Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Note

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

Adamant1 (again)

Hi, Adamant1, while contesting the closure of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maximum cards of India on User:Abzeronow's talk page ([1], has used inacceptable language, specially "lazy ass slack", so I warned him. But instead of backing off and apologize, he continues on my talk page. He was warned before for such behavior, so I think that some action is needed. Yann (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang

I said on my talk page that I could have been a little nicer about it and I don't think I've left Abzeronow a message about this or anything else in the meantime. So Yann's assertion that I didn't back off or apologize is patently false. What I do is leave him a message asking why he feels the need to constantly antagonize me with block warnings the second I get defense or make a slightly critical message towards someone on here. I've asked Yann to back off me several times. I've reported him for it. Other people have told him to disengage. Yet here we are with him still getting up my ass and trying to have me blocked. There's what, 200 administrators on here? Yet somehow every damn there's a minor issue with my behavior Yann is the one getting on me about it for some reason. I shouldn't have to keep asking him to let another administrator deal with it.

I would have had absolutely zero problem with Abzeronow saying something about the comment or blocking me over it. This is only continuing because Yann is obsessed with my behavior and can't leave me the hell alone for some reason. He should be blocked for harassment. Pure and simple. That would deal with the issue. He's been reported to ANU and called out by other people multiple times for being over zealous in his usage of talk page warnings and blocks. He's blocked me several times for reasons that were clearly not issues. He's blocked other users over things that weren't problems. He's ran multiple people off the platform over the same behavior. I'm sick of dealing with it. He just needs to be blocked at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty far from an apology for either the language you used toward Abzeronow or the even more excessive language toward Yann on your talk page. Normally, I've been one of your strongest advocates here, and I think you do a lot of good work, but that does not give you a license to abuse other people. - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: I was only logged on for like 20 minutes before Yann reported. I was actually planning on leaving Abzeronow an apology on their talk page but I wasn't given a chance to. Ergo one of the reasons why I think Yann should be sanctioned. It's absolute BS for an administrator to give someone a warning while their logged out and then to report them the second they do for supposedly backing off and apologizing. If Yann actually cared he would have given me a chance to resolve it on my own when I logged back in and actually had the time to. I'm sorry I didn't wake up 4 in the morning to apologize for something just so Yann wouldn't act like an antagonistic bully though. You guys have to do a better job giving people an opportunity to fix their own problems on here. I don't know how many times I've been warned about or blocked for things that I was in the middle of dealing with. It's just an unprofessional, trashy way to treat people. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, It can sometimes to be difficult to communicate with you because you tend to show up to a discussion ready to fight. So I sometimes have to step away before I respond to you because I don't want to feed into the feeling that discussions have to be arguments when I'm talking to you. I still think you can contribute in a valuable way. As for apologies, I leave that decision to you, if you wish to do so, then you may do so, if not, then don't. I am not going to let hotheaded words sway how I deal with you, but I'd like to talk with you in ways that are conducive to collaboration. Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: That's fair. I appreciate the level headed way you generally handle things. I had a pretty rough day yesterday because of things going on IRL. I should have just taken the time offline to deal with it instead of snapping at you. I apologize for the less then civil tone though. I should have phrased things better. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to address one misconception you have, since the comment was about me, I can't be an arbiter of things that involve me, so I can't be the one to block or sanction. Yes, I probably should asked you to retract the uncivil comments, but I also did not want to escalate. Yann strikes me as a reasonable administrator, I do have my disagreements with him on policy but Yann has never given me the impression that he seeks out arguments. But anyway, I do appreciate that you can see what you could have done differently and I would appreciate if you could retract "a lazy ass slack off". Abzeronow (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop being abusive in the first place. It’s not good enough to sake something inflammatory or rude and then need to apologise. For most people, this can occasionally happen and we give them some slack. But if you are entering into discussions, regularly making these sort of remarks, and then find 20 minutes later you need to apologise then that is not Yann or anyone else’s issue - that’s something you need to deal with. If you are being pinged almost immediately by Yann after the umpteenth time (I’ve been away for about 9-11 months and I see you are *still* having the same issues) then you can’t complain about *his* behaviour.

You need to modify your behaviour. Once you do, then people will stop demanding you change your behaviour. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock2: I've actually calmed down quite a lot in the last year and it's not a regularly thing by any means. I still have bad days once in a while just like everyone else does though. Just because I was kind of a asshole 4 or 5 years ago doesn't mean I deserve to have Yann or anyone else has to be up my ass trying to get me indefed the second I say something rude to someone. There's still the presumption of good faith and basic etiquette. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn’t 4 or 5 years ago that I saw these behavioural issues. It was just over 9 months ago. I’m sad because I think you are, by and large, a productive member of commons. But it doesn’t mean your behaviour is acceptable at the moment.

thiscis not about you “being a asshole 4 or 5 years ago”. This is about your behaviour now.

look, I know what it’s like to get targeted. In this case, I think you are in conflict with two other uses. But your accusations against Yann are off base. He’s not persecuting you. He’s trying to prevent all out war - caused in large part by the way you speak to others. He, and other admins, must step in to deal with issues you are involved in. And time after time, I see the same thing - you have said something inflammatory, the other party does the same, and the whole thing gets derailed needing someone like Yann to step into fix a problem you caused.

Whilst it’s excellent you recognise you often need to apologise, the consequence is ill feeling during the discussion, nothing productive is discussed and it devolves to insult, and admins have no choice but to step in. If you had not made the personal remarks, or insulted the other party, then a. You wouldn’t need to apologise, and b. we’d get to consensus better.

You need to do better. You’ve had years to do so. Apologies feel thin if the behaviour you have to apologise for repeats itself. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "I've actually calmed down quite a lot in the last year." What I didn't say is that I've been 100% perfect in the last 4 or 5 years. I was certainly way more argumentative when I first signed up for my account though. But what I was responding to is your claim that I'm "frequently apologizing" for things, which is just patently false. Supposedly you haven't even been on here in 9 months but somehow you know I'm frequently apologizing for things when I never said I am and know one else did either. Again, I'm not frequently doing anything, apologizing or otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But here we are, on the admin noticeboard with you being accused of making personal comments that have derailed yet another deletion discussion. You aren’t doing a great job of convincing me you have changed. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: BTW, if you want another example of that Yann left me a talk page messaging about adding the proper licenses to some poster, I told him I was in the middle of doing it, and then he deleted the images almost immediately before I could. It's just an unprofessional, dumb way to deal with things. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn’t you add the license when you uploaded it? It’s not hard to do. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock2: I uploaded like 2,000 files that needed licenses added to them and an administrator told me I could take a couple of weeks to do it. So there wasn't a reason to add the license the second I uploaded the file. A lot of this stuff has really benign explanations. People just like to over react about things on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know the context behind this, you are the one who raised this as a grievance. If this was recent, then you should have submitted the licenses when you uploaded them, despite the kindness afforded to you by another admin. You’ve been on Commons for years. You know how it works.

Your example, sadly, shows you have again caused unnecessary work and drama for others. You seem impulsive, and as someone with ADHD I have some sympathy. But as someone with this condition, I have to take active measures to stop my impulsiveness on the project. I can’t consistently allow my behaviour to impact on those around me. You have the same responsibility.

And, to reiterate, you raised the example of the upload in this case so you I’m addressing it as you have raised it. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What unnecessary work and drama? I don't even know what your talking about and honestly I don't think you do either. I uploaded some files and an administrator said I could take a few weeks to add licenses to them. Know one cares and it's a non-issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another admin clearly disagrees. I disagree. If you upload images everyone can access immediately, they need a license. It’s part of your agreement with Commons.

