Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~397
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-01: ~105

Other:

• Duplicates: ~254
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~22
• Other speedy deletions: ~697
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~2
• Undeletion requests: ~23

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~57
• Interface admin: ~16
• Technical: ~2
• Template protection: ~30
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
• 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.
• Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
• It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User:Kallerna

This is to ask for review recent (sysop) actions by Kallerna.

a) I had blocked Karelj for a duration of 3 days for uncivil comments. Latest was this one, which comes as very disrespectful towards the photographer, however Karelj is well known for other disrespectful FPC "reviews" such as this one, for which I already had warned him, which he opted to ignore completely.

b) Several users agreed on obvious incivility of such comments, such as: Aristeas, SHB2000, XRay, Radomianin.

c) Nonetheless, Kallerna came "out of nothing" and unblocked the user -- completely out of process, without seeking any discussion, neither with me nor on Admins' noticeboard, also there wasn't even an unblock request on Karelj's talk page.

d) The unblock comment was "Groundless block [...] Silencing user who do not agree with you?", which I find libelous obviously false and uncivil, as neither did I ever discuss with Karelj in any sort of disagreement, nor did I vote or otherwise comment in the same FPC nomination whatsoever.

e) Similarly poor was their comment on my talk page ("Please do not block users who do not share the same views as you", etc.).

f) Further discussion on my talk page with Kallerna on this matter turned as useless.

g) Therefore, Kallerna's behaviour should be reviewed in terms of: 1) incivility -- due to false claim of myself blocking a user because of contentual disagreement; and 2) obvious violation of Commons:Blocking policy, in particular: "To avoid wheel warring, another administrator should lift a block only if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block".

The sysop Kallerna I'm going to notify on this thread.

Thanks --A.Savin 22:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 to what A.Savin said. I also find Karelj's refusal to communicate a major red flag – not just for the above but also for "But the image here looks, like from child, who receivd his first photoaparate and learns, how to operate with it". Kallerna should have discussed this beforehand, instead of unilaterally unblocking and making spurious accusations. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to get involved here, as I am already part of the discussions about incivility on that nomination page. I just wanted to make people aware that Kallerna is one of only 3 people opposing this FPC nomination (which has more than 20 support votes), so when judging the possibility of a conflict on interest one should consider this fact. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This – thanks for mentioning it, as that too hasn't been mentioned before. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that 1. Karelj's comments are quite rude, if not disrespectful, 2. Kallerna's unblock is out of process. If you don't agree with a block, please discuss it instead wheel warring. Yann (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Yann, thanks for your comments. I have explained my actions in the user talk pages of A.Savin and Karelj. There is also a lot of conversation about the possible rudeness of Karelj in the nom page. I reverted the block due to it being inadequat, as pointed by fellow admistrator Christian Ferrer. —kallerna (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: Would you also like to explain your possible conflict of interest as mentioned by Kritzolina above? --SHB2000 (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: I wouldn't have blocked Karelj at this point, but your hastily unblocking is nevertheless an issue. It sends the wrong message. Yann (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, I should have contacted another administrator here and let someone else revert the block. However, the user had been wrongfully blocked for two days at that point, so I did not want to wait any longer. —kallerna (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

A showcase example how not to address a complaint about one's own behaviour. --A.Savin 14:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Kallerna, if you snarkily try to dodge attempting my question (or A.Savin's) by Dec 2, I will start a nomination to desysop you. Sysops need to be held accountable to their actions; not answering questions raised towards you about your potential misuse of tools is a red flag and is unsysop-like behaviour. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I would support that. Kallerna is good photographer, but definitely not good for the sysop team. As a (possibly offtopic) side-note, look at their talk page (the QI promotions). They have uploaded masses of images of contemporary buildings in South Korea where there is no FoP. Many have been deleted already. A sysop should have at least a very basic knowledge what to upload on Commons and what not. Kallerna seems not to have this knowledge. And this arrogancy is the final straw. Thanks --A.Savin 13:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: courtesy ping – 2 days left to answer my/A.Savin's question before I will start a desysop nom. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

