it made things worse and the WMF is obviously powerless to do anything to stop it. I do not think Kalliope can change anything but I think the community could, if we wanted too and got a consensus to do so. Clearly the block is not effective so we are just pissing into the wind by trying to make good edits into bad ones. If the community told the WMF that Russavia is welcome to edit here, what are they going to do? Block the entire community that supported it? I greatly doubt that. We could also choose not to get involved. Not block him, not delete his content, nothing. If the WMF wants to do it on their own, then that's on them. We could also restore useful and in scope content when they do so. We should not be throwing away useful contributions just because a secret committee that doesn't even contribute here and is outside the community decided they don't want this person to contribute. Communities have changed the WMF's mind on things before when we work together to do so, or at least show them that their decision does not have community consensus. It may even force the WMF to change the way it does global bans to allow exceptions. Who knows what the outcome may be if we work together to achieve it. Russavia's conduct is that of someone with nothing to lose. The WMF globally banned them with no input from this community. It was largely based on the Jimbo incident and what some of the folks at ENWP wanted. I don't deny there are folks here that want him banned too and I agree his conduct hasn't been perfect, but unless the WMF is willing to tell at least the functionaries here some details about what warranted the ban, then I question the reasoning. His conduct is consistent with someone who has devoted a lot of time to something being blocked from it for dubious reasons that are not in the best intersts of the project to satisfy a small group of people that largely don't contribute here and that is something I can empathize with.
But my comments on civility are based on their comments of making the projects more civil. Its easy to block an editor if they are problematic. Its nearly impossible to block an admin, especially if they block anyone that disagree's with them. It has the tendency to eliminate anyone who they don't like, it shows others that they will be blocked if they criticize them and it enforces the us and them mentality...you know, like what happened to me over at ENWP! Reguyla (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Reguyla, it serves no purpose. Do you really think WMF are unaware of your views? There are a handful of vocal people who want russavia back. There's no way the "community" will force WMF on this. Nobody really believes this "Jimbo incident" thing is a factor. It's just something embarrassing to keep mentioning because nobody knows any different. Russavia's conduct is consistent with someone who should never be allowed back on this project. It's not going to happen. Move on. -- Colin (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually Colin I think we both need to move on. You want him blocked and have your perception of things. I would like to see him editing again so all this drama will stop and we will have a high output and dedicated editor back. Neither of us are going to change the others mind and neither your support nor my lack of support for the WMF is going to change their minds one way or the either, nor do I expect it too. I would also clarify its not just my views but clearly the views of a number of individuals commenting here. In fact even most of the ones who agree with supporting the ban are only doing so because the WMF made it and they see no alternative. Its not that they want it, they just don't want to fight it. So no, the "community" is absolutely not in agreement. And when the time comes for you to get banned Colin, I look forward to see if you like it or if you just do what almost every other banned person does and edit anyway. Because bans are not, nor have they ever been, effective. They create and perpetuate drama because they almost always deal with long term contributors and almost always are done for dubious reasons and through the manipulation of one policy or another for the one performing the ban. The only people bans are effective for are the ones that don't really care, and that means that they never really cared about the project at all in the first place...so no loss. Reguyla (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
How many people are commenting here? That's your answer to your idea that the "community" might force WMF's hand. I never said the community was in agreement. Let me be quite clear: when the time comes for me to get banned, the only socks will be the ones on my feet as I go off to do something else. Sure I care about the project, and have lots of friends here, but there are always other things in life than some website. It's no different to changing job or moving house, and most people manage to cope with that just fine. -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Fae is incorrect. Deleting content because it was uploaded by an already banned user is not the same as WMF performing content-based or editorial deletion, which might jeopardise the safe-harbour status. The fact that this content is "in-use, in-scope and highly educational" (or not) is and must be completely beside-the-point. For as soon as WMF decided to keep some content and delete others, based on (for example) whether it is in use on Wikipedia, they are curating the images themselves and taking on board responsibility for their legality (imo, as a not lawyer).
As for whether Russavia's actions are a positive contribution or otherwise, is also completely irrelevant. Banned users do not get to edit/upload. Whenever anyone makes these kind of specious arguments for permitting Russavia to edit, one must consider whether the same argument would be made for other banned/globally-banned users. No they wouldn't. People get banned for crossing a line and the consequences are complete and utter termination. A ban does not mean "from now on, you must only make constructive edits". What a ridiculous argument.
I am glad that admins are permitted to uphold our terms-of-use and protect us from bullies and other unwanted users, and that WMF will stand with them against the sort of harassment we see here. The continued hounding of admins who block russavia socks, etc, needs to stop now. I hope that anyone doing so in the past gets the clear message that further such behaviour may terminate their hobby. -- Colin (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: You are mistaken. @ never said anything about the Foundation deleting the files themselves, nor about them keeping some content and deleting other. We're talking about their quite open threat of blocking administrators who undelete content that was deleted in violation of this project's policies.
Which is exactly the case when Jcb proceeded to speedy delete in-use, in-scope and highly educational files uploaded by a Russavia sock without providing any deletion summary — despite the fact that Commons policies require a regular deletion request for used files, and despite the fact that we don't delete in-scope files. And yet, that they were in-use and in-scope is the crux of the matter here, not to be easily dismissed like you just did above.
You can keep on making theories all you want with your people get banned for crossing the line, however the fact of the matter is that at this point, you've got no idea why Russavia was banned, so why keep on embarrassing yourself by taking this stance with no facts to support it? And as for your last point, volunteer Commons administrator have no business upholding the Foundation's Terms of Use; this isn't just part of our job (so far); I expect there would be legal consequences if it was.
And I am glad that administrators and other users keep calling out admins deleting valid content in violation of Commons policies while putting their hatred of Russavia ahead of the project's mission. The continued hounding of users who do keep calling out when this happens needs to stop now. odder (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
odder, there are mainly two arguments people made against WMF's statement. I'm not picking who made which, but they are 1. Deletion of in COM:SCOPE images 2. risk of losing DMCA protection.
For argument 1, my reply is that we've many policies and COM:BLOCK applicable here. People can argue WMF block is different and not applicable here. So what? Does a crat or admin can technically possible to allow a WMF locked user to edit here? No; unless allowing socks what some admins are trying now. Please stop this and protest in proper forum where law allowing. I'm not a fan of protesting through anarchy. That's why tried to add Oversighters' and Checkusers' rights to COM:BLOCK. But no one cares to even look into it than making fuss in drama boards.
For argument 2, I think Colin is right. When Flickr block a user, they delete all his uploads too including past uploads. It is not breaking their DMCA protection. Jee 12:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: These are two separate arguments, as they are addressed to two separate entities: (1) COM:SCOPE being addressed towards actions of volunteer administrators speedy-deleting used educational content, and (2) the potential lose of safe harbour status addressed towards the WMF who appear to have said they reserve the right to take sanctions against volunteer administrators undeleting such content. Mixing these two does not help, we should better discuss them in separate discussions (I think). odder (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Odder, both you and Fae claimed WMF would lose safe-harbour protection. Fae claimed they would be "taking positive responsibility for project content". Ok so both of you are technically arguing it is the "block administrators who undelete" that somehow breaks this protection. But that is merely a mechanism to ensure deleted content stays deleted (otherwise the action is pointless) and the original deletion was done by an admin with WMF's full blessing (see above). Further WMF have stated they may choose to delete content themselves. When the decision to delete (or refuse an undelete to the point of blocking anyone who tries) is based purely on who uploaded it (a globally banned user) this is not a content issue. I don't see how safe-harbour enters into it.
