Commons:管理者

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Administrators and the translation is 77% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Administrators and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

ShortcutsCOM:A • COM:ADMIN • COM:SYSOP

Commons Administrator.svg

このページでは、ウィキメディアコモンズにおける管理者(アドミニストレーターやアドミン; administrators, admins, sysops)について解説します。管理者の詳細な役割や選出方法は他のサイトと異なる場合がありますので注意して下さい。

もし、あなたが管理者の助力を必要としているなら、管理者伝言板(Administrators' noticeboard)に連絡して下さい。

現在、コモンズには204人の管理者がいます。

管理者とは

Administrators as of 12月 2021 [+/−]
Listing by languageListing by dateListing by activity

Number of Admins: 204

  1. -revi, ko, en-3 (steward)
  2. 1Veertje, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1
  3. 32X, de, en-2, hsb-1, ru-1
  4. 4nn1l2, fa, en-3, ar-1
  5. 99of9, en (bureaucrat)
  6. A.Savin, ru, de-4, en-2
  7. Achim55, de, en-3, nds-3, la-2
  8. AFBorchert, de, en-3
  9. Ahmad252, fa, en-3, ar-1
  10. Ahonc, uk, ru-4, en-2, de-1
  11. Aka, de, en-3
  12. Alan, es, eu-3, en-2
  13. Alno, fr, en-3, es-2, pt-1
  14. Amada44, de, en-3, fr-1
  15. Andre Carrotflower, en, es-3, fr-3, de-2
  16. Андрей Романенко, ru, en-3, uk-3, be-2, fr-2, lv-2
  17. Ankry, pl, en-2, ru-1
  18. AnRo0002, de, en-2, fr-2, es-1
  19. Anthere, fr, en-3
  20. AntiCompositeNumber, en, fr-2
  21. Arthur Crbz, fr, en-4, es-3
  22. Aude, en, ar-2, de-2, es-3
  23. Benoît Prieur,fr, en-3, pt-2, es-1, it-1, hy-1
  24. Billinghurst, en
  25. Blackcat, it, en-3, fr
  26. BrightRaven, fr, en-3, nl-2, es-2, zh-1
  27. Butko, ru, uk-2, en-1
  28. Captain-tucker, en
  29. Christian Ferrer, fr, en-2, es-2
  30. Ciell, nl, en-2, de-1
  31. clpo13, en
  32. Common Good, en
  33. Cookie, es, en-2
  34. CptViraj, gu, hi-4, en-3
  35. Cromium, en, de-1, fr-1 (steward)
  36. Czar, en
  37. DaB., de, en-1
  38. DarwIn, pt, en-3, es-2, fr-2, gl-2, ca-1, it-1, oc-1
  39. Davepape, en
  40. David Levy, en
  41. De728631, de, en-5
  42. DerHexer, de, en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-1 (steward)
  43. Dharmadhyaksha, mr, en-3, hi-3
  44. DMacks, en
  45. Didym, de, en-2, fr-2
  46. Dyolf77, ar, fr-5, en-2, it-1, es-1
  47. D-Kuru, de, en-2, it-1
  48. Ebrahim, fa, en-3
  49. Elcobbola en, de (checkuser)
  50. Ellin Beltz, en (bureaucrat)
  51. Ellywa, nl, en-2, de-1, fr-1
  52. Emha, de, bar, en-3, fr-1
  53. Érico, pt, en-2, es-1
  54. EugeneZelenko, ru, be, en-2, bg-1, pl-1 (bureaucrat)
  55. Explicit, en, es, ko-2
  56. Ezarate, es-3, en-1
  57. Fitindia, en-3, hi-2, mr-2
  58. Flominator, de, als, en-3
  59. FunkMonk, da, en-4, no-3, fo-2, sv-2, de-1, es-1
  60. Gbawden, en-3, af-1
  61. Geagea, he, ka-3, en-3, ru-1
  62. Geni, en
  63. George Chernilevsky, ru, uk-3, de-2, en-2, bg-1, la-1, be-1, fr-1
  64. Gestumblindi, als, de, en-3
  65. Gnangarra, en, nys-1
  66. GreenMeansGo, en
  67. Grin, hu, en-3, de-1
  68. Guanaco, en, es-1
  69. Hanooz, fa, en-2
  70. Hedwig in Washington, de, en-4, nds-1
  71. Hekerui, de, en-4
  72. Herbythyme, en, fr-2, es-1, it-1
  73. Hesperian, en
  74. Howcheng, en, ja-2
  75. Huntster, en
  76. Indeedous, de, en-3, fr-2
  77. Infrogmation, en, es-1
  78. Jameslwoodward, en, fr-1 (bureaucrat, checkuser)
  79. Jaqen, it, en-2
  80. Jarekt, pl, en
  81. JarrahTree, en, id-1
  82. Jcornelius, de, lt-2, la-2, en-2, pt-2, fr-1
  83. Jdforrester, en
  84. Jean-Frédéric, fr, en-4, es-1
  85. Jianhui67, en, zh-4, ja-2, ms-1
  86. Jmabel, en, es-3, ro-2, de-1, ca-1, it-1, pt-1, fr-1
  87. Joergens.mi, de, en-3
  88. JoKalliauer, de, en-3
  89. Jon Kolbert, en, fr-4, de-2 (steward)
  90. Josve05a, sv, en-3
  91. Julo, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1
  92. JuTa, de, en-2, fr-1 (bureaucrat)
  93. Jusjih, zh, en-3, fr-2, ko-1
  94. Kaldari, en
  95. Kallerna, fi, en-3, sv-2, de-1
  96. King of Hearts, en, zh-3, es-2, ja-1
  97. Klemen Kocjancic, sl, en-3, de-2, hr-1, bs-1
  98. Krd, de, en-3 (bureaucrat, checkuser)