So that I can see the context (you raised this) can you point me to where you did the upload and where the admin allowed you to add the licenses afterwards? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel seemed to be fine with it to. So that's me and two administrators. Even if you look at the template for files that don't have licenses it gives the uploader a week to add one. Your free to disagree with that, but this isn't really the forum to discuss it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yet… you then had to do a deletion request for dozens of posters where you didn’t have an appropriate license. Can you explain how that happened? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Partially copied from something I said to User:The Squirrel Conspiracy) Adamant1 has been blocked for hostility and disruptive deletion nominations in the past. Just recently, in Commons:Deletion requests/File:This Is Fine (meme).png, Adamant1 accused me of “drama farming” (twice), “cry bullying” (twice) “trying to instigate things in every DR for no reason”, staging an “axe grinding harassment campaign” against him, and “trolling” in the span of three comments. Those are all serious accusations and they’re mainly because I said he was being indiscriminate in his nominations— which I think is a legitimate interpretation since they tend to be rapid fire, rather sloppy DRs based solely on the fact that an image is AI generated, padded out with boilerplate arguments like “OOS” or “not a web host” and/or rambling complaints/asides. I think Adamant1 is a good user, but the moment you get on his bad side he snaps and starts calling people names. However, the real issue is not that he does this (nobody’s perfect), but that he does not seem to think it’s even a problem because everyone else is wrong and he’s always right. At this point I just don’t think that will ever change and regretfully propose an indef. Dronebogus (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to everyone who comments but I think it's worth noting that Dronebogus has a history of trying to get me blocked for extremely minor none issues and was told to disengage from me twice now. He never had anything to do with until I voted against an interaction ban between him and someone from Wikipedocracy. I would 100% call someone who tried to get me blocked repeatedly for months on end over the last year and even after being told multiple times to back off me as being on an "axe grinding harassment campaign." I don't really know what else to call it. Especially again, consider that he had absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with me on here until I voted against an interaction ban between him and another user and he's been constantly up my ass since then. I'm not going to gaslight and act him repeatedly instigating things and trying to get me blocked over non-issues is an acceptable, normal way to act. Sorry. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you go back and add objectively worse language to an already uncivil remark? In what universe is that acceptable? Dronebogus (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't call "ass" uncivil. It's just kind of immature. I explained the lazy thing in the DR, but a good percentage of the images were clearly copyrighted. He kept all of them because a few weren't though and then when messaged him about it he told me to file individual DRs for the ones that are copyrighted. In any other situation the administrator would have just kept the few that weren't copyrighted and deleted the rest. So it just seemed like a lazy, disrespectful way to handle the situation on his end. I could have phrased it better though. But were all volunteers and administrators should be able to fix their mistakes without expecting someone to do 15 individuals DRs for images that are copyrighted just because they couldn't be bothered to delete them. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t think calling someone a “lazy-ass slack off” is uncivil I’d hate to see what your idea of incivility is. Dronebogus (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could have phrased the comment better. That's why I was planning on apologizing before Yann filed this. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn’t have been saying any of these things in the first place. May I remind you that you started your defence of your unacceptable remarks to Dronebogus with:

I'm not going to respond to everyone who comments but I think it's worth noting that Dronebogus has a history of trying to get me blocked for extremely minor none issues and was told to disengage from me twice now.

Now you are saying that you were in the wrong with the comments he specifically mentioned. Even in your defense here you clearly show you don’t understand how your behaviour is problematic. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t intend to weigh in on the full merits of this case, but I want to share some past interactions I've had with Adamant1 that may be relevant to ongoing concerns about interpersonal behavior and boundary-setting.

In April 2025, we had a drawn-out disagreement on whether Commons was “policing” other projects when handling AI-generated content. While the core topic was debatable, Adamant1 repeatedly responded with personal barbs, sarcastic framing, and accusatory language, rather than engaging neutrally with policy arguments. For example:

He misrepresented my position as supporting copyright violations, writing: Nice to know you're cool with Commons hosting copyrighted material. It's a weird position for an admin to take if I'm being honest, but alright. You do you lol. (reply)
When I asked to keep the discussion constructive, he responded by calling me “sensitive,” questioning my authority to write guidance, and accusing me of "posturing": No offense since you're clearly sensitive, but the essay on your talk page and user space came off as exactly that... You're not a regular contributor to the project... The essay is clearly posturing and not based on policy.
More broadly, the exchange was filled with comments like "we already 'police' other projects" and "people think AI generated artwork is literally on par with the second coming of Jesus", which made productive discussion nearly impossible.

This mirrors what I see playing out here: once conflict starts, Adamant1 often frames it in intensely personal terms—accusations of harassment, gatekeeping, conspiracies, etc.—even when the initial disagreement may have been minor or policy-based. That kind of rhetoric is counterproductive, especially on project-wide forums like AN/U or DRs.

Example (above): Calling Yann “obsessed” and claiming he should be blocked. Adamant1 escalates instead of apologizing, uses combative and accusatory language toward an admin: "He should be blocked for harassment. Pure and simple."
Example (above): Refusal to take responsibility and attacking administrative process. "It’s just an unprofessional, trashy way to treat people."

I’m not saying this necessarily should lead to a block, but I do believe a pattern is evident. I support some form of behavioral sanction or enforced cooldown to prevent future spirals. A narrow topic ban (e.g. from discussing another user’s motives) might be more effective than an indef at this point. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had worked that out. I'm sad you think otherwise. I do make things personal sometimes, but often in response to other people making it personal first. Yann was told by other users to disengage from when I reported him for the same behavior last year and plenty of people have complained about similar behavior. That's not a conspiracy theory. Administrators are just held to a different standard then regular users and it's impossible to criticize their behavior without this being the result. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have always believed Yann has never been an exemplary admin, but that has nothing to do with you going around insulting people at every opportunity. Dronebogus (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus in the deletion request he cited above of me supposedly being uncivil. "Keep Adamant1 going around deleting every AI image he can find, especially if they are in scope at this point."

Two messages down from that "Please stop feuding with me and Prototype. Focus on the content, not the contributor." Dude cites a DR where he insulted me totally unprovoked and for no reason as an example of why I should be blocked for uncivility. OK. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first was frustration at seeing your name attached to yet another AI related DR. It wasn’t super nice of me to say but it’s tame compared to your default tone in these discussions. The other was requesting you stop looking for a fight. At neither point did I call you a lazy ass slackoff or too sensitive or not a real contributor a troll or whatever else you routinely call people you disagree with. Dronebogus (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And my response in those discussion was frustration at you and Protospective repeatedly accusing me of harrasement over and over for no reason. What's your point? I can't be frustrated when you and Protospective baselessly and repeatedly go off about how I'm harassing him for no reason but then I should be indefed if I get a little defense in response to it. Then you wonder why I said were cry bullying. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you acknowledge that you make things personal sometimes, then you need to stop making things personal *at all*. Are you saying, going forward, that it might be acceptable for you to make personal comments?

You see, AdamAnt1, most people slip uP occasionally. As in - rarely. But you don’t slip up occasionally. You make personal comments frequently - so frequently that you now admit that you reread your comments and realise you have to apologise not 20 minutes later. Well, that’s on *you* and nobody else. You should not be making personal comments at all. As I say, we all make rash comments at some point. These are not the norm. Yours, however, are now the norm so much so that you have frequently apologise for what you wrote only minutes after you submit the comments.

Getting upset you are called out for this unacceptable at this stage. It is you who need to change your behaviour. You’ve had a *lot* of chances. You need to change your modus operandi. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock2: I had to apologize for that one comment. People make comments that they apologize for sometimes. That's just how it works. It's not frequent though. I'm not frequently apologizing for things and I never said I am. It was one comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You literally just accused Yann of sending threatening messages when he did not. This is not a one off. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said it felt threating because of him blocking me no reason and I've asked him not to leave warnings on my talk page. I'm allowed to have my own feelings about things. It's not that big a deal. I would have just preferred it if another administrator had of done it and/or I hadn't of been reported to ANU immediately after for no reason. It is against the rules to file false ANU complaints. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing false about the ANU complaint that has been made here. Yann has correctly pinged you for incivility. If you cannot see this, then we definitely have a problem. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yann reported me like 10 after giving me the block warning on my talk page for supposedly not backing off or apologizing. I didn't message Abzeronow about this or anything else. So I did actually back off. People aren't obligated to apologize to each other either and he never asked me to apologize. I'd say that's a false report. 1. I backed off 2. He never asked me to apologize and know one is obligated to. There certainly isn't a rule saying that not apologizing is blockable. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have made some pretty egregious personal comments on that deletion discussion. You now seem to be saying they were acceptable. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying or your confused about the time line. It's not about the comments in the deletion discussion. It's that Yann reported me for supposedly not backing off things when I had. What part of that are you not understanding? It's pretty simple, if someone "backs off" and then they are reported for not "backing off" then it's a false report. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1’s tone in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fresh D.png is also concerning and unfortunately typical of these discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody compiled a list of all the a) insults and b) other at least somewhat uncivil behavior by Adamant1, I think the list would be relatively long (and too long with too many too severe cases). It's certainly not rare exceptions and the user doesn't really durably change that behavior even when since a while ago generally choosing more moderate language after many ANUs. --Prototyperspective (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My perspective, shaped by Commons:Deletion requests/File:This Is Fine (meme).png among other recent DRs, is that yes, Adamant1 has problems communicating civilly to people that disagree with him, but it would be incredibly disingenuous to take Prototyperspective and Dronebogus's testimony at face value, as they give as much as they get. In that DR, Adamant1's filing was blunt and colorfully worded but fine. Prototyperspective came in with an accusation of wikihounding (this is, in my opinion, not true: Adamant1 targets AI images regardless of their uploader) and Dronebogus came in with an accusation that Adamant1 was acting in bad faith ("especially if they are in scope at this point") (this is also, in my opinion, not true: I also struggle to see how that image was in scope). Naturally, after those accusations, conversation devolved, and I collapsed it and told the three of them they need to learn to communicate better because they're going to keep running into each other at DRs considering all three are interested in AI-related DRs and Adamant1 and the other two are on opposite sides a lot of the time. The stuff with everyone else I can't comment on, but at least in the interactions between Adamant1 and Prototyperspective and Dronebogus, all three are in the wrong. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider my behavior subpar, fine. I have no illusions of being exemplary. But I think Prototyperspective is not in the wrong, or at least not in the wrong maliciously. They are in my observation consistently civil with Adamant1 despite Adamant1 being consistently hostile with almost everyone (once again, in my observation which is backed up by multiple uninvolved third parties); their accusation of “wikihounding” is probably incorrect but certainly not unfounded given Adamant1 nominated something like five of their uploads in quick succession and (as acknowledged by you yourself) has a long history of fighting with Prototype on this topic. Plus Adamant1 has a long block record involving incivility and deletion discussions, showing that they just don’t learn. Dronebogus (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this point, I see 3 soulutions to this issue ends.
The second ever 2 way Interaction Ban (IBan) in commons history is implemented between these users and Adamant1.

