Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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 ^{[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
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	123, 122, 121, 120, 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	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	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

^{Translate this page}

Note

Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
Notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Magog the Ogre

Latest comment: 5 years ago106 comments38 people in discussion

This administrator and checkuser has just ignited a wheel-war by re-doing a block configuration that a soon former admin disagreed with, despite the fact that the earlier comments Alexis made was removed by himself and he closed the discussion apologizing for his behavior. Not only that, but they’ve also deleted their user page. I’d like a review on these admin’s actions and whether a desysop is in order. 1989 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Seriously? Have we all lost our minds? Are we experiencing some sort of collective cabin fever from being in quarantine or something? Magog, what you did is the definition of a wheel war. There was no need to do that and is against everything an administrator should do. This has devolved into insanity. The deletion of the user page is just dancing on a grave and is conduct unbecoming. We are supposed to be the cool headed ones here. Please reconsider what you have done. This is turning into a nightmare. --Majora (talk)

It is with great sadness I have committed this action. This user has threatened physical violence and continues to do so against me and fellow admins. This has moved from the court of drama into real life. If you wish to take away my sysop bit for zealously enforcing the "don't threaten to kill administrators" policy, I'll take that fall. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you feel threatened in real life, then you should contact emergency

wikimedia.org. Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand what exactly is the policy rationale behind your actions, anymore than I understand the policy rationale for the action I asked you about yesterday that you never responded to. GMG ^talk 00:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Note For edit warring and the misuse of administrative tools I have blocked Magog indefinitely pending this discussion. This has been one hell of a day and I was forced to do something I never thought I would do but there it is. For the record, I support the desysop of Magog the Ogre. --Majora (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Jesus. @Érico: I think you need to carefully consider your position here. GMG ^talk 00:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
(Edit conflict) @Érico: They weren't reviewing a checkuser block. They were edit warring and blocked someone to preserve their own edit. This is insanity. I'm fine with you removing the block if only to reduce the tension here but they cannot use their admin tools in this fashion. --Majora (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Érico: So basically you want to be desysopped too for defending disruptive behavior, is that correct? 1989 (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I removed this totally abusive and disproportionate block. The blocking policy is clear in defining that the CUs are responsible for evaluating {{checkuserblock}}s. As checkuser, Magog the Ogre clearly has this power and doesn't matter if we like him or not; that's what the policy defines. Any user who obstructs this review is in violation of what our policy says and commits vandalism if insist on that (which is what 1989 did). Érico (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I did not block them for reviewing a checkuser block. I'm not entirely sure how I can get you to understand that. The community has every right to discuss every block. We serve them. We answer to them. Period. Closing that discussion is like saying the community doesn't matter. They were not reviewing a checkuser block. Alexis did not ask to be unblocked. They weren't responding to an {{Unblock}} template. The community was discussing it independently. Magog closing that thread had nothing to do with a "review" of any block. And edit warring to keep it that way and then blocking someone to keep it that way is insane. --Majora (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Érico: I think you need to very carefully consider your position here, in reversing another administrator's block for edit warring, and you should do so quickly. GMG ^talk 00:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't disagree that the community has the power to discuss any block. However, it is the checkuser team who decide reviews of blocks made by them. And it is not a question of whether you like it or not; is what our policy says and we must follow it. And, forgive me, but it is sooo clear that the section was a block review that its title is "Block review: Alexis Jazz".

And GreenMeansGo, I will not going to undo my action of unblock. The sysop responsible for the block, two minutes after carrying out the action, encouraged everyone to step back. Blocking a checkuser indefinitely is anything but a "step back". Érico (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Érico: You are liable to lose your bit over this. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Backing off and reversing your action, and letting us discuss the issue seems like a much better option personally. GMG ^talk 01:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

No. Stop. Enough. I'm fine with the unblocking. Leave it be. The thread is closed. 1989 said they wouldn't continue edit warring. Everyone needs to calm the hell down. The immediate situation has passed. Enough. --Majora (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Support a desysop for Magog, 1989 (rollback abuse) and Érico for tool abuse. If admins can't behave themselves and rather abuse tools and/or edit wars instead of finding community consensus, discussing the issue and following proper procedures they should just resign. All three should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Natuur12 (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Natuur12: Hate to rain on your parade, but I didn’t misuse anything, Magog did. Links diffs to where I misused rollback. Thanks. 1989 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's my bad. Only Magog abused his rollback tool. But that doesn't mean that you don't have any blame here. Natuur12 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
So no misuse of the toolset on my part means I would be desysopped? That makes no sense. 1989 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Do you really believe that you have shown behavior worthy of an admin the last couple of days? Natuur12 (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Whatever do you mean? Expressing my opinions? Disagreeing with a bad closure? That should get me desysopped? Good to know. 1989 (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