  99. Krinkle, nl, en-3, de-2
  100. Kwj2772, ko, en-3
  101. Leit, de, en-3, fr-1
  102. Léna, fr, en-3, es-1
  103. Leyo, gsw, de, en-3, fr-3, es-1, la-1
  104. Lofty abyss, en, mt, it-2
  105. Lymantria, nl, en-3, de-2, fy-2, fr-1, zea-1
  106. Magog the Ogre, en, es-2
  107. Mahagaja, en, de-4, fr-2, ga-2, la-2, cy-1
  108. Maire, pl, en-4, es-2, fr-2, de-2, ru-1
  109. Marcus Cyron, de, en-2
  110. Mardetanha fa, az, en-3, tr-2, ar-1
  111. Masur, pl, en-3, de-1
  112. Matanya, en, he (steward)
  113. Materialscientist, en-4, ru-4, nl-3, fr-1, es-1
  114. Mattbuck, en, fr-1, la-1
  115. Maxim, ru, en-3, fr-2
  116. MB-one, de, en-3, fr-1, pt-1
  117. MBisanz, en
  118. Mdaniels5757, en, es-1
  119. MGA73, da, en-3, de-2, no-1, sv-1
  120. Mhhossein, fa, en-3, ar-1
  121. Micheletb, fr, en-3, it-1, es-1
  122. Mike Peel, en, pt-2, fr-1
  123. Minorax, en, zh
  124. Missvain, en
  125. Mitchazenia, en, es-2
  126. Miya, ja, en-2
  127. Moheen, bn, as-1, bpy-1, en-3, hi-1, hif-1
  128. Morgankevinj, en
  129. MPF, en, da-2, de-1, fr-1
  130. Multichill, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1
  131. Mys 721tx, zh, en-3
  132. Nagy, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, sv-1
  133. NahidSultan, bn, en-3, bpy-1
  134. Nat, en, fr, gsw-1, pl-1
  135. Natuur12, nl, en-3, de-1
  136. Neozoon, de, en-4, nl-4, fr-2
  137. Nick, en, sco-2, fr-1
  138. notafish, fr, en-4, de-3, es-2, it-2
  139. Nyttend, en, ang-1
  140. odder, pl, en-4, de-2 (bureaucrat, oversighter)
  141. Otourly, fr, en-2, it-1
  142. P199, en, nl, fr-2, tl-2, de-1
  143. Pi.1415926535, en, es-2
  144. PierreSelim, fr, en-3, es-1 (oversighter)
  145. Pitke, fi, en-4, sv-2
  146. Platonides, es, en-2, fr-1
  147. Poco a poco, es, de-4, en-3, fr-2, it-2, pl-2, pt-1
  148. Podzemnik, cs, en-2
  149. Polarlys, de, en-2, fr-1, no-1
  150. Putnik, ru, en-2
  151. Pyb, fr, en-2
  152. Pymouss, fr, en-3, de-2, it-2, he-1
  153. Racconish, fr, en-4
  154. Ragesoss, en, de-1, fr-1
  155. Ra'ike, de, en-2
  156. Rama, fr, en-3, de-2, la-2, es-1, it-1, ja-1 (oversighter)
  157. Rastrojo, es, en-3, fr-2, eo-1
  158. Raymond, de, en-3, nl-1 (oversighter)
  159. Regasterios, hu, en-1
  160. Rehman, en, si-1
  161. Reinhard Kraasch, de, en-3
  162. Rimshot, de, en-4, fr-2, it-1
  163. Romaine, nl, en-3, de-2, af-1, fr-1
  164. Rosenzweig, de, en-3, fr-1, la-1
  165. Royalbroil, en, es-1
  166. RP88, en, de-1
  167. Rubin16, ru, tt, en-4
  168. Rudolphous, nl, en-3, de-2
  169. Ruthven, it, fr, en-4, es-4, nap-4, ca-2, de-1
  170. Sanandros, als, de, en-3, fr-1
  171. Shizhao, zh, en-1, ru-1
  172. Spiritia, bg, en-3, ru-2, mk-2, de-1
  173. Sreejithk2000, ml, en-3, hi-3, ta-1, kn-1
  174. Srittau, de, en-3
  175. Steinsplitter, bar, de-4, it-3, en-1
  176. Stifle, en, ga, fr-2, de-1
  177. Storkk, en, fr-3, de-2, eo-2
  178. Strakhov, es, en-2
  179. TadejM, sl, en-3, de-2, fr-2
  180. Taivo, et, en-3, ru-3, de-1
  181. Tarawneh, en, ar, de-1
  182. Themightyquill, en, fr-2, de-1, hu-1
  183. The Squirrel Conspiracy, en
  184. Thibaut120094, fr, en-2, ja-2
  185. Thuresson, sv, en-3, no-2
  186. Tomer T, he, en-3
  187. Trijnstel, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1 (checkuser, steward)
  188. Tulsi Bhagat, ne, mai, en-3, hi-2, bh-2, hif-2
  189. Túrelio, de, en-3, es-1
  190. VIGNERON, fr, de-2, en-2, zh-1
  191. Wdwd, de, en-2
  192. Well-Informed Optimist, ru, uk-4, en-3
  193. Wikitanvir, bn, en-3, de-2, as-2, bpy-1
  194. Wutsje, fy, nl, en-3, de-2, fr-1
  195. Yann, fr, en-4, hi-2, gu-1
  196. Yasu, ja, en-2, de-1
  197. Ymblanter, ru, en-3, de-2, fr-2, nl-2, it-1, es-1
  198. Yuval CT, he, en-3
  199. Zzyzx11, en, es-1, fr-1
  200. علاء, ar, en-4, he-1, es-1 (steward)
  201. Abuse filter, (automated account)
  202. CommonsDelinker, (bot) see request
  203. CommonsMaintenanceBot, (bot) see request
  204. KrinkleBot, (bot) see request

