Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

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

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]

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]

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Mirror_Selfie_of_erect_penis_with_removed_pubic_hair.jpg

Yann closed this request as:

 Not done: Obviously not. No recent naked pictures of minors are allowed. May be the montage should be deleted.

The only thing that is obvious here is that I end up looking bad. I did not know that the nominated file contained a naked picture of a minor, nor could I have known that.

No one else knew either, apparently:

  • I do not see that the uploader is locked for child protection.
  • The user who previously nominated this file for deletion with a generic scope argument did not seem to have any child pornography concerns.
  • The user who incorporated this file into a montage clearly did not have any child pornography concerns either.

I suspect that the nominated file does not depict a minor at all, but Yann is somehow misreading the situation. Either way, this situation needs to be resolved urgently, which is why I bring it to this noticeboard after a very brief failed attempt to resolve the issue with Yann. Brianjd (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The file page is in a Wayback Machine archive. For some strange reason, that archive is missing both the preview and the thumbnail in the file history section, but that means that archive is safe to view. Now that the file has been restored, it should be correctly archived at some point. The description is (emphasis added):
Young man taking a mirror selfie including his erect penis and removed pubic and chest hair
That would explain it! Yann has a history of interpreting such things as meaning that the subject is a minor. Brianjd (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I reverted my closure. I misread this. Yann (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

LTA now socking with IP

Hello. The LTA Oirattas/Moroike/Orattas has returned under an IP address 78.162.130.48 shortly after being blocked on their latest sock Orattas: you can see identical of LTA "requests" to erase Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh from commons maps [4], [5], [6], [7], among other identical requests concerning Sudan. They have also reverted all of my reverts of them.

The IP even left a message to one of the users Orattas was making many requests to in commons, but the message was left on a different wiki project, with IP saying "Unfortunately, I have been blocked.", and making the same map requests that Orattas did. It's clearly them, this is just unhealthy. Also, on another user's page on a different wiki project [8] again confessing they have been blocked. The IP clearly needs to be range locked or the abusive sockpuppetry will continue and is sipping into literally every wiki project. All of their "requests" need to be reverted too which they display here: what they do usually is go to oblivious users pages and request edits to erase Nagorno-Karabakh from maps with disregard to context, upload dates, historical purpose, etc, see one of the users actually challenging them [5], [6] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done IP blocked for a week, most edits reverted. Yann (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Datasets about potential logos - January 2025 uploads

Hi all, we have released a new dataset of potential logos uploaded in January 2025, together with another one of those which have already been deleted as of 2025-02-04. We are sharing them with you for your consideration.

This is part of our current work with the logo detection tool. We hope it will be useful for your moderation activities.

If you encounter issues with the datasets or have comments/requests, please reach out to me or to Sannita (WMF).

Thanks for your attention! –-MFossati (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:2025 Philadelphia Learjet 55 crash.png

Please add Category:Screenshots of security camera footage--Trade (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done already done by Bedivere. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Request to allow these files to be deleted as tagged.

Usually Admin's decide to keep the duplicate that has the earliest date & time. I'm requesting that these files (nominated by a User other than me) be deleted, even tough they were uploaded two minutes earlier than my uploads of the same Flickr album. Yes, that means that my files would be kept. User:RandomUserGuy1738 and myself both used the UploadWizard tool. However, it took me 2 minutes to create file names for all the uploaded files. I aslo made a "caption" for all files as well. This little bit of prep time before uploading, makes files with good file names and captions. Only 2 minutes is the diffence in the upload times here. Unnecessarily, RandomUserGuy1738 has uploaded over 10,000+ files with "bad" or meaningless file names. Admin's have disgression. I'm asking that positive work to make better quality uploaded files with captions and good file names be rewarded- not penalized by having taken a couple of minutes to do the right action. I'm asking that these be allowed to be deleted as duplicates as tagged, despite the two minute earlier upload time.