And my "abuse" was unblocking a checkuser who was indefinitely blocked for very weak reasons and no consensus. Very smart and constructive comment, Natuur12. Érico (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oppose especially for Érico whose unblock was just as justified as the one of 1989, who was edit warring to undo a close in what I think was an inappropriate manner. Neither should have been blocked, but both Majora and Magog acted in good faith, and I think Érico's actions were pretty much the only sensible way to move forward since a lot of heat has been generated here but little light. Everyone needs to take multiple steps back. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Support Desysop for Magog the Ogre. I didn't understand their attempt to unilaterally impose a banning policy that doesn't exist on Commons. I didn't understand the fact that they did not respond at all for requests for clarification through at least two pings at AN and a message on their talk page. I don't hope to understand why they took it upon themselves to delete the blocked user's user page, protect their talk page, edit war with another admin over a close, and block the other admin over the same. This is well beyond what is acceptable, and certainly not for someone trusted with advanced access beyond that of an adminstrator. GMG ^talk 01:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
WTF. Magog the Ogre unilaterally bans someone, shuts down all discussion about it, and finally blocks another admin who dares disagree for overturning a non-existent "community decision". Who gave checkusers on Commons that kind of power?! Where's the accountability? clpo13_(talk) 04:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose any more desysoping, blocking, shit-talking, etc. This whole mess has gone on long enough. I can't help but think Majora is correct and that this is some kind of mass cabin fever episode where folks are losing their minds. Just step back and cool down. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
This is a grave misuse of admin privileges. Since Magog refuses to revert their actions and apologize, I support the desysop of Magog. This is unbecoming of an admin. pandakekok9 05:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I was neutral on Alexis-sock-block, but you acted like god and closed an ongoing important discussion. Support de admin Magog. You are not to control any discussion. I was neutral on action of CU team but now I support unblocking Alexis without any restriction. I hope other CU team members don't repeat what Magog did. Edit warring, Abuse of rollback, forcing your opinion on the community, blocking an admin. Unacceptable. If you apologize, I am happy to let it go.// Eatcha (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I just asked Magog the Ogre to re-open the discussion and unprotect the talk page of User:Alexis Jazz. Let's wait and see how this turns out. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Support I waited for about 36 hours, but no responses from Magog the Ogre unfortunately. I don't mind whether the community at large still trusts Magog the Ogre or not. But I firmly believe that the discussion should go to the second phase, i.e., the actual vote by the community. This is not a frivolous incident, and should not be treated as such. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Support de-admin. Sorry to say that, but the recent admin action from Magog is unacceptable, particularly blocking 1989. The user should take some time to review his action. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
No further action, or discussion regarding AJ, or events related to the user, until one month has passed since the initial action to allow everyone to calm down and avoid further casualties.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose nobody should be de-sysopped. A mediation should be considered. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the group assembled here should remember that all five Checkusers have agreed that Alexis Jazz's actions deserve a permanent block. The five of us have about sixty years of experience on WMF and have made more than 1,250,000 contributions. We include two Stewards and two Bureaucrats, so we are, arguably, among the very most trusted members of the community -- trusted both for our discretion and for our judgement. As Checkusers we are not allowed to reveal a wide variety of confidential information that we come upon in our work. That is a factor in the present case. It seems to me that, having chosen to trust our judgement, that other Admins should not unilaterally reverse that judgement by unblocking serious offenders. Therefore, I don't see Magog's action as wheel warring, but simply as correcting a mistake. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Then you aren't using the same definition of wheel warring that is pretty much agreed upon by most other people. The reinstatement of a reversed admin action is the literal definition of wheel warring that most people have agreed to. I understand that you wish to protect one of your own and I'm not disputing the block here. Quite the opposite actual. I agreed with the block in the first place. In the end, I believe that Zhuyifei1999 also came to the same conclusion to allow further discussion to occur as they undid their action. The wheel warring was the rerevoking of talk page access which Zhuyifei explicitly left on. This is the reinstatement of a reversed admin action by another admin. By definition, at least by the definition most people have agreed to, that is wheel warring. Ignoring the abuse of rollback and the blocking of someone they were actively engaged in an edit war with. Wheel warring is a bright line for me and for many other people as well. That is the seriousness of this case and anything sort of a formal desysop vote initiated by a 'crat would be saying that such an action is acceptable. Being among the "very most trusted" members of the community doesn't mean you can't lose that trust and for me, Magog has lost my trust to perform their duties as both an admin and, by extension, a checkuser. --Majora (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

They are not being accused of wheel warring. Unless I've missed something, the block was reversed by Zhuyifei1999 and then reinstated by them. They are being accused of:

Closing a discussion and revoking talk page access to enforce a "ban" that has no basis in policy
Refusing to provide any explanation or clarification when pinged twice to the AN discussion and when a message was left on their user talk page, while they continued to actively edit
Closing the AN discussion in which they were heavily involved, edit warring with another administrator over the close, and blocking that administrator over an edit war in which they were a participant
Deleting a user talk page which has no appreciable basis on policy that I can see
Fully protecting the user's talk page which also has no basis in policy that I can see

None of these are liberties granted to checkusers, and all are substantial misuse of administrator access. The only reason they still have the bit is because they stopped, because I had at the time two stewards on IRC looking at the possibility of an emergency desysop for gross misuse of the tools. GMG ^talk 13:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree with those who have said that pretty much all the admins here have behaved recently far short of the standard required. Magog and 1989 edit warring over the Block review: Alexis Jazz at AN is not covered by CU privilege and both participants are wrong in any edit war. Can we stop with the admins blocking other admins nonsense, Majora, et al. You've all got a bit too trigger happy. There's very little that can't be discussed and agreed with a community, and no great harm comes from any page being in a particular state for a while [except for stuff that needs revdel'd etc]. Alexis promised a "firestorm" and you all, in your rash hotheadedness, gave it to each other. Well done. Now, I suggest admins go do something else for a while and I hope Zhuyifei1999 reconsiders too and we don't lose any admins over this. Yes I agree with Natuur12 that this falls short, but I also hope it has just been a few days of madness rather than indication of long term problems that need the bit removed. All admins should be working towards lowering the drama, which includes no hasty blocks, resignations or calls for people's heads. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comment is it possible that every body calm dow a bit, stop block fellow administrators, stop unblock the others, stop multiple desysops?!? are there still not enough things stuffed in all this? one experimented user was blocked, one experimented user/administrator resigned? is there not enough?

I second Jim, Magog did his job and reinstalled something that was wrongly removed, see block log: Zhuyifei1999 has wrongly removed the block, but when they reinstalled it, they did it by changing the block seetings (talk page access). This was wrong, as evidence, 1/ they resigned by themselve 2/ nothing constructive have been written in this talk page by the blocked user excepted denigration and total refusal to consider his original fault. Nobody should have touched to this block, nobody should have encouraged (included several administrators) AJ to stay on this wrong position. These encouragements and actions made by several administrators have conbtributed to the escalation off all this. Is it not enough? can something come out good if we try to punish one administrator or the other? what interest to count the points? Please fellow administrators and other colleague users, encourage each other to calm down. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Jim and Christian. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

~~Everyone really does need to calm the fuzz down, Unless AJ has been using undisclosed accounts then I cannot understand why the CU block was done and why it still remains?,~~

I will say for the record Magog the Ogre the deleting of AJs userpage was wholy innapropriate - Revoking TP access/protecting TP stops the drama which I understand obviously but AJ like anyone else on this god forsaken project still deserves their userpage .....

