Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

This page is semi-protected against editing.
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcut: COM:AN

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

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

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


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


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


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

Archives
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 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
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
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Note

  • 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|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


A.Savin (de-adminship)

Per Special:Permalink/987304932 at out of process Commons:Administrators/Requests/A.Savin (de-adminship): "Per this discussion. Commons has become a toxic forum, largely due to A.Savin's arbitrary and problematic behavior. For years, his actions and provocative attitudes have seriously damaged the environment and driven away good contributors, myself included. I barely participate here because of these constant tensions. I hope Commons will one day regain its original purpose and become a fairer place, but that can only begin by revoking A.Savin's privileges. I would like to ping users who participated in a previous discussion @1989, GPSLeo, Christian Ferrer, Charlesjsharp, Ghilt, and Barkeep49: -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfredor (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)". We need consensus first.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support This right here is completely unacceptable. Along with the other issues with this user, he is clearly not acquit to be an administrator. 1989 (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per above A.Savin has since long time the little word, the little verbal jab, the behavior, ect... to be unpleasant towards anyone (experienced users, administrators, ect..). Create a safe environement for every one need a minimum standing at administrator behavior level, this is not a punishment, but a clear lack of A.Savin at this level. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comments are not always friendly, particularly as a reaction to an unfriendly comment a response might be unfriendly too. At least they are genuine and not ChatGPT-generated like those by Wilfredor. And unlike Wilfredor, I never insulted someone xenophobic and narcissist --A.Savin 12:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that I may have done something wrong in your view does not justify calling me "hopeless," "coward," or comparing me to Vladimir Putin (a clear example of the tu quoque fallacy). This behavior has been directed solely at me, not to mention the treatment of other users. I would have appreciated an apology from you, but your refusal to acknowledge these actions leaves me no choice but to vote in favor of the continuation of this process. Wilfredor (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I think we need the vote on this to end the discussion. But I totally dislike the process we came here and how the initiators of the process behave. I am also not sure if however the outcome of the vote will be that this would solve the problem behind. I think we need a discussion on our conduct policies as suggested by the U4C and decide on sanctions after we have our policies improved.
GPSLeo (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I feel too. I don't think having A.Savin desysopped would solve anything. Wilfredor cites a toxic ambience but I don't feel that in general on Commons. Bedivere (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question What the initial reason(s) to start this in the first place? All links given in m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/A.Savin are either old or not really convincing to me, but I may have missed something. Yann (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yann: For recent conduct, one just needs to look at Special:Diff/987717785.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly it doesn't help A.Savin's cause but I don't find it gross or disrespectful enough to justify his deadminship Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly. Not very friendly, but not a reason to start a de-adminship discussion. It would be much better for Commons is everything step back for a day, go fishing or hiking, instead of starting a process I see as revengeful. Please do not start digging out old bones to prove that someone did something bad in the past. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We’ve known each other for quite some time, and while I don’t share your opinion, I want you to know that I respect you. This process is not being initiated out of any spirit of revenge but rather to address a chronic and ongoing pattern of mistreatment—not just toward me but also toward other users. I only decided to open this process after the case against 1989 was initiated, not after the most recent attack from A. Savin toward me, which, honestly, I chose to overlook entirely at the time. However, the situation has now become unbearable. I understand you have a special fondness for A. Savin, as do I, but this is not a complaint against him as a person—it is about his actions and repeated instances of disrespect Wilfredor (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't have "a special fondness for A. Savin". This is quite nonsense. Yann (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and also I wrote "as do I," referring to the time we shared on FPC and not some kind of additional special treatment. The real nonsense here is the idea that I have some kind of revenge in this process. Wilfredor (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wilfredor: As mentioned by A. Savin here, you are very far from being irreproachable. Did you apologize for this? Anyway, you should keep a low profile, otherwise this may very well turn against you. Yann (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that have to do with A.Savin? That comment has nothing to do with him. And if it has to do with him, which is not true, does that justify A. Savin's degrading behavior? Wilfredor (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Unfortunately, this is not just about A. Savin; it appears to be a systemic issue involving certain individuals on Commons. It is unacceptable for someone with certain privileges to misuse their authority to mistreat or undermine others. Even if some want to frame this as a personal issue between me and A. Savin, this problem has affected other regular users as well, especially those without administrative privileges. --Wilfredor (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is not about A. Savin, why do we discuss about A. Savin? And, per Yann, where is the evidence? Krd 16:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I told, Its not JUST, please let us focus on the case, the evidence was meticulously collected by 1989, whom I would like to thank for taking the time to do this. [1], Also in this same complaint, their behavior of diverting attention towards me with out-of-context and unrelated topics demonstrates a continuation of the same behavior being reported. This leads me to seriously question their ability to recognize the harm their attitude is causing to the community. Wilfredor (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am only posting here because I was pinged. I have recently been blocked and warned about a possible indefinite Commmons ban, so I am too afraid to say anything. Sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Charles. We fully understand your position, and I'm truly sorry you had to go through all of this. If you feel that your sense of security within the project is compromised, there's no need for you to continue commenting here. Your well-being and peace of mind are what matter most. Wilfredor (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment A.Savin is certainly not anything like the friendliest or most polite admin here, but that alone does not seem like a reason for de-adminship. If someone is going to make a case here that would at all convince me, they are going to have to show something like repeated abuse of admin capabilities. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested in convincing anyone, especially any administrator, as this is not about my ability to persuade. The evidence has been clear since 1989. What matters here is stopping the repeated abuse by making use of the administrator's functions, which the user seems to fail to acknowledge. Wilfredor (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment to the closing bureaucrat, the Commons:Administrators/De-adminship policy says there only needs to be some consensus for a request, and I think that relatively low threshold has been met. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't another request be filed? At the time of the filing of the original one there was no discussion. Bedivere (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"some consensus" obviously is more than the consensus within a small group of plaintiffs. I currently don't see consensus, this is boiling up an old personal conflict without new evidence. COM:POINT. Krd 07:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Krd on this one. Wilfredor is doing most of the talking and there aren't any biters that weren't already involved. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 22:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose AFAICT, this looks like a personal dispute (or worse revenge). No evidence of admin tools abuse was shown so far, so I don't see any reason to start a de-adminiship. Yann (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you insinuating that this is a group of users seeking revenge? I fail to see any so-called revenge in their actions. An administrator should be a representative of the community, serving and supporting it, not threatening or disrespecting its members. Even if they haven’t misused their administrative tools, their lack of respect toward the very community that entrusted them with this role is reason enough to reconsider their position Wilfredor (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not reply under every comment with the same statement you already made. GPSLeo (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem, from your point of view, is not that I allegedly trolled someone, but more the fact that I happen to be an admin? Right? Because otherwise you would be contradicting yourself -- you are persistently advocating Charlesjsharp, who really trolled someone and was blocked for that, but isn't an admin. --A.Savin 01:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This looks very much like a revenge action. A.Savin is one of our best admins. I trust A.Savin, and I have good reasons for that. I do not trust Wilfredor, and I have good reasons for that. Punishing or (even worse) banning A.Savin would rob Commons of one of its best admins. – Aristeas (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I also trust A. Savin. I cannot see enough evidence for either harrassment or abuse of admin tools. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I haven't found A.Savin's action to be abusing or justifying a desysopping. I tried to understand, however, the feud between A.Savin and 1989. And this goes back, at least, to 1989's request for adminship in 2019, which was successful, but with the opposition of A.Savin. It would be A.Savin himself who would request 1989's desysopping back in 2020, which resulted in 1989 resigning. All I can say is that everyone should cool off and deescalate this situation instead of making things worse. We all can understand you are not going to be friends or buddies. You should just stay away from each other's feet and that would make Commons "less toxic" as Wilfredor desperately claims (I don't think Commons is particularly toxic, but some areas such as FPC, if not intervened, are on their way to make Commons one toxic dump). Bedivere (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Wilfredor is a bit behind the curve and stuck in the past. He has a lot of things to say about FPC, even though he is no longer active there. FPC is much better now that some of the worst agitators and disrupters have been dealt with. It doesn't serve the project to linger on old grievances. Today there are instead users hell-bent on being welcoming to new participants and re-building FPC into a positive page. But this will all be for nothing if old combatants can't let go of each other.
    Also I strongly  Oppose oppose this (yet again!) attempt to "have a go" at A.Savin. I've left my opinion on the UCoC discussion if anybody is interested. Cart (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose From personal experience[2] [3], I can attest that A.Savin is one of the best administrators on Wikimedia Commons. They have been fair and reasonable in every aspect, and I oppose any move to remove their adminship.
RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral on deadminship at this time, but I would  Agree with an IBAN between A.Savin and 1989. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 19:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment This entry, re-requested by Jeff, has nothing to do with any kind of revenge against A. Savin, as I have clarified multiple times. In fact, I was not the one who suggested it; there are users who are afraid to do what I am doing. I remember that several years ago, I had a public conversation with Jimmy Wales in which he described Commons as a "toxic community." At the time, I defended it, and the community supported me. However, today I am forced to agree with his perspective: the level of tolerance for disrespect has reached an alarming point, and this is not just about A. Savin. It is unacceptable for an administrator to treat other users in such a manner, nor was the blocking of Charles or the way Adam's block was handled appropriate, among others. Perhaps those who support these actions believe they are gaining something, but the truth is, I have not seen anyone apologize for these actions or demand respect. When such behaviors are allowed, there are no winners: we all lose. For now, I will continue to avoid any communication with A. Savin. I am not doing so out of cowardice, as he suggested, but because my objective here is clear: to contribute quality photos for Wikipedia, and nothing more. There was a time when we were a more united community, but recent events involving Arion, Charles, Adam, myself, and other users leave me with no choice but to step back. I have no doubt that sooner or later, someone will come up with any excuse to block me. But until that happens, I will continue to fulfill my role. --Wilfredor (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already been told you don't have to respond every single comment in this thread Bedivere (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not answering to anyone Wilfredor (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also support an IBAN between A. Savin and 1989, if both parties consent to it. Abzeronow (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Mostly as nomination. I've found A Savin, for as long as I've been aware of them, to be a far from impartial admin with too much of an inclination to personal biases. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Sad
  1. About the procedure: At the beginning of the report, when the notification was sent to A.Savin, you can verify there was no "2025" section. I would then retrospectively agree with A.Savin's feeling of "harassment". At least it is a legitimate "feeling" that may be listened (and not automatically sentenced), as part of this process, since this section claims to solve the problems of "harassment", precisely. Oddly enough, the "2025" section actually came later, by 1989: "f.y.i have not spoken to this dude in years". "Dude"?! See Policy:Universal Code of Conduct#3.1 – Harassment Trolling: Deliberately disrupting conversations or posting in bad-faith to intentionally provoke.
  2. Another accusation from "2025" that also came later is the use of the words "snitching" and "utter nonsense" by A.Savin, as if the other part had no right to share their own point of view and by the way in this text we learn that 1989 wrote "fuck off" to A.Savin. Between "fuck off" and "harassment", let me guess what is most appropriate as part of a "Code of Conduct"?
  3. We can also see that the first reproach in this long list is "On December 2024, he compares another users comments to Vladimir Putin". But read also Wilfredor's political (re)view on "Putler" (= Hitler + Putin) at COM:FPC: "Supporting that image is defending justice and freedom." In the same thread, A.Savin was right to notify us "Such a heated political discussion but no one notices possible copyright problems?". Indeed, the file was deleted.
  4. There were / are mistakes in the dates and facts in this report, a few bugs, and it looks like a collection of "bad gestures" or borderline cases. I find this one added by 1989 quite spectacular. Look at the links (example of fair revert by A.Savin indeed "Ponds in Pakistan" shouldn't been included in "Category:Waterfalls in Pakistan") and read the following discussions: COM:ANU#User:1989 and 1989 (desysop). Was the consensus wrong? I don't think so. Then, why is it a problem in 2025? A.Savin was right to revert, 1989 made a mistake by blocking A.Savin, and 1989's desysop was deserved. You don't block an admin like that, when you've been in function just for 1 year, and because the answer to your question doesn't satisfy you.
  5. Completely agree with Yann's point of view, above: "AFAICT, this looks like a personal dispute (or worse revenge)". And it is also my personal feeling regarding this opportunistic and unsuccessful request. I also agree with all others who find Wilfredor's action(s) extrememly problematic. Here I share most of Aristeas's views. I also share W.carter's opinion: "FPC is much better now that some of the worst agitators and disrupters have been dealt with. It doesn't serve the project to linger on old grievances."