As for Russavia, I don't have "hatred of Russavia" and it is rather extending yourself to assume those admins who block his socks or delete his images also "hate" him. I don't know why he was banned. But I have seen what he has written to some users here, both before and after his ban, and have been on the receiving end of his bullying myself. He's a bully and a troll and I have absolutely zero fear of being "embarrassed" that he might somehow be unjustly accused. I repeat my argument that if you feel Russavia has been unjustly banned by the owners of this site, then your only honest response is to leave. Continuing to edit here requires your agreement to the TOU which ultimately let WMF ban people without having to say why or ask your permission. Deal with it. You and I both know (and Jee has already noted) that Commons is rather lacking in policy in many areas. We have no policy to deal with WMF global banned editors. Commons is a wild west and you are among those who wish it to remain such. I see below you you are threatening other admins so it just looks like a game of who has the bigger gun. It would be a shame to see you also WMF blocked because you decide to take a stand alongside a bully like Russavia. -- Colin (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: You are getting so predictable and boring it's quite amusing; do you really think that repeatedly telling people they might leave is going to make any difference whatsoever? And as for your last sentence, rest assured that there are no plans to have me banned by the WMF; unlike yourself, the Foundation realise there are very fine distinctions to be made in this situation. Also, I am not threatening admins; I'm threatening one specific admin who appears to have made it his mission in life to destroy valid and used Commons content to prove a point. odder (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Well nobody says anything new, so it is boring. Even the WMF post isn't anything new -- we already knew that they regarded those who support Russavia continuing to edit/upload here as liable to face WMF action and we already knew that anyone taking action against an admin who deletes post-ban Russavia edits/uploads also may face WMF action. It is hard to understand how the TOU could mean anything otherwise. I said "blocked" because I rather hope the worst that may happen to you is temporary suspension till you calm down and see sense. You seem very upset and angry. We are talking about content uploaded post-ban. The only people responsible for the mess that deleting that content might cause are Russavia and the handful of vocal supporters. If they had all instead advised Russavia to take up golf then we'd have moved on and other people would have moved into the space he vacated (wrt uploading, hopefully not wrt bullying). -- Colin (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I just glance through Kalliope's official response. It looks fine, and I see nothing new compared to my previous stand. I had commented earlier that any such edits are not bound by the ToU and should be NUKEd. When edits are removed without any editorial review, no risk of compromising safe harbor provisions.
I had seen some editors commented unrelenting files make the admin responsible for the uploads. I don't think so. Otherwise not much admins will be willing to do it. Re-uploading as Kalliope suggested above will make the uploader responsible and satisfy the ToU. Jee 01:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kalliope (WMF): I just want to make sure that the position you've stated is entirely clear. Let's say Russavia (or some other banned user), as a sock, uploads a set of clearly licensed and in scope images (say, a governmental Flickr feed), and they are then deleted because, well, OMG Russavia. You seem to be saying, effectively, that anyone else who then re-uploads those same (freely licensed and in scope) images runs the risk of being banned by the WMF, without possibility of appeal, if someone thinks that Russavia even 'mentioned' that the images should be on Commons to them. More than that, if Russavia even 'suggests' that a set of such images should be on Commons (on Twitter, for example), without himself uploading them, and an editor sees that suggestion, agrees, and uploads them, then that editor runs the risk of being unilaterally banned by the WMF. Even if Russavia suggests to an author that they donate their own works to Commons, and they then do so, they run the risk of being banned by the WMF because he merely suggested it.
If Russavia uploads a set of images to Commons, then he is clearly and obviously 'suggesting' that they should be on Commons. You say that "Contributors can, of course, always feel free to re-upload the image themselves", but the simple fact is that they can not... if it can be perceived that they became aware of those images because of Russavia uploading them, then by what you have stated they 'run the risk' of a unilateral, unappealable WMF ban, even if that perception is wrong.
I'm very much not saying that editors should edit on the behalf of Russavia. I am saying, emphatically, that no editor should ever run the risk of being blocked for uploading freely licensed, in scope content merely because of how they became aware of that content. Even if you consider the possibility of such a block happening to be unrealistic, even the mere perception on the part of some editors that such a block 'might' happen will have a chilling effect on contributions, in that people will now have to consider not uploading valid content merely because of how they became aware of it.
Let me make it totally clear. If I was Russavia, and wanted to troll the hell out of Commons, all I would have to do is begin publicly 'requesting' that people upload particular instances of legitimate content (say, particular Flickr photostreams from PD sources). Any editor who sees such a 'request', decides that the material does indeed belong on Commons, and then uploads it must now consider the possibility that they will be unilaterally banned by the WMF. What's more, by what you have stated, in such a case that particular editor should be banned, unilaterally, without possibility of appeal, for doing something perfectly legitimate that Russavia merely suggested.
Please don't respond to this by saying something along the lines of 'we would not do that'. There are, quite obviously, a substantial number of editors who do not trust the WMF's discretion or judgement when it comes to the exercise of arbitrary authority. Revent (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
To be simple: Don't look at the user. Look at the content and contributions. Poké95 09:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Annoying user, good content. :) Jee 10:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
"As far as un-deleting content uploaded by banned users (through their sock or IP account), this is considered as an equivalent to assisting the banned user in evading their ban. For this reason, administrators who un-delete such content may be subject to sanctions from the WMF." <-- Noted. So it is better for admins not to touch anything russavia or locked user related stuff - even if the content is perfectly valid. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Since Yann reverted my revert, for those who wants to know the consequences of deleting pre-ban content of a banned user, see User talk:Denniss#Deleting content has HUGE ramifications. Regards, Poké95 10:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I am aware I did not delete any pre-ban content of Russavia and I am not planning to do that either. But if I come across new Russavia content, I will feel free to delete it. Jcb (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Jcb: Ha, I don't know you're really fully aware that you didn't deleted any pre-ban content of Russavia. Okay, can you say to us the original upload date of each file you deleted? Let's see if they are uploaded after 07:29, 17 January 2015, which is the date Russavia was banned. Regards, Poké95 11:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm quite sure of that, but if you find a deletion of an older file, please notify me and I will have a look at it. Jcb (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Since I am not an admin, I cannot see deleted files, and I didn't saw or not familiar with those deleted files, User:odder, can you look at those files please if they are uploaded after 07:29, 17 January 2015? Thanks, Poké95 12:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
In that case, if I ever see you speedy delete in-use in-scope content, I will feel free to block you account for abusing your privileges. Deal? odder (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
That's of course not a deal. Such an offense will be reported to WMF immediately. Jcb (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you drunk? What offense would that be? I'm not joking — from this moment onwards, if you ever speedy delete a file in violation of Commons policies, you will find yourself blocked, and I will bring your admin privileges for review on this noticeboard. odder (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
This is exceeding the civility limits; so going to report at COM:BN. Jee 12:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
To delete these files by an admin might not cause any repercussions from the WMF, however as a comunity elected admin, admins should not take it up upon themselves to do so without facing repercussions from the community. If the community do not belive these deletions are right, then the community should be free to enact sanctions on said admin(s), since they are community elected and should only do what the community asks them to do. If the community no longer belive that an admin is acting in the best way for said community then...the mentioned admin should lose those tools, since they are not given by WMF, but by us. WMF can delete the files themselves, since the community believes deleting in-use+in-scope files are not supported by our mission. Josve05a (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you ever read Commons:Administrators/De-adminship? I'm not a fan of that policy as it demands "routine abuse" and "serious offenses". Otherwise I would have rolled many heads. :) Jee 13:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Ignoring our current deletion policy would be "routine abuse" and a "serious offense". Please also desist from opening up additional discussions, as you have done at COM:BN, this is disruptive. Nick (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Nick, you know I don't need your advice. You are a provoker and misuser of tools even before you regain your adminship here. You had tried to revert my edits. You said IRC is a pub to me while holding your op rights. Do you think I care you? Jee 14:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: a clever attempt to deflect attention from your problematic behaviour. Please stop trying to change the subject, keep on topic and restrict discussion to one noticeboard. If you have any issues concerning misuse of my sysop permissions, I expect notification from you at my talk page first. Nick (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
This is self explaining. Good luck on being loyal to the nominator too. Jee 15:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Jkadavoor What part of stop trying to change the subject are you failing to understand ? If you have a concern about my RfA or any aspect of my behaviour here on Commons, please do feel free to swing by my talk page where I'm happy to have a chat with you about anything in particular. This discussion is about Jcb, and the potentially difficult position he finds himself in because of the WMF on one side and the current policies as agreed by the community on the other side. We need to focus our attention here on ensuring that Jcb doesn't get caught in the crossfire here, as that would be very unfair on him. If you are unable to focus on Jcb and to not drift off topic at every possible opportunity raising unclear and poorly thought out thinly veiled attacks on contributors you dislike, I will ask an uninvolved administrator that you be topic banned from further involvement in future threads. Nick (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