Given this was supposedly a team effort that team needs to come forward and state why the CU block because from where I'm sitting using 1 account doesn't automatically mean perma-ban ...... –Davey2010^Talk 15:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oppose De-sysoping of Magog is too drastic an action to take. Over many years of outstanding service to the entire project, his abuse of the tools is hardly habitual, nor do his actions in this instance require such an extreme punishment. As I understand it, a grave threat of personal bodily harm was indeed made and has been confirmed by the CU team. Concur with Jim, Christian, and Steinsplitter. JGHowes ^talk 17:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oppose I agree that Magog the Ogre's edit-war on the AN is not good. But it is already discussed on their talk and no need to push more. I didn't see anything wrong in "re-doing a block configuration" that already imposed by the CU team. Admins are not allowed to undo or modify a CU block. So if anybody need to warned if needed are the admins who messed with the CU decision. J e e 14:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Support, per GreenMeansGo. Shutting down an ongoing discussion without a consensus and threatening people to open it again is way too much. Similar behavior was then picked up by other users. This cannot be tolerated. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per Jim. -- Geagea (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - Magog has done a lot of good work for the community and one lapse in judgment should not lead to de-sysoping in my opinion. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 17:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose There's an evident need for a few to take a step back and go outside/take a walk (if you can). We even have some freely-licensed Category:Videos of meditation for those who can't go outside or are otherwise interested. Once ready, go tackle a backlog, not your fellow collaborators. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose I vote just in the case that my point of view was not obvious. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Support I do agree that this may have been an extreme situation, and in this extreme situation it is very important to act accordingly. I have tried my hardest to figure out what has happened with Alexis Jazz, I was unable to do so, but even if we take all the possible claims in Magog the Ogre's favour, we must conclude that: There was a serious abuse when closing the ongoing discussion of other users into the original block. I believe that it was clear that although any user could edit the page and claim that the discussion was over, it was the fact that it was done by an admin that made it such a horrible act of vandalism and misuse of community's trust. We seem to be plagued by admins who close ongoing discusions with no penalties. This needs to stop, and Magog the Ogre has clearly stated that they are willing to be desysoped for this. May at least something positive come out of this. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose I have serious concerns with the actions and statements of several members of our administrative team. I am extremely disappointed to see how quickly blocks have been placed on other administrators without adequate discussion and consensus; the speed in which they were unblocked are clear indicators that these are controversial blocks and should not have been placed uni-laterally. I hope these individuals remember our guiding principles as administrator - if you are involved and considering placing a block, step away from your computer. At this point, I cannot support the opening of a de-sysop request for Magog because it would only be fair for the actions of other involved administrators to be called to the stand and likely lead to additional de-sysop discussions. We have already lost an administrator, we have a retired notice on Majora's userpage, we have 1989 doing the dramatic, with no explanation, "I'm deleting my userpage and blanking my talk page". What, or should I say, who is next? Buckle up, start talking and put down the tools before you lose them. ~riley (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Your opposition is a de facto support to the very behaviour you are criticizing. You are creating a community where somebody who says "I am willing to stick my neck out and clearly go against policy" stays as a respectable admin, but everybody who quits in disgust are no longer here. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  - I am opposing this specific proposal, I fully agree that there was abuse and there needs to be significant reform. I cannot support a thread singling out the actions of one administrator when the actions of several others need to be considered. There needs to be mediation and arbitration to ensure this is rectified. ~riley (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Support de-sysop of Magog. I am profoundly disappointed by Magog's actions, and I feel I can no longer trust them with the tools. I think we should allow Magog to do the honorable thing and give up the sysop tools voluntarily. I don't support any other actions against anybody else. GMG has it right, and I commend their common sense. I am incredibly saddened that Majora is being driven away from Commons, as they are an excellent sysop whose judgment I still trust. Abzeronow (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
It's quite evident to anyone reading this that, even if Magog does have evidence of Alexis's alleged death threats against administrators (which I've failed to find on-wiki), there's been an abuse of administrative tools. They attempted to impose a community ban out of solely their own authority, in a block which was already being contested, revoked talk page access, wheel-warred, blocked other administrators, edit-warred, sought to prevent community discussion of their actions, and dramatically escalated the situation beyond what it needed to be. The argument that we've already lost some contributors, and this is dramatic, that thus we should stop discussing this, is an asinine argument. The clear reason why we lost contributors is because people are taking illogical steps in trying to prevent the loss of contributors, namely refusing to hold administrators accountable for their actions, hoping that the accused administrators do not leave. What's the result? Multiple users, who were in active opposition to that administrator and sought redress for their abuse of tools, have outright left. The same thing happens on the English Wikipedia, and Meta-Wiki, and every other medium-large project where there is drama and people try to justify abuse of tools. It's inevitable that uninvolved users attempt to weigh the value of that user's contributions to the movement with the harm created by their abuse, and many have done so in this case and came to the conclusion that Magog provides more benefits than costs. These users have failed to account for the damage to our administrative system, and the fact that users have been harmed with no outlet of rectification. There has been an abuse of tools here, on multiple sides, and refusing to address any of it is unacceptable. Vermont (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

As it appears non-public information may be involved that influenced the actions of members of the Checkuser team, including Magog, there is a potentiality for Magog's actions to be legitimately justifiable. For that purpose, consider my above critiques of them suspended. Until the situation is resolved, as not all of the information is public, it is not possible to make an informed decision on the legitimacy of their actions. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oppose de-sysop - Everyone acted poorly here however the block was a CU team one and Magog was acting as part of that team, I don't at all agree with the block but Magog was simply doing his job at the end of the day,

~~If we're gonna fire up a desysop request then those who were involved with unblocking AJ/blocking Magog should also face the chopping board.?~~ –Davey2010^Talk 20:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can we all just go back to Alexis being unblocked, Zhuyifei and Majora un-resigning, and everyone contributing to the project like we were before? ...... That really would be nice. –Davey2010^Talk 22:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Policy is not just important because bureaucratic such-and-such, but because people need to know that they're contributing to a community that has clear rules, that everyone agrees to, and everyone understands. No one is going to spend time on a project where sanctions or use of power feel arbitrary, capricious, and primarily political first and foremost before they are fair. Even if this doesn't go to deadmanship, hopefully it reinforces the fact that fairness matters and we won't have to go through all of this again.

There was a path here where policy was followed, and fairness was respected, regardless of the outcome, and no one would have resigned or retired because we followed the rules we all agreed to. That path was not chosen. GMG ^talk 23:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comment It is not the case that Majora was "driven away" — no one asked them to leave. I, too, greatly regret that Majora saw fit to leave. Nonetheless, the voluntary resignation of an experienced user because they didn't get their way should not cloud the issue here regarding Magog's actions in imposing a well-deserved block. All five Checkusers unanimously agreed‎ that Alexis Jazz' threat was so egregious as to warrant indef ~~global~~ block — a judgment concurred in by two Stewards and two Bureaucrats. It should not be necessary, nor is it prudent, to publicize the specific threat here. As stated above by Jameslwoodward, As Checkusers we are not allowed to reveal a wide variety of confidential information that we come upon in our work. That is a factor in the present case‎. JGHowes ^talk 21:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)‎Reply

Global block? No global block/lock was imposed. Also, I had not noticed that comment by Jameslwoodward, thank you for reiterating it as I may have continued to accidentally skip over it. Best, Vermont (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oppose any desysop at this point. We have lost too many experienced users in this fruitless conflict. There has been a lot of anger from multiple users but anger is never the best solution for anything. I did agree with the suggestion by User:AFBorchert on how Alexis could return to Commons but in hindsight perhaps it would be better to follow the procedure of the WP:Standard offer. I also agree with User:JGHowes in that there is probably significant information that cannot be publicised. What we need is to take a collective couple of steps back and examine the issues in a more collegiate manner. What we do not need is administrators blocking each other. -Green Giant (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