  6. Please save us the next step. We don't need "A.Savin's de-adminship" based on these old, weird and complex elements. We need this user to improve maybe, and continue learning peacefully. We need the administrators here (not just A.Savin, especially the others) to do more useful tasks. Happy new year to everyone. -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I respond only to the point where I was mentioned (point 3). I will never support any authoritarian regime, regardless of its ideology, be it left, right or otherwise. These are two completely different conversations and, although I understand your effort to link them, I am concerned that you are trying to justify a direct disrespect towards me with something completely unrelated. I come from Venezuela, a country devastated by an authoritarian regime and, in particular, by the influence of Vladimir Putin's regime, which has openly supported that dictatorship. I have lost relatives, families have been separated, food shortages have caused the deaths of many, and millions have had to flee. Because of all this, I find it unacceptable to be compared to Vladimir Putin, and your argument besides wrong, if not completely disconnected from the topic. BTW, Since there has been no apology from A.Savin, I also request an IBAN between the two of you. Thanks. Translated with DeepL.com Wilfredor (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you place so much value on apologies, why don't you go ahead with a good example and apologize to Basile Morin for "xenophobic, narcissist, Anti-Brazilian" etc.? --A.Savin 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @A.Savin: , Wilfredor apologized in March 2024, but then made the same mistake in December. Not to mention "sick mind". -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the info. That's indeed very shameful. --A.Savin 22:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Extremely shameful, yes, because this comment is pure defamation. Deliberate libel. Isn't a user like that likely to be harmful to the project? Wilfredor is "looking for psychological help", ("I am not well psychologically"). But inventing such plots is very damaging. And it is not the first time that Wilfredor imagines completely absurd scenarios that harm other users. -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the event that I have made mistakes in the past, and I'm sure you will find many in my thousands of comments here that have nothing to do with A. Savin, it does not transform A. Savin's mistreatment and disrespect towards me and other users into something good. Wilfredor (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, let's put things in context, and according to their chronology. Here A.Savin's response likely was a shock reaction to hear from Wilfredor "there's a clear intention to create a toxic environment, almost like a witch's den". Surely many of us have made a connection with Wilfredor's previous "witch hunt" allegation: "This was no less than a witch hunt, driven by a narcissistic, xenophobic, anti-Brazilian user" [...] "A sick mind".... Excuse-me, but I understand A.Savin's frustration. The words were poorly chosen, however we should not take readers for fools either. 1) Proof that ArionStar was blocked for very fair reasons, after this sanction the disrupter continued by creating sockpuppets. 👺 "Witch hunt"?, 2) There is no intention on the part of the FPC participants to "create a toxic environment", just Wilfredor's fake images had to be delisted (or withdrawn) because they were wrong FPs (1, 2, 3, 4... and more). My subjective interpretation is that this shift may have caused a certain resentment inside. 3) When a clear warning "please stop" (April 2024, link above) is legitimate, accepted, and completed, there should be no need for Frank Schulenburg to send another (legitimate) one in October. It's infuriating, yes. Following these repeated slip-ups, Wilfredor took the decision to take "an indefinite FPC break", now please don't come claiming: there are toxic users who kicked me out. On the contrary, Wilfredor was abundantly supported and cared for in this specific context. This exit is the simple consequence of their own harmful actions. 4) Yes, everyone makes mistakes, of course, and being able to apologize is a virtue. But if an apology only serves to start over, it is a sign that there is a real, deep-rooted problem. When an apology is sincere, it should normally be accompanied by a real change in behavior. But when you read the history of events, and the repetitions, you understand that these feelings are not genuine (or not sustainable). There were also some pretty vicious tricks with this user on the FPC talk page. Bad tricks have consequences. 5) By repeating lies, it ends up affecting the other participants. "Xenophobic"? I have lived for 17 years with a person of a different skin color than mine, from another culture, another country, another religion, and I myself live on a different continent than the one where I was born. Why accuse me of xenophobia when I embody the complete opposite? 💡 I even congratulate and encourage a Brazilian user here. It tarnishes my reputation on this other page, and the damage is irreparable. Anyone reading the discussion could now have the impression that Wilfredor is a lone hero denouncing a conspiracy, when it is nonsense. Anyone can have doubts, reservations, and use these false speculations for the purpose of targeted harm. This is an extremely serious event, much more serious than insults. 6) There is no "sick mind" behind the discovery (for example) that "Satan / Santa" is an anagram (like "Evangelist / Evil's agent", "Listen / Silent", "The eyes / They see", etc.) It's just a coincidence. Please come back down to earth and stop attributing bad intentions where there is only poetry or entertainment. 7) At the top of this page, Wilfredor begins: "Commons has become a toxic forum, largely due to A.Savin's arbitrary and problematic behavior". See The Mote and the Beam. When you look at where the hostility started and what form it took, you understand quite well who the main actor is. Like others, I also don't think Commons is a "toxic platform". But there are certainly people in difficulty, even in great distress, who contribute to it. And it is essential to protect oneself. Here, I think above all that Wilfredor was not in a sufficiently stable situation to engage in such conflictual terrain. A bad opportunity was taken, in my opinion, a sad move. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this discussion revolves around A.Savin, and as I mentioned before, no action of mine, nor those of 1989, Charles, or Arion, justifies mistreating users. I didn’t want the topic to be derailed because I believe it is a separate issue. But I want to speak with an open heart. At the time, I felt hurt and frustrated by the way my modifications in FPC were debated—I believe it was excessive.[4] It wasn’t just the criticism itself, but the feeling that, despite having acknowledged that I didn’t act in the best way, I was treated as if I had tried to deceive the community, something that never crossed my mind. I always tried to be transparent about my changes, but I recognize that it wasn’t enough, and perhaps I didn’t express it in the best way. I know I mentioned that I would apologize privately, but I prefer to do it here, openly, following A.Savin’s recommendation and considering that he has also done so in his own way. If at any point my words hurt you, if I gave the impression of attacking or belittling you, I sincerely apologize. It was never my intention to create conflict or resentment. I see the effort and time that each person invests in FPC—especially you—and even though we’ve had our differences, I know we all share the same goal: to make this a better space. That is why I decided a while ago to step away. Not because I don’t care, but precisely because I want FPC to work better. I feel that my presence no longer contributes to that purpose, and I prefer to step aside rather than continue fueling unnecessary tensions. That being said, I cannot ignore that the atmosphere in FPC has changed, and not necessarily for the better. The departure of critical voices has given the impression of greater harmony, but I wonder if it’s simply because there are now fewer opposing votes in the nominations—votes that actually help improve the technical level. Carter once spoke about the excessive number of men and testosterone involved; perhaps female participation should be encouraged as well, though I don’t know how and maybe there is some alternate reality where these problems never happened.. IMHO, yes it's a technical section, it feels like a pursuit of personal recognition. I don’t say this with resentment, but with sadness, because, we are all here for the same reason, the love of photography. Wilfredor (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is not only one, but two points above, where Wilfredor is mentioned (point 3 and point 5). About point 5, Wilfredor must face the consequences of their own actions. We are humans, sometimes compassionate, sometimes forgiving, but sometimes also exasperated (for good reasons), and you should understand that. Kind regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I've just eaten an hour of my time at work sitting here trying to catch up on what's been going on. Can Commons be toxic? No doubt about it. I'm simply amazed that after moving into passive involvement between 2010 and 2024, when I got my admin bit back, that things had not gotten any better in 15 years. And then I immediately run headfirst into a wheel war with another admin. 🤷

What we have here are people overworked and underpaid (ha-ha!) because there are too few admins around and too few file reviewers and too few active editors and way too many users uploading files who have no connection with the community. And you get into our little areas and then someone comes along and does something that you weren't expecting and makes your work even harder, and things are already so tense, it gets really easy for neurodivergent people (let's admit it, most of are) to let our emotions get out of control and say or do something stupid. And some people have less of a filter than others.

A. Savin should absolutely be accountable for his behavior and at the very least apologize for it. But taking away his admin role seems overly punitive and is not going to make Commons any better. I wish there was a way to do it like a block, take away his admin privileges for 30 days and then he gets them back. But that's not an option.

@Wilfredor, my friend, please don't armchair diagnose people around here. Again, we are a lot of neurodivergent people and many of us already see therapists and don't need that kind of insult added on. I hope you find it in your heart to apologize to Basile Morin for that. I know you in real life and think you're a great person. And that's something a great person would do.

I'm saying this even admitting I'm no better than anyone else but I do try to take my own advice. When I use words or act in ways that hurt someone else—and that can be propagating an argument for an extended length of time—I apologize and try to do something to make up for it.

Commons can be a toxic community but each of us has to do our part to remember we do exist in a community and have similar goals (in general) and there are better ways to handle disagrements. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if any of this sounds condescending, I'm sorry about that. In real life I'm a 58 year old pastor who thinks they know a few things about getting along with others. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Pastor, for your words. Truly, there are things that only God can change when we choose to place His will above our own. I am a Christian, I believe in God, but I know that this doesn’t make me better than others. God's grace calls us all, and it is in Him that we find true transformation. Wilfredor (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve just realized very well where you’re coming from. It’s difficult to balance all the work and responsibilities, especially when there’s a shortage of admins and active contributors, perhaps because of how confusing and bureaucratic everything has become. The frustrations really pile up, and it’s easy for emotions to get out of hand when things feel overwhelming, which is why I decided to step back from FPC—it was causing me a lot of stress. I agree, there are definitely aspects of Commons that can feel toxic (as Jimmy mentioned a few years ago), and it’s a problem when people feel completely disconnected from the community. As for A. Savin, I believe accountability is important, but I also agree that permanently removing admin privileges might not be the best solution. An apology would have been enough, but the user seems not to understand. A temporary suspension could allow for reflection and growth without causing too much harm to the community in the long term. I also really appreciate you pointing out the issue with armchair diagnosing. I now see that my comment was inappropriate, and I sincerely apologize if I hurt anyone. Then, privately, I’ll reach out to Basile and make sure to offer a sincere apology. You’re right; we all need to be more mindful of how we interact and try to make Commons a better place for everyone. Thanks to Basile for your patience in collecting all that evidence, and you Cari for your interest in making things work better, and your understanding. Wilfredor (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the comparison with Putin's friends, as this really was a completely unnecessary taunt and in general political comparisons should be avoided in user interaction on Wikimedia projects.
My opinion on your past (problematic) actions remains the same of course. --A.Savin 07:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my behavior, I have already taken specific actions such as stopping participating in FPC indefinitely, if you have any other more appropriate solution, I am open to discuss it. I accept your apologies, I hope you can improve your treatment of other users as well. We come from sometimes different cultures where bad treatment in one is completely unacceptable in another. Wilfredor (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe there is a some sort of underpinning on deleting uploads of socks of globally banned users. I have said to User:MGA73 in the past that I have ambivalent feelings about that as I'd rather see that evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than massively deleting in such cases. (Edit: User:Abzeronow/Archive3#Notice_about undeletion request is where I discussed that.) Abzeronow (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we should not base our decisions solely on the user's status, but rather on the value and validity of the content itself. If the files are educational, properly licensed, and meet the requirements, they should be kept regardless of who uploaded them. Deleting useful content simply because a user is blocked goes against the purpose of Wikimedia Commons, which is to preserve and share valuable media. I agree that each case should be evaluated individually, without allowing sanction policies to interfere with the preservation of important content for the community. To provide more context to this situation, could you indicate which user uploaded this image and what it contained? Perhaps there was a reason for its deletion. --Wilfredor (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As A. Savin says, it was uploaded by a sock of Messina. The photograph is of a building with bare trees in front of it and showing part of a street and sidewalk where cars are parked. Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether the edit is vandalism or not, as a user directly blocked by WMF, do we automatically have the Foundation's support to revert all of their contributions? Wilfredor (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wilfredor: I can imagine no circumstance where WMF would require us to keep any content added by a banned user. I can imagine only cases where (1) they would specifically want the content removed or (2, more commonly) they wouldn't care which we did. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see anything written about reversing non-vandalistic or non-copyrighted contributions from blocked users. I support the position of simply blocking the new sock, but whether the content is valid or not is another matter and should not be related to the block. If that were the case, then all the contributions from the user would have to be reverted. Wilfredor (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wilfredor: From meta:WMF Global Ban Policy#Implications of a global ban (which A.Savin linked immediately below roughly 20 hours ago): "Any contributions made by a banned individual, directly or indirectly, may be reverted or removed as part of ban implementation." Now can we move on? - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
meta:WMF Global Ban Policy#Implications of a global ban --A.Savin 09:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I had been neutral here up to now, because I've had my own issues with A.Savin's approach to adminship, but Wilfredor's continual posting here—over 20 separate posts so far, including several lambasting A.Savin's completely appropriate removal of content added by a banned user—leave me feeling like this is something other than an effort to reach a fair result over specific grievances. Plus, for all of the amount Wilfredor has posted here, the one time I asked for specifics, he provided nothing but a dismissal. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Jambel has said above, therefore I also  Oppose. Bidgee (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the bureaucratic handling a waste of everyone's time.
When multiple users express similar concerns, that's prima facie evidence for the case and it should be submitted to a vote by the entire community asap.
Not this https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=987580991 bureaucracy and then a discussion here among a select group of users. Removal of sysop concerns the entire community. Why should this discussion take place here, "a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another"? Where is the input from other users?
Either the vote should happen, or this pre-vote discussion should take place on com:vp, or a watchlist notice should be made to invite all users to this discussion.
When there is doubtful behaviour problem, there should be a vote.
Whether that doubtful behaviour should result in removal of sysop, should be decided by the community, not like here.
Here should only decide whether there is behaviour problem, and consensus is clear that there is. RoyZuo (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And why this is a waste of time, and why a quick vote would save time for everyone:
look at Commons:Administrators/Requests/A.Savin (de-adminship), even if both sides were given 7 days to prepare their side of the arguments, the vote could start on 1 feb and the entire case be concluded on 7 feb. and we would know clearly whether the sysop still enjoys community confidence.
the alternative, here, today is 12 feb. and the confidence the sysop commands is still questionable. RoyZuo (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Interaction Bans

Since Wilfredor has requested an IBAN between them and A. Savin, and someone else made a suggestion of an IBAN between A. Savin and 1989, a new subsection discussing IBANs seems appropriate to me. Abzeronow (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should any admin be having IBANs imposed upon them? Such a need would seem like a warning that maybe they ought not to have that role. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see it rather as a compromise from both sides, rather than an imposition. Bedivere (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that A.Savin is without fault, but the longer this thread goes on, the more convinced I'm becoming that Wilfredor is the primary problem here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: I'm an admin, and there are probably about half a dozen users here with whom I've basically informally put myself under a one-way interaction ban, where I don't interact with them unless they directly address me. Why? In general, because I don't like them. None of them are people who've done something so bad I think they should be blocked, but all of them are people where interacting with them makes my day a little worse, and would probably not make anything better. - Jmabel ! talk 04:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you didn't need to have that imposed upon you, implying that you have the judgement to not need it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: } and no one is imposing this on A.Savin. There is little or no chance of A.Savin being blocked here, whether he agrees to this condition or not. People are just suggesting that maybe he's not the best one to engage with this particular user. - Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, my last interaction with 1989 before they recently initiated (out of the blue) a U4C complaint against me, was a contra and comment in their further RfA nomination as of January 2024. --A.Savin 07:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore 2025 in Ukraine: Request for MassMessage

Hi! Quick request from organizers of the Ukrainian edition of Wiki Loves Folklore 2025 – we'd like to invite participants of previous Ukrainian photo contests to join this one:

AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. --Ratekreel (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

emergency@wikimedia.org

It's been several weeks now and i've never gotten a response back. The image is long gone so i dont know how much it really matters Trade (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade In general, emergency@ will acknowledge when they receive an email, but not when they take action or if they have to move the report to some other process. Unfortunately, some emails have been getting caught by the spam filter and may not be handled as quickly. Using Special:EmailUser/Emergency is usually more reliable than emailing directly. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as i can tell the user i reported is still allowed to upload images which makes me unconfortable. How do i move forward from here? Do i just use Special:EmailUser/Emergency to complain? Trade (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Emergency does not exist. --A.Savin 04:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait what does it even do Trade (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That works on enwiki. It doesn't look like the user is attached on commons. DMacks (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, looks like Commons isn't as important as Wikipeia for WMF. --A.Savin 06:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, it seems to be only attached on .wikipedia.org wikis - not Commons, nor other projects like Wikibooks and Wikisource. That's very odd. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly because Commons had a user named Emergency at one time, so when the WMF created the global User:Emergency, Commons never got connected up to the rest of them? Is there someone we can alert about this? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt Emergency supposed for threats of harm? Trade (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, yes. There is also ca@wikimedia.org for more general T&S stuff. But, in general, the sorts of images that Trade appears to be alluding to should be reported to legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead of emergency@wikimedia.org. Or at least so says this page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesnt tell me why the user is still allowed to upload photographs. Kinda defeats the purpose Trade (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it okay with you if i email you the user i think shouldnt be able to upload anymore after what he uploaded? Trade (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, dropping by to confirm that we have now attached a few more projects. I am planning to attach all the projects eventually. Does anyone know if there is a way to attach all projects without visiting them individually? :) As for the emergency process- once we get the report, we acknowledge, review per agreed protocol with law enforcement, escalate where appropriate to our law enforcement liaison (usually FBI, in some cases we directly reach out to the affected user), they review and escalate to country Interpol liaison where appropriate. We do not generally send follow ups to the reporter after the initial acknowledgement unless we need more information. It is generally because to keep this workflow absolutely focused on immediate threats of harms with our limited resources and at the same time, not to discourage others from future reporting. Sometimes reports don't require escalation, but we very much like to avoid discouraging reporters from submitting future reports thinking their concerns are being disregarded. Hope this makes sense. Thank you. NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Does anyone know if there is a way to attach all projects without visiting them individually?"
One way to do that is become a filemover on commons, move a file that's in use on a lot of projects, then the gadget will try to edit all the projects in the background. in the process the account will visit a lot of projects and "get attached" in those projects.
Guess there might be methods analogous to this to make an account visit all projects. RoyZuo (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if there is a way to attach all projects without visiting them individually?

m:User:Krinkle/Tools/Global SUL should do the trick :) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A smart kitten: Thanks, that worked! Meow.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NahidSultan (WMF) "We do not generally send follow ups to the reporter after the initial acknowledgement unless we need more information." That should probably be a note in the template that is used for this initial acknowledgement. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea. Let me tweak that language on our template. Thanks. NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader with many excellent contributions asking for a deletion

Please see File:Sonic Milf, Ministère de la Paix, Soisy-sous-Montmorency, France (01-11-2024) · © Danilo Samà.jpg. I declined a rename request on the file ("Tobedeletedplease.jpg") by the uploader and hoping an Admin can step in and help them out with the speedy delete request. Thank you. // sikander { talk } 🦖 01:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sikander The request is more than 7 days since the file was uploaded, so it's not eligible for COM:CSD#G7 unfortunately. They've already opened a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sonic Milf, Ministère de la Paix, Soisy-sous-Montmorency, France (01-11-2024) · © Danilo Samà.jpg, so it should be deleted in a few days if there are no objections. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK. Sounds good, thank you. // sikander { talk } 🦖 01:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. // sikander { talk } 🦖 14:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

User has been here for years, seems to exclusively want to upload copyvios, and also copy fraud claim own works

Captain Wingy (talk · contribs). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done All uploads deleted, final warning left. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Earth in Ukraine: Request for MassMessage

Hello! I have a request from the organizing team of Wiki Loves Earth in Ukraine. We'd like to send an invitations about our new campaign of illustrating to those who participated in previous-year editions of WLE in Ukraine.

Here's text of the message, and here's the list of receivers. Thanks! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at this. Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA): , I do not think I can send a mass message without a subject (with a blank subject). Is it ok if I take «Вікі любить Землю» 2025: долучайтесь до Місячника ілюстрування української природи та отримуйте призи! as a subject and remove it from the message page? Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. Thank you! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sent it to the queue, I hope it will be processed reasonably soon. Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It still has not been delivered to the pages. Apparently, smith went wrong, but I do. It see what, this is the first time I am having this issue while sending a mass message. Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Can some admin kindly delete Campaign:Heritage Lens - Iteration 4. Thanks and regards, Aafi (DCW) (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2025

FYI. -- CptViraj (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr image harvesting Part Deux

