Ok.... So why don't I pop in and explain my thoughts and therefor my actions.  As I've said about 100 times, I'll happily explain anything I do.  So here goes:

Initially it all started with a user making note on another admin's talk page about [[Image:Masturbating man2.JPG]] being deleted. I checked and the file was deleted by User:Szwedzki with the message of "amateur pr0n".  Now I'm a fan of deleting penis porn as much as the next admin, but as the original user pointed out to me - this file was in use.  The base logic (or Rule, if you will) behind deleting penis porn is that it will never be used, so there for it is out of scope.  This image being used, makes it in scope - As there was no {{Personality rights}} or License issues - there should be no valid reason to delete the image.  So I restored it.  At this point I left User:Szwedzki a note about it was probably just a mistake (AGF and all).  We've all made mistakes.

About an hour later (I believe) that same user posted on my talk page that [[Image:Semen2.jpg]] had also been deleted.  I saw that there was a proper DR (not that I agreed with how it had been handled, but the proccess is there for a reason), and directed the users to [[COM:UDEL]].  The user posted his request there explaining the rationel, which included the fact that the image in question had been used for nearly 2 years (give or take).  I supported the undeletion, along with Johnny-mt and Nilfanion.  All 3 of us are admins.  Rocket000 then restored the image.  Yes, the UDEL was completed extremly quickly - but the image was (again) previously in use and no outstanding issues other than people didn't like the content.

Shortly there after I noticed that Rocket000 has restored the image a second time, which I thought was unusual so I investigated.  I found that Szwedki has deleted the image with the commentary "funny undeletion:)))" along with leaving a message on a closed UDEL ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=prev&oldid=13374657 ).  I also saw that Szwedki has deleted 3 other files recently and all of them were restored.  I found on his talk page that after my note of concern, User:Multichill and User:Rocket000 had left notes of concern. 

Seeing is how Swedski had been idle for the last two weeks, I assumed there was something very wrong - like his account had been comprimised.  Regardless of if his account had been comprimised, he was having a bad day, or simply was going rogue - I thought it was best to shut things down.  So I proceeded to block Szwedki for a week. Yes, I know that is fairly long for a first block - but I'll fully admin I'm a bit heavy handed with the blocks.  Though my thought proccess is that admins should have less leeway for purposeful abuse than normal users.  Deletions of any image cause alot of damage - CommonsDelinker sees to that.  Additionally, I know a block can't hold an admin, we can just turn it right off.  I was hoping that a block would act as a wake up call since posts on the talk user's talk page didn't seem to be getting any response.  I don't want to see a good admin get desysop'd because they had a bad day, or they were misunderstanding how things worked.

-Jon
[[Commons:User:ShakataGaNai]]