My reply to you is crystal clear; NEVER come to me with an advice as you're not qualified to do so. I don't care what else you're doing. Jee 15:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Nick was not acting as an administrator in what he said... he actually pretty explicitly stated that he would not do so, because he felt that he was involved. He is. however, perfectly able to have and express an opinion, or to request action from another administrator, exactly like any other editor, even if it regards you. Your comments to him above were completely out of line. Revent (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Revent, What is disruptive? Calling a colleague drunk? Or reporting it to COM:BN. If latter, you're free to revert it and warn me. If first, I wonder how he become an admin here as he is not competive enough to understand basic things. Jee 02:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I didn't say Nick was 'right' in what he said (I did not comment on it, or even on Odder's statement). I am, explicitly, telling you that responding to Nick's comment (which was civil, even if you disagree with it) by personally attacking him (and then, effectively, accusing him of bad faith) was completely, grossly, unacceptable. Revent (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Revent, I would have respected you if you made same statements to Odder and Nick. Here you kept your mouth firmly closed against your fellow admins and enjoying the thrill in finding a "small mistake" in me, a rather low-end, powerless user. No wonder. (I've to agree better ignore him as he is known to be rude against me even before acquiring his admin flag.) Jee 02:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: If anyone wants to come to my talk page and discuss why I said something to you and not Nick or Odder, they can feel free to do so. I'm not going to argue with you, here, especially since now that you have now also accused me of bad faith I am 'involved'. I'll just say this... Nick did not, in this thread, either explicitly insult you or accuse you of bad faith. You repeatedly did both, after being asked to stop. Revent (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kalliope (WMF): You said If community believes that their good faith efforts are misguided, the issue may need discussion and resetting of approaches if necessary. We are always happy to join in such conversations.
This is problematic, you won't tell us anything concerning the Russavia global ban, few of us have any trust left in the Wikimedia Foundation, there is a trail of broken promises concerning Russavia's global ban, we were repeatedly told ways were being investigated to release some information about the ban to trusted members of the community, such as the Oversight team, but this hasn't happened. We know, at present, Jcb's deletions fall outside our policies here on Commons, and as such, are actionable, upto and including removing his sysop permission by way of a de-adminship vote. If the ban is appropriate, proportionate and necessary, then clearly Jcb shouldn't ever be put in a position where he could be desysopped for doing something that is appropriate, nor should any other administrator be at risk from WMF retribution for simply upholding the policies agreed by the Commons community.
I can tell you now, with a degree of certainty, the Commons community has such little trust and such intense distrust, dislike, hatred and fear for the Wikimedia Foundation (rightly or wrongly) there's no way to get what you say to match with the policies agreed by the community, so you're going to have to come up with a proper proposal that doesn't override and alienate the community. :I look forward to your next proposals on how to move forward from this relative impasse. Nick (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Nick does not speak for the "community" his attempts to frame his personal opinions as "we" and "us" and "The Commons community" are over-reaching. There are about half a dozen people who give a **** about russavia or who have adolescent issues with authority and wish to use russavia as a football with which to attack WMF. They are very vocal and seem to think they speak for the thousands of others who edit here and are happy with the TOU. When I see users talk of good-faith admins "facing repercussions from the community" I see an ignorant mob with torches and pitchforks. I see people saying "content not the user" which is such a wrongheaded approach and explains why so many troublesome users with huge upload logs continue to be exalted like gods. Content is just bytes. If you or I don't upload some file found elsewhere on the internet today, then someone else will do it tomorrow. If someone deletes some files, then can be uploaded by someone else if they wish to take on the legal consequences of file-upload. But people matter and bullies should be shown the door. Commons will not die through lack of images to upload, or lack of people to run bots to upload them, but it will die if it descends to a mob that bullies and that defends bullies. -- Colin (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: Of course Nick does not speak for the whole of the community, nor does he pretend to be doing this. However, his description of the situation and his prediction for the future sound very realistic, certainly more realistic than the description you provided above. Has it ever occurred to you that people with whom you differ in opinion might actually not be stuck in adolescence? Has it occurred to you that your continued describing them in these terms (and others) might actually have the opposite effect of what you might hope to achieve? Has it occurred to you that this actually might be exactly what you're talking about—bullying? Just a little bit of food for thought for you. odder (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, leaving aside the fact that some in these various discussions are still technically adolescents, it is quite possible for someone to have immature attitudes towards certain things yet have grown up in other ways. I don't know what "effect" you think I hope to have. I'm certainly not trying to change Nick's mind for example. We have an impasse where minds won't budge. Nor have I threatened or forced anyone to do anything or say anything. I'm rather powerless, and my recent trips to AN/U demonstrate that clearly. So, while you may have issues with what I write, bullying certainly isn't the appropriate complaint. No, this is more like when the UK parliament collectively called-out Donald Trump (well, the more progressive MPs did) for his hate speech. We have a few noisy characters who claim to speak for Commons as Trump claims to speak for America. If nobody says "Hold on a second, I'm not with him, in fact, I oppose everything he's just said, and moreover, much of it doesn't stand up to scrutiny" then we might all think that Americans are hateful and stupid like Trump. Nick and others claim to speak for Commons and try to force WMF to comply with their wishes by shouting a lot about policies that don't exist, about legal issues they haven't the first clue on. Claiming "we" have "intense distrust, dislike, hatred and fear" of WMF is a pretty bold statement that should be challenged. Does it sound grown-up to "hate" the owners of a image repository? Is it grown-up to threaten an admin who has been here over 10 years because, because of a bunch of aeroplane pictures? Does that sound like a sensible use of your time and power as a 'crat? It ain't going to bring russavia back. Your threat to Jcb is straightforward bullying. I know you are better than that. -- Colin (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: I'm going to make this really, really, as simple as possible. Immediately above here, you called Donald Trump, a specific public personality, "hateful and stupid". If that statement amounts to either libel or defamation (and I am not, explicitly, saying it does) then it is a violation of the TOU, and under the interpretation we were given above by Kalliope, any administrator who holds a 'good faith' belief that your statement was either libel or defamation can not only feel free to block you, but they are perfectly entitled to blatantly ignore any and all Commons policies to do so, by just saying they are 'enforcing the TOU'. What's more, Kalliope's statement quite strongly implies that no other administrator, or even the consensus of the community, would not have the right to overrule that action.
To be perfectly honest, I personally hold the 'good faith belief' that you personally violate the TOU on a regular basis, by engaging in harassment of people who disagree with you (through stereotyping them, and then using an association fallacy to effectively insult them as a group). I've never blocked you for it, or threatened to block you for it, and I in fact think that doing so on the grounds of anything other than a clear consensus of the community would be grossly inappropriate. The WMF now, apparently, disagrees... so, should I block you? I would, obviously, be acting both completely outside of Commons policy, and doing so knowing that the community would probably not support the action. Revent (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
So you're going to block the entire parliament? Good luck. (I can't quote the entire comment as I don't agree with them.) Jee 02:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Amusing. Also completely, and blatantly, off topic. Do you have a relevant comment? Revent (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Revent, you think you are more clever than you are. You think you are unbiased when you have clear blinkers on. Starting a comment with "I'm going to make this really, really, as simple as possible." is patronising and no better than claiming someone's comments are adolescent, which seems to be something Odder is upset about. The facts are that both Jcb and Rodhullandemu have been harassed by a small number of commons users because of their actions against a globally banned user and his edits/uploads. I didn't just pop up out of nowhere to "harass" anyone. Everyone could have carried on taking pictures, uploading files, categorising, deleting copyvios or whatever helps the project. But instead a few people chose of their own free will to attack and threaten good-faith users. Users who accept the TOU rather than have problem with it. So when I make a stand and say that those users are wrong and that their comments and attitudes are often juvenile, and especially that they are at times being bullies themselves by making threats to ban or de-admin people they disagree with, I am comfortable with that. The word "harassment" is wrongly used by several people including yourself. I suggest you read up on it before using it again. I have made no threats -- I am completely powerless. I cannot ban or block anyone unlike you and odder and several other people who have made such threats. Nor have I gone to anyone's talk page or public forum to open up a new discussion in which to attack someone over this issue. No, whenever I have commented on this matter it is always in response to my fellow users being attacked. You might want to consider what happens in a world when nobody defends those who are wrongly attacked. I get that you personally have a different style of argument/discussion than me and that you don't like how I express myself. I can be blunt. Deal with it. Don't make out that it is "harassment" just because you don't like my tone or that you disagree with my stance on the russavia situation. There's far worse behaviour going on here and I don't see you tackling that.
As for Trump. Calling a politician stupid never got anyone sued for libel or defamation. It is just opinion rather than a false statement of fact. As for "hate", well 578,436 other people claim Trump was guilty of "hate speech" and should be banned from the UK and many of our politicians agreed with that charge even if they didn't think a ban was justified. If you're going to build an argument for blocking me on some ToU complaint, you're going to have to try harder than that. I'm a bit tired of every other comment on this page being someone threatening to block someone else they disagree with. Yes we all disagree on how to handle russavia. If the solution to that problem is just to block everyone who holds a viewpoint different from oneself then I'm pretty comfortable I know who is doing the harassing and bullying on this project. If you want to block me over the Trump comment, I would be quite honoured. -- Colin (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