For those who may not have seen it, Alexis Jazz has now posted this mea culpa of sorts on meta. JGHowes ^talk 23:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oppose (Edit conflict) Magogs actions were violating policy but they are to be seen in the context where the CU team was under severe attack (see comment by Krd). When I made my proposal I wasn't aware of Alexis Jazz' statement at Meta (quote directed at the CU team: go quietly or go in a firestorm) and the associated messages ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). All this occured in a context where Alexis Jazz knew that the CU team interpreted the comment by his sockpuppet as a death threat. This was a major escalation after the block. I do not see how Alexis Jazz could return to Commons in the foreseeable future and I think that it is time to move forward now and not chose to drag this further. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks AFBorchert for summarizing the entire situation. So it is clear that we have no clear understanding on the severity while trying to reduce the block on that user, which added frustration and pressure on the CU team. One admin lifted the block which forced the second CU to re-impose the block. Some admins considered it as wheel-warring. Only later that Krd and James also commented on the severity of the issue. It is not their fault; CUs are refrained from publicly making such comments. Unfortunately we made huge pressure on the CU team to defend themselves. I think we need to amend our blocking policy to explain the CU blocks as we did in case of oversight blocks. I had asked it earlier; even in that previous discussions. J e e 04:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Seems that 1989 cleaned his own blocklog. This also is unacceptable. Natuur12 (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't address Magog's block of 1989, however (odd that the block reason has been redacted, but it was related to this). Whatever the case for blocking AJ was, blocking 1989 for trying to have a discussion about it was completely unacceptable. clpo13_(talk) 04:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

That "Block review: Alexis Jazz" discussion was initiated by 1989 and they undo the closure by Magog two times. So it is clear that 1989 pressed the topic too much. Magog was not much an involved admin at that time as the block of Alexis Jazz was done by another CU. So there was indeed a mishap from both sides. Anyway this review discussion will not have opened if we had well defined the "CU Block" in our blocking policy. (I'm not happy with the way how 1989 blanked their user and talk page and run away. It was their initial behavior since their previous account. Will do a lot of works, do some silly things, and will run away washing their hands when caught. Will come back when the sky is clear.) J e e 08:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oppose de-sysop. It is in fact a poor judgement to ask a CU (or the team) to make their report public knowing fully well that such information could include some personal information. CUs are not going to publish their reports for this obvious reason. It's very disappointing to seeing people we trusted with advanced permissions (admin, checkusers) acting in the way some of you had acted in the past few days. I am not going to comment on the specifics of the issues that led to this drama but would appeal to all involved parties to stay calm. Generally, I think we need to design a more structured way to resolving conflict. Maybe an COM: Arbitration Committee or something close to that? Well, it's up to the community to decided but something must be done about conflict resolution. We can't continue to conduct the business of conflict resolution the way we are currently going about it. Please stay safe! Regards. T Cells^Talk 02:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose de-sysoping per T Cells. Everyone needs to calm down and take a breather. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 04:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Comment I think that a lot of people would withdraw their support for a desysop (including me) if Magog acknowledges that wheels wars and blocking the person you have an edit war with are never acceptable, regardless the circumstances. You meet abuse with even more abuse. As we can all see, that just causes a downwards spiral with mistrust and a further fragmented community and damaged core principles. Abuse always is a slippery slope. I understand that Magog and others involved have good intentions, but people do terrible things because of those very same good intentions. Natuur12 (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Natuur12, I agree with your comments. However, I do think, in the spirit of the section below, that it is healthier right now for many of the admins involved to take a break and chill. Then I hope, after some days reflection, they are in a better position to acknowledge mistakes and agree. Right now, I think if we keep pushing each other, we'll just continue to see admins go "fuck it; I don't need this right now" and retire, or to do or say something so bad they are forced out. None of this needs sorted today. -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I fully agree with Colin. The only way forward to resolve this is to get some rest first, relax, and go to other areas (like COM:VIC, creating and improving galleries, and take some photos inside). The stress caused by this and the quarantine really messed us all. pandakekok9 11:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Support I hesitated to go in closer by now, but the more time is passing, the more I dislike the behavioural tactic by MTO, who disappeared straight after their controversial actions, refusing any discussion, and now is likely to "come back when the sky is clear" (to cite Jee). That's truly not the behaviour I would expect from a professional sysop colleague. So I'm for de-sysop at this point, even though some opposers have a valid point and my support now appears useless anyway. --A.Savin 14:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Update 3 April: Magog the Ogre is still hiding. --A.Savin 14:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose but you do have to admit that Magog's actions while allowed by policy did pour more fuel on the fire (as well as that of several other administrators, unfortunately). --Rs chen 7754 17:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Rschen7754: I'm...confused. What part of policy allows an administrator to edit war with another administrator and then block them for it? I'm not asking rhetorically. I get the argument that people screwed up, but one screw up doesn't warrant a desysop. I don't understand the argument that there were actually no policy violations. GMG ^talk 23:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Does a {{Checkuserblock}} mean anything? If it doesn't, then maybe we should remove all CUs everywhere on Wikimedia. --Rs chen 7754 01:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is the use of {{Checkuserblock}} justified though? pandakekok9 01:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Have any of the other CUs overturned the block? --Rs chen 7754 02:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

How can we hold them accountable then IF they are wrong? Desysop/de-checkuser? As if it's easy to initiate one in the first place. Not only is the COVID-19 making it difficult, but the requirement to have some "consensus" from an AN/U thread before we can even have the real desysop vote. This is ridiculous. pandakekok9 02:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

CUs can also make mistakes. But that doesn't mean we can overturn their actions without first consulting them and waiting for their replies and or actions. All these process need a lot of patience and time. See one example where we took more than one year to finally convince the acting CU. J e e 03:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

We are all humans, so we make mistakes. I agree with your first point. Our CUs however are consulted, and we explained to them why the block and CU are wrong in the first place. I could have waited as you did, but the fact that they are ignoring us since 25 March and are giving only unhelpful responses is worrying. An LTA or newbie is not the one affected here. An established, trusted, and hardworking user is. If they just give us one response, a response saying they will review and reconsider the block they placed, I will wait, and surely all of us will wait. Until that occurs though, I will still continue to think that this block is not justified and support a desysop. pandakekok9 04:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