The system currently recognizes 204 administrators. If that is not the last number in the scrollable list above, there is an error in the list.

技術面

管理者は、ウィキメディア・コモンズにおいて以下のような技術的権限を有します。

  • 画像等のアップロードされたファイルの削除及び復帰。削除された過去版の閲覧・復帰含む。
  • ページの削除及び復帰。削除された過去版の閲覧・復帰含む。
  • ページの保護及び保護解除。管理者による保護されているページの編集。
  • 個々のIPアドレス、広域のIPアドレス、利用者に対するブロック及びブロック解除。
  • 重要度の低いインターフェイスメッセージの編集(Commons:インターフェイス管理者も参照)
  • ファイルの改名。
  • add and remove usergroups
  • 利用者グループの追加及ぶ除去。
  • アップロード・ウィザード・キャンペーンの設定。
  • 特別記録の削除及び復帰。それらの修正。
  • 他のウィキからのページのインポート
  • ページの編集履歴の統合。
  • 不正使用フィルターの調整。
  • 転送ページを作成行わないでなされる、ページの移動。
  • 意図的な誤認行為等を防ぐためのタイトル名及び利用者名のブラックリスト。
  • 複数利用者への一斉メッセージ送信 (一括メッセージ)
  • APIクエリーの制限の緩和。

これらはまとめて管理者ツールと呼ばれます。

コミュニティの役割

管理者は、経験豊富で信頼の置けるコモンズコミュニティのメンバーで、追加のメンテナンス作業を引き受け、公共の合意や投票によって管理ツールを任された人達です。 管理者によって関心のある分野や専門性は異なりますが、一般的な管理者の仕事としては、削除依頼の審査と決定、著作権違反の削除、必要に応じたファイルの削除解除、荒らしからのコモンズの保護、テンプレートやその他の保護されたページの作業などがあります。 もちろん、これらの作業の一部は、管理者以外の人でも行うことができます。

管理者はこのプロジェクトの目標を理解し、それらの目標のために、他者と建設的に作業を行なう心構えが出来ていることが期待されています。管理者はまた、コモンズの方針を理解及び遵守し、相応にコミュニティの合意を尊重しなければなりません。

必要な管理者権限の執行という役割の他、管理者はその立ち位置による編集上の特別な権限を持ちません。また、討議や投票の寄与は普通の編集者と同様に扱われます。一部には影響力を持つようになる管理者もいるでしょうが、その影響力は立ち位置に由来するのではなく、コミュニティから得た個人個人の信頼に由来するのです。

管理者への助言

Commons:管理者の手引きをお読みください。

管理者権限の除去

活動をしていない場合や管理者ツールの濫用を行った場合、管理者権限の除去の方針に基づいて、管理者権限が除去されることがあります。

管理者になるには

All intending administrators must go through this process and submit themselves to RFA, including all ex-administrators who are seeking to return to their previous role.