People matter so if you could stop being so derogatory, high handed and unpleasant to others Colin, that would be really appreciated, just because we disagree is no reason for this sort of behaviour. Nick (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
+1 Colin's use of Commons for nasty personal attacks over the past year has created a hostile environment in many important community discussions. His repeated disruptive allegations about homophobia as we saw yesterday on the village pump were completely uncalled for (diff diff). -- (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Nick, based on this post, you must excuse me if I disregard pretty much anything you write. Fae's use of Commons for nasty personal attacks over the past year has created a hostile environment in many important community discussions. His repeated disruptive allegations about homophobia as we saw yesterday on the village pump were completely uncalled for. -- Colin (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Your response to me asking that you stop being derogatory, high handed and unpleasant to others, is to continue being derogatory, high handed and unpleasant to others, and finding a reason to dismiss what I have to say. If, as you say, people matter, how about you start being friendlier and nicer to other people, Colin. I know we disagree on many things, and that we all disagree with other members, but it really is no excuse for your conduct Colin, please do try and improve your behaviour, your demeanour around other users. I know you don't see it, but at times, your behaviour, though very different, is just as wrong as any of those you criticise. Nick (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • sigh* Nick, in a polarising issue like this, it is very easy to be blind to faults in oneself and in others who share one's views, while at the same time, finding every fault with those who one disagrees with. This is true of you and me and everyone else here. You (and Revent) might want to read up on Tone argument. It's a logical fallacy used to shut up one's opponents. It is quite obvious to spot when you see such arguments being made from one side to the other, but never within a group. Several people here would like if the only "voice" of the community was the one calling for Russavia's reinstatement, insisting on the reasons for his ban to be made public, treating his edits and uploads like he was an untouchable super user, etc etc. And several people here have made threats to block others rather than accepting the WMF TOU. This dispute is, on one level, just over a bunch of photographs, and it seems people here would rather fire bullets at each other like the wild west than accept the consequences of russavia's ban and find a solution that no longer involves him at any level. I'm more than aware that I don't always express myself as wisely or carefully as I should. You blew your credibility big time with your "I hear that russavia's coming back" comment and your above comments about the community hating WMF don't really inspire me. -- Colin (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I accept you don't find me to be credible, all because I reported truthfully what I've been told by a member of staff at the Wikimedia Foundation "they believe the ban will ultimately be lifted and is essentially temporary in nature". I readily accept that's not correct and my insider was wrong. I had rather hoped they would have owned up to what they told me by now, but never mind, they and in turn I was wrong, something I've freely admitted. I have to say, in light of the discrepancies that exist between Jimmy Wales and James Heilman's accounts of James' removal from the board, and several other discrepancies that have come to light concerning grants from the Knight Foundation, I'm nothing like the only person to have been given woefully inaccurate and downright wrong information by WMF employees. I stand by my comment that people hate the Wikimedia Foundation too, one only needs to look at the discussions concerning James Heilman's removal from the board, the appointment of Arrnon Gershuin and the links to Google, Tesla and Facebook that have been discovered to see evidence of the deep distrust, displeasure, hatred and fear that exists within the wider community. It's all there for you to see, on mailing lists, discussions on Meta and Jimmy's talk page. There's extensive press coverage, the lot. I don't know if you think I was being overdramatic or what, but I consider it to be accurate description of how a part of the community feels towards the Wikimedia Foundation. Nick (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you should have appreciated that it was a highly inflammatory comment that needs double-checked. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all that... It seemed to me such an utterly unlikely and damaging proposal that either you were making a false claim to stir things up, or were remarkably gullible in accepting what you were told and completely reckless in repeating it. Ok, let's move on from that mistake. In terms of the community feeling. Well I think you are falling into the trap of thinking that vocal windbags somehow are the voice of the community. It's like the tendency to consider that a country or society's views are represented by a Twitter storm. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people who log onto this site and other WMF sites, and do their thing in peace and quiet and are just happy WMF keep the servers running. I don't follow Jimbo's talk page though I glance with horror at it from time to time much as one might glance at a Daily Mail front page and recoil. What on earth makes you think those places represent the community? -- Colin (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I really hope I wasn't used to stir up trouble by people at the WMF, not just for reasons of personal pride and me being a bit of gullible old twat, but I really hope the Foundation wouldn't pull a stunt like that.
I know what you're saying about windbags and only those who complain write in/speak up, we never hear from the satisfied majority, because they're satisfied, but these people who speak up are a cross-section of the community, if it were polling, they would represent some sort of statistically significant sample set - they are made up of different nationalities, ethnicities, religions, educations, overall backgrounds, political outlooks and so on, so in one way, you're absolutely correct and what they say and do must be taken with a pinch of salt, but they're almost all we've got in the way of feedback and outlook, and whilst it's far from ideal, the people who speak out and post to mailing lists, Jimmy's talk page etc, they're the people who stand for election, shape and re-write policies. They're our current and future board members, administrators and elsewhere, our future arbitrators, if the people who are shaping policy and dictating some of the direction of the projects have issues with the WMF, it does need to be resolved or dealt with in some way, or we're only ever going to reach impasse after impasse, as we're trying to resolve further down the thread, so we don't have a WMF v. Community (or the visible/vocal part of the community) event.
What we probably need (experience users, administrators, crats and functionaries) is to lead the community closer towards the Foundation's position, but we need the Foundation to make some effort to be more accommodating to at least some parts of the community. I guess I've been too ardent in demanding the Foundation align itself more precisely with the community as it stands right now, and that's probably the wrong approach, we're going to need movement from both sides here. I only wish I had a bright idea on what could be done, all I can think of right now is finding some easy and quick way for content uploaded by banned users to be deleted and but made available to others for re-upload, so we don't get this dramatic deletion/un-deletion flash point, perhaps. Nick (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
See Self-selection bias. Those who complain don't make up a "cross-section of the community". They may be varied but they aren't in any way "representative". It may be "all we'e got" but it is important with statistics/surveys to accept when one's data does not have the power with which to draw any useful conclusions. Also see False-consensus effect, which we all suffer from. There exist people who are very unhappy with WMF. There may even exist people who are entirely happy with WMF (I don't claim membership of that group). Given the huge number of people who participate on WMF sites every day, and the tiny number who actually make comments on these forums, I think it is fair to see the "community" don't give WMF a second thought. Someone once said "The desire to be a politician should be enough to ban you from ever becoming one" and the same probably goes for admins, 'crats, etc. It doesn't always attract the best sort. I appreciate your comments: more thoughtful, humble and accommodating than most of us have managed so far. Maybe I have misjudged you. -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I made no allegation of any kind against anyone. The word "homophobia" was deliberated introduced by Colin, who then made it read as if I was making allegations of homophobia against someone, and used that to make an ad-hominim attack, that was irrelevant to the discussion about the statistics of photographs of nude women vs. nude men on POTD—"Shame on you Fae, you are a disgrace to Commons and to the LGBT community you claim to stand up for." Colin is misusing Commons as a means to harass people based on them as a person, especially myself as a known openly gay man, using this as a tactic to take discussions off topic, to disrupt the Commons community from reaching a collegiate consensus and force his views on everyone else. Colin's behaviour in this discussion and in several other places is unacceptable, and has been for at least 2 years, with the low point of when he made a personal attack using a carefully written description of me as a "raging gay", using the foil that it was an example of a personal attack that could be made against me by others. Allowing and encouraging this type of behaviour on Commons is an embarrassment to the project and makes it appear an unsafe space for future contributors. -- (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"If community believes that their good faith efforts are misguided, the issue may need discussion and resetting of approaches if necessary. We are always happy to join in such conversations." - haha, what a lie ^^ . ... Or did WMF after this statement joined this conversation? ...Sicherlich talk 09:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Colin is entirely right (and express the issue much better than I would do, that's why I don't comment as much as I would like to do). All I see here is a bunch of people using Commons, attacking a long term admin in an inacceptable way, just to pursue a personal vendetta against the WMF because they don't agree with Russavia ban. Some of them are also blocked on the English Wikipedia, and use Commons as a platform for vengeance. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Ad-hominim attacks are never right. Please do not encourage them as a means to disrupt discussion. -- (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