Adamant1 gets indefed.

All three get indefed.
I think the 2 way IBan is the best option, but probably needs more nuance than the normal blanket IBan that enwiki loves. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 04:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an indef for Adamant1– not out of a desire for punishment but because they’ve received multiple long blocks and not meaningfully changed the core problem of being extremely uncivil towards everyone they disagree with, making interacting with them tiresome for a lot of users (not just me or Prototyperspective). I would also support an interaction ban between Adamant1 and me and Adamant1 and Prototype (but not between me and Prototype obviously), either in place of or (ideally) in addition to an indef. As for a 3-way indef of me, Proto and Adamant— why? Prototype has done nothing wrong here besides standing up for themself when they felt unjustly targeted, and has a clean block log. And while neither my behavior here nor my block record are spotless, I was not the catalyst for this discussion, nor the incident several months ago that resulted in a one-month block. Dronebogus (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would be totally shooting ourselves in the foot to indef-ban three users who all generally do more good than harm.

I could be mistaken, but while I've often found myself in disagreement with Prototyperspective, I have had few, if any, issues with their civility; the worst I've seen is a little too much sense of somehow being "picked on" (e.g. accusing Adamant1 of "hounding" when it appears to me that he is clearly making DRs based on the content, not on who uploaded them; FWIW, the latter is the sort of thing I've never seen him do), but that does not even approach a reason for an indef ban.

I wouldn't oppose an IBAN (maybe for a year rather than permanent?), but for three very active users on a wiki with relatively few such, I don't see how it would work. Also, because Adamant1 does a lot of mass DRs, the bulk of them pretty well conceived, it would be hard for him to have to check the specific authorship of each file before including it. At the very least, we'd have to allow for accidents like that as a matter not leading to punishment (and I'm not exactly sure how that would work). - Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to weigh into the whole thing about a indef or interaction ban. But I do want reiterate that I was totally in the wrong with how I responded to Abzeronow. I've certainly been at the butt end of a lot of insults, threats, false ANU reports, Etc. Etc. over the years that know ever cared about or was willing to deal with. I think we could all do a better job using, and holding each other accountable to, basic standards of civility and professionalism on here. I'm just a particularly easy target for some reason.

I will note that Prototyperspective is topic banned from anything having to do with AI generated images on Wikipedia for the exact same behavior. So the idea that he was just standing up for himself when he was being unjustly targeted is laughable. At least I apologized. I don't see him or Dronebogus apologizing for how both of them treated me. Again, I'm 100% responsible for I acted towards Abzeronow and am sorry that I didn't act better. But Dronebogus and Prototyperspective have absolutely no room to talk. I think all three of us, me, Dronebogus, and Protospective should move on and just not intentionally have anything to do with each other. I mostly ignore both of them unless it's totally necessary. The same goes for Yann. I think all three of them should do the same. There's no reason Yann needs to leave threatening messages on my talk page or report for minor issues when there's 200 other admins on here. Dronebogus isn't entitled to participate in DRs or CfD that I start either. So all of us should just avoid each other unless it's necessary for us to interact for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of shocked at this response. People here have pointed out that when you interact with Prototyperspective and Dronebogus, it goes badly. You seem to recognize this as well. And yet you felt the need to take another potshot at Prototyperspective and Dronebogus. People here were already defending you. This kind of comment makes your position worse, not better, because it demonstrates that you can't really disengage and discourages people that have stuck their neck out for you from doing so again in the future. I came here to second Jmabel's statement that indef bans seemed totally out of proportion here, but now I'm just pulling the ripcord on this conversation instead. Whatever happens, happens. I leave it to more patient admins to sort it out. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for the record that Adamant1 edited his comments after my reply The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: I'm just trying to deescalate things. If me, Protopsective, and Dronebogus interacting with each other causes problems then there's no reason we need to interact. You or anyone else can look through my edit history on here though. There's absolutely no conversation that I've joined and attacked Dronebogus in like he's repeatedly done to me. I've never advocated for him to blocked like he has repeatedly with me. I dropped it. He continued it by messaging you on your talk page and repeatedly said I should be indefed here. I Disengaged. He didn't. So I don't know what to tell you. Do you want to deal with the issue or just indef me and call it good? I don't care either way at this point but I do think the problem could be solved if me, Dronebogus, and Protospective just didn't have anything do with each other unless we have to. BTW, I edited my comment at the same time as you edited yours. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you needed to edit your comments. That’s the entire point! You shouldn’t have written what you did in the first place! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk)< Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock2: I added a couple of sentences and spell checked it. I didn't change the message in any meaningful way. That's totally allowed and other people do it all the time. Your just looking for things to have an issue with. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did a lot more than just add a few sentences - you also mentioned Yann who is a person you seem to have an axe with. You think that The Squirrel Conspiracy got forced to note you edited your comments for a minor reason like fixing a typo? C’mon man, you know that’s not true. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is the diff. I added four sentences and changed a couple of words at the top that sounded weird, which is essentially what I said I did. Again, people do that sometimes and it's not usually not an issue when they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the tone of your comment. You also added “ But Dronebogus and Prototyperspective have absolutely no room to talk” - somewhat inflammatory specially after you apologised. You then added:

There's no reason Yann needs to leave threatening messages on my talk page or report for minor issues when there's 200 other admins on here. Dronebogus isn't entitled to participate in DRs or CfD that I start either. So all of us should just avoid each other unless it's necessary for us to interact for some reason

Well, I’ve checked the comment. There was nothing threatening about the request. Its unacceptable you master another personal comments about bother editor or admin.

It’s why your edit got called out. You are not making this any easier for yourself. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock2: Yann has a history of being over zealous in giving people warnings or blocking them. He blocked me twice for reasons extremely questionable reasons. One of the was reverted by another administrator. I've also asked him multiple times to not leave block warnings on my page unless there's an extremely good reason for it and this doesn't qualify. So it was threating to me because of the prior issues. You can say there's nothing threating about it but you don't know the history. It certainly feels hostile considering that he's already blocked me for things that weren't legitimate issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did he block you over this issue? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore - your feelings are clearly not reality in this situation. You were not threatened. You were asked a reasonable question. You admitted yourself you went about it the wrong way. And now, suddenly, Yann is at fault. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, but what difference does it make? The warning was still threatening and totally pointless. Plus he reported me to ANU almost immediately afterwards because I supposedly didn't back off or apologize when I didn't have a chance to. At the bare minimum, if an administrator is going to give someone a warning they shouldn't then immediately report them to ANU. The person should have a chance to remedy whatever the warning was about first. Otherwise it just comes off as harassing. With your added comment, what question was I asked exactly? The last time I checked talk page warnings aren't questions and Yann never asked me anything when he left it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote “Hi, It seems that you uploaded a number of posters which do not have a proper license. Could you please fix that? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)”

it was not threatening. It was not a warning. It was a polite request that you fix your mass upload you made that had no licenses.