So basically, what you are saying is that all 5 of them are wrong and should be desysopped/deCUed? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. --Rs chen 7754 06:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Checkuserblock is a reason to let the wheel war slide, though also inculuding talk page settings is quite stretching the limits of the definition of a checkuser block. The checkuser block template is pretty clear about appeals Users: You may request {{Unblock}} through the normal channels, however a CheckUser will review the block. This implies that the talk page isn't part of the checkuser block, because a checkuser is a block placed by the CU's to prevent abuse, with an open talk page. But enough wikilawyering. Like I said, the checkuserblock is a reason to let the wheel war slide. But not acting like a total autocrat and blocking another admin while being involved in the very same edit war. I know how frustrating it can be when someone threatens you and people start defending the person who just threatened you but that could never be an excuse to allow abuse. Natuur12 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we should regrant talk page access for Alexis Jazz for a start? It's been 10 days now, and AFAIK they haven't tried to circumvent their block on-wiki (though they did circumvent their talk page block on other wikis). The fact that they haven't used their alternate account to evade the block should be commended. We should give them another chance to post an unblock request on their talk page, if they wish. pandakekok9 11:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

No, we really shouldn't given this clear statement made by Krd. Natuur12 (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Natuur12, I understand the pain that still remain in the hearts of many admins here. We lost two good admins. They were good coders too who helped the automation of many tasks which are very tedious otherwise. I came to know that AJ was also good in coding. Perhaps this "working together" relationship may be reason behind their hyper-response to this incident. Anyway, it is a loos for Commons. That is one of the reason why I spent a lot of time during this crisis time.

When we look into the timelines of the incidents, we can see User:1989 contacted Trijnstel soon after the block. She replied but with some discomfort. After getting the reply, User:1989 jumped to AN for a block review instead of asking the blocking CU for a review. Although Majora strogly opposed the idea, the discussion was continued and many expressed their opinions. Then Majora asked other CUs to comment by pinging them. Then Magog the Ogre responded that their decision is final and "end of discussion". I didn't checked the timelines of further events like unblock by Zhuyifei1999 and restoration, AJ's talk page revocation and edit war on AN.

I agree that all those events happened after Magog the Ogre's denial for reviewing the block were unfortunate and should be avoided. But there are a lot of people misbehaved there; including Magog the Ogre, Zhuyifei1999, User:198, Majora, ... to name a few.

I think Trijnstel may be regretting on disclosing the (partial) reason for block. As far as I know such reasons should not be revealed as it may be harmful to the blocked users too in some countries. Anyway I don't want to comment further on it. I think that discussion on block of AJ can be closed, leaving it to the Trust and Safety team as I read somewhere else.

Do taking an action on Magog the Ogre helful now? Doest it help to restore the dignity of remaining admins? I don't think so. The only way I look forward is to forgive each other and return back to work. I wish Zhuyifei1999 and Majora will come back. I wish User:1989 will be more careful in future. I wish CUs will be more careful in NOT disclosing partial information to public as it will only help to make the situation worse. I hope our blocking polcy will be amended to fully support a CU block. J e e 15:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I do believe that taking action on Magog is helpful, though it's not the course of action I prefer. (Even though the behavior of 1989 is far more problematic). Not because this will help re-establish trust but as a preventive measurement. If someone cannot admit that they have acted wrongly there's a significant risk that someone will make the same mistakes again. Especially if someone holds CU-tools. I still rather see a credible statement from Magog that he won't repeat his mistakes (even though this is the second time he used his tools in a way that's not okay when being emotional). If such a statement cannot be provided, all I can plea for is risk management and in this case that means removing someone who has proven to be a significant risk from a position of trust and power. I don't agree that we should implement CU-blocks other than as regular CU-blocks, at least as long as Magog is a CU. Rather let the oversight team handle blocks related to sensitive cases. The oversight team has proven that they are capable of handeling delicate blocks numerous times in the past, without causing the mother off all clusterfucks. It doesn't matter what AJ did, abuse is never an excuse for even more abuse. Natuur12 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I understand the points you raised. But it is very inappropriate for me to desysop Magog the Ogre alone leaving 1989 and the two resigned admins free from any sanctions. If justice must be served they whole need to be desysoped altogether for this total damages.

I agree with you on "Rather let the oversight team handle blocks related to sensitive cases". In fact, this block on AJ is more like one that should be handled by the Oversight team if no alternate account was used in that scene. CUs found and linked accounts; but remaining parts are more of Oversighters' role. I too think they would have handled in a much better way if the CUs handover the job to them. Here the CUs think they alone can handle this and is within their power. Our blocking policy is much vague on this. If you too think we can limit the role of the CUs by clearly separating from the Oversighters, you have my full supports.

Hope you may noticed that I had raised my concerns on defining the CU blocks in many occasions, including that Oversight Block discussion. Unfortunately we are a small and lazy community and usually postpone many such cases until we find a definite need (when some very terrible things happened). I think it's the time. J e e 14:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I really wanted to stay out of this, but this seems these individuals keeps making comments about yours truly, so now I need to explain myself. Wrt to the edit war, like TonyBallioni said, the closure that Magog performed was inappropriate and it had to be undone. I was hoping Magog would talk to to me like an adult instead of misusing rollback that’s meant for vandalism, unfortunately that wasn’t the case. The only reason I undid it again was because of that reason alone, and I stated that in the edit summary. So what’s next? Yeah, he misused rollback again and blocked me, the best part is they used a very false narrative. Yes, I indeed removed it as I’m free to revdel anything that’s considered libelous/slander, and that’s exactly what Magog did. Luckily Majora saw through the bs, and immediately undid it. As I’ve taken a step back from this, now there’s this individual that’s claiming I’m “far more problematic” with no evidence, even after I asked to explain themselves earlier in this thread. AFAIK, the best they could come up with is stating I’m to blame for Magog’s abuse, yes victim blaming, a despicable and far more problematic statement. As for the other individual, I’m confused about this sanctions thing against two admins who resigned. It seems to me they’re beating a dead horse. Why? Who knows. As for one on myself, they failed to explain why. Now back to main topic at hand. Hopefully the true outcome of this saga, is the CU/admin turning in everything they have voluntarily, a self-proposal they made to the community should they ever go on a rampage again, in which was the case. Very disappointed here. 1989 (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

One of the first things you did during this whole affair is making this sexist remark. So yes, I deem your behavior more troublesome than Magog's. Natuur12 (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

