User talk:Rodhullandemu

Russavia socksEdit

I think it is redundant to block the socks of Russavia, such as Videographing. The WMFOffice globally locks Russavia socks. Also, if you think that autoblock will prevent Russavia from socking, it is still useless, as it seems that Russavia resets his router to change to different IP addresses. And lastly, it seems he wants to fix his files on Commons, which is not harmful to Commons. He even nominates files for deletion, which is useful too. I don't see yet some harmful edits of any socks of Russavia. So I recommend you to not block those socks of Russavia as it is a waste of time. Let the WMF chase the ghosts instead. Thanks! Poké95 13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

And you blocked 2001:648:2FFC:1225:A800:2FF:FE69:874B as a sock of Russavia. Can you please kindly unblock that IP, because they filed a DR that is clearly valid. I don't care if they are Russavias, as long as they filed a valid DR or involved in such discussion. Sometimes, blocking a sock of Russavia is unconstructive. This prevents the IP to respond to any comments in his DR. Thanks, Poké95 12:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Whether good or bad, WMF have determined that Russavia's edits are not welcome here, or anywhere else. You want me to fail to perform my duties as an Administrator here? I don't see that I have much choice. I'm not the only Admin blocking Russavia's socks, and WMF are not always around when he is. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It may be worth raising your point of view on AN if you believe you have a duty to implement WMF's office actions. Such actions are independent of anything we do as a community here on Commons for good legal reasons and precisely do not introduce any requirements on Commons administrators to take action. If you are blocking an IP it should be justified against Commons policies with regard to vandalism, harassment or similar. Thanks -- (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Also, you are not authorized nor required to do office actions. Such blocks like this should be discussed by the Commons' community. There are many other works admins should do other than blocks, such as COM:CDC. I recommend you to stop in blocking Russavia's socks. As I stated above, let the WMF chase the ghosts instead. Thanks, Poké95 12:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Abuse of multiple accounts is always a valid reason for blocking, as is block evasion, whatever the source of the block. This principle must also apply to bans. To think otherwise is to subvert the reason for having a system of blocks and bans in the first place. However, if you want me to allow Russavia to continue sticking two fingers up to the Commons community in a monstrous display of arrogance and immaturity, I'll happily do so, fully knowing where the fault lies. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you think it is really an abuse of multiple accounts? Yes, maybe block/ban evasion is an abuse, but that is not the case for now. Russavia created multiple accounts to fix their files and nominate files for deletion (which is valid), and that is not an abuse. Russavia rarely socks to abuse Commons (but I saw an account by Russavia that intimidated INeverCry, well I will not say the username as it is offending to him), and I think his only intention for now is to help Commons, which is in good faith. So I won't consider that as a real "sockpuppetry", as sockpuppetry means abuse of multiple accounts. Now, do you think that your block of an IP that filed a obviously valid DR, whether it is Russavia or not, is fair, or unfair? I appreciate your blocks of the socks of Starship9000, but not Russavia's socks. Poké95 01:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course it's an abuse of multiple accounts. Multiple accounts are not permitted except in special circumstances, but in particular they are not permitted to evade blocks or to edit when hiding one's alternate identity. You forget that I was an admin on en:WP long before I became one here, so I am familiar with blocking policies there and here, and they don't differ that much. You have only to look at some of the names of accounts that Russavia has created to see how much respect he has for his former colleagues here, and the policies and social norms that prevail. In short, he's "flipping the bird" at us, however useful his edits may be, and for that reason alone AGF goes out of the window as far as I am concerned. I know he has his supporters here, but I am not one of them. Neither am I critical of him as far as content goes; however, blocked is blocked, banned is banned, and WMF don't do so for other than good, and presumably legally defensible reasons. As for the IP, hiding behind anon and open proxies is one the trademarks of Russavia. No new user comes here and straightaway does edits that are typical of Russavia. I may be naive in some ways, but a fool I am not. If he wants to appeal his ban, that is the way forward. Abusing the system is not. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't care if you are an admin on enwiki, or any other wiki, as they are different to Commons (BTW, they should not be used as a reason for something, unless clearly related). You haven't answered yet my question above (Now, do you think that your block of an IP that filed a obviously valid DR, whether it is Russavia or not, is fair, or unfair?) And again, you are not authorized to enforce such office actions. Did the WMF said to you to block the socks of Russavia? It is their responsibility, not ours. Also, to be clear, I am just against to blocks of IPs that are currently participating or filed a valid DR, whether it is Russavia or not. Did you just read the comment of above? Poké95 02:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Editing to prevent this section from being archived automatically, as this discussion is still open. Poké95 09:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you really avoiding this discussion, or you already realized and admit that your blocks are unfair and unnecessary? I think you're the one who is abusing the system, you just wait for this discussion to be auto-archived by a bot. I still won't forget this discussion until you haven't responded. BTW, I am watching your logs. Poké95 00:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'm not avoiding this discussion, I am still considering it in my spare time, which you will realise is limited if you are watching my logs. You will also have realised that I haven't blocked any socks of Russavia, or anyone else, recently, despite numerous opportunities. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh and bearing in mind this, you might want to pass your wisdom on to User:Nilfanion too; I'm sure he'll appreciate it. Good night. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I reminded him/her about it. Poké95 01:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
While Commons admins may not have a duty to enforce a WMF global ban, that doesn't mean we should ignore actions by a WMF-banned user if we happen to encounter them. Sure any local block becomes redundant once WMF locks the account, but several hours may elapse before then. Why wait and allow further disruption?
Russavia is also blocked locally, so evasion of that block is an abuse of multiple accounts per Commons blocking policy. That is regardless of whether the edit is "good" or "bad" - it is the evasion of the block that is the abuse, not what the edits are.
However the key bit to me is that the edits of accounts like User:Katch me if u can are disruptive as an unauthorised bot, and that would be true even if it wasn't Russavia. The individual edits appear harmless, but the sheer number of them floods the Recent Changes log and watchlists. That makes RC patrol much more difficult, and disrupts user's watchlists - which is why such actions should be done with a bot-flagged account. Normally the block for an unauthorised bot would be short while the bot-op is contacted, but that's not an option here.
I know that Russavia just moved on to the next account, but in the hours after I blocked that account the RC log was free of this clutter - that's a good thing. If I had blocked User:บริษัท การบินไทย จำกัด when it appeared on my watchlist, it would have been active for 1 hour instead of 5 (when WMF locked it). To me, that's all the justification needed to intervene, instead of waiting for WMF to cotton on to the latest one.
There are several things I think Commons should do:
  1. Russavia appears to want to purge all reference to himself from his uploads. That seem safe enough, so instead of allowing him to run amok, lets do it ourselves properly. A bot-flagged account should be set up and run by an active Commons user (Maybe user:Fæ?). The bot-flagging would remove the harm I describe above, and the request will allow discussion of whether these edits truly are harmless - its possible there's a problem we are overlooking.
  2. Public scripts, in particular VisualFileChange, should be modified to have an effective speed limit unless done on a bot-flagged account. The breakneck edit rates Russavia achieved with VFC should not be possible without a bot flag.
  3. Consider an abuse filter for all VFC edits - it would also make the WMF's job easier. I'm also curious how much of recent VFC use is actually legitimate (ie non-Russavia).
Its beyond our power to get Russavia unbanned, so we should not waste time talking about that - regardless of our feelings about him and whether his ban is justified or not. We shouldn't let him do whatever he wants because its the WMF, and not Commons, he has the issue with - especially when what he is doing is disruptive.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Well said, Nilfanion; no one can give a better explanation for this current situation. Our COM:OV and WMF CA team can work together for a better solution. But doing it or not is up to them, and it is there problem; not ours. A protest using sock-farm is not a productive solution for it. Jee 13:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Jkadavoor, you are highly visible in various forums creating discussions about Russavia's account, responding in threads when Russvia has used a sock account, and appearing each time there is a potentially related discussion. In the context of your past assertions, it is reassuring that you no longer feel harassed by Russavia. -- (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I (voluntarily) don't want and trying hard, NOT to respond you. But you're chasing me everywhere with NONSENSE. I didn't understand your comment above. I had worked together with him in many places including FPC. It was me who handled some OTRS tickets. Anyone who re-examine those tickets can see they are handled as best as possible. Still he threw some very bad words against me that I reported to IRC ops. It is a past incident and I'm no more in IRC or OTRS. And I'm not a guy keeping grudges till marching to the grave. I no longer feel harassed by ANY than YOU. Jee 14:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Let's hope that Russavia's office lock was not based on similarly insubstantial complaints of "harassment". I hope you are never the target of the criminal harassment that other contributors here have experienced. -- (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit

Can you please stop this nonsense about hat 14.42.188.169 is making to File:CNN Tonight logo.png? This is the same user who is blocked, has multiple accounts (both created and IP), and keeps making nonsense edits to CNN-related articles on the English Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb has blocked them, but they just keep going to another IP. This is getting tiresome. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan 14:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Closed the DR as "Keep", and protected the file against anon IP editing for a while. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Corkythehornetfan 18:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I think Commons:Deletion requests/File:CNN Tonight logo.png needs to be protected too so the anon IP totally cannot nominate that file again for deletion. Poké95 11:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done. Makes sense. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Rodhullandemu".