はじめに Commons:Administrators/Howto を読み、各種情報を得て下さい。その後に、このページに戻り、権限申請する旨を下記セクションに書き加えて下さい。

  • If someone else nominated you, please accept the nomination by stating "I accept" or something similar, and signing below the nomination itself. The subpage will still need to be transcluded by you or your nominator.


下記のボックスを用い、Username(利用者名)をあなたの利用者名で置き換えてください:

投票

Any registered user may vote here although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted. It is preferable you give reasons for both Support and Oppose votes as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to an argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.

Promotion normally requires at least 75% in favour, with a minimum of 8 support votes. Votes from unregistered users are not counted. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers. Bureaucrats may, at their discretion, extend the period of an RfA if they feel that it will be helpful in better determining community consensus.

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral comments are not counted in the vote totals for the purposes of calculating pass/fail percentages. However such comments are part of the discussion, may persuade others, and contribute to the closing bureaucrat's understanding of community consensus.

Purge the cache Use the edit link below to edit the transcluded page.

管理者立候補・推薦

依頼終了時には、文をアーカイブに移し、保管しましょう。

  • Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

IronGargoyle

Vote

IronGargoyle (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 20:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been a registered user on Commons for the past 15 years. I've been lurking for the most part until 2017 when I became more active (and then much more active in 2021). I have over 12,000 edits on Commons to go along with over 130,000 edits on English Wikipedia (where I have been an administrator for 15 years as well, never breaking the encyclopedia). Maybe 12,000 edits isn't earth-shattering in terms of Commons administrators (though it is four times as many as I had when I became an en.wikipedia admin), but I like to think that those edits are high quality. I think this is especially true when it comes to Deletion Requests. I pride myself on spending considerable time investigating possible sources and evidence for images that are poorly-sourced or have the wrong licence. I think that my investigations have saved scores (maybe even hundreds) of worthwhile images from deletion. This is something I also did on English Wikipedia for years at the (now depreciated) en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. Before people start thinking I'm some kind of crazy inclusionist, let me tell you that there are few things that I've found more viscerally satisfying on Wikimedia sites than tagging a whole page full of blatant copyright violations for speedy deletion with VisualFileChange.js.

I look to patrol speedy deletions and close deletion requests mostly. I will do so with care and always with an eye to Commons:Licensing and Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. I certainly have vandal-fighting experience from English Wikipedia too (with 10+ anti-vandalism barnstars). That's honestly what first led me to become really active on Commons. Sure, I would upload the occasional file for an article I was working on (I'm no great photographer), but mostly I'd be cleaning up some vandalism or copyright violation on en.wikipedia and then I'd head over to Commons to finish cleaning up the image part of the problem. That got me hooked. Thank you for your time. I hope I have earned your trust and support. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Comments

  • Q1 how would you respond to a user's edit in a language that you dont understand (assume korean without loss of generality), but google translate shows that the comment contains strong coarse language?--RZuo (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a comment directed towards me, I think that I would respond with the same sort of calm professionalism that I would in any interaction. I'm not bothered by coarse language (though I seldom use it myself). In general I've developed a pretty thick skin to rude users in 15 years on en.wikipedia. If it was a more complex issue, I would probably ask for help from someone who knew the language. Machine translation only goes so far. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Commons is a multilingual project and you speak only English. Isn't it a problem? Taivo (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a slight one, but I hope not disqualifying. When you say I only speak English, I suppose that depends on the level of proficiency you are talking about. I know some basic German, as I travel there sometimes for work. Machine translation helps with communication in general and I think the technology is getting better. If I do use a machine translator, I try to make sure that I'm using plain language and I always test the translation backwards. There's always the potential to miss some cultural nuance though. As I mentioned in the question above, for complex issues I'm likely to seek help from someone familiar with the language. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Copyvio}} tag is for speedy deletion and intended for only obvious cases of copyright violation. Interpretation of what is obvious can vary a little from person to person, but here is what I look for: Does a reverse image search (Google Images, Tineye) produce clear hits? If yes, it is a red flag. There is some nuance here though. For example, an image that has sat on Commons for a while may get taken by Wikimedia mirror sites and other downstream users, thus producing a false hit. For this reason, I look to see if the reverse image hit contains an earlier date or a higher-resolution version of the image in question. Some things are obvious without needing to resort to reverse image searches. For example, a poster for a major movie, a screenshot of a TV show, or an image with EXIF data/watermark indicating that it is from the Associated Press. I use the {{No permission since}} tag less commonly when dealing with "own work" claims. It is useful when there is some but less doubt about the uploader though. For example, someone whose username matches that of a well-known celebrity. Is there a good chance they are a fan and not actually the person in question? Sure, but it's worth giving the uploader extra time with direct instructions on how to contact VRT with proof that they are who they claim to be (and they have rights to release the image freely). Deletion requests are the catch-all for other non-obvious cases. Maybe there is a pattern of suspicious behavior, but you can't find proof that the specific image is a copyright violation. It's also good when the image is clearly not "own work" but other reasons may justify keeping the image (for example, being very old or being a US government work). Deletion requests are good because they solicit discussion and investigation on these edge cases. There are certainly other reasons to use Deletion requests (project scope for example), but I'm going to leave it there because your question focused on claims on "own work". Please let me know if you have any follow-ups. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Do you intend to be yet another admin who hides out in project pages, reacting to people who come groveling to you, all the while the quantity of problem content continues to grow by leaps and bounds?RadioKAOS (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RadioKAOS What do you mean by "hides out in project pages"? Brianjd (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RadioKAOS I don't understand your comment, but if you are concerned about the growing quantity of "problem content", I think the nominee is well-qualified to tackle it. They have started many deletion requests recently. Brianjd (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the premise of the question, which seems to imply that administrators who work primarily on noticeboards or in policy discussion are doing less important work or doing so in a generally officious way. I don't think that's typically the case. Most (including myself) are also happy to help without any sort of groveling needed. To answer your question though, I've generally been most active in content maintenance and curation (i.e., wikignomish stuff). You can see this from my history both on English Wikipedia and Commons. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ferrer (de-adminship)