If that’s how you sincerely viewed that remark despite the actions I’ve done to fight against discrimination, I pity you. 1989 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jkadavoor: there are several things that need doing as a result of this whole affair but asking OS to do the CU tasks would require a major change of oversight policy. We need to clear the air (as is being done here by users expressing their views). We need the relevant policies to be updated to remove any ambiguity (displayed for example by Zhuyifei questioning the statement that "a checkuser may" to mean that non-CU review is also available). We also need some involvement by a bureaucrat, who have a role of guiding the community. Two of them have commented as CU but we have not heard from the others. Of course they will have perfectly legitimate reasons but I’m reminded of a somewhat similar situation almost five years ago. At that point we had 18 separate people holding B, CU, and OS, as well as 250+ administrators. We elected some new bureaucrats but nonetheless we are now down to 13 people holding one or more of the advanced permissions and fewer than 220 administrators. My impression is that Commons has become busier than five years ago but we now have significantly reduced capability. Since summer 2015 have had no further bureaucrat applicants, one successful OS candidate (later resigned) and one unsuccessful OS candidate, and one successful re-application plus one withdrawn CU application. I think it’s time to encourage more people to stand as candidates as we did in 2015 but for all three advanced permissions. --Green Giant (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Green Giant for this constructive comment. Yes; I remember some previous incidents where we worked hard to find a solutions. Here too I'm very optimistic. I said above "this block on AJ is more like one that should be handled by the Oversight team if no alternate account was used in that scene". I didn't mean that CU role can be taken by OS. What I meant after identifying the accounts CUs can ask Oversighters to "remove the potentially libelous information" that editor added by his alternate account. Then Oversighters can review the seriousness and decide whether they should block an editor on the basis of oversighted information that cannot be shared publicly. If this block was happened this way it will be perfectly appropriate according to the existing policies. Here the CUs themselves executed the block without oversighting the content. When asked by an admin, they accidentally revealed it too. Some admins started to review the block based on the information available to them and ended up in this mess. I will say the whole incident was handled in a very unprofessional way. The procedure need to be improved and well defined in our policy pages. J e e 16:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Support - I'm sorry to say this, but there are several issues with Magog the Ogre's actions. Although Magog the Ogre is not the only administrator who used their tools in a way that wasn't in line with the policies, they, as I said, made several wrong/unexplained actions. I don't think of removing talk page access for the second time simply as "correcting a mistake". Removing the talk page access wasn't a CU block. It was totally an administrative decision. Another administrator decided to revert the action, and Magog the Ogre then removed the talk page access again. They also protected Alexis Jazz's talk page indefinitely (which was later removed based on community consensus, and wasn't based on the protection policy) and deleted their user page (although the reason for deletion was listed in MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown, but, as far as I know, it isn't based on any valid speedy deletion criterion). They also blocked 1989 for edit warring, despite being heavily involved. Especially because they haven't responded to their talk page messages (yet), I'm supporting this desysop proposal. However, I'll be checking their talk page to see if they have responded to messages regarding this, and will decide based on their response, if the discussion is still open by then. Ahmad^talk 19:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Rschen7754: Sorry, it's difficult to follow discussions with things happening IRL at the moment. What I mean by policy not being followed is trying to enact a de facto banning policy, edit warring, blocking another administrator with which they are engaged in an edit war, deleting a user page out-of-process and fully protecting their talk page out-of-process. That CU blocks are excepted from normal blocking procedure is not carte blanche to ignore unrelated policy. If the functionary team would like to carve out additional exemptions, then they have the same recourse as the rest of the community: they may make a proposal and gain consensus.

I am highly uncomfortable with the seemingly Orwellian approach that was taken here, that not only may other administrators not reverse CU blocks, but CUs may edit war, protect pages, and close discussions in which they are involved, in order to prevent the community from even discussing a block. GMG ^talk 12:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I certainly think there was room for improvement and I do think that Magog did pour more fuel on the fire than necessary. I think he should have talked a bit more rather than resorting to using the tools. But to be fair - when other administrators don't respect CU blocks, what else is he supposed to do?

Also - I don't think what I am about to say is going to make people happy but I have to say it. I think that you should really reconsider the optics of this discussion. You're basically advocating for someone who made death threats against a bunch of CheckUsers, even wheel warring to allow them back into the community. This sort of attitude is why WMF feels the need to intervene in large local communities like enwiki and commons. As a community, why are you defending people like this and like Russavia? This is why harassment still exists on Wikimedia projects. --Rs chen 7754 18:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Rschen7754: I'm afraid Russavia was before my time, and I neither have an opinion nor am I haunted by their ghost in my decision making. I think that rules matter. I think that we grant users privileged access because we think they are they type of people who will follow the rules, not because we are granting them leave to disregard them.

I am advocating only for the policies we have enacted, the consensus that supports them, and the community behind it.

There is no good faith position here that says that the community was respected and the rules were followed. If the community decides that that's okay, then I will respect that, because the community makes the rules. But I serve at the behest of the community and so should everyone else here. GMG ^talk 20:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

This statement is appalling in context. When death threats are involved, I'm going to side with keeping editors (i.e. the community) safe over some notion of "following the rules", every single time. --Rs chen 7754 01:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Rschen7754: Which death threats are you refering to? (The “betsy” thing had not been a death threat, anyway, and the (paraphrased) «I will cause you to lose your admin bits» was obviously not a death threat either.) (And of course claimed harassment is not the reason some people in the WMF wish they had a more docile user community.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Surely he won't be able to answer that. The CUs haven't even answered my simple question of whether the threat was made on-wiki or off-wiki. :P pandakekok9 04:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Speaking as someone who has received death threats related to on-wiki work, I wouldn't feel comfortable talking about it either. And I don't know why you think death threats are a joking matter, pandakekok9. (Also, if the death threats were made by IP and they were to link to them now, then boom, they have now broken the privacy rules). --Rs chen 7754 04:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not asking for an IP address. I'm asking a simple question which have two simple answers: on-wiki (with diff) or off-wiki (no questions asked there). You can see how I asked here. I was willing to believe the CUs. If the death threat was made by an IP on-wiki and they link to it, they won't break the privacy policy, as the threat and IP are intentionally public. Your accusation that I treat the death threats as a joking matter is wrong. I'm only skeptic. I haven't got any death threat from my work here, but I did experience outing off-wiki but related to my work here, and if it wasn't for an admin who thankfully notified me on IRC, I won't know that there is a stalker behind me revealing my identity. I understand how it feels like to be threatened. pandakekok9 04:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

they won't break the privacy policy - that is abjectly wrong, if they say that a certain IP is Alexis (even by linking a diff) they have now linked an IP with an account in public, which violates the privacy policy. We go back to the use of {{Checkuserblock}} in the first place: that template is used when the community is fundamentally unable to fairly review the block because it involves private information that cannot be disclosed publicly. Either you trust the CUs or you don't.