@Odder, @Revent, @Reguyla, @Josve05a
When one places content in the Wikis they follow these very basic steps:
1. they first go to the respective page they want to add to, click on 'edit', 'edit source', 'upload file' or any other button that allows on to contribute or alter content on the wikis
2. they select/type/add said content
3. they hit the 'save' button for their contribution to be completed [for lack of a better word] on the wiki.
Policy compliance of content uploaded by a banned user, which can only be based after step three is completed, has no basis as an argument for keeping said content. And, to be clear, I am always referring to content uploaded by a banned user, post-ban. A banned user is no longer allowed to edit or contribute to the projects in the first place. This means that they should essentially be stopping at step one. If they did [stop at step one] in compliance to their ban, the community would never have to determine whether the content abides by policies [in terms of being useful, a positive contribution or anything else] because ….. well, there would be no content.
Now, deletion of content uploaded by a banned user is in line with the ToU. Admins have no obligation to delete said content, but if they do so on the grounds of upholding the ToU, this should not be a punishable action. On the same grounds, such [deleted] content should not be un-deleted because in assuming responsibility for the un-deletion the admin also assumes responsibility for reinstating content that should not be there in the first place, as per ToU. This is why it is the un-deletion of such content that can be seen as assisting the banned user in evading their ban and thus have repercussions, rather than its re-uploading by a contributor who is not banned and assumes responsibility for the upload.
[Sidenote: apologies if my response is not in the right in-line spot. Several people brought valid concerns and felt I'd be repeating myself if responding to each separately]Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Kalliope (WMF). I think the position is fairly clear. However, in your previous post you concluded:
On another note, the Wikimedia Foundation may need to take a harder stand on content uploaded by banned users and delete it when we lock the confirmed sock of the user that uploaded it. This discussion isn’t the place for that broader conversation; we would address that separately in advance. Of course, even then, no requirement would exist for volunteers to also retroactively delete such content. But if community members want to enforce it, they will be (as they already are) permitted to do so without repercussions.
When you say "if community members want to [retroactively delete such content] they will be (as they already are) permitted to do so without repercussions" it isn't clear if you are talking about them deleting content directly (a speedy delete) simply because it was uploaded by an already banned user, of if you mean after a standard community deletion discussion for each image. Because some admins and one 'crat is insisting that these images can only be deleted after community discussion and after following existing Commons deletion rules which would generally not allow the deletion of content that was in scope, in use and legal. I think you mean the former (they can speedy delete) since there seems little point in you making the statement if the latter. But it would be very helpful if you could explicitly state that you mean admins may bypass the normal deletion process for images uploaded by an already banned user.
Secondly, can you clarify that the "permitted to do so without repercussions" refers to repercussions by WMF staff or repercussions by the community. I'm fairly sure you mean both but it would be very helpful to be explicit. Above, Odder (a 'crat) wrote "I'm not joking — from this moment onwards, if you ever speedy delete a file in violation of Commons policies, you will find yourself blocked, and I will bring your admin privileges for review on this noticeboard." Can you clarify whether being blocked and stripped of admin privileges is part of the "repercussions" you refer to.
Lastly, can you indicate when and where you plan to discuss WMF directly deleting content uploaded by banned users, once their socks are discovered. You indicate you didn't want that conversation here. But it is an important conversation to have. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd just like to say (as surprising as this is) I'm in complete agreement with Colin on this. I know what I'm going to say is not going to please everybody, but I think, at least in the short term, we're should try and align our local policies here with WMF's suggested approach, and if that isn't possible, then we should ask that WMF deal with deletions themselves, without involving the local community. Nothing good is going to come from Odder blocking Jcb, Jcb being desysopped, Odder being blocked by WMF and another two or three years of circular arguments. Nick (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Colin You are correct in both. Because the content should not have been uploaded in the first place as per ToU, its deletion should not be subject to content-related discussion, and as such eligible for a speedy deletion indeed. In terms of repercussions, I refer to actions by the WMF as well as the Community, which may include but is not limited to de-syssoping of an admin (to paraphrase your example). At this point I must, once again, stress that the aforementioned (by me) line of thought here is with the ToU being upheld in mind. Let me have a chat with Jalexander-WMF on the best place and time for this important conversation and I'll post again here to let all know who may be interested in participating. Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Kalliope (WMF) thanks. One point: I assume you mean "eligible for a speedy deletion" rather than "illegible" :-) -- Colin (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Corrected. Apologies for the typo.Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Well then I guess some folks are going to be busy deleting the half million files that have been uploaded by Russavia since they have been banned. This of course will not stop them from uploading them, what it may very likely do is cause them to start mass importing large amounts of stuff that violates our policies just because all their work gets deleted anyway and causing even more problems. Is the intent of this really to turn positive contributions into just pure vandalism? Because the WMF and even commons are completely incapable of preventing Russavia or anyone else from editing while banned. So all we are going to do, is create unnecessary drama where none needs to be simply to justify deleting good content that would be allowed if it was imported by any other editor. IMO, if the WMF wants to delete this content, since its their ban, then we let them do it and not worry about Russavia uploading useful and in scope images to support a ban that a lot of us neither want, participated in nor is working. My honest suggestion is, we let the WMF deal with Russavia and his content. If they want to delete it to spite Russavia and the community, then let them. That should be a full time job with benefits at the WMF for some out of work Wikimedian! Reguyla (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's take a note from en.wp and how they deal with stuff like this, or at least some parts of it. In their criteria for speedy deletion, they have G9 as a speedy deletion criteria. "Office actions", which in my opinion is a good thing, since then they have it as a critera for deletion, so the WMF can do their work without the comunity being nasty towards them for not adhearing the the communities policies (albeit that they do not have to). That however does not allow admins on en.wp to claim G9 as a criteria for deletion, it is soley reserved for appropriate WMF-staff. En.wp also have the criteria "G5. Creations by banned or blocked user", meaning that admins could delete such works, however any other user could claim WP:BANREVERT and simply revert the deletion/tagging/removal as long as they claimed responsibility of the edit(s)/material. The banned user's username is still left in the history and the page is not deleted and then later recreated, which is a whole lot of work for nothing. Why should be treat Commons any differently, why not adopt a few policies from projects which are more experienced with trolls, and let us move on from this and start doing stuff that actually matters for our re-users. Uploading+maintaining our images. Josve05a (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It may be useful to import these G9/G5 speedy criteria but some aspects makes Commons different. Firstly, I hope that action of reverting an image version (for example, and which bizarrely puts the image in my upload log) does not imply I am taking legal responsibility for a file. Similarly, if an admin undeletes an image (perhaps because a deletion review reversed the decision), I hope that does not make them take legal responsibility for the file. So I think for our purposes, revert/undelete is not an option and should be disallowed in any policy text. WMF make it clear also that undelete is not suitable and that a full standard upload of the content is required to demonstrate the uploader is taking responsibility. (I'm not clear myself whether one can upload on top of a deleted file or if it needs a new name?) The second difference is that content on Wikipedia must be original text (else it is a copyvio or plagiarism). So it is quite obvious when someone restores a banned users text (of any quantity) whether by revert or copy/paste. But on Commons, the content is often not original and if it is present already on the internet with a documented free licence, then anyone may upload it. I note, however, that Commons does contain text (talk pages, forums, image descriptions) and so the WP example may hold there. -- Colin (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: What I do to take responsibility for an edit someone else (blocked) made on en.wp, I write that in an edit summary if possible. Can't the same be done for files, but in upload log/deletion log-comments, like "per policy X I herby take full responsibility to this file, as described on policy pagy Y." or something? Josve05a (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think informal techniques like edit summaries is going to work. The images hosted on commons are the legal responsibility of the uploaders and that's a principle that should be kept simple. Further, it isn't WMF's intention that restoring the images should be trivial or automatable on some script or bot. It's meant to be such a PITA that russavia stops and all his friends ask him to stop. -- Colin (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion already has "office actions". I think they are more for DMCA take-downs (which absolutely cannot be undeleted or re-uploaded) rather than the situation here where the content is permitted to be uploaded from source by another user, but not just undeleted by an admin. So possibly the new criteria of "edit/upload by already banned user" criterion would be used for deletions carried out by either WMF or an admin here. The rationale and consequences are identical regardless who who actually performs the deletion. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: I'd much rather have WMF delete thse than an admin, sicne the WMF seems to be under the belief that such admins hsould get a veto from all form of "reprocussions" to admnins dong such deletions, despite if the community would disgree with that. That woulld put us in a wird place if a disagreement of on deletion would arise, the WMF would most likely say that the admin was enforcing the ToU and that s/he now has a veto form being desyopsed. That's a false premise since the communities should be able to decide for what an admin can or can not be desyopsed, and if they were to put in a veto...that would not be good for relations. Remember superprotect and all? I'd much rather see the WMF delete these files. Sorry for rambling a bit, hadn't had coffee yet. Josve05a (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
How would WMF deleting these files pacify those with the authority issues any more than WMF protecting admins who delete the files? There are some who will not be happy with this decision but it is what it is. The admins aren't being given some invincibility shield against any future desysop for any reason. The best way of us dealing with this is what you proposed -- that we adopt the clause in the speedy delete that permits admin/WMF to delete the post-ban edits/uploads of banned users. Then there's no argument over WMF interfering with the desysop process since admin actions would be in line with policy. We might as well document that such deletion is permitted (and undeletion banned) because that's what's going to be enforced anyway. And documenting it makes it clear to everyone where we now stand, rather than having to link back to some archived discussion. And I think doing this for 2016 forwards is likely to cause the least community upset while still achieving the aim of stopping russavia. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I think 'post-policy-change' would be a better option, so the policy isn't retroactive in any way. I hope the WMF can agree to this compromise and I suggest restoring these deleted files and start from scratch with policy behind us. Then we can work in harmony with each other, once again :) Josve05a (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think importing those 2 categories is a bad idea. They both have a useful purpose and frankly I see the WMF delete more content here than anywhere else so marking it as an office action, if that's not done already makes a lot of sense.