Vote

Christian Ferrer (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 23:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

On November 27, former administrator Rodhullandemu was blocked indefinitely for posting a death threat in a foreign language towards an IP user. Two days later, Christian Ferrer unblocked them after an unblock request was made, despite prior on calling for their unblock, making them performing an involved action, in which was reversed. Since then, they have been relentlessly justifying their actions on the AN boards and shows no remorse, failing to take any accountability in their role as an administrator. Because of that, a discussion was opened regarding their conduct, in which there is "some consensus" for an RfDA where it is discussed if Christian should continue their role as an administrator. 1989 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove 1989 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @1989: Why are you voting on your own nomination? Brianjd (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's common in discussions like this where the nominator will start out the vote, if they so choose. 1989 (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg keep happy to see that he does not conform to groupthink and is bold enough to express his different opinions. Not convinced that their actions were wrong. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @4nn1l2 Everyone should be bold enough to express their opinions, including admins. Many users have already expressed controversial opinions on this matter, without being sanctioned for it. On the other hand, Christian has been entrusted with powerful tools, which they misused here, and subsequent comments show no insight into this problem. Brianjd (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The original blocking admin has on their user page "Other administrators are welcome to undo one of my blocks without contacting me first if the reason for the block is clear and has been credibly addressed by the user in a public unblock request" [emphasis mine], so COM:BP has not been violated by User:Christian Ferrer. You may disagree with them, I may or may not disagree with them, but it does not mean their action was wrong. There is not only one right course of action in this saga. At least 5 different admins have acted on this incident: 1) User:AntiCompositeNumber blocking the user indefinitely; 2) User:De728631 declining the first unblock request; 3) User:Christian Ferrer accepting the second unblock request; 4) User:Yann reblocking the user for 6 months; and 5) User:Jon Kolbert declining their 3rd unblock request and removing their talk page access. What I can't understand is why only User:Christian Ferrer's action has been under question. Just because of having a different opinion on the matter? Sorry, not convincing to me. I have other concerns too, including the probability of canvassing by some of enwiki users who are not Commons regulars on some of the nastiest forums such as Wikipediocracy, and the inability of Commons not to lose its valuable users over not-so-serious incidents, including, but not limited to, User:Alexis Jazz, User:Zhuyifei1999, User:Majora, User:Fæ, User:Rodhulandemu, User:Jdx, and now User:Christian Ferrer. Commons could and can do better. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @4nn1l2 It was hardly clear that the reason for the block was credibly addressed by the user. The unblock rationale consisted of a short phrase that technically promised to not repeat the action, buried in the middle of a large block of text that essentially defended the action. Therefore, your quote does not apply. Brianjd (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "You may disagree with them, I may or may not disagree with them, but it does not mean their action was wrong". Unlike you, I simply see no misuse of "powerful tools". 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg keep Obvious nonsense. --jdx Re: 00:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this vote should be struck in light of Special:Diff/611756910, but I will leave it to somebody more familiar with the procedure. Brianjd (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Think again. I'm not blocked here, globally locked nor banned yet. --jdx Re: 06:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to vote here, but I will note that Jdx has now been indefinitely blocked [1] for incivility and disrupting Commons to prove a point. I believe their vote should now be struck. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    False. When they voted, they were in good standing and subsequent incidents don't count. So the vote is valid and should be counted. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Not being willing to listen to consensus is a dangerous characteristic in an administrator - especially when harassment is involved. Christian was given several opportunities to reinstate the block but doubled down and refused to do so. I fear that this will not be the only cowboy unblock. --Rschen7754 01:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Christian himself said I tried to do the job but I'm far too impulsive and sensible to do properly this job. [2] As far as "sensible", it points to an attitude of "my opinion matters more than all of you". --Rschen7754 01:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Not intended as a rebuttal to your overall point (I'm not much of a Commoner, and thus not going to express an opinion here), but it's worth noting that "sensible" is a common French/English false friend; French speakers often use it in English when meaning to say "sensitive". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's clear from the quote itself that "sensible" is an error. It's not clear what the error is, but Tamzin's explanation seems reasonable. Christian's Babel tags say they are fr-N but only en-3. Brianjd (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Being unwilling to even consider the possibility you've acted out of line is not an acceptable quality in an administrator. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove - In short I had hoped after a few days Christian would've "seen the light", apologised and reinstated the block but it wasn't to be. Christan has since admitted they're proud of the unblock and stand by their actions[3]. As I said at AN we all make mistakes but sadly this wasn't one (no matter how hard I hoped it was!). Their actions are unbecoming of any admin and as such I don't trust them nor do I hold any confidence in them. –Davey2010Talk 01:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, overreaction... but I hope Christian will reasonably justify his future actions. Additionally, he has nearly 100k sysop actions and the situation here reported appears to be just an outlier. Érico (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I don't think a single bad unblock rises to the level necessary to justify a desysop. -- King of ♥ 03:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, while I don't think that the unblock itself was a good thing (I am very much opposed to having any "unblockables" around and the dehumanisation of IP users and vandals worries me, also I am surprised that "Commons:Do not insult the vandals" is still a redlink as it is a good essay that should be copied here), I do think that their motivation for unblocking was done in good faith as they believed that the block was punitive and not preventative. I simply can't see this as anything other than a good faith action based on what they saw as a block that didn't prevent further abuse as far as they saw, note that personally I would like to see a statement from Rodhullandemu where they would say that they understand that their behaviour was innapropriate as they don't seem to grasp how such a comment could be hurtful to the other human being reading it but Christian Ferrer's conduct wasn't done with malicious intent. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 04:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove I can accept the arguments made in the previous three votes (the unblock was made in good faith and was out of character). I certainly thing the unblock alone was nowhere near sufficient for a desysop discussion. However, Christian's subsequent comments were appalling. For example, see Special:Diff/610855515 and Special:Diff/611179247 (which I cited at the AN/UP discussion), where Christian demonstrated their continued ignorance of important issues, such as this being about death threats (not vandals) and IP addresses being shared by innocent users. Also see Special:Diff/610855515, where Christian wrote:
    if there is a consensus to begin a desys- process, so then this last one would not be needed as I will give back my tools myself
I think that time has come. Brianjd (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Achim55 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Herby talk thyme 10:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I think the point to criticize Christian is that he failed to admit his unblock is incorrect, which is not good. However, given his past contribution to Commons, a 2nd chance should be given. I hope Christian will learn a lesson from this, and should be more careful when handling disputed unblock request. If the unblock is really difficult to handle, then he should let other admins to deal with that. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I normally wouldn't comment in these things, but I do think this is an over-reaction. Yes, I think Christian made some mistakes - that's all been well discussed, so I won't restate any of it here. But outside of this case, I'm seeing a prolific and valuable admin. I'm not seeing any pattern of repeated poor behaviour that would warrant the removal of his admin tools. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to add that what we're talking about here is Christian unblocking in controversial circumstances - but he has already said he underestimated the degree of controversy. Other than that, he has not engaged in wheel warring and has taken no other admin actions since the consensus to reblock. Christian makes it clear that he disagrees with the consensus, but there's nothing wrong with that. Anyone is allowed to disagree with a consensus as long as they do not act against it, and Christian has not done that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Admins make mistakes, no matter how well thought out the action is. Christian has explained his decision and I can see where he is coming from. Like Boing says above, I am not seeing a pattern that would justify this action Gbawden (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. If people disagree on something, there is no need to worsen this situation by sanctioning any of them. Christian has explained and motivated their action and that is enough. Ellywa (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I agree with Donald Trung and Ellywa. De728631 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as per Gbawden. --- FitIndia Talk 22:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep objection to this request. i share the same views with many, that Rodhullandemu's problematic comment was not appropriate, but an adequate and sufficient response to that was to warn him. blocking would be necessary only if he repeats that behaviour. the most he should get was a finite block. but as i told you so, AntiCompositeNumber is a hasty person: Commons:Administrators/Requests/AntiCompositeNumber. here we are, time and effort being wasted over a trivial one-liner from a bad mouth, that's escalated by a hasty sysop, who doesnt back down and deescalate things. Christian Ferrer's undoing of a disproportionate block was justified.--RZuo (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo Christian didn't feel the need to bring AntiCompositeNumber's history into this, and I'm not sure if it's appropriate for other users to do so. Brianjd (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how the only person to have opposed ACNs RFA was good ol' Rz him/herself. Nothing like holding a grudge against someone for a solid year. Well least we've stopped beating the same Beeb and Fae drum for the time being. I guess some could say that's "progress". –Davey2010Talk 02:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd および Davey2010: User:Richardkiwi's comment special:diff/611832118 is good for you.--RZuo (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo We live in a free society where you can freely express your opinion but we can also freely disagree with your opinion too. –Davey2010Talk 14:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Thinking that you can do what you think, because you are right, is no way to run a project. And he can of course still contribute to the project, just not as an admin. Let him contribute, say, a 6 months time as a normal editor, then we can consider it again Huldra (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Be bold and Ignore all rules are not a base for admin-actions. It's one thing to make a point and discuss with others, why a block is wrong or bad, or if you're making a mess of it by unblocking in the heat of a running discussion. Sorry, but your intentions might be good, but you're action(s) were not and even worse, discussing the issue is not possible. When acting as an admins in the heat of the night, you should always accept, that you a) could be wrong and b) even if you're right, the time and action could be wrong. --Mirer (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove I have no faith in the admins, who use their tools to do of their own will and disregard the community. --Hulged (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per above. Yahya (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Reluctant remove. Everyone makes mistakes, and I don't think that one unfortunate mistake should remove a productive administrator. Administrators do make bold decisions sometimes, and in the heat of the moment sometimes get things wrong, particularly when community consensus is unclear. More concerning is that after all this drama, community consensus has become clear against an unblock for Rod, yet I get the impression that Ferrer stands by their actions and would take them again should the situation arise. Willingness to use admin tools against community consensus is not acceptable. -M.nelson (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per above.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep That single action doesn't seem as an big treat to the community. Everyone can make arguable decisions (espesially sysops) and this is not a reason to de-sysop a trusted user. This action obviously needs further explaining and investigation but de-sysop request seems as an overreacting. Красный wanna talk? 12:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as per many of the above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Strakhov (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Of course one may (and should) "wonder who the judges are" etc... However that does not change anything on the fact that it is a long overdue step, not just since the RH&E case. --A.Savin 15:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The block of Rod Hull is ridiculous and Christian was right to challenge it as he did. He certainly didn't engage in any admin behaviours (i.e. wheel warring) that would deserve de-adminship. Now I know Rod Hull has plenty of enemies on WP/Commons, but to start hounding after anyone who supports him (rightly or wrongly) just for that – then that is seriously disruptive to any sort of editing community. We have far too many self-supporting cliques already. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per above —MdsShakil (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. This is total nonsense from the very beginning. The French words of Rodhullandemu are more or less trivial idiom, I can easily use the same in my language when talking to my daughter of 6. I am terrified with the way all this story was treated. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg keep Looks like a smart, nice person, hate to see someone like that go. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Cherkash (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Taivo (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg keep, hate to see an admin go as Commons has too many DR backlogs. Also second in motion to several users who voted for keep (Красный, Donald Trung, King of Hearts, 4nn1l2, Andy Dingley). Though just a word for Christian: he may want to focus on thousands of DRs (esp. related to FOP) instead should his adminship be retained. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I agree to comments by those to made keep polls (Rubin16, Materialscientist et. Al.), that this is just an overreaction. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Desysop will only do more harm than good in this case, IMO. --pandakekok9 03:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. -- Geagea (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Gbawden --Ameisenigel (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Érico.--MZaplotnik(talk) 11:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep while I think that behaviour of Rodhullandemu is obviously incorrect and should result in sanctions, I believe unblock/block decision of Christian Ferrer is of less impact and significance and we should allow some area for mistakes for everyone. rubin16 (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Ezarateesteban 00:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - In my opinion, a de-sysop over this would be an overreaction. Ahmadtalk 10:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - I do agree that this was an overreaction, and that this case could have been settled after a reasonable conversation. The comments by Christian Ferrer below only confirm that. Materialscientist (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I trust him Poco a poco (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, per many of the above, especially 4nn1l2, Gbawden, Materialscientist I also trust him. Krok6kola (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • We all make mistakes, it is what we do when these mistakes are pointed out that makes the difference. Sadly, Christian has adopted the same sort of attitude as Rod himself, steadfastly refusing to even consider the possibility that their actions were out of line, and indeed reveling in them and even saying they are proud of it. To me this is far more concerning than the unblock itself, if they had since commented that they at could at least concede that there are other valid views of the situation, I doubt we'd be here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic replies
I think that toxic people like you should be blocked on this project. It is ironic that an abuser like you who harassed and likely caused him left the project is still here and none of our admims told you to get the fuck outta here. --jdx Re: 01:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a rest you're beginning to sound like a broken record. Whatever happened with Beeb and Fae is between Beeb and Fae and none of that is even relevant here. (Personal attack removed). –Davey2010Talk 02:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please not start making personal attacks? 1989 (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn’t between them at all. Actually it is way more serious than the "death threat" recently discussed. --jdx Re: 02:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stop the personal attacks, and maybe strike jdx's comments here in light of Special:Diff/611756910. Brianjd (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to Beeblebrox’es attacks on Fæ? --jdx Re: 06:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of this has anything at all to do with Fae, but I am used to his proxies attacking me like this. It's what Fae would want. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sadly toxic people keep driving out good people like jdx.--RZuo (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC) and Christian Ferrer could have been the next one of those good people as User:4nn1l2 pointed out.--RZuo (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what part of this comment has anything to do with Christian Ferrer's suitability as an admin, which, again, is the topic under discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox Actually, I am tempted to collapse all the replies to your initial comment. Brianjd (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@1989: now that my reply is related to Christian Ferrer, care to undo the collapse?--RZuo (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a "mistake" just to disagree with the almighty Beeblebrox. You're not President of the Galaxy. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there going to be a point where people respond without personally attacking me, or should I just ecpect that in perpetuity? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christian has made numerous changes to their statement below, including adding items to the timeline. This is making this page difficult to follow. Even worse, Christian has not indicated that their statement has changed. Brianjd (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but to make this page difficult to follow was not my purpose, quite the opposite. Those two points are important to the timeline and I forgot them. I will try to no longer edit the page, otherwise I will indicate it. Sorry again. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement from Christian Ferrer
  • Hello, I assume the facts that I am accused of. Just let me telling you the events as I saw them. These are not attempts of justifications.
All beginned with a comment on that talk page (now deleted) made by Rodhullandemu to an IP only acting like a vandal
This have been reported in the Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections by Beeblebrox
The first administrator action was from Yann, and was a good and proportionate reaction, he deleted the comment and warned the user. At this point, and from my point of view, all could have stopped here.
AntiCompositeNumber blocked the Rodhullandemu indefinitely
At least 3 administrators said that the block was not needed or disproportionate: Achim55, A.Savin and me
AntiCompositeNumber, despite the fact that several administrators are claiming that it was not a real threat but a metaphor, continue to talk about true threat and also about a potential history of incivility, or just don't answer.
I concluded that AntiCompositeNumber will not change his mind. I unblocked the user, as regard to his unblock request because:
1/ I was convinced that he was not going to do it again, and our blocks are supposed to be preventive and not punitive
2/ the user gave a good explanation for why the block was inappropriate: this was not a true threat.
Nick opened a topic about me in the Administrators' noticeboard/User problems
Yann reblocked the user for 6 months.
Rodhullandemu made a new unblock request. One can think it is not an adequat, or at least the best, request, but one can also think that frustration, emotion and despair have pushed the user there.
Jon Kolbert declined the request and revoked talk page access.
1989 opened this de-adminship request.
Jdx made voluntarily a similar comment than Rodhullandemu, surely to prove the ridiculousness of the sanction toward Rodhullandemu.
Jon Kolbert blocked Jdx indefinitely
Would I do my unblock again? nothing is less sure, as my purpose was to help Rodhullandemu and to get him out of this. Can you see in that comment a kind of apologie? no apart in the fact I am sorry that for the moment I failed to fight what I see as a blatant injustice. I still think that Rodhullandemu should be unblocked, and warned, thing he was.
Brianjd, above, is right to point that I said "if there is a consensus to begin a desys- process, so then this last one would not be needed as I will give back my tools myself". Furthermore it was not the first time that I said that. However now in front of the accomplished fact, I think it would be innapropriate for two reason 1/ such de-adminship allow to the community to say what it thing about that 2/ this discussion highlight Rodhullandemu case and potentialy its unfair side. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we know that all this could have stopped just after my point number 3 above, that is just after the first Yann action, this is what we can call a beautiful mess, and surely not a suitable block. Also note that before that event, as far I remember, I never interacted neither with the blocked nor with the blocker. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info In the same time that this comment I add the info of the Jdx block in the timeline above. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ビューロクラットへの依頼

作業完了時、ページはCommons:Bureaucrats/Archiveに保管すべきです。

  • Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

チェックユーザーへの依頼

作業完了時、ページはCommons:Checkusers/Archiveに保管すべきです。

  • Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

オーバーサイトへの依頼

作業完了時、ページはCommons:Oversighters/Archiveに保管すべきです。

  • Please read Commons:Oversighters before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

関連項目