I don't know why people are taking Alexis' apology/explanation at face value - it is a common manipulative tactic to attack people with vague threats and then completely deny that there was a threat intended when questioned about it. You're taking the explanation of someone who already deceived the community (hence the sockpuppet) over the word of two stewards and three other CheckUsers. Quite frankly, I'm surprised this community still has CheckUsers because with the way you've accused them, if I were one I'd have resigned by now in disgust.

And thank you for your clarification that you do take death threats seriously, it is difficult to tell otherwise when you use an emoticon in your comment. --Rs chen 7754 05:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think I know what a death threat looks like. GMG ^talk 13:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Rschen7754: Thank you for providing your point of view. I for one don't take AJ's explanation at face value, however, the CU's made every attempt to make it hard to believe their word at face value as well. I'm not saying that I don't believe them, but that's not strange that there are users who don't. For example: we are right and you are wrong because we have experience is a case book example of a fallacy. Experience doesn't make that you are in the right, it's the strength of your arguments. And the strength of the arguments has been severely lacking from the start. It's because I know what some of the CU's stand for that I can still believe them. And that isn't right. I should be able to believe them because their arguments are valid, and the methods applied are accurate, instead of a feeling of personal trust.

About the CU-block, this was already resolved by Majora who convinced the unblocking admin to reblock. The talk page isn't necessarily the domain of the CU's, therefor leaving the talk page open cannot reasonably to be considered as undoing a CU-block. But this is hardly the most relevant incident. It's Magog edit warring with a fellow admin over closing a discussion at an admin noticeboards, abusing rollback and blocking that other admin over that edit war. This has nothing to do with the abusive unblock. There was no need to blatantly ignore all our policies and practices, both written and unwritten. Those policies and practices are in place, not only when things are easy but also when dealing with harder cases, regardless of the circumstances. Otherwise, what's the meaning of having policies, guidelines and practices if you are only respect them when it's easy to do so. And yes, I know how hard and frustrating it can be when even your fellow admins take the side of an alleged offender or even blatantly deny that a death threat but abuse is never a reason for more abuse. You know what I stand for, no tolerance for abuse, but also a high regard for proper procedure. Those two don't conflict but are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without they other. Natuur12 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Natuur12: While I don't think this was necessarily wrong per se, I think we both agree that we don't really like what Magog did. I think that a more measured response (a dialog with the admin) would have been more appropriate - and I think that communication from the CU team has been suboptimal.

But being practical here: Commons has no ArbCom and no method of emergency desysop - unlike English Wikipedia (where CU blocks came from I believe). Bureaucrats cannot desysop here. Any desysop discussion will take at least a week. Some editor has been giving you and your fellow CUs death threats, and some other admin has undone your CU block. WMF is (as always) slow to respond. What options do you have?

And I don't think that you can put "making death threats" and "edit warring and blocking the other admin" on the same level - one is definitely worse than the other. Only one of them could lead to a WMF ban or even send you to jail. --Rs chen 7754 15:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Rschen7754: This is a bit a question of conscience, this is because I still don't feel comfortable editing NL-wiki because of a death threat. Since the unblocking amdin already restored the block,but with leaving the talk page open an at least an attempt could be made to communicate with the unblocking admin. Since he could clearly be convinced with arguments. If the unblocking admin hadn't undone his unblock, than using the blocking tools without discussing this with the unblocking admin first might have been justified. But only if he/she carefully argues his/her case. The CU team could also have a crat to intervene. The community does respect the authority of a crat when they intervene. There are still options, but they are harder than merely using the tools and putting up a broken hero act.

I think that a point of irritation for some is that they have faced some serious harassment as well. But yet they did had to follow proper procedure and never saw going full autocrat as a viable option. Admins get harassed far to often and threats of harms aren't as rare as they should be. Yet we don't have a long list of admins/CU's behaving badly because of them. Not even in the cases where a community fails a victim. Natuur12 (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comment I think the problem is that neither AJ nor Magog seems to think they have done anything wrong here. I don't think the original post was intended as a death threat, but AJ's combatative attitude on his talk page is not helping. Meanwhile Magog's block of 1989 is far out of line, and deleting his user page seems vindictive. I have restored the page history as there is nothing in policy to support routine deletion of user pages of indefinitely blocked users. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:Baokhang48812002

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Baokhang48812002 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user closed a deletion request on their own file which is not okay. For this they were warned by me, whereupon they decided to do the same thing again.Jonteemil (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also created File talk:Logo of Ho Chi Minh Television.svg with {{Kept}} so that can be deleted since the deletion request isn't closed by an admin yet.Jonteemil (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Since the file seems obviously simple enough not to be copyrightable, and DRs can be closed by non-admins provided that it's an uncontroversial close (which I think it is), I've gone ahead and fixed the source, PD tag, and closed the DR as kept. We should use COM:AN/U as a last resort. This could have been resolved without escalating it. pandakekok9 02:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not done. As Pandakekok said, the logo is too simple for copyright protection and sometimes non-admins can close deletion requests. But Baokhang does not understand yet copyright well and I say: Baokhang, please do not close deletion requests in the future, until you become administrator yourself, especially for your own uploads. I encourage you to participate in deletion request discussions to learn copyright. Taivo (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nothing to do here. Belongs to 7 nonsense or bad faith DRs by 27.66.243.105. --Achim (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. I'm gonna go ahead and close them if uncontroversial. pandakekok9 08:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I took for granted that non-admins couldn't close DRs. Good to know in the future.Jonteemil (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Taivo: Even if non-admins apparently can close DRs, it's not appropriate to do it on files the user uploaded themselves, right? Which was the case here.Jonteemil (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are correct. Baokhang did not act appropriately and this thread can be taken as official warning to Baokhang. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, warning them about closing their own DRs is correct. Though it could have been resolved without resorting to COM:AN/U. pandakekok9 09:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

How? This wasn't my first resort. I did warn them first, whereupon they did the same thing again. What should be the next step?Jonteemil (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Pandakekok9: .Jonteemil (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Pandakekok9: Please enlighten me. I will probably bump into, according to me, problematic users again, and when I have warned them, whereupon they do the same thing as what I previously warned them about, what should I do? I can't block them. Only admins can. This place seems to be the most rational place to go if you ask me.Jonteemil (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jonteemil: Sorry for the very late reply. Seems like Echo failed to notify me on the first ping, or maybe I marked all notifs as read without reading all of them. As said earlier, you could have closed the DR as kept, and the user wouldn't try to close the DR themselves again. But you didn't know that closing DRs as a non-admin is acceptable, as long as it's uncontroversial. Not having to resort to AN/U is possible, that is my point. Don't worry though, I'm not blaming you for not knowing. :) pandakekok9 01:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Luisfelipe99