I can also vouch that there are admins on ENWP standing by to vandalize the work of a blocked user. And that's exactly what it is when someone willingly deletes or reverts a positive contribution, vandalism. Even if some policy is used to justify it. Because even the Arbcom has shown time and time again that policy and even their own Arbcom procedures are worthless to them if they want to do something. All that has done for me is that I now take great care to only do a limited number of edits per account before changing to another in order to contribute but I have to avoid my area of interest which is Medal of Honor recipients which I find extremely disappointing. But all of my edits are positive. That is the key I am trying to convey. The edits being done are positive, as they are in this case.
I recognize however that my situation is different because mine was done through manipulation of policy by a couple users and this is a WMF ban. So as I said before, if the WMF wants Russavia to be banned, regardless of how I or anyone else feels about it, then its their right to do so. Its their responsibility however to enforce it, especially given the fact that the edits being done are positive; they (the WMF) do not want to listen to the communities input nor do they trust the community to discuss the situation (to even the functionaries) about his ban; and Russavia is so capable of creating another account and doing another 10, 000 edits before he is noticed. How many accounts has the WMF blocked now? Like a thousand, not counting the ones blocked locally! And the WMF saying that another editor can upload the file is in complete contrast to policies regarding proxy editing for banned editors, especially WMF banned ones. So they expect some commons contributor to risk getting blocked or desysopped themselves and use their time to restore content that shouldn't have been deleted in the first place.
Jimbo and the WMF got what they wanted, they have destroyed Russavia's reputation on the WMF projects for the painting he sent to Jimbo. There is no reason to force more work on us lowly contributors because of their mistakes and lack of respect for this community. Honestly, if Russavia were to contact me (and I know a lot of others feel the same way) and ask to re-upload a group of images that were deleted, as long as they are in scope and useful, I would do it. Not to defy the WMF or to help Russavia but because they improve the projects and that is what we should all be working to do. Not blacklisting an editor because he sent a painting to the founder that was done using anatomical male parts on video. Reguyla (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Kalliope (WMF). Could you also clarify "Contributors can, of course, always feel free to re-upload the image themselves (under their own name and, therefore, taking responsibility for the edits themselves) as long as it does not turn into a case where they are editing on the request/direction of the banned user." ?
Most of the files uploaded by Russavia after his ban are in scope and legal. Some of them are used on sister projects. How will the WMF (or admins) judge if someone reuploding is doing it "on request" of the banned user? He still is on IRC regularly, and has the email address of several contributors. There is absolutly no way to prevent him to contact someone outside Commons. I'm afraid of collateral damages...
Pleclown (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree this needs some clarification. We have many users who are handy with bots for uploading and one could imagine a scenario where Russavia continues to upload at will, and his images are deleted for mere seconds before some bot comes along and restores them in the name of an "innocent" user. But on the other hand, where images are previously published on the internet with a documented free licence, why should there be any fault in transferring them to Commons once again. The priority is to absolutely discourage a banned user from continuing to evade their ban and for Commons to move to a situation where we no longer care about speedy deleting Russavia's sock uploads, as they no longer occur. In the light of that, should we consider grandfathering the pre 2016 content. Deleting it now, in Feburary 2016, would not I suggest have any disincentive for Russavia but would cause a lot of people upset. Deleting the 2015 content is only going to make people write bots to rapidly restore it. Whereas deleting going forward (more-or-less) may permit a tougher stance on anyone who appears to be merely playing delete/restore games. -- Colin (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Pleclown:I don’t have answers to all the questions, if I’m being honest. My statements above are not a presentation of a concrete, done-and-dusted policy item. Rather they convey the direction the WMF thinks they should be heading in terms of content of globally banned users [post-ban]. It certainly needs to be fleshed out and discussed further and I am finding this discussion extremely constructive - I see a lot of common sense in many of the suggestions made already. Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm vehemently opposed to any sort of automated un-deletion of images for any reason. I also wouldn't want a situation to develop where a banned user can upload an image, it be deleted under a speedy deletion criteria of some description, and for nobody to readily be able to undelete the image to download and then re-upload it (thereby taking responsibility for the content under their own username). This (and I know it's late and I'm a bit tired) seems to lead to two possible outcomes - if we permit administrators to undelete images uploaded by a banned user, then there's really nothing to stop a banned user from doing the work behind the scenes, similarly, if we stop people from undeleting images, it allows a banned user to stop or at least slow down our users from uploading the same content if it requires undeletion or brings into question their involvement with a banned user. How do we minimise collateral damage whilst preventing banned users from editing ? Nick (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think downloading deleted content from Commons, in order to re-upload it, is an option. An admin doing that would almost certainly be breaking the rules. Admins have access to deleted content for proper administrative purposes but there's good legal reasons why deleted content should generally be deemed inaccessible. The image must be re-sourced and uploaded afresh. And this is one reason why I propose this may be better considered for 2016+ uploads as the legacy problem has the potential to unravel any progress. If we rapidly get into a situation where there's no more content being uploaded by Russavia then we can all move on and concerns about re-uploading banned-user files becomes largely irrelevant. -- Colin (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kalliope (WMF): I have a few questions:
  1. If an admin deletes pre-ban content, and another admin restores/undeletes them as a violation of our deletion policy, is that restoration a violation of the Terms of Use?
  2. If a banned user files a valid deletion request (for example, FOP issues), should that DR be speedily kept in accordance with the Terms of Use, or continue discussing about the file and decide whether the file will be deleted or kept in accordance with our policies?
  3. If a banned user marks a file as a clear copyright violation, should that be reverted in accordance with the Terms of Use, or delete it because it is a clear copyvio?
Thanks, Poké95 00:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Pokéfan95 we could spend all day coming up with scenarios where a banned user makes an edit/upload that would normally be considered helpful/useful and where one may be naturally reluctant to lose that edit/upload. But the fact is continuing with that approach is permitting a banned user from continuing to participate here. We've seen that over the last year, and people are understandably anxious about the possible deletion of a large number of images (I've no idea how large). A banned users edits or uploads will be deleted and the edit must not be restored and the deleted file not undeleted. Regardless of content or perceived usefulness/value. I don't see WMF coming back to you with the sort of "Well, as long as the edit is useful, you can keep it" response you are hoping for. If the banned user has concerns over copyright, they have other means to communicate that either to WMF themselves or to their friends by email and other off-wiki forums. We need to get into a stage where russavia is history and we no longer fret over how to handle his edits. That is why I made the proposal above about letting the pre-2016 uploads be. It seems the best way to move on from this mess. The alternative nuclear option of deleting all his post-ban content is understandably going to cause some grief. For your first question, I didn't think pre-ban content was being discussed at all. So surely that follows existing policy/practice. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: My statements above are in reference to actions related to post-ban content, not pre-ban content. So, un-deletion of pre-ban content would be subject to standard Commons policy.
A banned user should not be doing anything in the projects, full-stop. In my opinion, post-ban activity of the banned user should be reverted, because [whether positive or not] it shouldn’t be happening in the first place. On this basis, a DR placed by the banned contributor [post-ban], would technically warrant deletion. The fact that a banned user places a DR doesn’t mean that the community is incapable of placing it themselves. Instead [of allowing a banned contributor to place DRs], let the community place it or place it yourself. However, I would not be opposed to the idea of grandfathering of old pages. Colin's thought on grandfathering content in general has a lot of merit to avoid more drama than is necessary but that is especially true for administrative pages like this, where deleting administrative history (of an action that was already done) could be problematic. The target here is to prevent users from evading their global bans whilst assisting the community in their efforts to expand and curate the project.Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Had the effort been made to work with trusted community members to commute the WMF office action into a community managed block, then you would be able to rely on administrators to work collegiately to enforce the block. It would greatly "assist the community" if you trusted the community, rather than pulling more authority into the WMF when the WMF lacks credible governance processes to ensure transparency or accountability from the top downwards. At this point I have every reason to believe that if the WMF CEO wanted my account blocked because I was troublesome, then "reasons" would be created on the fly and judged sufficient to force me to vanish. Trust has to be earned, just telling people to trust you or else, is not the same thing. -- (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Valid deletion reasons, especially copyvios or licensing issues, are never ever eligible for blind reverts. It's actually a shame someone from WMF valus this non-comunity ban higher than copyright issues. --Denniss (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kalliope (WMF): I like Colin's idea of Grandfathering the contributions also, realistically however Russavia is not going to stop contributing unless the WMF locks him in the dungeon's of the WMF headquarters in San Francisco. Maybe Agent 47 is available? So, barring those extreme measures, we either need to accept that this is going to go on forever, we turn positive edits and a positive contributor into negative ones literally just because we can and we all stay busy for a long time to come and look really really stupid and lose credibility by deleting content others are using and linking to here. Otherwise I recommend this. If the WMF does not want him contributing, then they deal with it. We should not get involved with deleting the content as long as its positive. We should not continually be looking for gratification from the WMF on a ban we had no part in and we should not be having discussions about it, literally, every week. As Fae put it above, trust has to be earned and telling the community that we have to support a ban we don't know anything about and a "trust us" attitude, even if under the best of intentions, is pretty meaningless given the WMF's history. If they want the communities help, then I recommend they extend some trust to us and at least talk to the/some of the functionaries about it (assuming that the WMF would even tell us the true story). Otherwise we are all left guessing at the reasoning for the ban and my guess is, were we to find out, it would show that the WMF really had no other reason that political retaliation for the ban and we would likely not be supportive of it. Reguyla (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Let this thead die, and go back to editing, no one is ever getting a consensus to perform an admin action out of this. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I suspect that at least some of the active intervenients in this thread are contributing here and also elsewhere — uploading, categorizing, otherwise improving filepages, commenting in DRs, etc. Well, at least those of us who actually do those things… But granted that even the (nothing-but-)drama-stirrers are able to do their thing at several spots at once… -- Tuválkin 20:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The administrator who spent the most time worrying about and blocking Russavia's sock accounts was INeverCry (talk · contribs), recently retired from the project. Other administrators passionate about blocking Russavia's accounts, rather than leaving this to the WMF to handle, will benefit from taking some time out to reflect on INeverCry's U-turn on Russavia on 16 December 2015:

"... if we had any disagreement, it likely had to do with my stance on issues regarding Russavia. I over-reacted from the start on that, and I'd certainly do things differently if I could rewind time. I can understand Scott's care for his uploads and why he socks around the ban. I'd probably do the same if I was in his place. I can't revisit the past, but if you speak with him, or if he sees this, I can assure him I won't be interfering with him in any way going forward."

-- (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Related deletion of Aviation files[edit]

Taking into consideration of the WMF statement “Contributors can, of course, always feel free to re-upload the image themselves (under their own name and, therefore, taking responsibility for the edits themselves)”, I believe this affects me as I worked in partnership with with Russavia to upload around 100,000 aviation files, some of that volunteer work was supported by funding from the UK chapter. You can find the project page at Commons:Batch uploading/Airliners. I have no intention of this becoming a reason for the WMF to office ban my account at some future time due to the creeping interpretation of the WMF's new policies for office locks which now makes this past project toxic. Unfortunately as WMF legal have denied my request to examine the records or reports they hold about me, but not denied these exist, I have no idea if they are actively building a case to ban me in the future.

I propose that I add these files to a bundle deletion request, and the files are deleted thereby removing any responsibility for myself or Russavia as uploader. If an individual Commons administrator then wishes to undelete them, they can do so at their risk rather than mine. I should have time to put this together over the coming weekend, though a random example file would be File:Aermacchi MB-339PAN, Italy - Air Force JP6366808.jpg.