1 day left, Kallerna. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've been travelling the last week all over Europe (at the moment at airport) and have not seen these comments. I'm sorry, but I do not know why you have this motivation to de-admin me. All I did was unblocking wrongfully blocked user. You are not a admin, and you are not involved in the matter - I did not have any reason to communicate with you. I'm here to contribute to the project, not to discuss with trolls. —kallerna (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna Are you calling SHB2000 a troll here? Kritzolina (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's some serious baseless accusations right there, Kallerna. "I do not know why you have this motivation to de-admin me" – I want Commons to be a project with sysops that has sysops who know how to use their tools properly. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Currently both sides seems to be rather over provocative. You all should cool down and try not to the escalate situation. -- Zache (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be useful to know exactly how I'm provocative, however at least I didn't insult a long-term contributor and Wikivoyage admin a troll. --A.Savin 14:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

In this case you were from start threatening with consequenses [1], [2]. From that things did go in couple days from mishandled blocking/unblocking to deadmin vote. However, being admin not about competition, but co-operation and i would say that more fruitful course of action would have been just to explain why you gave the block and ask why it was lifted without any threatening. So that there would be understanding between admins why they did what they did. The discussion could have taken so much time that original three days block would have been irrelevant, but it doesn't afaik really matter. If initially blocked user continues bad behaviour there would have been new blocks because that, if not then problem was solved anyway. --Zache (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

"Silencing user who do not agree with you" is clearly disrespectful, uncivil comment, especially given the fact that it's also false. Kallerna, you still didn't response how come that I'm "silencing users". This block log comment should be hidden at the very least. --A.Savin 13:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Could a third admin please hide this comment? Thanks --A.Savin 14:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done I hid the edit summary. Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. --A.Savin 17:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@A.Savin, Kritzolina, Yann, and Abzeronow: Since it's December 2 and Kallerna did not respond, I started a desysop nomination which can be found at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship). Apologies in advance for any formatting errors (I'm new to this process). Pinging everyone involved in this discussion. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand that one may see the edit summary as insensitive, but might it be worth keeping it public for the duration of the de-adminship discussion be worthwhile so that the log can be seen by participants? @A.Savin and Abzeronow: Would either of you have an objection to this sort of thing? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, temporarily unhiding is no problem. --A.Savin 03:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with temporarily unhiding if it is necessary. Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Per request/consent. GMG^talk 01:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I have closed the de-admin request as inadmissible per policy. Commons:Administrators/De-adminship states: "Please note this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal;". From the above discussion I see nothing that can be called consensus. Personal comment: There should no room for uncivilty, there should be more blocks for uncivilty, and such blocks shall not be removed. Supporting a hostile environment should not be seen as acceptable conduct of anybody, especially not of an admin. --Krd 14:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, Commons really lets sysops get away with such misuse of tools – I thought it was pretty clear from this discussion that Kallerna's behaviour was inappropriate. Oh well... --SHB2000 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, we can of course accuse Kallerna of lifting the block and ignoring questions on purpose, but we can hardly accuse anyone here on Commons of not having commented in this thread. --A.Savin 04:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll admit I severely overreacted when I wrote that comment above. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think A. Savin hit the nail right on the head in the discussion above: «Kallerna is good photographer, but definitely not good for the sysop team.». Well, sure. I mean, Kallerna might also be an excellent driver, a keen model railroader, or a loving spouse — but it doesn’t matter. Being a good photographer is only relevant for Commons in as much as they publish their good photography with a suitable license. It doesn’t follow necessarily that a good photographer would also be a good curator of photographs and other media, let alone a good sysop thereof. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I think A. Savin's block was harsh but within bounds of policy as Karelj was being disruptive by their behavior of making disrespectful comments. Kallerna's unblock was totally against policy, sends the wrong message as Yann said above, and I'm also concerned that they show no contrition for the unblock or the lack of communication beforehand. They also have not addressed that their COI in the matter. I also concur with Krd that we cannot support a hostile environment. Abzeronow (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• @A.Savin: I would only suggest that the original post needs reworded per COM:NLT. There are many ways we can express our view without using legal terms like libel. GMG^talk 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • • Corrected. --A.Savin 02:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Having had a bit more time to look into the matter... No, one admin should not reverse another's actions without discussion unless it is egregious misuse of the tools that leaves room for little interpretation, something of the type that you start looking for a Steward for an emergency desysoping. I would expect an acknowledgement of this standard as a bare minimum from Kallerna. Having said that, it's a little on-the-nose to be arguing over incivility and the response from A.Savin is "bla bla", which very much comes off in text as being frustrated and not super keen on discussing the issue on equanimous terms. GMG^talk 22:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

In broader terms: undoing a block is almost never (maybe literally never?) an emergency. Unless I'm missing something, in this case the block (whether justified or not) had one more day to run! Commons can do without any individual contributor, myself included, for a day. - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: Since you said you were travelling (see above), I waited before writing this. Hopefully you can answer now.

Do you maintain you position, i.e. that your unblocking of Karelj was justified? Also do you apologize for calling SHB2000 a troll? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

+1 GMG^talk 13:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

+2 --A.Savin 14:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

+3. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've been informed privately that Kallerna will be indisposed until at least the end of the holidays. I would suggest that we have a touch of the spirit of the season and recognize that this can be resolved, but that waiting a touch doesn't necessarily constitute a crisis. GMG^talk 20:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @GreenMeansGo: that's fine with me if Kallerna is genuinely taking a break; there is nothing emergent here if they are not actively using their admin privileges. When they are back, though, this needs to be on the radar. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jmabel here, there's no rush to this. Hopefully, they will answer questions after they come back from their break. Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

    I agree – a lot of people will be on break in the next 3 weeks, myself included. As long as they answer our questions and apologise to A.Savin, that's good with me. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

    • Agree with Krd that these tactics more look like "ducking away" rather than like real lack of possibility to respond. Nowadays, even when being on travel (as for most regions of the world esp. Europe), you don't have to stay offline all the time. --A.Savin 15:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

      • @A.Savin: it's not a matter of being unable to access the net, it's a matter of someone choosing to take a break, which is an entirely reasonable thing for someone to do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

      Yeah, very reasonable, especially if there are pending complaints about you and you don't have any arguments left in your defence, except "I don't discuss with trolls". --A.Savin 02:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

      I agree. I'm only a little sympathetic because often I don't have internet access while travelling and plan these months beforehand, but I want a definitive date from Kallerna. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

      But Kallerna, could you give us a rough date of when you will be back? --SHB2000 (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

      • @SHB2000: Given that Kallerna literally hasn't edited any WMF project since 3 December, it is very unlikely that they will even see your question until they are back. Certainly they are doing no harm while absent. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As this seems to take indeed longer, I'm adding a 30 day archive blocker in code here -> (). Best regards --Schlurcher (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

On enwiki it's sometimes labeled "ANI flu". DMacks (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I laughed my ass off when I read that article (and found w:Wikipedia:Oops Defence). SHB2000 (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Counterpart

Hi everyone, it seems that my answer is needed here. First of all, I want to apologize everyone involved this waste of time - this is not the way we should spend time on Commons. I also apologize SHB2000 for my choice of words, I should have not called you a troll. I however still wonder your motives to use so much energy on this matter: I suggest focusing on more positive and constructive matters.

So to the case here. Karelj made a controversial comment, and he was blocked by A.Savin. Not everybody thought the comment was evil [3]. I unblocked Karelj after two days of block, and did it without discussing about the matter or asking someone else to do the unblocking. This was obviously a mistake. However, some users agreed on lifting the block and Karelj did only beneficial contributions to Commons while unblocked.

Then I guess we are in the actual start of the problems discussed here. I told A.Savin that I lifted the block, and got quite rude replies (and also removal of comments). I did not want to waste everyones time, and I was passive. This was another mistake.

I see it rather odd that most participants here see controversial block with rude comments less harmful to the project than unblocking active editor. And I also want to emphasize that I do not agree with Karelj on most matters - I only reverted the block because I thought it was inadequate. And like said I should have not done it without discussing about it first. —kallerna (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

No satisfactory statement for me. The fact that this "waste of time" (which is actually true) had to be gone through we owe only you, Kallerna.

And I also want to emphasize that I do not agree with Karelj on most matters... Let me reveal a secret -- I *do* agree with Karelj on most matters (at least on FPC), I just don't find it okay at all the way he writes it down, including shallow and often disrespectful comments, poor English, etc. So, here we go again: how did the block have anything to do with disagreement, as you noted in the unblock comment? Kallerna, may I finally have an answer please? --A.Savin 14:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I see, that was also incorrect assumption by me, I'm sorry. The comment was unnecessary. —kallerna (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I am a bit confused by what you think is rude and what is acceptable on Commons, Kallerna. On a scale of 1 to 10 - how rude was A.Savin's reply to you after lifting the block? And how would you place Karelj's comment that led to the block on that scale? Kritzolina (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Both are low on your scale, and either of those comments is worth of blocking the user. It is also noteworthy that the photographer herself was not offended, but the professionally offended around. The reason why I mention the coarseness of A.Savin is purely due to the fact he blocked another user due rude comments. —kallerna (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: I cannot even guess what "the professionally offended around" means. - Jmabel ! talk 06:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I undestand it in this context like this: Other people in the community, those who are more sensitive or vigilant about offensive content, took issue with the comments. -- Zache (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

And where do you see a comment like "professionally offended" on this scale? I actually would love to hear numbers ... Kritzolina (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I also don't see any satisfactory statement. You explicitly pointed out that you were not personally involved, but you are also not an admin who is generally active in blocking or unblocking users. What was your business in removing this block, overriding the rationale of an admin who is generally active in blocking or unblocking users? --Krd 09:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocking an active user should not be made without discussion. Default position should be unblock, not block? Generally I find it again odd that blocking an active user without discussion is ok, but unblocking is not. You are correct that I am not a active admin, but I have done my share of blocking vandals in other projects. —kallerna (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Krd. --A.Savin 15:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

+1 to A.Savin. At least thank you for the apology, kallerna. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

If you were wondering why I'm spending so much time on this issue – well, that's because I want Commons to be a place where admins actually use their tools properly; not a place where admins get a snarky layer of protection for wheel-warring. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears there is no more feedback, so it's time to conclude? --Krd 15:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like this thread isn't going anywhere. Killarnee (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Krd and Killarnee: It looks to me like immediately below there is a pretty strong consensus that we should have a discussion on possible deadminship for User:Kallerna. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Krd 20:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Yes, anyway 14 support + 3 oppose votes would be a successful result if this were an RfA, so despite weak participation we can assume consensus. Pinging SHB2000 and Jeff G. As said, I would support desysop although this is kind of a borderline case to me -- which is the reason that this time I wouldn't like to start such a desysop procedure myself -- however only Kallerna and no one else we owe the fact that this actually pretty minor issue had to come as far; so yes, after that half-hearted apologies I still stand by my opinion that Kallerna is a miscast as a Commons admin. Actually, it would be WAY better if Kallerna would spare us the timewaste and resign voluntarily. Thanks --A.Savin 22:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Deadminship for User:Kallerna

•  Support. This subsection should clearly show Bureaucrats whether or not there is a consensus because Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship) was deemed "inadmissible".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Had Kallerna written in this statement sth. like "I've been travelling the last week all over Europe, no time to read this discusion, but meanwhile I see that it was my mistake, I shouldn't have unblocked Karelj without discussion, and it is also not true what I said that A.Savin wanted to be silencing a user who disagreed with him, I'm sorry for that", then we could have closed the whole thread straightaway and move on, but seeing what they actually wrote... No way. --A.Savin 16:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Defending uncivil behaviour by being uncivil and overriding normal procedures on the way is not what I expect from an admin. --Kritzolina (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support as the nominator of the now-invalid thread; what Kritzolina and A.Savin mentioned. Thanks for starting this subsection, Jeff G.! --SHB2000 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I'm not as extreme as A.Savin, but Karelj shouldn't have been unblocked without discussion, and Karelj hasn't even seemed to hear that the edit comment was as much of a problem as the unblock.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support not to discuss with trolls ... ouch Killarnee (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Neutral on de-adminship, but in favor of starting a formal process to discuss it. It doesn't worry me as much that Kallerna did the wrong thing in the first place as that the way they've handled this (including apparently not understanding that non-admins are allowed to participate in this page, and calling another user a "troll" for doing so). If Kallerna believes this was fine on their part, then that's a problem. If they understand at this point that they blew this -- in more than one respect -- then maybe they are liable to grow into the job. - Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose GMG^talk 17:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose I do not believe this isolated incident rises to the level of a desysop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  At least an acknowledgement from Kallerna would be good, but no, they've yet to acknowledge why their actions were problematic. Had they done so, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose per above. 1989 (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment terrible unblock on the basis of both procedure and what I'd call a degree of involvement (karel and kallerna having more or less the same style of participation at fpc, and this being about fpc participation), but to the extent this is about that one unblock I'd say this should be closed with an unequivocal warning. I'd prefer to see a pattern or at least another example of bad judgment with tool use to support here. Stopping short of opposing though, as I think it's reasonable to say "we should have a deadminship conversation" which is all this section is deciding. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Right, "we should have a deadminship conversation".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 10:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment What Jmabel said. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support per OP and Jmabel. --Daniele Fisichella 12:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support per above. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Jalapeño (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Schlurcher (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC) . The following quote shows are huge misunderstanding of Commons policies: You are not a admin, and you are not involved in the matter - I did not have any reason to communicate with you. (the part before the comma should be irrelevant)
•  Support Their only block log entry is the one under discussion here, which has a taste on it's own. The attitude shown above, plus ducking away, holiday season or not. --Krd 08:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Per Schlurcher. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral I agree with Jmabel above. I'm not there yet as far as thinking Kallerna should be de-sysopped, but the de-adminship conversation should be allowed to move forward. Abzeronow (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I have been reading this entire conversation for the last one hour and I could not find a "fair acknowledgement" without ifs and buts. KoH makes a sensible statement that this is kind of a rare incident but as SHB2000 has noted a clear acknowledgment from Kallerna is missing, plus per Krd. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 13:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I didn't originally think it justified action outside of a slap on the wrist, if even. But if Killarnee supports it themselves then I don't really see any reason not to take the tools away. Plus as others have pointed out it's not like they have acknowledged the issue. It's weird how unwilling admins are to admit they made a mistake sometimes. Totally a self-own. So whatever. Just take the tools away and be done with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Me? Killarnee (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Killarnee: It appears @Adamant1's mistake. Kallerna and Killarnee are too closely sounding names. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I meant Kallerna. My bad. I struck that part of my comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Support despite Kallerna's comment above. Yann (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Support I can understand that A.Savin's block for Karelj's comment in the FPC nomination appeared harsh. Probably few admins would have blocked here. Still, the comment was disrespectful and I understand the desire to enforce a more civil communication within the FPC nominations. Few admins ever went ahead to enforce civility in FPC nominations. As Karelj had been warned before, this did not come entirely unexpected. It should be noted that A.Savin was not involved in the discussion of this FPC nomination but kallerna was with a comment that was at least as disrespectful as that of Karelj. The subsequent unblock came without discussion despite being involved in the discussion of the FPC nomination. Remarkably, this is the very only sysadmin action by Kallerna blocking or unblocking any user since becoming an admin in 2009. In the unblock comment Kallerna asks Silencing user who do not agree with you? while giving much reason to question their own motives behind the unblock. All this could be a singular event during a long tenure as admin. Then, however, we need a clear path forward which allows us to hope that this remains singular. Comments like I'm here to contribute to the project, not to discuss with trolls are not helpful in this regard. Eventually, Kallerna apologizes for it but not without recommending to focus on more positive and constructive matters while finding it rather odd that most participants here see controversial block with rude comments less harmful to the project than unblocking active editor. I do not find this convincing as it appears half-hearted and comes without any statements regarding a future approach to resolve such conflicts. I think a regular process where we see whether Kallerna has still the trust of our community as admin is warranted. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Support An admin getting de-admin for admin abuse?...if only there were people with balls on that other project.....and they call us the inferior project..--Stemoc 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Socks of IvanRamonTrillos

Please block Sbshshib (talk · contribs) and BX XBXBVDV (talk · contribs). They both reuploaded File:Oscareduardo10 Logo.png and therefore are socks of globally locked spammer IvanRamonTrillos (talk · contribs). Thanks. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 03:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks for reporting this, Kacamata. Both accounts and IvanRamonTrillos are obvious sockpuppets of LTA case Oscareduardo10 (talk · contribs). I've indef'd the accounts. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

BTW, there are far more accounts involved in this case of LTA, see now Category:Sockpuppets of Oscareduardo10 for the sockpuppets that are associated with Oscareduardo10 and which were active at Commons. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oscareduardo10/Archive for more background and CU confirmations. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: Thanks for the block and for supplementing m:srg#Global lock for socks of locked IvanRamonTrillos!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @AFBorchert and @Jeff G.. I found another sock Clgucjfsls (talk · contribs). They just uploaded File:Oscareduardo10 Logo.png. Can this file be protected against recriation? Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 20:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kacamata: This wouldn't help. The socks have used other filenames as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@AFBorchert I see. Thanks. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 23:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Sbshshib (talk · contribs), BX XBXBVDV (talk · contribs), and Clgucjfsls (talk · contribs) have been locked on 10:42, 1 January 2024. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kacamata: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

With LiveEdu (talk · contribs) another short-lived sock appeared which was indef'd by The Squirrel Conspiracy. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Marginataen

Marginataen (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Marginataen has uploaded a large number of images of people associated with a Danish political party. None of the ones I have looked at have metadata, although Marginataen claims to be the photographer in each case. It is possible that they travel around Denmark taking photos at party events, but if so, they should upload the original images with metadata to prove their authorship.

Some are clearly not there own work. For example, File:Peter Seier Christensen og Nigel Farage, 2018.jpg comes from Facebook, specifically here. Marginataen uploaded the original in April but recently uploaded a slightly cropped version without metadata.

The Marginataen account has been indef blocked on English and Danish Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. One of the sockpuppets, Zeitgeistu was recently involved in uploading AI "upscaled" images to Commons. It looks like the Marginataen account may have been doing the same thing, See File:Jevgenij Prigosjin, 2023.jpg. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It is correct that am I currently blocked on the English Wikipedia. I don't get what is wrong about experimenting with the possibilities of AI image enhancement. I'll comment some more tomorrow. Marginataen (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen Some of the concerns with "AI image enhancement" were discussed here after you uploaded an "AI enhanced" portrait of Adolph Hitler. There is nothing wrong with experimenting with such tools, but when you upload the results to Commons without identifying them as "AI enhanced", that may be a problem. Personally, I am more concerned about the possibility that your uploads are be copyright violations. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

In my view: "that may be a problem" => "that is a major problem". - Jmabel ! talk 01:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm real tired. Pls give me 48 hours to write a more through response where I'll commtent on File:Peter Seier Christensen og Nigel Farage, 2018.jpg and more. In the meantime, you might want to read this. Marginataen (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen: I suspect that was the wrong link. You linked Steinsplitterbot archiving a bunch of threads. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it was not. Scroll down to the discussion about "File:Lars Boje Mathiesen, 2023.jpg" Marginataen (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

(for anyone trying to follow this, this is a more useful link to the same content. - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen I am sorry to hear that you are tired. I am feeling a little tired today, myself.

Can you please explain how on 14 September 2023, you were able to upload a larger (less cropped) version of the File:Pernille Vermund - Ny Borgerlige.jpg image that Ulla Højgaard uploaded as their own work on 9 May 2019.

Can you also explain how you appear to be a photographer but are unable to provide the original images with metadata, even for very recent pictures? Thanks. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering their history of copyvios both here and on da.wiki (including a number of deleted files on this project spanning years), and their refusal to explain how they took these photos but don't have metadata, I have nominated all of their 'self' uploads for deletion here. Unless they're able to explain themselves, I'd also support an indef block on this project. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

First of all, many thanks to @Jmabel provide at better link .I will refer a lot of what I otherwise would have written here to that linked discussion as I really this is just a repetition of that one. As stated there, I regreabbly damaged by credibility by uploading files not belonging to me. When Marchjuly pointed this out to me, I began adapting. With regard to File:Vermund, juni 2018.jpg, I was just a less cropped/higher resolution version of an imaag by Ulla Højgaard. If you go to that file, I under "Source" explicitly wrote (in Danish), "I didn't create this file, but assume it's okay to publish, as it's just the uncropped version of a file already released under a free license on Commons (see link)". I got it from a now removed blog post by Pernille Vermund about Lars Løkke on party's website (https://app.apsis.one/invalid-link). There is no way in which I would be able to prove this but you can see here in a non-removed blog post where a similar image is used or here where she uses a cropped version of the image in a Facebook post. Again, I never claimed ownership or authorship over that picture. Marginataen (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen So Ulla Højgaard isn't another of your accounts? I notice that you seem to have accidentally linked to some kind of marketing company instead of the party website. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it is absolutely not another account of mine. I simply found a better version of the file she uploaded. I wrote that I assumed (Danish: antager) that is was ok because it was just a better version of that file. If that is not the case just delete it. If she uploaded the original file legitimately that has absolutely nothing to do with me. I explicitly write that I wasn't the author of that file. Marginataen (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen: I don't have any opinion as to whether you're using multiple accounts, but I don't think that the statement I was just a less cropped/higher resolution version of an imaag by Ulla Højgaard. If you go to that file, I under "Source" explicitly wrote (in Danish), "I didn't create this file, but assume it's okay to publish, as it's just the uncropped version of a file already released under a free license on Commons (see link)" is correct when it comes to Creative Commons licenses and Commons. My understanding is that the copyright holder has the right to release their work under a resolution of their choosing and of a size of their choosing; so, if a copyright holder releases a low-resolution crop of their work under a Creative Commons license that Commons accepts, then it's only OK to upload that file to Commons either at the same or a lower resolution and at the same or smaller size. I don't think it's OK to "un-crop" files and "re-resolution" files unless the license clearly allows it. In other words, it's not OK to upload a full-sized uncropped high resolution version of a cropped low resolution file unless the full-sized uncropped high resolution version has also been released under an acceptable free license by its copyright holder. I believe it's possible for a copyright holder to release a cropped low-resolution version of their work under one license (e.g. CC-by-sa-4.0), while at the same time releasing an uncropped higher resolution of the same work under a different license (e.g. CC-by-NC-ND) I think this is one of the reasons that Commons encourages those uploading their "own work" to upload uncropped full-sized high resolution versions of their work because then cropping or reducing the resolution of the work doesn't become an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense which using the word "assume" also kind of implies :) In that case, just delete the better version Marginataen (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Could we centralise the dicussion to either this threat or to here? Marginataen (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Ironplex

Ironplex (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is starting several DR as retaliation against Jeff G. Pure disruptive move. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 20:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yann Thanks. Can you close all the DRs? Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 20:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yann and Kacamata: Thanks! I closed the rest of the DRs. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ironplex. I am now convinced that Ironplex doesn't have the competence to participate here in a collegial manner.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 21:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Seeing the comments in the DR, I indef. that account and deleted all files. Not here to contribute constructively. Yann (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: Thanks again!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 21:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yann deleted one of his nonsense DRs, should an admin delete others too? A09 (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@A09: I don't' think that's necessary.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Commons as promotion by two accounts

user:Iranireza34 User:AmirRezaei2024 use commons as promotional page please delete all these uploads these uploads

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Some of these images are screenshots that might have some value and thus fit in COM:SCOPE. However, copyright permissions are necessary. I have tagged these files as "No permission". If no valid permission is sent to VRT in due time, the files will be deleted. Some files like this File:Amirreza Borzooei.jpg, File:امیررضا برزویی.jpg and File:امیررضا برزویی چقاگلانی.jpg are not out-of-scope (albeit they might be used for promotion elsewhere). These image have a valid metadata and would likely be useful. Images like File:Japan karate1 img.jpg seem to be quick copyright violation. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 08:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AmirRezaei2024 should be considered. There does appear a connection between the two accounts? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 09:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Given what I believe seeing contributions of both the accounts doing is their promoting Amirreza Borzooei. AmirRezaei2024 is the oldest account. The files uploaded include several as DR'ed on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AmirRezaei2024. File:Amirreza Borzooei.jpg uploaded by Iranireza34 and File:Amirreza,Borzooei.jpg uploaded by AmirRezaei2024, and both claim own work. Accounts are not too-active and I believe running a CU-check would be a waste of time. Behaviourally these accounts appear to be socks. I wouldn't in such a case trust the high resolution photos (with metadata) uploaded by Iranireza34 as original. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 09:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

AmirRezaei2024 (talk · contribs) has been warned and all uploads deleted. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

AmirRezaei2024 (talk · contribs) uploaded the first pictures in April 2021. Later, Iranireza34 (talk · contribs) became active in January/February 2022 with unsuccessful attempts to submit an article at en:wp (see this draft and this log). AmirRezaei2024 (talk · contribs) retried this in November 2023 and had still no success but Cclite (talk · contribs) created an article afterwards. I went through the uploads of Iranireza34 and found two images that were also published at Instagram, I've submitted them for speedy deletion. The remaining uploads are covered by this deletion request. Searches for permissions at VRT were not successful. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

User:1maneofficalmusic12

Hello, 1maneofficalmusic12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user makes his promotion on Commons by writing his biography, uploading a PDF version of it, uploading personal pictures, and by vandalising the page of File:Disambig grey.svg and User_talk:1maneofficalmusic12. Is it possible to make him understand he needs to stop? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as spammer. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

User:LukasG2005

Can an admin please take a look at LukasG2005 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user? The licensing of their uploads isn't only questionable, but their motives may be as well given that they tried to use File:Bill Gates with Epstein.webp as the main infobox image of en:Bill Gates, File:Man smoking.jpg as the main infobox image of en:Conor McGregor, and File:Daniel Larson.jpg as the main infobox image of en:Jack Shore. For reference, the account has already been blocked locally on English Wikipedia for vandalism because of the aforementioned edits and others like this; so, it seems highly unlikely they will be a net-positive to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I took all the photos LukasG2005 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

What’s the problem LukasG2005 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How, when and where did you take those pictures? And how did they end up in major media outlets? Kritzolina (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Last warning sent. Yann (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• @LukasG2005: Making a screenshot of someone else's video on TikTok or Instagram does not make you the author and does not give you authority to grant license to the media. See COM:DW. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Kannansivaram

Kannansivaram (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is already warned for copyvio and the user continues to upload same type of image and the contribution seems COM:HOST and COM:ADVERT. I just report here for admin intervention. ~AntanO4task (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, copyvios deleted. Some of your deletion requests are {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thearmanevrahim

Hello, The user Thearmanevrahim uploaded a bunch of pictures. It is not the first time. Would it be possible to make him understand it is not ok, please? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

User:SchroCat

Abusive behavior in Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Dee's -Eyes Only- signature.svg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that I duly informed them about this thread and they reverted the edit with additional abuse. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that part of the problem is that there are some policies that can be claimed to contradict COM:INUSE and COM:NPOV, so if we want to avoid having needless discussions from people vociferously and sometimes insultingly arguing that Commons should debate and delete files used in one or even numerous articles on other wikis, we have to make sure it's unambiguously clear that such deletion requests will never be considered here. I'm not up to starting that thread now, but it needs to be started on the appropriate policy page(s), and we will need to overcome our inertia and actually make the needed changes. Otherwise, this kind of crap will recur any time anyone points out why we don't even consider whether a file in use has incorrect content. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)

The substance of the discussion is fine, but Pinging @SchroCat: "Don't patronise me, sunshine" and "you are stepping away, which is a delight" are totally out of line. - 20:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Meh. If someone wants to be passive aggressive with “What an irritating comment!" and then being patronising, I’ll pull them up on it. Passive aggressive nonsense is out of line, and it really was a delight when someone acting that unpleasantly decided to step away. I’m out: have fun bad mouthing me in my absence.- SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Aggressive aggressive nonsense is also out of line. Blocking for a month. (If the user is also out of here voluntarily, fine.) - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)