You the had to explain that you asked Krd for permission to get an “extension” of time to add the licenses after you had already uploaded them.

I think you need to withdraw your accusation of threatening behaviour by Yann. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the block warning! Not him just saying something about the uploads. Why would I care about that? You need to stop feverishly writing messages and take the time to look into this. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a standard template, and it’s not a threat. It’s a warning that your behaviour is not acceptable and you could be blocked.

But, oh god, this only gets worse. You then found that you had to delete a raft of the posters at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Posters of Russia. So you basically uploaded material you didn’t know the copyright. And you want people to treat your claim of threatening behaviour seriously? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a standard template. That's not really the point. Just like an administrator can give someone a "standard" (whatever that means) block and it can still wrong. With the posters, people sometimes upload things and then immediately nominate them for deletion so they can be undeleted when the copyrights expire. There as actually a conversation about it on the Village Pump a month or two ago. In this case, I think like half the posters were kept. Regardless, it's yet another thing that's a non-issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you have not mentioned this in the deletion discussion. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I? People tend not to mention things that are non-issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: I don't think it's a very big ask that you add appropriate licenses to the images as you upload them. Even with the biggest assumption of good faith, supposing you got busy with work or family, this could potentially use a non-insignificant amount of other's time, which seems impolite. GMG ^talk 14:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: I generally agree with that but I have the month off due to a shoulder injury. So this is literally all I'm doing right know and there's not going to be any family issues. Otherwise I wouldn't have done it. But I don't think it's that big of an issue if the user is committed to adding the licenses. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Adding the licenses upon upload is a requirement of policy COM:EVID. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: OK. I honestly thought there was a grace period because of the 7 Template:Strikethorugh days the template gives people to add a license. I'm certainly not going to make the same mistake again though. It's to bad templates, admins, and random users don't ever agree or line up with each other about how to do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, which template are you referring to? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No license since "unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added." BTW, Category:Media without a license also says "7 days ago eligible for deletion:" I. E. Files without a license become eligible for deletion seven days after being uploaded. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not 7 weeks, a few weeks, or even a couple of weeks. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: Sorry, I meant 7 days. I just mistyped it. Obviously 7 weeks would be excessive. 7 days still isn't the moment or day of upload though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a courtesy for those who uploaded in good faith without knowing they should add a license. That's not for people who know our licensing rules, as you do. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's insinuated in the template anywhere and it certainly wasn't the positions of either Jmabel or KDR when both of them were made aware of what I'm doing. I'm not planning on uploading images without licenses to any meaningful degree in the future anyway. So it's a non-issue either way regardless. We'll have to agree to disagree though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

To address the recent interactions with me: the hounding was more a mention than some formal accusation, I think it would be in the early stages and I could be wrong but if it continued much further I think it would be such and then I would not just have mentioned it somewhere; I already stopped mentioning it and won't mention it again. The user does participate in lots of AI-related DRs but I have many if not most AI images on my Watchlist (since I identified and categorized many) and iirc quite rarely did he make DRs that are not or do not include AI image(s) that I made (and I haven't made that many) and it wasn't just about DRs but also other threads the user made at that time. It's not like he picks the worst cases of AI images to DR like those with misgeneration, but rather those that were so useful that they had been used until recently. In that thread about the This is Fine image I only replied twice to the user to address specific ontopic points (which is because I think if claims that I think are false or misleading stay uncorrected, it basically spreads misinformation and/or leads to flawed decisions since they'd be based on flawed claims, especially if those claims are about what I did, and deliberation is how decisions I think are made with 2 replies not being many but already stopped commenting there). The image is a rare example of a popular meme adaptation via an AI image tool plus either the only or one of two images illustrating that popular meme and for mainly the former reason was used in the well-watched article List of Internet phenomena for quite a while until some user bulk-removed AI images for the reason that they're made with AI so I don't see how that file must be deleted or how one could not see how it can be useful despite both the explanation and the former use so I think it's legitimate to address a few points (btw often with Adamant1 that develops into walls of text where clarifications are needed such as that I was addressing another user not him as he claimed or that I didn't claim what he says I claimed etc; and I've learned to keep my replies at a minimum – walls of text where the key points are not addressed are a problem I think). That's some context regarding the recent DRs. Note that all of this is not limited to interactions with me or Dronebogus or recent times, the user has a long and continuing track record of incivility. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hounding was more a mention than some formal accusation From what I remember Prototyperspective accused me of harassment and wikihounding in like 5 or 6 different discussions. Including on Wikidata. I explained to him why it wasn't harassment the first couple of times he made the claim but he still continued making it. Prototyperspective only stopped because I emailed Jmabel and he told him to knock it off. Otherwise he probably would have just continued doing it. Prototyperspective and Dronebogus act like my behavior was such a big issues when I'm the one who had to contact administrators so both of them would lay off me. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think of it as harassment but as targeting a single user one doesn't like and I stopped when I learned "wikihounding" is considered some kind of harassment rather than just the, for the lack of a better word, targeting of a user one doesn't like which making 5 DRs and 2 threads within 2 days or so (plus comments about & to me at multiple places elsewhere) seems like if it would have continued much further and when Jmabel asked. Whatever the correct term is, I think it's overengagement basically – sorry for a too early or inappropriate naming of wikihounding – and what you claimed is that you wouldn't be selectively targeting my files and the things I do, including what happened to all that bitching about how I was supposedly Wikihounding you?. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible Dronebogus was the one who used the word harassment but Wikihounding is a form of it. So it's a distinction without a purpose. Whatever you want to call it I still wasn't selectively targeting your files or things you do anyway though and you only stopped accusing me of Wikihounding because Jmabel told you to. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Adamant1. These accusations of wikihoonding on deletion discussions need to stop. If someone thinks this is happening, it comes here. Dronebogus, you need to stop making these accusatios on deletion discussions. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been pretty critical of Adamant1, but now I feel you need a small reality check. You shouldn’t be raising accusations of wikihounding in deletion discussions. How do you think that’s going to go? Accusations like that make it hard for an uninvolved third party like myself from commenting.

If you have behavioural concerns, you clearly know the appropriate forum. You didn’t use it, instead you decided to go to war with Adamant1 in the deletion discussion. You aren’t covered in glory here yourself. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

instead you decided to go to war with Adamant1 in the deletion discussion That's false.
And please also reread what I said about wikihounding such as that I already stopped mentioning it, that I think that was at most at the early stage of it and didn't know it was considered a form of harassment, why I brought it up, my apology related to it etc; I'm not going top repeat all of it. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree not to make accusations of wikihounding on deletion discussions? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course and have long stopped it as clarified at I stopped when I learned […] and when Jmabel asked […] sorry for a too early or inappropriate naming of wikihounding. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But you can also understand how Adamant1 might have felt, right? Because I can see why he’d be upset with that sort of accusation. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is not much related to this; the uncivil behavior now and the long list of prior incidents are all unrelated to that. By the way, he also made various accusations about me (e.g. making bad-faith accusations why I do certain things that take many hours of volunteer time that I do because I think they are particular constructive) in those 7+ recent threads. After spending many hours to do my best and even learning new skills just to close particularly important gaps of media, I get nothing but things thrown at me by the user in 7+ threads within 2 days, so please also consider how I have felt about that and that this accusation was meant to be a mention in the form of one of multiple points that I thought were relevant at the places until I learned more about this which I already apologized for. To make it short, the recent cases of incivility are mostly unrelated to this and those cases why this ANU were opened all are. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: I appreciate the clarification and apology. I actually wasn't aware that you didn't know it was harassment. I'm not going to fault you for an honest mistake or something said in the heat of the moment even if you and some other people in this discussion aren't willing to use the same standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I can definitely understand how you felt with some of the comments being made about you also. I appreciate you can see the other side of the issue. I’m sorry you had put up with uncivil behaviour - I in no way condone this. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The result of this discussion is clear: Adamant1 is not able to understand the issue. His comments are not acceptable. PERIOD. And since he doesn't understand that, and more generally does not understand what "civil" means (see comment by Dronebogus and others above), he should be permanently blocked from editing Commons. We do not need users with this behavior, however productive they may be otherwise. Yann (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty certain Yann has sensibly not said anything about this, but he has now been accused of threatening behaviour and “warning” Adamant1 against uploading over 2,000 images that have no license. I have reviewed the comments Yann made, and after Adamant1 clarified his position on being threatened it seems that he has massively mischaracterised Yann’s intentions:

Yann gave Adamant1 a warning about his behaviour and the way he was treating others in a deletion discussion, and in his capacity as an admin noted such behaviour could get one blocked. It is a fact that if you make personal attacks against others this can happen: in fact Adamant1 has already admitted he was overly personal and he needed to apologise. So there is no threatening behaviour here, just an appropriate warning about behaviour.
Yann asked why over 2,000 images were uploaded without a license. He politely asked for this to be fixed. This is not inappropriate. It is inappropriate to have uploaded this many images without a license in the first place. It has always been the responsibility of the uploader to prove an appropriate license. I note that Adamant1 then placed a massive number of these posters for a deletion review. He claims in this ANU thread he did this so at some point in the future they can be underrated when they are out of copyright. He also claims this was discussed on the VP and is an acceptable thing to do - I never saw that discussion, and he has not provide a link to it in the archives.