By the way, I have not discussed this proposal with Russavia, neither do I intend to, as I do not wish any discussion to be used as evidence by WMF employees as 'assisting' a banned user.

Thanks -- (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better I have been told that there is a case being built to global ban me as well. So we will all be banned together. Reguyla (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
If it comes to that, it’s time to fork. -- Tuválkin 23:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: I have been building this for the last 2 years! It only gets between 5000-8000 hits a day, but that has been increasing incrementally and considering its only got about 200, 000 pages, that's really not all that bad IMO. Reguyla (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
For once, I agree with you. If you don't agree with the ToU, you need to fork, and create your own playground. Good luck with that. Yann (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I am unsure who you are replying to. I have no problem with the WMF terms of use. -- (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
, I think Yann meant to reply to me, but apparently all this commotion impaired his ability to understand comment reply threading. More tellingly, it seems to have cleft Yann’s worldview (or Commons-view) in twain: chums and foes and looks like I’m among the latter. And all this after a few mild disagreements on filenames and DRs, or so I though. Well, it sure paints my own Commons-view in clearer shades… (Oh, and I never said I have problems with the ToU, either.) -- Tuválkin 20:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I am populating 70,168 R Files uploaded in cooperation with blocked accounts with relevant files. If a WMF employee wants to act on these, I would appreciate being contacted first as this will be slow to complete and may not be limited to the aviation project. Otherwise I will raise a DR as proposed and action can then be taken or discussed by any administrator that wishes to. Deletion of these files may raise questions from the original photographers or organizations, so I request that administrators only act to delete or undelete if they are contactable by email, so that I can pass on any off-wiki inquiries. Thanks -- (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think deleting those just because Russavia and you worked on them together is absurd! Reguyla (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the problem with some of out 'over zealous' admins are and yes; i mean over zealous, is that they get excited when they see a russavia sock because they are targeting not only the user but his contributions too, its a easy way to rack up 10k+ admin actions because every sock of russavia ends up making an average of 10k edits before getting 'locked' by WMF Staff...Again, i reiterate, target the account if you must, not the edits, our silly policies in regards to 'banned' users are limited to 'vandalism' and users forcing COI only (or so we are told to assume) and his socks are doing neither, its infact doing a lot more work than most of us on commons and when admins intentionally deleted good edits just because they were created by a 'banned' user, it makes you wonder, who the real villain is?..I used to report socks all the time in my early days on enwiki but I soon stopped when i realised that even though i was doing what was right according to our ToU, i was involuntarily reporting editors making good and positive edits, again we target the editors, not the contributions (if we must)..Russavia isn't going anywhere, well unless he gets a heart attack and falls dead on his keyboard :P ..but thats unlikely to happen ..--Stemoc 01:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@: Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I am wondering, how does Russavia cooperate with you in uploading aviation files? Does he give you a script? Or a list of links, then you built a script for it?
Pictogram voting info.svg Info I also moved all files from Category:Files uploaded in cooperation with Russavia to Category:Files uploaded in cooperation with blocked accounts using my alternate and semi-automated account. Poké95 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The project was written up at Commons:Batch uploading/Airliners. There is no need to specially move files if there is a category redirect, these get swept up by a regular housekeeping bot within a day. Thanks -- (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Maurice Flesier deleted categories for no reason.[edit]

Can any qualified user comment that user's contributions? Is that behaviors true or aggressive? I think that user has vandalism attitudes. He deleted all contents of "Category:Demonstrations and protests in Şırnak in 2015" and deletes all "Category:2015 in Kurdistan" and "Category:History of Şırnak" in all pictures for no reason. And some of "Category:Demonstrations and protests in Turkey in 2015" too. And he create some "terrorism" categories. In that category seems that: Kurdistan is the name of a geographic and cultural region in Western Asia, inhabited predominantly by the Kurds. What is wrong for that? And are these events not include for a "history category"? --Ahmet Turhan (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

And same user deleted 10 categories in with no reason too. --Ahmet Turhan (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think User:Maurice Flesier should either stop or be stopped. Some of his uncategorizations seem to be legitimate cases of addressing COM:OVERCAT, but trying to supress useful chrono-geographic information just to please his fictional worldview that Kurds do no exist is unacceptable. -- Tuválkin 01:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment- First, we should make a correction, these irrelevant and comprehensive categories not deleted just removed. [2015 in Kurdistan] is valid for Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government but files belongs to Southern provinces of Turkey and the Kurdistan term unofficial by Turkish Government. Also culturel and geographic definitions more incompatible to the files. It covers the conflict between the PKK and Turkish security forces. I created 2015-16 Şırnak clashes and photos moved successfully. Best ragards. Maurice Flesier (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
No, it named Category:Iraqi Kurdistan or Category:2015 in Iraqi Kurdistan in sub-category. And Commons is not dependent to any state governments or laws. --Ahmet Turhan (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
And new category (2015-16 Category:Şırnak clashes) have only 3 categories: "Category:2015 terrorism in Turkey" "Category:2016 terrorism in Turkey" and "Category:Operations of the Turkish Armed Forces" It doesn't have neutral point of view. That user had removed 10 categories previously --Ahmet Turhan (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The subject waiting to be resolved for add another images in that categories. --Ahmet Turhan (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts[edit]

This was posted in AN/U before. Since several people saw it as an attack or offense against against the user in question, it was moved to VP.

Personnal attack[edit]

Here is a message posted by an unregsitred user : https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiraden&diff=186330973&oldid=172212405

Is it possibe to block IP adress ?

Tiraden (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the IP's posting. Blocking a 1-edit IP doesn't make much sense, as tomorrow he/she will have another IP #. --Túrelio (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The message was reposted today https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiraden&diff=186412581&oldid=186363713 Tiraden (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
✓ Blocked proxy. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Tiraden (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
✓ Globally blocked as open proxy. -- Poké95 07:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:ПОКА ТУТ[edit]

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

After baseless accusations of vandalism against me, this user refuses to apologize, and instead of that publicly accuses me of political agenda resp. putinism. This user already was blocked several times for harassment, a longer block seems now appropriate, as there is no improvement of their behaviour at all. --A.Savin 14:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I support a block. Per A.Savin and users behavior on VP is is disruptive. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done when I blocked him a year ago, then I said him, that his next block will be indefinite, and now I blocked him forever. Taivo (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --A.Savin 16:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Will Duarte[edit]

Mass uploading album covers. Significant warnings appear ignored as uploads continue. -- (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Deleted and warned --Herby talk thyme 15:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Fennoscandic[edit]

Overwriting a map with substantially different content, containing a self-made map with original research [1]. After revert, does the same again [2]. I left a message on user talk page referring to Commons:Overwriting existing files, but the user does not seem to address this issue in reply. --Jmk (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, apparently the user is already blocked indefinitely. --Jmk (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiEditor905[edit]

WikiEditor905 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploadsblock user is not here to help build a repository of free media, but to whinge about a dispute on a different project. Could you please block them or find some other way to get them to stop bothering me? Thanks, LX (talk, contribs) 21:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Nanceen[edit]

Nanceen (talk · contributions · Number of edits), likely a French, reuploaded a likely copyvio after its deletion. I gave a (bit) more clear explanation on their talk page. It would be convenient to have more watchers for this situation. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:RaazaUpreti132[edit]

RaazaUpreti132 (talk · contributions · Number of edits) has been uploading the same couple of movie posters repeatedly. --McGeddon (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Denniss[edit]

Hi, Denniss's support of Russavia, a user banned by the WMF for harassement is already worrisome. But blocking DellCNNinja because he reverted Russavia's edits is a clear abuse of his admin rights. It is also a violation of WMF terms of use, as acting on Russavia's request. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yann I think you will find that DellCNNinja is a globally banned editor as well (but not Russavia). They created their userpage identifying themselves as Russavia. I think you will also find that they are the same globally banned editor as GoogleRUD. Perhaps it might be wise to ask Jalexander-WMF whom DellCNNinja and GoogleRUD are? They do not appear to be Russavia, but someone else. Denniss was right to indefinitely block DellCNNinja. 186.93.212.182 17:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
At least, this is not factual. DellCNNinja is not globally banned: m:Special:CentralAuth/DellCNNinja, and I don't see any vandalism in DellCNNinja's contributions. This account may well be a sock, but a proper procedure exists to deal with such cases. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Yann, it would extremely helpful for everyone to understand your request if you would provide a quote from the WMF that makes Denniss' administrator action on a vandal account as reason for a WMF office lock, or alternatively a quote from policy that makes blocking vandals an inappropriate use of admin tools, because the vandal was doing something to Russavia's old edits?
We are running a the risk that administrators will in future refuse to take action on clearly unlawful or abusive edits, just because they are somehow entangled with something Russavia once touched and in theory could be called 'assisting' a WMF office locked account. I doubt that the WMF will want to supply sufficient employees to handle every vandal that discovers this is a fun way to disrupt the project.
It should be noted that a request for action relating to the recent threat by a WMF employee to block administrator accounts should go by email to the WMF. Requests of this type are literally not a request for administrator action according to Wikimedia Commons community agreed project policies and cannot be implemented by administrators. Thanks -- (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
, it would extremely helpful for everyone that you stop supporting Russavia and his friends, in every situation. As Colin told you rightfully, you should restrain yourself to the File: namespace, that's the only area where your contributions are useful. Yann (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Answering the question will make your request more credible than personal attacks. -- (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Russavia banned for harassment - where did you get this information from? BTW I did not block him upon Russavia request - why should I. It wasn't the first time a LTA was joining the bandwagon and claims to be Russavia. I usually block them on-sight.--Denniss (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Denniss: FYI, Russavia's 'master' account was actually indefinitely blocked on Commons by Yann back in July, for allegedly (though opinions differ) harrassing INeverCry by creating a sock named "Snitches get stitches", or something similar. Revent (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)