@A1Cafel, is there a reason you reverted all the duplicate tags? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a strong reason that the newer one should be kept, just let User:OptimusPrimeBot to tag it. --A1Cafel (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AntiCompositeNumber, The reason is found here: User talk:Rakoon#Duplicate files. One hour before A1Cafel reply to you here, a comment was made on the duplicate deletion requester's talk page.
  • @Rakoon wrote, "Hi, actually I didn't look on uploading date, but on the naming. I thought the policy of Commons is to prefer images with clear naming, that was my rationale here. But if you think its not the correct way of working you are welcome to make the change. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience." Rakoon's "rationale" was based on file names- "I thought the policy of Commons is to prefer images with clear naming, ..."
  • Commons "Official Guideline": Commons:File naming states, "This page in a nutshell: File names should ideally be descriptive, clear, appropriate and concise. However, old files do not need to be renamed to fit this guideline exactly, due to the costs of renaming files." (underline emphasis added)
Also, A1Cafel knows that OptimusPrimeBot makes a decision based only on the earliest time. That means no human thought and therefore- no ability to use an Admin's disgression. For years, A1Cafel and RandomUserGuy1738 have uploaded 1,000's of files with "bad" or meaningless file names from the same Flickr sources. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would think we should keep the files with better names and with captions. I won't do anything unilaterally right now, since I would like to give A1Cafel a chance to respond with his reasoning (and certainly there is no emergency), but it seems to me that meaningful names and the presence of captions are both of value, and who uploaded first (by minutes) is basically beside the point. The reason we have that rule about "older file" has nothing to do with someone getting there a few minutes earlier, it has to do with not overwriting longstanding files. - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Exact or scaled-down duplicate with non-descripive file name has been a deletion reason since 2013, and the expectation has always been that administrators should make sure that any useful information is copied to the surviving file. Uploading files with the imported caption and just a VIRIN as a name is exactly the sort of bot uploading that is contemplated by COM:CSD, whether on someone's main account or not. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it would make sense not to have to go through the tedium of keeping the older file but then copying over the caption and changing the name. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AntiCompositeNumber & @Jmabel, A1Cafel did not reply to your most recent comments above, however:
  • A1Cafel removed all the "Duplicate" deletion tags (apparently on behalf of silent RandomUserGuy1738) at 08:10 on 6 February- before this discussion was finished.
  • This allowed OptimusPrime BOT to tag my better named uploaded files with detailed captions for deletion as duplicates. As I said above, "A1Cafel knows that OptimusPrimeBot makes a decision based only on the earliest time. That means no human thought and therefore- no ability to use an Admin's disgression."
  • So, the 10 files above, plus another 4 files from the my same Flickr album upload (inadvertently not included by me here) were deleted by Turelio from 01:30 to 01:33 on 7 February according to this Deletion Log: [7]. I assume @Turelio just routinely processed these files, tagged by the User:OptimusPrimeBOT, while having no knowledge of the discussion here.
The meaningless files names without captions remain. More files are now added to the already 7,500+ files found within Category:Photographs by the United States Department of Defense with bad file names and more more than 10,000+ files with meaningless file names found within 113,000+ files Category:Files uploaded by RandomUserGuy1738. Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Will revert and do it properly. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. File:U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth hosts a bilateral exchange with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Pentagon, USA on February 5, 2025 - 12 (cropped).jpg was also incorrectly deleted as a duplicate when it was not, and I have undeleted it as well. I also copied the COM:VIRIN from the Flickr descriptions to {{ID-USMil}}, which is helpful for spotting non-exact duplicates from other US military sources like DVIDS. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibilty to send Wikimails to a large number of users?

Hi, I do not know if this is even provided technically, if it is possible for admins. As a member of the organizing team of Wiki Loves Monuments I would like to send an email through "Email this user" to the participants of WLM in 2024 to invite them to take part in a survey we conduct to learn from their experiences. By participating in the photo contest they agreed to being contacted by email, but doing so one by one would take a looong time. There have been about 4500 participants. If an admin can help with sending the invitations - or if someone can point me to a bot that is allowed to do so - I would provide the list of user names and the emails' content. Thank you for any help in advance, Manfred Werner (WMAT) (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manfred Werner (WMAT) In general, it's better to use m:MassMessage than to directly send emails, especially with that large of a list. This would also respect opt-outs, which is important since the section of the rules you mention does not actually provide consent to be emailed about a survey. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is the tool de:Benutzer:DerHexer/massenmail but I do not know the rate limitings for sending wikimails. Account creation rights would definitely be needed but I am not sure if this would be sufficient for such a large amount of mails if you do not want to wait some days until everything was sent. All mass wikimails I got came from WMF staff and I think even those where only to some hundred users and not some thousand. GPSLeo (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Participants should have their e-mail enabled on Wikimedia Commons (or the platform they uploaded their photos to) to be eligible for prizes; is not consent to be contacted by email. It is consent to be contacted by email specifically about prizes. I would certainly oppose you emailing people in this circumstance. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy. Emails are intended to be used for private communication like prize notifications. Public communications, like survey requests, should generally be posted on public talk pages. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unban request

The Portuguese-language Wikipedia user Gabriel bier (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has shown interest in a courtesy vanishing.[8][9][10] However, as they are banned from this very project, they are unable to request it. They have been banned here for over a decade now and are (or were) a prolific editor on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, so, in my opinion, the ban seems unnecessary, especially given the user's expressed interest in permanently leaving the projects. I am in favor of the unban so that they can proceed with the process, but an administrator needs to carry this out. Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done courtesy unblock in order to complete vanishing Bedivere (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove bad warning

Please remove the warning "You are using the old upload form. Try the Upload Wizard instead.". Where does it come from? The "Wizard" in inherently defective. Not only it does not show the crucial deletion notice, it also shows useless "Flickr", is overly complicated, and it is almost impossible to use it. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I found it: MediaWiki:Gadget-ImprovedUploadForm.js @User:Perhelion @User:Steinsplitter. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:51, 7 February 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]

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]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=996469779"