Whilst Yann has not said anything, I feel I must. This is all extremely concerning. Adamant1 should not be making personal comments during discussion and then expect he can apologise afterwards. Whilst we all make mistakes and need to apologise, it is not acceptable to think you can routinely make personal comments during a heated debate and then apologise. He should not be making these comments at all. This appears to be being done routinely, and it needs to stop. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the exact title of the discussion right now but both Yann and Jmabel were involved in it. Maybe one of them can provide a link or back up that it was discussed. People do upload images under the guize of nominating it for deletion so it can be restored when the copyright expires. Maybe assume good faith instead of acting like I just made the whole thing up. A good portion of my time on here is spent dealing with COPYIO. I wouldn't have uploaded a bunch of images without licenses for no reason and without basing it on something and having a plan to deal with them. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff. Specifically you edited your comment to read:

There's no reason Yann needs to leave threatening messages on my talk page or report for minor issues when there's 200 other admins on here. Dronebogus isn't entitled to participate in DRs or CfD that I start either. So all of us should just avoid each other unless it's necessary for us to interact for some reason

We only several hours ago discussed this, so you know exactly what I’m referring to. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm referring to you saying "he also claims this was discussed on the VP and is an acceptable thing to do." Your treating me like I made the whole thing and just uploaded a bunch of images without licenses for no reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I’m not saying you made anything up. I just haven’t seen the discussion so I have no idea what was discussed or concluded. It is very surprising to me that this would be the conclusion though, and it does tend to go against what I consider the spirit of Commons!

Perhaps it would be helpful to point us to the discussion in the archives. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, going back to your comment about Yann’s “threatening messages”, you now accept there’s nothing threatening about them? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for it but it was about creating an upload cache original and then turned into a discussion about that later on. So I can't seem to find it. I'll link to if I do though. I don't see how uploading something with the purpose of restoring it when the copyright expires goes against the spirit of Commons. We're here to preserve educational media for future generations right? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not our primary focus. We do not act as a clearinghouse of copyrighted material until which time copyright expires. Where on earth would you have gotten that idea?

Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone, in their own language. We aren’t a file sharing platform, and we aren’t an archive. What you are doing seems like an abuse of the core purpose of commons, and if there was a discussion where anything other than this was the conclusion, I’d very much like to see it.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that if this is behaviour that is being encouraged, then we are putting the project at considerable risk of copyright claims. You cannot just store copyrighted material on your servers regardless if they are publicly accessible or not! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree if it was being done in mass, by a non-contributor just as a way to use Commons as a file host. 10 posters isn't that big of a deal though. I certainly wouldn't do it beyond this one time because it allowed me to upload a bunch of stuff that was PD in the process. I added 13 thousand images to the project that are clearly PD while having to delete like 30 files that weren't. I think that's generally a win for Commons even if you don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good work doesn't mean that you can violate the norms of the project though. And I do appreciate the work you do here.

My understanding is that you uploaded by a commonly used but broken tool, is this correct? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I told you there was a discussion about it, in fact I think there's been several of them in the last year, and that other people upload images so they can be deleted until the copyright expires. So there's no "norms of the project" being violated here. It's certainly not against the rules to upload images using Flickr2Commons. I think you need to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock2: I can't directly link to it for some reason, but do a search for "Derivative works (FOP etc.)" on the Village Pump. I think that was one of the discussions that I'm referring to. I can't find it but there was a longer one at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock2: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/03 "Undeletion." To quote a couple of administrators, Jmabel "I've actually done quite a bit of that." Rosenzweig "some users already do this...I'm doing it myself as well." There's also Commons:Upload, delete and undelete. Anyway, apparently according to you Jmabel and Rosenzweig are "violating the norms of the project" or some nonsense. Weird opinion but alright. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That… is concerning. Copyright law doesn’t allow us to store material owned by someone who has a current copyright. Storing copyrighted works without permission is generally illegal!

The U.S. Copyright Act (Title 17 of the United States Code) governs copyright law. It explicitly prohibits the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works. Storing a copyrighted work on a server creates a reproduction, and making it available for others to access constitutes distribution.

Are the WMF lawyers aware this is Commons standard practice? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{ping|Chris.sherlock2}} "Storing copyrighted works without permission is generally illegal!" I believe that is pretty much just wrong; publishing in violation of copyright is subject to action, and possibly there is some circumstance where harboring copyrighted materials could be an issue, but in general, no. Remember, Commons and other wikis do not normally hard-delete anything; the only exception I can think of is CSAM. Every other "deleted" file on Commons is still available to every admin, which is to say millions of copyrighted files. If this is illegal, then we have had an illegal practice from the moment of our founding. And I suspect the same is true of most archives in the world (and, yes, we are an archive even if you'd rather not think of us that way.) I could go on for multiple paragraphs elaborating on this, but I'd rather not waste either my own time or that of the readers.

As for uploading materials that will be copyright-free at a later date: yes, we do this with some frequency. The main reason we don't to more of it is simply that the admin overhead is high to get it right, so we try to stick mainly to materials of reasonably high importance. But it should be no surprise that this is a big piece of how we make massive numbers of newly PD files each year on January 1.

If you disagree with this and really want to argue the point, feel free to start a separate discussion. This is getting very far aside of the issue of whether Adamant1 has exceeded the bounds of civility. - Jmabel ! talk 03:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting a bit off-track here, this thread is about user conduct, not the legality of Commons’ backend file handling. That said, if Jmabel is correct in claiming it's acceptable to upload copyrighted works today and just delete them pending future PD status, then by that logic, I could upload the entirety of The Avengers, delete it, and it would still be available to all admins indefinitely, and somehow that wouldn’t count as piracy? Making something available, even if only to a select group with elevated permissions, is still publication under copyright law. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I paraphrase that as "we're getting off track here, so let's get farther off track?" I am willing to have this discussion, but not here. - Jmabel ! talk 04:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve start a thread on VP. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Can we reach an agreement here to keep this from being 50 pages long, and hopefully allow you to contribute productively?

Don't upload media without a license, at all. A lot of this seems to have already been hashed out and agreed to.
Don't be a jerk. This includes things like not using curses at all in your commentary. It's not just inflammatory, but actually hurts your argument. It's much more convincing to use plain language.

I don't know if you've noticed, but you don't seem to be making any allies with the current approach. This really comes with an implication that this is basically a final warning. It really isn't that hard to not be a jerk and take feedback when you're wrong. We're all at least occasionally wrong. GMG ^talk 14:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I might accidentally upload a file without a license once in a while. I'm not going to do it on this scale or in this way again though. It was just a one off so I could upload 12000 other files that had licenses because I thought the trade off was worth it at the time. Apparently it wasn't.

2. Yeah, I'm not going to be a jerk. I said it already, but I don't really see "ass" as cursing. It's just immature. Maybe it's a culture thing though. So I'm not going to say it again. I use to say "dude" and "whatever" but I don't anymore because apparently both are offense to some people. Even if there aren't to me. I have absolutely no problem doing that. But you don't know what you don't know and everyone has different standards. I'm not going to intentionally curse though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take out the word “ass” from “lazy ass slack off” and you have “lazy slack off”. You see how this is still problematic, right? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure. “lazy slack off” isn't cursing though and that's what I was addressing. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I’d be less concerned about the cursing and more concerned about assuming they were acting in bad faith. Combine a lack of AGF with inflammatory language and no debate will progress very far in any forum. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PD-mark

I just want to point out that with Flick2Commons and several other tools, I believe including the UploadWizard, any time you upload a file with the PD-mark directly from Flickr (which I believe is what Adamant1 did on this batch) it will arrive on Commons with no valid license. If it is not permitted for users to do this, then the tools should not support doing this, any more than they support bringing in NC-licensed files.

In fact, I think it is perfectly permissible to do this, as long as you deal with the issue in a timely manner. It is possible that the batch size here was large enough to make it impossible to handle this in a timeframe that would usually be considered acceptable, and I think it's clear Adamant1 learned a lesson on that front, but GreenMeansGo are you saying (a) that Adamant1 should never bring such files to Commons, (b) that no one should ever bring such files to Commons, (c) that no one (or just Adamant1) should never use the standard tools for this, and should download to their own PC and then upload by other means with a specific PD tag on upload, or just (d) none of the above, because you had not considered this technical issue? - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not recommend someone upload thousands of files without licenses with the expectation that they'll go back and fix them. For modern free licenses, as far as I'm aware, F2C copies the license faithfully. The PD mark from Flickr is particularly problematic as I'm sure you know, because it still requires evaluation of each individual file and a rationale for why it is PD. The average internet user isn't especially savvy on what is and is not PD. So if you have to evaluate each file individually anyway, it's certainly preferable to do that on the front end as they are uploaded. GMG ^talk 17:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going to upload thousands of files without licenses again. It's not like I haven't accidentally left out a license when I uploaded a file through PattyPan once or twice either. So I can't commit to never doing it since that's how Flickr2Commons works and it just happens sometimes. I totally agree with the opinion that thousands of files shouldn't be uploaded at once without licenses though. I thought it would be OK in this specific instance because I'm not an average user, I had put time aside specifically to add the licenses, and it allowed the uploading of 12000 files that were fine. Obviously that turned out to be wrong. So that's my bad. It won't happen again. I really need to do a better job of accounting for the perverse priorities on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Now Adamant1 is threatening me on my talk page: [2]. When will be get blocked? Yann (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a threat? Yann clearly isn't willing or able to leave me alone until I get blocked. Yet if I say he's obsessed I just get accused of making up conspiracy theories and attacking him. Go figure. There's no reason there needs to be this much drama on his end just because I asked him not to leave message on my talk anymore. It's hard for me to believe that someone who's been an administrator for this long is so incapable of respecting another user's space or requests. Just don't leave messages on my talk page anymore and leave it up to another administrator. That's it. Problem solved. I don't think it's that unreasonable of a request. It certainly doesn't justify you retaliating towards me over it like this. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not a threat but still So you know "Civil" means […] and doing what they ask. […] There's know legitimate reason that I should have to keep asking you to leave me alone. Just do it. I'm not going to ask you again.. "Threat" to the extent that Adamant1 seems to suggest next time you'd warn/message him, he'd complain about you here or something of that sort. By the way/Note: the issues are not just insults and outright uncivil language but also ad hominem claims and bad faith accusations etc and I think many of these were never mentioned in the many prior ANU threads. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm topic banned from ANU. So I can't report him even if I wanted to. Although I wouldn't bother since administrators are clearly above reapproach on here. I was more thinking I'd just revert his messages going forward. So much for assuming good faith I guess. You should read the message on Yann's talk page that I was responding to. It was pretty insulting and honestly, I probably wouldn't have responded if not for that. But there's clearly no willingness on his end to show me the slightest respect. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote seems to suggest since that roughly looks like what you were suggesting. If you write unclearly people will have to interpret and you could have written you'd just ignore subsequent talk page posts but didn't and moreover this is in the context of the comment above – ambiguity itself can be an issue when writing things like that. There are implicit threats (for the lack of a better word) and one should write in ways that can't be readily interpreted that way. And I just read the comments above and they seem fine while calling people "lazy" and still your the one who's constantly up my ass twice there and many other things like that without much repercussions has me constantly surprised in particular not because of the giant time-sink and hassle this all is on the community but the context of the many prior cases. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think it's useful or productive for Yann to go off about my attitude, tell me I don't understand what civility means, or for him to keep going off about how I should be blocked. Just because I've been blocked before doesn't mean I don't deserve respect or the presumption of good faith. It's a separate issue them him messaging me on my talk page to. He shouldn't message me on talk page if I don't want him to regardless of if I said another user was lazy once or not. They don't have anything to do with each other. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You killed any presumption of good faith long time ago. Your denial of your behavior doesn't allow you to bypass Commons rules and policies. It seems to me that you accuse me (and others) of the exact misbehavior of yours. Attack is the best defense, but it doesn't work here. Yann (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about you (Yann) and Adamant1 just agree to a no-fault interaction ban? Because the only other way this can end is with Adamant1 getting blocked for a) incessant incivility, and/or b) being a repeat offender who’s too high maintenance to be excused by their admittedly very impressive contributions. Whatever fault Yann is at here, if any, is hugely outweighed by everything Adamant1 has done and continues to do without much improvement. Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What have I done since this ANU report outside of the message on Yann's talk page which was pretty mild all things considered? Anyway, I wouldn't mind an interaction ban in theory. How would I be able to enforce it on my end if he violates it though since I'm topic banned from ANU? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tell another admin? Ignore all rules in what would clearly be a valid good-faith exception? Dronebogus (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I rather not. It's pretty clear that administrators have no will or ability to hold each other accountable for anything on here. Otherwise Yann's behavior would have just been dealt with already. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this action. Yann was not the aggressor here. In no way did he threaten Adamant1, nor was he ever even rude to him! This is hitting the point of no return. It is very concerning to see someone say “I’m not going to ask again” - in that case, what will their actions be? I’m not surprised Yann is threatened by this.

As for being left alone - you are literally going to his talk page and haranguing him. That’s both the actions of someone who wishes to be left alone. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I dropped it after this was opened. He continued it. Anyway, how is not haranguing me to say "you don't know what "Civil" means" or to go off about how I should be blocked when I had apologized and this was already dealt with? You can look at the last comment he made on his user page awhile ago "I am not going to let you harass, insult, or attack others with impunity." How is that not threatening or insulting? Come on. I swear to god, there's such a double standard on here when it comes to what administrators can get away with compared to regular users. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything threatening about that message. Not particularly friendly, but particularly friendly is not required. - Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bigger concern is that Yann was removing individual messages from that talk page thread, then got into an edit war over a individual comment in that thread. I think an Iban may be required at this point, and Yann should be considered INVOLVED regarding Adamant1, and should refrain from taking actions against them. If they both need page-blocks from each other's talk page, so be it. This is absurd. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 22:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: @Adamant1: I once again strongly encourage you two to voluntarily disengage and avoid each other unless absolutely necessary— as long as you don’t follow each other around and stay off one-another’s talk pages, Yann can let other admins deal with Adamant1 and Adamant1 can avoid getting sanctioned or blocked for wholly preventable reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 20:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC) Yann blocked Adamant1 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Intimidation/harassment). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God can we just block them both at this point? Dronebogus (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin I've issued one week blocks on both Yann and Adamant1. As I said on the block reasoning, regretfully, as I think they are both great assets to the project, but this discussion has been thorough and clear that some action needed to be taken. I hope they two take this time to cool off. I think there should be an interaction ban, but that probably needs some more discussion. Bedivere (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If an admin is getting blocked, do you think it’s maybe time to consider a desysop? Dronebogus (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they need to be desysopped. Bedivere (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admins shouldn’t be getting blocked. Period. I’m sure I could find more cases of subpar performance from Yann, I know they’ve happened before. Dronebogus (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they've done some great work here and they are very active. I don't think this incident merits having them desysopped. They've probably made lots of mistakes (I've done lots of them too). This block's just meant to give them some time to cool off as I said before, rather forcefully, and because that block they imposed on Adamant was inappropriate. However as I said, I still trust them as an admin. Bedivere (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If another admin has to step in, fix their incompetence, and then block them for an entire week because of their behavior that seems like desysop material. And once again this isn’t the first time Yann in particular has made bad calls as an admin. Adamant1 should also have just been indeffed because they’ve already been blocked for longer periods and it did nothing. I admire that you did something to defuse the situation, but I still think it didn’t go far enough given one is an admin and the other is a serial offender. Dronebogus (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've lifted the block on Yann as per the reasoning in their talk page. The one week block on Adamant1 remains but any other offense will mean an indefinite block. Bedivere (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere, Thanks for taking that action, but I think the block could have been changed to 36 hours and had it's intended effect. At this point, any non-emergency admin action by Yann taken against Adamant1 will probably result in a very long and very heated ANU thread. That interaction ban is sounding better and better. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your block on Yann was unwise and I can’t follow your reasoning. They were not the aggressor. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was an attempt at defusing the situation. Probably not perfectly executed, but I think it's served its purpose. Bedivere (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve not defused anything and it has not served any purpose. What, specifically, did Yann do? Can you point me to a particular diff where Yann was abusive or unreasonable? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking someone you reported to ANU isn't exactly normally approved without a very good reason. Yann didn't have a good reason to block him before the end of the dicussion. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, I missed that. It’s more understandable why Yann was blocked. Ffs, Yann, what were you thinking?!?

apologies Bedivere. - 20:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's unreasonable to respond the same in two places, I'll just copy my reply to your comment on Yann's talk: "His block on Adamant was not wise, anyway. The block was not meant to punish Yann, either. I think (I really hope) Yann understood the reasoning behind the block. I've got great consideration of Yann as an admin, and I do not wish their reputation be tarnished by an endless conflict with a rather troublesome user, who is also a great asset to the project although their attitude is not the best". Bedivere (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere, do you think an Iban would solve the problem? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd dislike to place an IBAN on an active admin, if that seems to be the only option, yes. I do think Yann will stay away from Adamant, though, as per their last talk page comment. Bedivere (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now I’ve seen this block, I have to agree. What a mess. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you an apology as I missed Yann’s block. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no problem Bedivere (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be a bit off-top here, but after it turned out that Adamant1 recently had uploaded numerous files with implausible and/or faked license, IMO it's ultimately time now to block them indef -- just because of en:WP:NOTHERE. I mean, if a user who is seeking disputes over and over again, at the same time isn't even able to contribute in accordance with the basic policies, I don't see any further perspective for them on Commons, more opinions on this? --A.Savin 20:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: things like that are always going to happen in large batch uploads of that sort. The uploads appear to have been about 90% good, and Adamant1 has already acknowledged that he bit off too large a batch at a time. There is nothing unusual about this among prolific uploaders. In particular, it can be very hard to quickly work out that a bunch of FLickr files with a plausible PD-mark might be a decade or two too new to be PD. - Jmabel ! talk 00:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now created an U4C case on this and requested that they make the decision m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/User conduct and block review where Commons admins are to involved. GPSLeo (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Altair Netraphim

Altair Netraphim (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

lifted this photo from Google Maps(maps.app.goo.gl/4PBiBHvDYiL4s47L6) after the final warning, and forged the metadata. 0x0a (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. Yann (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nerissa Lyra (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This account looks like their sock puppet, who also forged the metadata of the above fils from [3] and [4]. Shall we open a COM:SPI? 0x0a (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~It is Confirmed that Nerissa Lyra = Altair Netraphim. Altair Netraphim's block is extended to 6 months, and Nerissa Lyra is blocked indef. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~It's so much worse. I've opened Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Altair Netraphim and will document socks as I find them. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Per an email I received, which I've posted to the CheckUser wiki at https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons/Altair_Netraphim#Email_response, I've unblocked the accounts (except for Altair Netraphim, who I restored Yann's 1-week block for) and changed the status to

Technically indistinguishable. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's it? -- 0x0a (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You're free to point out copyright violations by any of these accounts, but there is not a sockpuppetry issue. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on COM:Requests for checkuser/Case/Altair Netraphim? That was barely a slap on the wrist. 0x0a (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rahmat Rumon

Rahmat Rumon (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
ERumon (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Obvious block evasion; recreation and license laundering of Logo of Jamalpur Textile Institute.png. 0x0a (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rahmat Rumon was already blocked for 3 months. ERumon blocked indef. Yann (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chely Franke

User: Chely Franke (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued spam and copyvio uploading after warnings for doing so.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked and deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upoladed for promotional use

User: Navabexe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: All the files uploaded by this user on commons are just for promotional use for himself. Please delete all

please see the page

please see the page [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Navabexe is Javad Norouzi himself, then there is a problem with false claims of own work that need to be sorted out (who really took the pictures, and will they provide licenses?); otherwise, these are not obviously out of scope, though they could be. I don't read Farsi, but the contributor seems to be working on a draft article in fa-wiki, and insofar as Google translate can be trusted, the person in question appears to be at least possibly notable enough that fa-wiki would want the article (though it reads a bit much like a CV at present) and/or that we should want the photos. There is no rule on Commons against uploading photos of a person to whom you have a connection. I'm not saying "clear keep," but it's also not a clear speedy deletion, and I don't see a reason for precipitate administrative action. - Jmabel ! talk 05:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: The false claims of own work are concerning. Again per Google Translate, the second link (attempted article) was deleted per "M7 : No indication of the topic's prominence and importance" and salted due to "Continuous creations". I see little likelihood of overcoming those hurdles, so F10 and G10 would do for the files. Pinging @Khoshnevisan as deleting and salting Admin on Persian Wikipedia. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of our old users in wikifa approved that navabexe and Javad Norouzi are same people. Also Javad Norouzi is not famous. I don't know this information is usefull or not.Khoshnevisan (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khoshnevisan: Thank you. I tagged his practice page as spam. He seems not here to improve Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also permission of uploading these files in commons is another issue these files taken with high ranking official such as diplomats - politicians - army officers and so - please delete these files[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tusharbd1

User: Tusharbd1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: This user keeps uploading copyrighted images from the internet.

--আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This after warnings. I sent them a final warning. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jeff warned the user. All uploads are already deleted. Taivo (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley

User: Andy Dingley (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Kinda minor but still wanted to bring it to an admin's attention because I don't want to escalate it.

So, I was categorising the files in Category:All media needing categories as of 2018. After having categorised most of U-W, I saw which ones were DR-worthy and nominated them for deletion- the rationale being out of scope+ copyright issues for some, as almost all of them are out of scope due to various reasons. Andy came to the DR and assumed bad faith accused me of such COM:Uncivil things as being lazy, and that I was lying about my deletion reason.

After replying to him that such conduct is bad, I went to his talk page to ask him to not commit such conduct again as it's bad for commons. He then doubled down by calling my action lazy again, said I was lying again, and then twisted my words by talking about licenses again and again when I never mentioned licensing(some of the media is third party, which is the source of dubious copyright for some of these images.) He also keeps saying I didn't give any rationale when I did give a rationale, and even added specific rationales for each in a edit in between. Thank you for listening. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to play the 'civility' card here, one of the worst insults we can give any uploader is to try and delete their work. We should always be very careful about doing this and should only do it when there is a real, credible, policy-based reason to do so. Not just because it's 'untidy', or because it's sitting at the end of a work queue we would otherwise like to empty, such as uncategorised images. When the DR is a bulked DR, even more so when it's across multiple uploaders, then we should be especially careful about this.

If you want your DRs to be actioned, then give good policy-based reasons for them, that are clear so that other editors can easily judge what the relevant issues are. If you post a bulked DR with three potential reasons for deletion on each image and ask editors to pick which one that they think applies, then you're going to get called out on that. That is not uncivil.

When you are called out on this, then don't just start describing the replies you get as "yapping about licenses".

You were required to notify me of this posting. Why didn't you? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did put a policy based reason as I have said again and again. Nominating them was actually harder work- it might take way more time, but categorizing is definitely easier than nominating something for deletion given that the deletion requires a discussion, so like try to think before accusing me of things perhaps?

Were you not talking about licenses again and again?

I did, on your talk page, saying that I had posted it on COM:AN#U and linked to this thread. If you are asking why I didn't use a template, then as far as I'm aware, we don't need to do it specifically that way, any notification on someone's talk page is fine. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt Andy Dingley could have toned it down, but as it happens I just was commenting on that DR to the effect that as an admin it is really a pain to have to deal with catch-all DRs like that, where pretty much every individual file is an independent decision to make, on a completely different set of factors. - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Andy is correct about the inapropriateness of the DR, though. Bedivere (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is with the name-calling(lazy, liar) though, none of that needs to be said for "should be procedurally kept". I don't have problem with the procedural close, I did get a tad overenthusiastic. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no prejudice in renominating whatever you think appropriate Bedivere (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirhayati

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

I blocked this user for copyvios. There are hundreds of files with uncertain copyright which need review. Knowledge of Parsi would be useful. Yann (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for broader copyright- and scope-related scrutiny of uploads from user:Castroonthemoon

Hello,

I came across Special:ListFiles/Castroonthemoon. I took a look at some of their files and began to harbour doubts whether these are acceptable under two policies: COM:SCOPE and COM:L / COM:DW.

For being educationally useful and hence in scope, there must IMHO be sources named, so that any reader can convince himself of the faithfulness of the depiction of flags, logos or similar. Otherwise, the imagery would simply be art by a non-notable artist.

But: if the faithfulness of the imagery gets proven, then a lot of it is too complex for being below TOO. We're going into copyright problems, then. In any way, I think that several if not most uploads should be deleted; but I wanted to gather more opinions about it through this request. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that you're not familiar with the policies that you're interjecting. The files that I have uploaded violate nothing, are well within Iraqi copyright law, and are well within the realm of COM:TOO when it applies; you're just not familiar with the Arabic language. Castroonthemoon (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy to demonstrate as "false": Not all of your uploads are about Arabian things, File:PopularRevolutionaryArmyFlag.png is from a few days ago and about an American subject. In fact, that you're using graphic material of complex shapes (swords and other weaponry, plants and plant parts, other objects) in a casual manner is IMHO rather suited to demonstrate your own lack of policy and guideline understanding (like COM:PRP). My question here is not about Arabian writing, I should be able to recognise it as such, but about other graphical features. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! It's funny that you mention that, File:PopularRevolutionaryArmyFlag.png concerns a Mexican subject, and as you may not be aware, Mexico is a permenant observer[5] of the Andean Community, which per the Community's threshold of originality[6], is under no violation at all. Just because you believe "swords and other weaponry, plants and plant parts, other objects" are apparently complex things, that does not mean they are complex shapes when depicted Castroonthemoon (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's also a bit scummy that you're nominating my uploads for deletion, because in your opinion "there must IMHO be sources named" Castroonthemoon (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that en:Andean Community does not even mention Mexico. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 02:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too, I thought about adding that to the Andean Community article, but I was concerned that it may appear that I was creating falsifications related to this discussion Castroonthemoon (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but here's another example. File:KSaSFlag.png. It contains elements that go far beyond geometric shapes or text. In short, the flag isn't simple, and a flag isn't a logo. And the Iraki license should also be viewed critically, as this group was founded in 2013. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 02:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, it falls under public domain per the Iraqi Article 6 of Law No. 3 of 1971 on Copyright, which states that official documents are exempt from copyright (for which flags fall into this category; which is just one of the reasons why the national flag of Iraq can't be copywritten). The militia for which the flag belongs to is apart of the PMF, which legally is apart of the Iraqi Armed Forces, meaning that Article 6 extends to this militia. Castroonthemoon (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand-Duc: I don't think there is any immediate admin issue here. If the files appear to be problematic, nominate them for deletion (please, not all at once), starting with the ones you think are most likely to be problematic.

@Castroonthemoon: It does appear that you've had some files of this sort deleted as copyvios, such as File:Prosperity Party Emblem.png and File:Baqir Brigade.png. I would suggest that you stop uploading for a week or so, to see where consensus goes on the files that Grand-Duc or others might nominate for deletion, and than take that consensus into account for uploads of similar content in the future. Otherwise, this will become an administrative issue. - Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the advice. I think it is worth noting that File:Prosperity Party Emblem.png was uploaded five or six years ago, and was my 33rd edit overall (and if we're being honest, totally falls within PD:text-logo). File:Baqir Brigade.png was also nominated for speedy deletion, and was deleted within ~20/30 minutes; before I could dispute the speedy nomination / nomination overall. Castroonthemoon (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. I take it as advice to put a few uploads at a time in the DR queue to discuss them individually and to do that: see where any consensus may go. In any case, I'll make sure as usual to careful word my upcoming DR. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Castroonthemoon. Yann (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per @Jmabel if the files appear to be problematic, nominate them for deletion (please, not all at once), starting with the ones you think are most likely to be problematic. Castroonthemoon (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you started deleting files before any actual consensus was made too? Castroonthemoon (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Castroonthemoon: I have no idea who "you" was in the immediate previous post, but you can either petition the relevant admin who deleted them, or can take it to Commons:Undeletion requests. But it looks like the main action is at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Castroonthemoon, and I've suggested there what sort of thing you would have to do to get these kept.

PLease, everyone, no out-of-process deletions, flags and emblems can be very complicated for their copyright status, and we should be trying to sort that out accurately.

I don't think there is a further administrative issue at this time; it looks like the requested scrutiny is under way at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Castroonthemoon. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the "you" was a response to @Yann, who per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Military Council for the Liberation of Syria.png deleted after an hour of it being up, with only my and @Grand-Duc's feedback. Otherwise, Thank you, I have responded on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Castroonthemoon. Castroonthemoon (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sid Igor

Sid Igor (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions): New copyvios after one week block in March 2025. Quick1984 (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. One month block and I'll examine his uploads. Taivo (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sterlyn12kla

User: Sterlyn12kla (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued promotion after warning for doing so.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No promotion here. His only upload was deleted as unused personal file. Your warnings are currently enough. Taivo (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ReneeEdits

This user has been systematically emptying and trying to delete an entire category tree without explanation. Dronebogus (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I emptied out Category:Video game guest characters as most of these categories did not contain media relevant to their parent categories. They only contain other categories of characters unrelated to the parent. For example Category:Soulcalibur characters has Category:Soulcalibur guest characters as a subcategory, which has Category:Link (The Legend of Zelda) as a subcategory, which contains no media relevant to Soul Calibur. The only category that contained media relevant to the concept of "guest characters" was Category:Mortal Kombat guest characters, but even here I moved these files to the appropriate character categories before tagging the category for deletion.

I saw that the report was moved from the vandalism board to ANU, which I appreciate as a more appropriate venue. That said, I was still a bit surprised by the escalation. As a long-time contributor acting in good faith, I would have welcomed a discussion on a relevant talk page before it was taken to ANU. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t just unilaterally nuke entire half-a-decade-old category trees because you personally don’t think they’re useful. You start a discussion about the category. Manually emptying categories to get them immediately speedy deleted is a clear abuse of process. Dronebogus (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Renee is entirely correct here - this category tree should not exist. Having appeared as a guest character in another piece of media is not a defining characteristic of a given character. This sort of nondefining characteristic is a clear-cut case with plenty of precedent (c.f. Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Category:Actors by role which I just closed today); we don't need a CfD for every single bad category tree.

The notice at the top of the page says Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. If you aren't willing to assume that a experienced editor in good standing is acting in good faith, and to start a discussion with them before accusing them of vandalism, please don't waste everyone's time bringing it to AN/U. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 121#user:Sbb1413 and “unusual” Was a case where a non-admin nuked an entire longstanding category tree that resulted in the action being reversed. Per User:Andy Dingley: he was assisted in this by an admin following (yet again) C2 speedy deletions for "Delete this empty and useless category" immediately, despite the fact that the category had only just been emptied by Sbb1413. This keeps happening, and it keeps making big chaos out of small chaos. What you did here doesn’t seem to be based in policy (unless you can cite one); it’s more like you went “I agree with this user and am going to endorse and implement their idea based on another idea they had that got broad support which I also implemented”. There was no consensus here like there was there, and no attempt to form a consensus. People should not just get to dismantle or radically alter an entire category tree without any external input. Dronebogus (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

we don't need a CfD for every single bad category tree.

Hell, yes, we certainly do need a CfD, especially if it's a whole tree of them.

We do not have a CSD for 'bad category'. Admins do not hold any privileged opinion in our CfD process. We do not have any process for an admin's instant COM:IDONTLIKEIT deletion of 'bad categories'. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, this involved a very small category tree, just four categories (of which only one contained relevant media - three files to be precise - which were re-categorized appropriately). Given the small scope and the fact that the tree structure violates COM:CATPRI I'm surprised at the level of escalation, especially when I could have clarified my reasoning with a simple talk page discussion. The comparison to the "unusual" case cited from AN/U doesn't hold here; that involved a significantly larger and more complex category tree with far more media, making it a very different situation. And thank you Pi.1415926535 for looking into this, and for your clear and principled response. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: may I suggest that you not use COM:AN/U as a first resort? As it says at the top of the page, "Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)" - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farcazo

User: Farcazo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning for doing so. Vandalism after warning. CIR issue.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see neither vandalism nor copyvio uploading on current month. Taivo (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dronebogus

Opened countless deletion requests on the same subject [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] (et caetera), making it difficult to properly assess the requests, even though the recent topic had no definitive conclusion. This way, it makes it difficult to conduct a thorough analysis of the images to be deleted. I have better things to do than open dozens of tabs in my browser and analyze Panteleev's excellent images. If there are those who enjoy browsing through images they themselves consider inappropriately pornographic, so be it. This unreasonable moralism is getting out of control. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not moralism, it's simply considering the COM:SCOPE policy and valid DRs. Dronebogus did nothing wrong there, except maybe it would have been better to just have one to three DRs instead of over 10. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]