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Luisfelipe99 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Uploading copyvio after 1 month block. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done - blocked indef. Thank you Yuraily Lic for holding them accountable to our policies. ~riley (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, ~riley. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

AJC29

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

AJC29 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

All files uploaded by this user were copyvios. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done I left them a message. Ahmad^talk 19:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Ahmad. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

File renames by QueerEcofeminist

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

User:QueerEcofeminist has recently made renames to a few books which had English language titles to either a mixture of English and Marathi or to Marathi Language. An example can be found on File:गणितातल्या_गमतीजमती.pdf where the title was completely changed from English to Marathi Language. This has made a huge issue on the 96 paged where this book was used on Marathi Wikisource and these moves have made many pages on that wiki disrupted. Some renames has been even requested by user:सुबोध कुलकर्णी who is a CIS programme officer and being accepted by QueerEcofeminist who seems to be close to this user. In the rename of File:Gangajal cropped.pdf the user gives reason Number 2 (meaningless or ambiguous name) with a move comment The book is in Marathi language, hence the file name should be in Devanagari script as well as in Roman for better searchability. Was this should be ever discussed or it's just own decisions taken? Does these actions goes against COM:RENAME and if so kindly take necessary actions to stop and ask the user to reverse this mass vandalism caused on Marathi Wikisource due to these renames and abuse of Filemover user rights on Wikimedia commons. Regards --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I left them a message at their talk page (please always notify involved user(s)). I think we should wait for their explanation, but (at least some of) these renames are highly likely to fall under the the second file renaming decline criterion. Ahmad^talk 19:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ahmad252, thanks for the ping, Ahmad252,

I renamed all those files in the spirit of making them "Devanagari script as well as in Roman for better searchability" We have been facing the same issue for long now and many files. Today only I renamed few more files.
For me renaming the pdf file shouldn't have disrupted the further flow of wikisource, which had done so. I am aware now that, it was my mistake, I hope it can be undone? or repaired. Sorry for the inconvenience caused.
Many of those files were in need of renaming as per our community discussions locally at multiple real life events and online discussions.

thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 19:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@QueerEcofeminist: Thanks. If there has been a discussion regarding such renames, can you please provide a link to it?

@Tiven2240: I reverted CommonsDelinker's related edits on the Marathi Wikisource. Those pages should be fixed now. Ahmad^talk 21:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ahmad252, I won't be able to provide any diffs or links as those discussions happened in real life events in Pune or otherwise, that I have said earlier. I request you or any admin to revert these renames which were proposed by the above mentioned user, so that it won't disrupt the Wikisource flow, We would rename it(according to renaming policies!) sometime later when we have a local admin or capacities to deal with local moves. I am extremely sorry for the inconvenience caused to admins here. I will take care of these things from next time onwards. This gave me two learnings, have all the discussions onwiki and wikisource files should not be renamed directly. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Still, an explanation why those renames are compliant with out rename policy is lacking. And I don't care about back chamber consensuses. That's not how we work here. You can either properly motivate why the changes are compliant with policy, find an consensus at Wikimedia Commons or stop the renaming. Natuur12 (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Natuur12, I have said it already, that we tried to make filenames more harmonised/searchable/ as there are no phonetic standards available/established to write Marathi names in roman script, additionally not all renaming was not under this reason, some files had completely different names than actual name of the book.

Like, E-Book 100 Common Birds in Maharashtra Marathi (2).pdf was renamed as महाराष्ट्रातील १०० सामान्य पक्षी (Maharashtratil 100 Samanya Pakshi) which is actual name of the book, Yoga Vasishtha Part 01.djvu was renamed as बृहद्योगवासिष्ठसार भाग १ ला (Bruhdyogavasishthsar Part 1).djvu which is actual name of the book, Kubhram Nirnay-Vishwanath Bapu Dhopeshwarkar.pdf was renamed as कुभ्रम निर्णय (Kubhram Nirnay). All of which were actual names of the books, (Reason 2)

And File:Arth shastrachi multatve cropped.pdf, Gangajal cropped.pdf and File:Sanskruti1 cropped.pdf were renamed to अर्थशास्त्राचीं मुलतत्वें (Arthashastrachi Mulatatwe).pdf, गंगाजल (Gangajal).pdf and संस्कृती (Sanskruti).pdf respectively. Which is very much under reason three obvious errors/reason two actual description of the file.
And Ganitachya sopya wata.pdf was renamed to गणिताच्या सोप्या वाटा (Ganitachya Sopya Wata) as per uploaders their own request/reason first.
With all of it, All other files fall under harmonize the names of a set of books under one style so that one can search the original file on commons, we needed both the scripts in the names so that it becomes searchable easily. So they were renamed in the format of Devnagari name (Roman phonetic transcription). (reason 4).

As of now, I have already stopped renaming, I am not going to make any changes as this needs more discussions which can happen elsewhere. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I still believe that these moves are against Wikimedia commons renaming policies as we cannot feature one language over other. Commons is a multilingual project with more than 300 languages. There are many texts in other languages too but they were never renamed such. Also about the discussions that have be taken off wiki were they ever consulted on Wikimedia commons or even in the Marathi Wikisource or Wikipedia community? I believe that a concensus was necessary even before renaming these files which failed. Also I don't understand the rationale behind the renaming them to Marathi titles, dosent description or captions/structured data work well with the search engines crawlers? --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 18:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Banned/sockpuppet user requesting file renames

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Laytar1 (talk · contribs)

This is a resumption of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_83#Wikipedia_sock_turning_to_Commons from February this year. Sockmaster User:Hopeful2014 was banned from Wikipedia for disruptive editing, in part for socking over an extended period to rewrite East London articles to match their own personal opinions which area a particular street or building was in, refusing discussion and creating new accounts to restore edits. As in February they're trying to apply similar alterations indirectly by renaming Commons photos and changing their descriptions and categories instead.

Laytar is renaming and recategorising pubs out of Mile End and into "Globe Town", a category that was edited by the Commons user User:Globetowner1 in February before they were blocked as part of the administrator noticeboard case above.

The Laytar1 account was blocked on Wikipedia in 2018 (before anyone had linked it to User:Hopeful2014). Hopeful2014 is fully banned from editing Wikipedia. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done Blocked this account, and the farm, based on behavioural data and enwiki SPI case. Great work, Lord Belbury. ~riley (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks ~riley. Cleaning up these edits I'm seeing Jayson93 (talk · contribs) making similar category/description changes to some of the articles back in January, seems likely to have been another sock. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply