Commons:Administrators/Requests

Requests for adminship

watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

• Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

Kallerna (de-adminship)

Related requests:

• Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship)
• Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship 2)

• Commons:Requests and votes/Kallerna

Vote

Kallerna (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (Activity: Talk Commons DR)

Scheduled to end: 01:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

A consensus (with 17 supports vs 3 opposes) to start this process was reached on this Administrators' Noticeboard thread. The rationales are pretty much the same as in the first de-adminship attempt (which was closed as inadmissible because there was no clear consensus at that point). The current problems with Kallerna are wheel-warring (unblocking a user without prior attempt to contact the admin who performed the block), and use of admin privileges despite possible conflict of interest. Additionally: problematic behaviour, arrogancy, uncivil remarks such as "Please do not block users who do not share the same views as you", "I'm here to contribute to the project, not to discuss with trolls".

With that said, I hereby request to review whether Kallerna still has the trust of Commons community to hold the admin flag. Thanks --A.Savin 01:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Votes

•  Remove as nominator, for reasons already stated in the previous RfDA, and on ANU discussion. --A.Savin 01:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove regretfully, per above.  Keep Their apologies seem reasonable and well-meant. We also are in huge need of admins. One less is no solution. However, the point should be made: no repetition of past mistakes. --Bedivere (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Commons needs more admins, but not admins who cannot use their tools properly. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Here both involved admins failed with their tools. -- Zache (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Remove regretfully, per above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 03:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove Per ANU discussion and their comment about other people trolling. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove While I would not have blocked Karelj, the unblock was performed without the mandatory consultation and the subsequent lack of accountability leaves us little choice. Guido den Broeder (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove Regretully. Kallerna never fully addressed the issues raised on AN in my opinion Gbawden (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove The following quote shows are huge misunderstanding of Commons policies: You are not a admin, and you are not involved in the matter - I did not have any reason to communicate with you. [1] (the part before the comma should be irrelevant) --Schlurcher (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove Per ANU discussion. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove regretfully, per my statement in the ANU discussion. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove I'm not a frequent voter, and I'm rather a low-key contributor. Admin behavior referenced and linked by other voters is one of most discouraging parts of contributing to Wikipedia and Commons. --Tupungato (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep I accept Kallerna's explanation and apology. Taivo (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep No reason. Htm (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Htm: could you please elaborate by "no reason"? --SHB2000 (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  This section is for votes, not for discussing. I find your behavior very disturbing. I have talk page.-- Htm (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  No one in their right mind would consider asking for clarification "very disturbing behaviour". You still haven't answered my question. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please both tone it down? Keep the conversation civil please, wherever it takes place! Kritzolina (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep Kallerna statement is far sufficiant, I quote: "I want to apologize everyone involved" or "This was obviously a mistake". If they do ten times the same thing, ok, but for the first error as administrator... that should be sufficiant IMO. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep Kallerna has apologized for his behavior (controversial unblocking) and offending remarks, and I feel no need to pursue the matter further. 0x0a (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete They said they apologise, but I have the impression the don't understand the problem at any level and still consider the feedback a big waste of time. --Krd 16:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove Regretfully. I do not find any sense in the responses from Kallerna. A well-sought sorry could have worked but I'm not finding it, and I seriously don't like ifs and buts.─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove I'd have been fine with a warning if they showed they understood that they screwed up majorly here, but they've doubled down on their behavior, they've never addressed their conflict in interest as far as the unblock because they were w:WP:Involved in the incident that caused the block, they clearly don't understand that Karelj's block was within policy and seems to have prevented future disruption. Abzeronow (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove Commons deserves better. Natuur12 (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove as the nominator of the original de-adminship nom – too bad they couldn't admit their mistake and apologise to A.Savin. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep The initial block and removing the block were both done incorrectly. The related discussions after that were somewhat subpar, but I hope that participants will learn something from this and next time co-operation would work better. --Zache (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep Ditto per Zache. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep good sysop.--RZuo (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep Per Zache --Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep A single incident like this does not rise to the level of desysop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep 1989 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just a vote? --SHB2000 (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep Kallerna has acknowledged the action taken was incorrect, "I should have not done it without discussing about it first."[2] While the communications on both sides were not ideal (the initial failure of Kallerna to acknowledge the problem vs the rapid escalation to desysop fairly early in the discussion) this appears to be a first offence in the 14 years since Kallerna became an admin. If any admin can limit themselves to one mistake every 14 years, I think that would be a good result for the community. If Kallerna hasn't learned from this and the poor decisions are repeated, it will be easy enough to consider whether a desysop discussion is appropriate at that time. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove regretfully. MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep, per King of Hearts. Érico (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove Per above. Not convinced the "apology" is sincere, it seems to be a desperate, last-ditch attempt to retain the admin bit. -Fastily 23:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep --RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep I accept his apology and acknowledgement. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep -- FitIndia ^Semi-retired 20:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep this is not worth a desysop. Similar as King of Hearts. I hope kallerna and A.Savin can soon get along with each other again.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Weak keep per King of Hearts (who, no, I am not related to) and FHTS. This is deeply troubling and they're certainly on thin ice, but I think a desysop is unnecessary for one isolated incident. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they/ella/elle) 05:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep per Zache and KoH. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep --Argenberg (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Neutral --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove not discussing the reversal, and the threatening nature of the comment sent to the original admin implying he blocked because he disagreed with the users opinions is very obviously wrong. The level of aggression and disrespect is extraordinary. If you are admin, then you do t wheel war. You discuss on the admin’s noticeboard. If this vote results in a deadmin, then I would like to see some sort of restriction placed on the former admin that prevents retaliation. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep cool

1. A user was blocked just for having a non-consensual opinion. Wikimedia Commons should be open to diversity.
2. As Zache remarkably showed here, over hundreds of recent reviews, the user Karelj has never been really "uncivil". Just hastily shared singular and subjective opinions. No big deal. No drama at all.
3. Admin Kallerna unblocked Karelj without discussion because the user was blocked without discussion.
4. Admin Christian Ferrer politely suggested A.Savin that this minor incident was not worth a long and boring desysop procedure, but A.Savin reverted the comment as if the opinion was unacceptable. Why?!
5. Admin Kallerna also made the effort to politely engage a discussion on the same talk page, "For your work, I've especially enjoyed the images from Moscow metro. Thanks for your contributions!", result "I don't need bla bla" was rather harsh in comparison, and very weird in this context supposed to deal with COM:CIVIL.
6. Following this discussion, A.Savin goes to Kallerna's talk page to throw "seldom in my Wikimedia activity I had seen such childish behaviour by an admin". See Direct rudeness on COM:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL: (d) belittling a fellow editor".
7. In the end, it's quite a mountain for such an insignificant event gone haywire. Please continue to preserve Wikimedia Commons as democratic platform. The day it will stop, we will just find another cool place. 🐸 Don't Worry, Be Happy ♫ -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep There's no need for this drama; both administrators made mistakes, and instead of wasting our time here, we should move on and concentrate on making improvements to Wikimedia Commons. 20 upper 11:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove -- أيوب (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep Admin Kallerna has apologized for his controversial unblocking and offending remarks, I think there is no need to pursue the matter further. --Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 14:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep In my view a single incident and Kallerna has straightened that out. --Mosbatho (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Remove --Mirer (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Weak keep --Mateus2019 (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep just a single incident, not a chronic behavioral issue. The issue is resolved, and we're just wasting time over this silly thing at this point. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 11:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep Per Bedivere: he apologised for the main case. The important thing is whether he will continue with this kind of excesses. I don't consider cases "Please do not block users...", "I'm here to contribute..." to be anything so fundamental that rights have to be taken away. I agree he could have handled it a little more sensitively. --Packa (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

The Truth Is Out There —kallerna (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

And this smörgåsbord of several difflinks should say what exactly? --A.Savin 12:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not want to make a long explanation all over again. I would just like to see you apologize Karelj for your inadequat block. If the community thinks I should not have admin tools after my mistake and following apology, then I respect that view. —kallerna (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Pointing out a possible error by another admin doesn't excuse your behavior. Instead of abusing your tools, you could have started a discussion about that block. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a pretty minor mistake in the grand scheme of things, but still not good. If you do lose the privilege I encourage you to continue contributing and reply at some point in the future since it's that major of an issue to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You are correct Guido, that is why I have apologized my actions. Adamant1, I have been here for more than 15 years, I have no intentions to stop my contributions. —kallerna (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope you won’t retaliate if you do lose your privileges. The way you spoke to SHB2000 on the admin noticeboard was not great. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Strange that you are expecting me to seek Karel's pardon. I didn't treat him uncivil, unlike he treated Cart (and never apologized for this). The block was not abusive or bad-faith in any event. But if you are convinced that admins should apologize for past blocks, then feel encouraged to demand some Russian Wikipedia admins to do so first, who had abusively blocked me several times for void reasons, probably over political hate. --A.Savin 20:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@A.Savin: As I said earlier, admins should understand each other reasons rather than being right. I explain how I see what happened. From Kallerna's point of view, your rationale for blocking Karelj based on the given examples was insufficient. In this case, one example was extended in your blocking rationale to repeated very disrespectful comments at FPC recently. Based on Karelj voting comments, your claim was not true. When the admin makes such claims as part of the block, it tarnishes the target's reputation, and action will be required when one notices it. From your side, I think you thought that Karelj's comments were enough for blocking. It is also complex to explain when negative opinnion is bad as the integral part of FPC is also that users can give opposing and critical opinnions. So I would like not to be too harsh if somebody tries to make commenting more friendly. -- Zache (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

<redacted>. 151.37.254.208 16:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

A.Savin, can you explain why you removed the above comment? Btw, you were blocked on ru.wikipedia for incivility. If you import that and call it abusive, expect people to reply.

Kallerna, why did you think it a good idea to be the one to revert that? Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The above comment by an IP is indeed a troll, and there are good reasons to remove it. Yann (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Being blocked for expressing political opinions IS abusive, though, if I understand correctly (A.Savin, please correct me if I'm wrong). --SHB2000 (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Minor terminology quibble: wheel warring is when an admin action is reinstated, not when one is undone. The unblock was inappropriate, though, to be clear. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

With respect, that is not accurate. A wheel war includes reverting an admin action without consensus or discussion. This was absolutely an example of wheel warring. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Description in enwiki is: Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus. wp:Wikipedia:Administrators -- Zache (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn’t want to rely on the English Wikipedia when it comes to administration. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

if sysops have different opinions about an action that can only be done by sysops (delete, protect, block), that action should be reviewed by the community. meanwhile, when the action is being reviewed, or if no consensus can be reached, the default should be the least restrictive action, i.e. undelete, unprotect, unblock.

in other words, it should not require more than 1 user to undo a single sysop's decision, but rather a majority consensus is needed to affirm a single sysop's decision.--RZuo (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• This may be obvious to people who have followed the AN discussion, but I think it should be indicated somewhere in the request that A.Savin was/is involved in the (initial) controversy leading up to this request, and that "the admin who performed the block" is A.Savin. That part was not immediately clear to me. whym (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment I haven't followed these events closely, so I am choosing not to vote, but I'm troubled by the thought that if an admin continues functioning as such while lacking the confidence of some of the other admins, in addition to other long-time users, that could damage confidence in the moderation team, overall. I appreciate that some reflection has taken place, but should there be an agreement that any future irregularity would lead to, say, a 3-month suspension of Kallerna's sysop tools? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• I was new to the desysop process prior to this. I was a little surprised that the sysop and desysop processes have different thresholds (75% confidence of the community to become an admin vs 50% confidence of the community to remain one) but those thresholds must have come about from community consensus. The consensus must have anticipated a greater degree of disharmony to allow the threshold for removal to be at 50% instead of 25%. While it is a good idea to sometimes revisit a previous consensus to check current community thinking, it is probably not the best time to do so 1 day before a 7 day desysop process concludes. Sanctions short of desysop should probably be discussed outside of this desysop process, as you would do with any normal situation. However, "any future irregularity" is probably too low a bar to judge future behaviour. It is an open invitation to anyone with a grudge to try to provoke a reaction and label the reaction as "irregular." From Hill To Shore (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  I take your point, but I do think this situation warrants additional discussion, even outside of this current desysop nomination. Perhaps some consideration could be made of what kinds of actions have antagonized other admins and other constructive users, and there could be at least some informal agreement to revisit things if such actions are repeated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Ikan Kekek, sorry I think your idea is not excellent, because there will be a proposal to suspend A.Savin's tool reciprocally. A large number of participants openly reported here and in the previous discussion that they considered the initial block unwarranted / inappropriate. I also think that if an admin comes to block you sometimes for a questionable reason, say you forgot to say "hello", then you'll probably be grateful to the person who takes the responsibility to unblock you immediately, instead of asking the community "saying hello is it an essential prerequisite?" Let's move on. Enough dust shaken off on this matter, in my opinion. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  The reason wasn't so stupid, but I don't think we should be afraid of a discussion of Alex's behavior, if warranted - and not as the tit for tat you seem to be suggesting. I should say, suspensions for incivility can be appropriate but shouldn't be done without warning except in cases that are so obvious as to be uncontroversial, which this one was not. I haven't looked at this situation in detail but do know what comments were made at FPC. But anyway, start the thread if you like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• No like. Your idea, not mine. And never said it was "stupid", just "not excellent" IMHO. Kind regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I was saying the block reason wasn't as stupid as forgetting to say hello. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm... in this case the reviewer forgot to say "sorry" and "I my opinion". Also he made spelling mistake ("reasonon" instead of "reason") -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Please turn the page as soon as this voting pool has ended. We're in 2024, happy new year. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)