NOTE: Moving this back to where I originally started the first thread. I mistakenly re-opened it under the User board. My apologies Picard's Facepalm (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to an obscenely short inactivity timeout on this board resulting in a premature archiving of the discussion, along with absolutely zero administrative input, and thusly no final position or resolution being determined or stated - I am hereby re-raising the issue of users conducting indiscriminate, mass imports of everything under the sun (of free license) from Flickr, without any apparent rhyme or reason.
This is being done against entire Flickr collections and libraries at a time, frequently involving dozens if not hundreds of photos of the same person, place, object or event without any notable differences, lacking in encyclopedic value, not being used or otherwise attributed in wikispace, and in general seeming to be a waste of resources - both of the project as well as those who participate in it, as much of it then gets run through the deletion request process after the fact. For just one user this has resulted in over 4 million uploads - many of which have since been run through the deletion request process.
As another contributor said in the unconcluded discussion - pulling files into Commons just because they're available creates unnecessary busywork for Commons users who end up having to sort through it, attempt to categorize it, and tag it for deletion if it's not useful or inappropriate. I again must also raise question if this is within scope of the project. COM:SCOPE doesn't seem to reveal that it is, but at the same time also doesn't state that it isn't.
Some clarity here is desired as to if this is acceptable & normal, and some consideration of the best intended utilization of Commons. Somehow being a mirror of all things freely licensable at Flickr (and elsewhere) doesn't seem to be it. The fact that so many have been deleted afterwards seems to support that position. That is for just one user. I can only imagine what this will yield if I continue to follow it down the rabbit hole.
Please see the aforementioned, archived discussion for more detailed information & points from those who have participated thusfar, as they should be taken into consideration for furthering the discussion here. Thanks. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, indiscriminate uploading of third-party material is not terribly useful. Even rather discriminate mass uploading is going to result in some deletions: Commons standards about copyrights are unusually, perhaps uniquely, rigorous, and if you are uploading, say, 8000 files at a time from almost any other source, some will not meet our standards. For example, U.S. federal government photos, almost all of them welcome on Commons, are going to include some unacceptable derivative works, such as a photo of a copyrighted sculpture in a National Park. I would say that unless the percentage of copyright violations is higher than the average for Commons in general, that's acceptable. Similar remarks apply to scope: an excellent collection of photos from a museum, mainly of public-domain artwork, might include a relatively small number of near-random photos of people visiting the museum. Similar remarks also apply to duplicates.
It's almost impossible to make a rule that determines in advance what mass uploading is acceptable and what isn't: ex post facto we can say, "were a lot of these deleted?" but there isn't much use to saying, "Don't make a mass upload a lot of which will just get deleted." People should assay a collection before uploading it, but I don't see how to legislate good judgement. I've seen users admonished and even blocked for repeated bad judgement in this respect, but I don't really see any way to improve this with any rules and policies that we don't already have. - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not necessarily referring to copyright/deriv works... I understand how that goes. But moreso the intended purpose of Commons. If it is not to be a mirror, then yes - reviewing prior to scraping an entire library is a far more efficient use of people's time and Commons' resources vs. having to go clean it up after a bulk import. The one user in question (so far) has thousands of del req notifications in their talk page and archives which are now redlinked - many of which are parts of the same collections or libraries (such as 75 photos of the same person or thing- from slightly different angles).
This means that first someone had to review all those uploads, then make del reqs for them, and they all had to be run through the process by other editors also reviewing them, posting their position, a consensus being reached, then the files being deleted, all while scrolling the deletion and other related logs. Thousands upon thousands of times.
Wouldn't it had made more sense for the uploader to instead look at the collection and say "3-5 of these are probably enough - no need to dump 75+ of them"? Again - failing to do this on the front end makes for an awful lot of busywork on the backend.
Again - I have to ask for clarity on intent... because COM:SCOPE sure seems to lean more towards "grab everything useful" (as a previous commenter put it), vs. a "grab everything" initiative, and to me it looks like the latter is what is actually being followed for at least this issue. If that is indeed acceptable and considered "normal operating procedure", then I will leave it be. I am just hoping for some true clarity before moving forward. Thanks. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is all about one user—not the dozens who do significant Flickr scraping—you would really do well to have a discussion with that user or (failing that) a discussion about that user, rather than argue general principles. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a general principle & scope issue, however. That is what I have been trying to get an administrative consensus on since I opened the prematurely archived inquiry above. I cannot seem to get a definitive answer, however. They for sure are not the only user doing indiscriminate flickr (and other) harvesting. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Picard's Facepalm: Again: it is my belief that it is almost impossible to define what is "indiscriminate" except by looking at individual cases. Do you have a definition to propose? - Jmabel ! talk 22:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not one explicitly - and surely it requires input from more minds than just my own. But a good starting point might be what I mentioned above - "75 photos of the same person, place, event, object or otherwise - from slightly different angles", perhaps? We can build upon that. Or perhaps better yet - rather than trying to define what it is, clearly state in SCOPE that it isn't intended to be a mirror of all free imagery already hosted elsewhere - especially commercially. I don't know - but those are the two starting points I can think of for the community to build upon.

But here is an example of what I am talking about - you can do this experiment yourself to firsthand experience the issue, if you like:
Doing a search for K.I. Sawyer I find a handful of random images from the former air force base (which is what I am looking for), several images of random people with Sawyer in their name from multiple sources (which is expected), and over 100, very slightly varied images of Diane Sawyer standing at a podium talking into a microphone at the 2010 Peabody Awards which are almost indiscernible from each other without squinting. The source of all those images? Yep - you guessed it - Flickr. All part of the same collection there, and none of them with "K." nor "I." in the name, description, tags or otherwise.

You know what I didn't find? None of the 55 K.I. Sawyer AFB photos publicly released by the DoD & Combined Military Services that are freely available from the US National Archives online catalog - each of which being completely different from each other, and showing different aspects, hardware, assets, resources, events and personnel from all across the various operational functions of the base, many of which could be useful in Wikiland for articles about the base itself, the USAF, different functions of assets within the military, examples of extreme weather in northern states, air traffic control operations, aviation equipment and mechanical maintenance, readiness exercise training for mass causality events, prominent politicians and senior military staff, firefighting, munitions and explosives management, computer operations, weather & meteorology, airfield operations, historical aircraft, fabrication and welding, electronics & their maintenance, radio & telecomm and even pharmacy operations.
Not. Even. One.

But hey - at least we've got a hundred plus images all from the same Flickr collection of Diane standing at a podium with her mouth open. That is clearly, endlessly useful.
Meh, scope & descriminancy. Right.

NOTE: I did not set this up. It was actually a completely ad-hoc search I did while writing this reply, and it ended up generating exactly the kind of results that led me to raise attention to this issue in the first place. I wish I could say that this were an atypical result - but it isn't. Time and again I get these huge swaths of results of nearly identical images from scraped collection(s). I might also add that it is not by the same user previously mentioned - but a different one with just shy of 400,000 uploads conducted in in exactly the same fashion as Tm, and with an equally significant number of now redlinked deletion req notifs in their talk pages & archives - mostly all in bulk collection harvests as well. There is clearly an issue here - and without a doubt quite a bit more will be uncovered if I keep going down the rabbit hole.
Picard's Facepalm (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Picard's Facepalm: In short, you also seem to be saying "I know it when I see it." Yes, the particular you are describing sounds egregious. Do you consider it worth your time do something about it (start DRs for some large fraction of this, upload the material you think should be there more usefully), or are you just asking someone else to? - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picard's Facepalm (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No - I am asking for this type of conduct to be administratively reviewed overarchingly to start, policy and guidelines to be emplaced if need be, and then actions to be taken against users who violate them. Many users are already involved in trying to clean this kind of stuff up - and as I mentioned both above and in the previous thread - it is a major time-sink which may be wholly unnecessary. Preventing it in the first place would be a big step forward. Cleanup - whoever by - is inevitable. EDIT: by preventing it in the first place, the cleanup wouldn't have been made to be necessary. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jmabel that best practices are difficult to legislate, and preventing mass uploads from Flickr has tradeoffs. Yes, we prevent the scenarios you present, but we also risk valuable photographs being forever lost (Internet archive doesn't have backups of some Flickr files) and we may unnecessarily hinder users from doing valuable work. We admins cannot simply make policy based on "I know it when I see it." I do agree that culling the out of scope uploads from bulk Flickr uploads is a time-intensive task but that may be better than the alternative. Abzeronow (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but users are unnecessarily being hindered from doing valuable work by several of them needing to engage in the act of pruning out these files after the fact, by having them go through the bureaucratic process of deletion. Cumulatively, it results in a truckload of low value work that shouldn't even be necessary in the first place and could have easily been prevented by the 1 person looking at any given collection on Flickr and thinking, "Hey - maybe 5 pictures of Diane Sawyer standing at the same podium at the same event with her mouth open is enough to meet COM:SCOPE instead of over 100 such similar photos from the same collection".
All that time saved on the back end from pruning after the fact, combined with time saved on the front end behind importing 5 photos instead of 105 will result in more opportunity being given to those people to obtain the valuable photos of which you speak before being "forever lost". I might also note that nowhere in SCOPE does it read or otherwise indicate that the mission is to serve as an image archive to another site, on the premise that the image might be lost. No - The Internet Archive does not have backups of all Flickr files. But that is not their purpose - nor is it that of WC, per SCOPE.
I might add that both you and Jmabel seem to be indicating that I am approaching the basis of this as being from a "gut feeling" position. That is hardly the case - and seems to be a rather deflective interpretation of my position. I am simply looking at the criteria stated in SCOPE, and looking at both the content and (especially) the methodology being used, compounding it with the resulting busywork and significant deletia after the fact and coming to the conclusion that no, it does not align. If you all take the 5 minutes necessary to carefully read through SCOPE - it will be quite clear & apparent as to where I am coming from with this as far as applicability:
Aim:
  • Make educational content available to everyone
  • Serve as a common media repository for all the Wiki projects
File scope:
  • Must be useful for educational purposes
  • Non-educational files do not become educational because they were uploaded
  • Non-educational files, and files which are not being used elsewhere in Wiki are not in scope for Commons
  • The potential for a file to be used does not equate to it being useful by virtue (this is explicitly stated in SCOPE)
Examples that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose:
  • Files which are not distinct to the existing images on the same subject

This seems like pretty clear definition to me - and not at all along "I know it when I see it". The examples I have referred to above and in the previous discussion check every one of those boxes to the negative.
So no - the admins do not have to make policy in this scenario. Seems the policy is there - but there are users which are not following it when this harvest everything approach is being used, and admins do not seem to be enforcing it or holding users accountable when they do.

To perhaps put more logic around this - let me use this example:
You want to build a house. You hire a dozen semis with trailers to head over to Menards to pick up every last piece of lumber, insulation, brick, interior wiring, lighting fixture, PVC pipe, toilet, sink, outlet, roll of carpet, square of tile, can of paint, roof shingle, piece of siding, etc. that they have. All of it, every color - soup to nuts. They load it all up and take it to the site, everyone gets everything unloaded and placed all around the site. The builders set to work and build this big, beautiful house which has everything perfectly matched and would land the home on the cover of Architectural Digest. Then everyone has to load all the remaining material - which of course is about 90% of what was dropped off, and take it all back to return.
Not at all the way you would do it, right? Not sure why that approach is being used here - it certainly doesn't seem to align with SCOPE. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Tm.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to treat mass imports from external sources like bot tasks with associated user right. First requester should demonstrate that they could reasonably filter problematic files (copyrights violations, derivative works, freedom of panorama, out of scope, historical photos with bogus licenses, etc.), before import a lot. May be on set basis.
I personally see a lot of bad quality imports in Category:Files needing categories by year. However, a lot of out of scope photos (selfies, not notable persons) are added to generic categories by appearance what complicate maintenance.
Also mass importers should be accountable for quality of imports. If quality drops, rights should be revoked. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all great points, but fall well outside of the issue I am bringing up here, and is likely to derail from the target I am trying to drive towards. This might be better served by opening a new topic. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Picard's Facepalm: There's already a policy for handling stuff like uploads as you described: COM:SPAM. Your example with Diane Sawyer can be dealt with using VisualFileChange, nominating for deletion (nearly) the whole batch for violating the scope clauses as described in COM:SPAM ("The nominees add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject"), and also writing why the examples that were chosen by you as not included in the DR may be kept. At the moment, I do not see a consensus or a better way to deal with such batches Ex tunc. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable Speedy Deletion

A file of mine has been nominated for speedy deletion for being a duplicate (File:Donald Trump Delivers a Message to the People of Jordan.webm). however, my file was uploaded first. my file was uploaded on "21:21, 12 February 2025" while the other one (File:President Trump Delivers a Message to the People of Jordan (2160p 24fps AV1-128kbit AAC).webm) was uploaded a day later on "11:24, 13 February 2025." The speedy deletion process should be removed. If the higher quality version should be uploaded as a new version of my file instead of deleting it, that's reasonable. CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Higher resolution is always preferred. "Uploaded first" is just a tie-breaker.
@CMBGAMER 2018: why should this matter? One gets kept, the other becomes a redirect. Neither has been here long enough for there to even possibly be any significant number of deeplinks. - Jmabel ! talk 05:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying my upload shouldn't be labelled a duplicate if it isn't a duplicate. CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CMBGAMER 2018: are you saying there are other differences besides yours being lower resolution? If so, then follow the process to turn a speedy deletion into a regular DR. - Jmabel ! talk 07:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking request

Hello, I recently noticed that my user page (User:Farzana.1970) was deleted under CSD U3 for inappropriate use of user pages. I understand Wikipedia’s guidelines and would like to request undeletion so I can edit the page to comply with Wikipedia’s policies. I will ensure that the content remains relevant to Wikipedia-related activities and does not include promotional or non-encyclopedic material. Please let me know if there are specific concerns that I should address. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Farzana Ahmjahangir (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=998376181"