Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 121

C.Suthorn

C.Suthorn (talk · contribs) -- straight after the 2 weeks block (imposed by Pi.1415926535 -- see archived report) expired, continues exactly with the same stuff -- see Category:Bundesglasfaser. Absolutely discussion-resistant--A.Savin 18:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

This looks unacceptable IMO. I also wonder whether the other recent activities by this user are much better. The user took photographs of a political protest of a very small number of persons. These can be found in Category:Nicht meine Regierung! Handmaidstaleriot. Wir fordern eine klare Abgrenzung und die Ablehnung jeder Zusammenarbeit mit der AfD. Intersektional feminisistischer Protest zwischen Kanzleramt und Reichstag 2025-04-04. At least the descriptions of these files look problematic. Each of the description fields consists of seven more or less different parts. These contain lots of keywords, even including some brand names, most of which have very little apparent connection to what can be seen on the photos. This looks like an attempt of search engine spamming misusing brand names and product names. In addition, these photos are categorized in Category:Videos of 2025 from Berlin, not just the single video fle File:Nicht meine Regierung! Handmaidstaleriot. Wir fordern eine klare Abgrenzung und die Ablehnung jeder Zusammenarbeit mit der AfD. Intersektional feminisistischer Protest zwischen Kanzleramt und Reichstag 2025-04-04 18.webm. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Perfectly appropriate to document a small but creative demonstration, but it's an awful lot of very similar photos, each with a wall of highly repetitive text. - Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: how do you believe this plethora of photos of a few fibre optic installations is in scope? What precisely is the supposed educational value of having more than a handful of such photos? I've seen you do some good work in the past, but this just seems to me to be totally counterproductive, to the point of being a detriment to the project. (Sie kann mir antworten auf Deutsch ob dass einfacher ist.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious, what are those cables actually? are they part of some project, or just stray cables neglected by their owners/maintainers? RoyZuo (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

These photos are about a dilapidated distributor box that provided the internet connection for an official German constitution anniversary - just once. The cables are light-wave cables. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I went and renamed the bunch of images about the political demonstration under the rationale COM:FR#FR3 (there was a typo "feminisistischer <-> feministisch"), but also as the filenames were against the guideline against long names. Normally, I would expect the same rationale to hold true with the category name, but I do not know whether I'm right about this. Should the category be moved, too? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Done User indefinitely blocked for continuing to upload OOS files right after getting unblocked, failure to get the point. They may get unblocked only with a compromise to stop the behavior that led to the block. Several files from the non-existent OOS category were deleted, too. --Bedivere (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Infolearner23

Infolearner23 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Repeatedly uploading copyrighted images --Chtrede (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: File:Witbooi in 2025.jpg This is another one, just uploaded some minutes ago --Chtrede (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

And another one the user just uploaded again File:Official portrait, 2025.jpg --Chtrede (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

And one more File:Witbooi Offical Photo.jpg --Chtrede (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, files already deleted. Yann (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Madhavgn007

Madhavgn007 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Keeps uploading out of scope images. Uploads have already been wiped twice and user has been notified about COM:SCOPE. They still keep uploading the same type of content. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Apply for a limited expiration date on my block on Commons

Good evening, dear Pi.1415926535 administrator,

I would like to apologize for the poor quality contributions I have made, as well as for my failure to comply with your warnings, which unfortunately led to the blocking of my account.

Despite this situation, I respectfully request clemency. I would like, if possible, for you to consider temporarily unblocking my account, or for the block to be limited in time, with a clearly defined expiration date.

I sincerely thank you for your attention to my request, and please accept, dear Pi.1415926535 administrator, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Here is the link that summarizes my blockage : Special:BlockList/Blessingedi76 Blessingedi76 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Your partial block will be lifted when you show that you understand the reasons for it and have taken steps to rectify the problem. Blocks are preventative, they are not intended to be punitive. Abzeronow (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Good evening dear administrator, noted. Blessingedi76 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

And also I would like to ask for your clemency so that you can show me another way that exists to make a demonstration on Commons. Blessingedi76 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

?? Trade (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

To me, they are just repeating their request for an unblock or the shortening of the their partial block. Since this partial block is not a punishment, there is no need for "clemency", the partial block will be lifted when the user has demonstrated that they have the ability to make productive edits. Abzeronow (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand that my partial blocking is the result of poor-quality contributions that did not comply with Commons rules and standards, despite the warnings I received. I fully acknowledge my mistakes and realize the importance of contributing constructively, rigorously, and in compliance with the project's rules.

To address this, I took the time to reread the help pages and the essential guidelines for contributing to Commons, particularly those related to the quality of uploaded files, copyright, and file descriptions. I also committed to improving my education and asking questions before contributing if I have any doubts.

Thank you for your understanding and I remain at your disposal for any further information. Blessingedi76 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Please disclose your plans and ideas on how, if at all, you plan to participate in future Commons:ISA Tool/Challenges. As already disclosed, your usage with these programs on a likely mislead financial motivation (you forgot to mention foundation:PAID among the rule pages you read - you were likely expecting a financial gain stemming from Commons edits) is the root cause of your block. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I participated in this campaign with the aim, first, of contributing to Commons, and second, of winning an award. However, I did not go about it well. That is why I received numerous warnings and finally a block. In any case, I apologize profusely for my bad behavior and for not respecting the rules established for the campaign. Blessingedi76 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: I don't think foundation:PAID applies to entering contest sponsored by organizations associated with the Foundation itself. It would never have occurred to me to do such a thing. Uploading with the tags related to the competition seems to implicitly indicate that you are competing for a possible financial reward. Did any of the participants make any further disclosure?

@Blessingedi76: I suggest you hang back for a month or two. You created quite a mess, which other people had to try to clean up. Let people cool down a little before you resume activity. Also, when you come back (but please, as I said, wait a month or two before dealing with that), please be clear what exactly you intend to work on that is unlikely to create similar problems. - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I know that PAID is most likely not intended for in-Wikiuniverse activities. I used it only as argument to illustrate that Blessingedi76 seemed to get sidetracked: in his unblocking request, he wrote about licensing and copyright, scope and file descriptions, saying that he understood the zoo of policies. But he never wrote about the issues at hand: spamming bad structured data. That's why I pointed out that, while he seemed to try to make a sweeping grasp at any imaginable policy, he missed something related to his suspected motivation. So, if he truly wants to show kind of a kowtow to get unblocked, then he should have taken stuff like PAID, as he did with other mainstays of our project, into consideration. On the other hand, the wording "You must disclose each and any employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." does presently not directly exclude in-universe activities, so, expecting a monetary reward offered in such a competition could warrant a disclosure... That should be the Foundation's job to clarify, though.

@Bedivere, about AI: instead of AI, I'd rather say the pattern of remarks is more likely stemming from the educational / professional background of the applicant (cf. his user page). I got the distinct feel of a try at mollifying (the people with blocking power), using psychological techniques. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Nah, it's pretty easy to generate remarks like that using ChatGPT. I think it's pretty obvious these are not their work. Bedivere (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I've got a feeling these remarks are all AI-generated... Bedivere (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I would expect to see actual productive edits in other namespaces / projects before I would consider unblocking from file namespace. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think their responses are wholly generated by AI. For one sample response, Duplichecker's AI detector scored "Human Written Content - 99.8%, AI Written Content - 0.2%."

This doesn't mean that I agree to their disruptive structured data contributions, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Any clue why they keep talking like this? I can barely understand what's he's trying to convey because he's being so general and unspecific Trade (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Shubhamchitte1

• Shubhamchitte1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) The user is still uploading non-free internet photos after being warned. 0x0a (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

New sockpuppets of globally locked User:Wave of Pandas

• Standard HK ISD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Same useless images of Hong Kong at night. Krok6kola (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Krok6kola: The older, currently recognised master account is actually User:Zestsees, on these, Wave of Pandas was a later sock of theirs. Belbury (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Belbury: That is fine. I got the Wave of Pandas account from Meta. All I want is that account (by whatever name) stopped. Krok6kola (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Conkerpox627

• User: Conkerpox627 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Another 257 calling me a snitch. Pinging @Bedivere. Thanks in advance!

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Bedivere (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Lock on the way All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 04:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yukitanooki & theinstandmatrix

• Yukitanooki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Theinstantmatrix (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user doesn't appear to be abiding by Commons:Licensing nor doesn't seem to be acknowledging warnings.

They have recently uploaded three obvious copyvios (File:Mobile Legends Bang Bang 2025 logo.png, File:抖音上中国对巴拉望岛的主权主张（郑和岛）.jpg, File:Baidu Map (Nine Dash Line by China).jpg), and when confronted with open deletion requests of their remaining uploads, also about copyright, removes the DR tags of it ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) in hopes of stopping its deletion out of process.

Even when reverted and warned about it ([8]), they removed the tags again ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) and blanked their talk page ([16]), indicating acknowledgement.

At the moment I recommend giving this user a final warning not to remove DR tags again nor upload more copyvios. If they still refuse to abide by warnings and continue their disruptive editing, they should be blocked. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Theinstantmatrix (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

It is stated that it is under the Apache License 2.0 and based on Android Open Source Project on Legal Notice. Yukitanooki (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

they just attempted to delete the complaint. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 23:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

and removed that comment. please stop removing comments. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 06:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

You kept deleting the file and vandalizing the page, but it is under the Apache License or AOSP. This is stated in the ColorOS screenshot, File:OPPO ColorOS 15 Screenshot.png.

Here is the license that Oppo provides on their website: https://www.oppo.com/my/store/contents/legal/open-source-software-notice/ The other Android screenshot is under the Apache License. You can refer to the website for more details.
Yukitanooki (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

You should be blocked for disruptive editing, as you kept denying that the screenshots are under the Apache License, which is clearly stated on their website. Yukitanooki (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I warned both users to stop edit warring.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G., Yukitanooki is removing comments from this page. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 06:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

And also at least once removed this section. They are (barely) allowed to remove comments from their user talk page, but not to remove complaints against them here. I would support a short block to remind them (Yukitanooki) that was a pretty serious violation. - Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

 Info - Yukitanooki has been blocked for 3 months by The Squirrel Conspiracy for socking in DR discussion. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Socking in DRs is only a 3 month block? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 19:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Gatto bianco

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

User is requesting the deletion of multiple dozens of files that are obviously PD-simple / PD-textlogo with the copypasted rationale "copyright violation". Skyshifter (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days pending further investigation. Yann (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indef. as per [17]. Closing all DRs. Yann (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Yann: They are back as 2.194.241.191 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log • Abuse filter log).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Bedivere. Yann (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Cymatilus

• User: Cymatilus (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: SEveral uploads of copyrighted files taken from a fandom about a new Imperial Germany (it seems ?) or credited as "own work", fantasy elections diagrams

Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Last warning sent, all files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Giuse07licata

• User: Giuse07licata (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Keeps uploading copyrighted content after final warning. --Titore (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Giuse07licata. Yann (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Vaca louca dedo

• User: Vaca louca dedo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Uploading a lot of explicit pornographic material. I don't have the patience and currently can't look all images to tag them for deletion, but obviously they should be. Global lock was requested for the account.

Eduardo Gottert (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for socking, all porn deleted. Yann (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Alfreld

• Alfreld (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continued to upload unfree internet images after a final warning.

0x0a (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, last file deleted. Yann (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Frypie

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

This user has uploaded hundreds, if not thousands of artwork reproductions with only {{PD-Art}}. I have requested them several times to fix the license of the files as PD-Art is not sufficient. Frypie refuses to do so, and continues to upload files with PD-Art only. May be someone could explain them again. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

FYI Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Slowking4. Yann (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Levingh

• Levingh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continued to upload unfree internet images despite the final warning.

0x0a (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Riverlife92

• Riverlife92 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Despiting warnings, user continued to upload screenshots from paid sporting videos.

0x0a (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Files wiped, user blocked. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Sabil Khoer Al Munawar

• Sabil Khoer Al Munawar (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user upload or reupload copyrighted content since the last block, like File:Pondok Pesantren Tanbihul Ghofilin.png.

0x0a (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

User:EdsonCordeirodeSouza

• EdsonCordeirodeSouza (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block userDespiting warnings, user continued to reupload deleted copyvios.

0x0a (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@0x0a: The name of this user seems reminiscent of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ricardinho da Souza Silva 7.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

seems to be different persons. See en:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of EdsonCordeirodeSouza and en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of EdsonCordeirodeSouza.

 Done Socking anyway. All files deleted. Ricardinho da Souza Silva has a huge sock farm. I wouldn't be surprised if they are all the same. I also blocked Ditongo ponto G (talk · contribs) and Erika Santana ponto G (talk · contribs). Yann (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G. and Yann: Ricardinho da Souza Silva 7 socks can't be identified by name. The behavior of these accounts doesn't match RdSS7's M.O. at all. EdsonCordeirodeSouza is their own sockmaster with three confirmed socks, which have now been properly tagged accordingly. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Actuspin22

• Actuspin22 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user persistent copyright issues since 2014.

0x0a (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Colin

Colin's only contribution this calendar year is this pair of insult-laden remarks: [18], [19]. I'm one of the targets: he characterized one of my edits as "stupid".

I requested that he take back that insult, and have waited well over 24 hours without response; given the infrequency of his recent contributions, I have no way to know whether he saw my request, but since he remarks in one of his edits that he is responding to a ping, I would have to guess he saw my ping as well.

Given that it would be nearly meaningless to briefly block someone who is barely participating, I have no what (if anything) is an appropriate sanction here, but it does not seem to me that being an infrequent participant here should constitute a license to insult people when you do show up. - Jmabel ! talk 05:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Also: I realize that Colin has in the past been a very good contributor, and I am not disputing that. Again, that is not (or should not be) license to insult other users. - Jmabel ! talk 05:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: the way I read that discussion, you were the first supporter of a proposal insulting an uploader by calling them a troll. I imagine that is why you got mentioned in Colin's comment, not because of your technical prowess in using css-crop. Disclosure: I think that one of the "insult-laden remarks" by Colin linked above was extremely insightful. Commander Keane (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I was not endorsing the categorization of the user in question. I was endorsing the remedy of adding a watermark if there have been repeated issues of someone making legal threats, so that it would take deliberate action for a reuser to remove the appropriate attribution. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

And, no, his characterization of "stupid" did not refer to that edit: "the above linked post has the idiocy of a watermark saying this attribution must be retained, and then immediately below, an example of using it on Wikipedia with the attribution cropped off. I thought that level of stupidity was restricted to US presidents". I absolutely do not feel it was "stupid" or "idiotic" of me to show the technical means of doing what JayCubby had said was possible, but did not know how to do. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I recall someone being sanctioned for calling something stupid. It's not ideal. But if it's something on the level of what my second grader might say if she gets frustrated, it's probably easier to have a little laugh about it and otherwise shrug it off. GMG^talk 16:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • In the course of his post, besides the word "stupid," Colin wrote, "Watermarking is a dumb ass solution… the above linked post has the idiocy of a watermark saying this attribution must be retained…" Are you really saying that is acceptable? - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Colin resorts to personal attacks when he can't convince someone else. I got some attacks some years back. Hopefully, he is not so much around these days. Yann (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

A hot headed bunch of people on the internet decide to repeatedly call another user, who goes by their full real name, and with abundant clear evidence that they are not, a "copyleft troll", and I'm the one taken to AN/I for insults? And the solution proposed, watermarking thousands of professional-class images that are widely used across many Wikimedia projects, is indeed dumb, stupid, ridiculous, and .. futile. Wikipedia will conclude Commons is no longer a safe repository for clearly free content and fork those images and remove the watermark. Alternatively, dozens of egotistical Commons photographers will wish they could get their credit in-text on Wikipedia and go around watermarking their own images. The magic "CSS image crop" code that removes the watermark doesn't work for the majority of use cases of Diliff's images, which are inside other templates or on other Wikimedia projects each with their own templates. I could go on. There are so many "haven't thought this one through" to this issue, but it seems no shortage of people to create vandal bots to ruin everything for the many people with enough brain cells to actually use Diliff's images according to the licence conditions.

The Wikipedia model of presenting licenced media to our readers is broken and misleads users into thinking they don't need to attribute or licence-tag images, unlike every single other website on the internet that uses CC licenced media and attributes in-text below the image. The proposal, of adding a credit-licence-warning watermark and then cropping it off, is even worse. As if it isn't bad enough WMF can't create a CC-licenced website fit for 2025 but its own users use crude templates to teach our viewers even worse practice.

I can't emphasise enough the outrage and possible newspaper headlines that would result if thousands of images on Wikipedia suddenly ended up with a credit line

"Photo by DAVID ILIFF. Licence https://creativecommons/org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/.

Keep this attribution intact to avoid legal action.

And a massive job then undertaken to remove the attribution (whether by fancy templates, or just forking all of Diliff's images on en.wp and reverting the vandalism) which is the very thing "keep this attribution intact to avoid legal action" warns against. I mean, if you think I've hurt your delicate feelings, feel free to ignore me and you can enjoy all of Twitter and the technical press doing worse.

The "users" the "administrators" should be concerned about are the ones proposing mass vandalisation. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

In short, the opposite of an apology.

I'm not calling for any sanctions, but I hope everyone will understand why I will not lift a finger on behalf of this user in the future. - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you would be more effective in winning allies if you spit less venom. So at some level, isn't that worth prioritizing cooperation if your primary goal is what you say? Is the satisfaction of vitriol really worth forfeiting the thing you're arguing for? GMG^talk 17:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Colin doesn’t really edit Commons anymore and his recent edits on Enwiki, which has far lower behavioral standards, show a consistent cross-wiki pattern of long-winded hostility mixed with disrespect for other users’ intelligence (or perceived lack thereof). I don’t support sanctioning someone who seems feed off negative attention, especially over something this petty, but if he brings enwiki-style toxicity to Commons again I would fully support an indef. Dronebogus (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Sahnounzak 2025

Sahnounzak 2025 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

From the content and the description, this is apparently a schoolboy or schoolgirl. The intent is probably good, but some copyright violations, and mostly poor quality images without any context, useful title, categories, or description. I blocked them for a week for uploading files. May be some teaching could get them to contribute usefully. There also may be a language issue. Yann (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I suspect there are still some copyvios in his uploads. Arabic users passing by please tell them to use {{Copyvio}} to tag images that are not his. 0x0a (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Request to delete an account that made automatically

Hello, my name is Hisyam Athaya, and I am a staff member at Wikimedia Indonesia. In October 2024, I uploaded a file on behalf of Wikimedia Indonesia on the WMID Wikimedia site. It appears that the image has since been reused on several wiki pages, uploaded automatically to Commons, and an account using my name was automatically created.

I would like to request the deletion of that account, as it is not mine. I can provide proof via the original file showing the image was first uploaded by me on the WMID site. Additionally, I would like to request that the file upload history be revised to correctly reflect attribution to our official work account.

The existence of this account is causing an issue, as the user talk page is indexed by Google, and my name now appears in search results linked to an account I do not control. Thank you for your assistance.

Thank you Hisyam Athaya (WMID) (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

See meta:SUL, any account on any Wikimedia project works anywhere. The automatic creation happens when you first visit a Wikimedia site while logged in your account. So, there is no need, and actually also no way, to delete that account. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You may add __NOINDEX__to your talk page. --0x0a (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

RESOLVED, I add __NOINDEX__. Thanks. Hisyam Athaya (WMID) (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

User:MeharabAyon4

• MeharabAyon4 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

The user continued to upload copyvios after the last block. 0x0a (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indef., 3rd block, not even one useful edit. Yann (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Emilia delmonte

• Emilia delmonte (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• The user continued to upload copyvios. Was warned by an admin to stop.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 14:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for Oversight Review: Admin dismissal of privacy violation + retaliatory deletion request (File:Victoria princewill 2022 1.jpg)

Hello, I am the subject of the image at File:Victoria princewill 2022 1.jpg, which was uploaded to Commons without my consent or any valid licensing permission from the copyright holder.

The image is a screenshot from a British Library YouTube video of a literary event. Although the video is marked CC-BY-3.0, Commons policy explicitly requires consent for identifiable images where personality rights are implicated (see COM:IDENT and COM:PERSONAL).

I have:

Flagged the file for deletion under Commons policies governing personality rights and identifiable individuals.

Provided evidence that the event organiser (HISTFEST) could not even share a short clip of the footage — confirming the video is not redistributable.

Explicitly objected as the subject, citing reputational harm and lack of consent.

In response:

The administrator User:Jeff G.:

• • Overrode my speedy deletion attempt.
  • Accused me of vandalism for removing misleading licensing metadata.
  • Dismissed clearly articulated personality rights concerns.
  • Attempted to unilaterally close the deletion discussion without consensus.
  • Ignored the fact that I am the subject, and that Commons policy protects people in my position.

Most worryingly, after I raised these concerns, File:Victoria Princewill London 2021.png — another image I had uploaded — was flagged for deletion with tenuous justification. That photo was:

Taken by photographer Posola Karunwi

Uploaded by me with full consent

Not disputed by the photographer

And was only targeted after I objected to the first file

The deletion rationale includes personal insinuations (e.g. "this might be a selfie") and irrelevant comparisons to the disputed file. This appears to be retaliatory flagging.

The user responsible for this second nomination was User:999real — who had already participated in the deletion discussion for the first image and, as documented here, was aware of the privacy objection. The sequence of events strongly suggests retaliatory coordination, especially in light of the closely timed actions by Jeff G. and 999real.

I respectfully request

Independent review of both files for compliance with COM:IDENT and COM:PERSONAL.

Oversight of Jeff G.’s handling of this issue, including procedural bias, intimidation via false vandalism claims, and apparent retaliatory behaviour.

Immediate deletion or redaction of File:Victoria princewill 2022 1.jpg under privacy and consent policies, including removal from page history if necessary.

I'm happy to verify my identity privately if required. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

For transparency: I have also submitted a formal request to Wikimedia’s legal and oversight teams regarding this matter. This includes a request for removal under personality rights and redaction from history. I am happy to provide verification privately if needed.

— User:DauntPhotoUploader2021 — Preceding undated comment was added at 19:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Image currently has open deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Victoria princewill 2022 1.jpg. I shall also add a link to this discussion there. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The OP neglected to inform me of this complaint and to sign their work. 999real and I both monitor COM:FILTERT, comment on DRs, and comment on user pages on a regular basis. We have had no off-wiki coordination in this matter. Anyone is welcome to review my conduct in this matter, including my vandalism complaints (the latest one was meant to include the full URL of Special:Diff/1020966791 in parameter 2 of {{Test3}}, but the User Messages Gadget did not include that). I had intended to bring the OP here for vandalism if they vandalized past the third warning, but they chose to post here first. Please beware en:WP:BOOMERANG.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Jeff G. is not an administrator and he did not remove the speedy deletion template, I did that because I think the reasons are not valid and there was already a deletion discussion under way. He also did not try to close the deletion discussion, no one did that.

I said "This might not be a selfie" which is relevant because the image was uploaded as "Own work" which should only be done by the photographer.

You have stated "I have also confirmed that the event organiser (HISTFEST) was not permitted to redistribute footage", which means someone was filming. I think everyone has a hard time to believe that the British Library stole this footage and/or did not tell the participants they would be recording.

Based on the behavior of the user I think they are not Victoria Princewill but someone trying to defame her.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   00:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I have closed the DR as keep. I suggest to the user who wants it deleted to contact COM:VRT so the matter of Princewell's image can dealt with privately. Abzeronow (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Seconding that last remark. Issues that require proving identity should almost always be dealt with by the Volunteer Response Team, who are entrusted to handle confidential correspondence. Trying to sort them out by way of who an account-holder claims to be will get us nowhere. - Jmabel ! talk 01:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I preemptively semi-protected the file for a year. Taivo (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Stefan Leys

Stefan Leys (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) - reupload of copyvio after warning, while making false own work claim - Jcb (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. You warned Stefan "Do not remove copyvio nominations from your own uploads" and Stefan obeyed that. Now Yann warned Stefan not to upload copyvios and Stefan has stopped. Taivo (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Iwfirani1i666 and socks

• Iwfirani1i666 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Rezaae4lfonikhoii (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Fedrasiommekidov77i (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

using muitiple accounts to reupload a selfie. 0x0a (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Socks blocked, main account warned, copyvio deleted. Yann (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Laaiiidaa

• Laaiiidaa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continued to upload a copyvio after final warning.

0x0a (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Theotropolis

• Theotropolis (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Continues to upload copyighted logos from series and game shows. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

No uploads in 362 days, so no action needed at this time. Looks like files have been tagged for permission. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Edge Interactive Publishing Inc.

Edge Interactive Publishing Inc. (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

It seems to me that this user is uploading poor quality porn. NSFW: File:ERA110 Erika Kole nude R 4 030.jpg and File:GMNT-NLN07-02 Noname Jane nude2 RfuillUnused violet solo 057.jpg do not have a license, and seems to be upscaled. Do we need these files? Yann (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Yann: Half a dozen are in use. Some have tickets.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but other pictures are of better quality. Yann (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

This sounds like a problem for DR, rather than ANU. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, done. Yann (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Yann, are you planning on tagging all the files they uploaded? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 15:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Only these 2 so far. Yann (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

All of their files are the same. I'll VFC the rest if you want. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Finally, most users think that these are useful, so I closed the DRs. Yann (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Bembety

• Bembety (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

continued to upload a large number of copyrighted photos from social media despite his promise to stop doing so. 0x0a (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Osamaosamaosamaosama

• User: Osamaosamaosamaosama (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:كتاب خاص.png after block for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Dyolf77. Jianhui67 ^T★C 19:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jianhui67 and Dyolf77: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Alikhan 1987

• Alikhan 1987 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user User continued to upload lots of copyvios since last block. 0x0a (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked for a month. Taivo (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

J-Majestik

J-Majestik (talk · contribs): not sure what to make of this, but the user who I blocked earlier for incivility is now complaining (on his user talk page) about my conduct in way I honestly don't entirely understand, so I leave it to some other admin to decide what to do with this. - Jmabel ! talk 00:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Abuse of TPA merits revocation of TPA and lengthening of the block.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I reblocked the user without talkpage access and wrote a short message him/her. Taivo (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Георгий Долгопский

Георгий Долгопский (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions). Recent blatant copyright violations after 4 long-term blocks. Quick1984 (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Ff909

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ministerial Roundtable- 21st Century Global Investment Policy Making - 44639130225 (cropped).jpg. This user should be warned to stop wasting everyone's time with invalid deletion requests that a COM:INUSE photo of a Chinese official they don't like for P.R. reasons should be deleted. I will post a link to this discussion on their user talk page now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reminder. I think you are right about whether the pictures should be deleted. But I do not represent any official organization or work for the government. Your accusation has no basis or logic. Ff909 (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

So I think this problem is resolved, but everyone should note that I made no such accusation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Possibly attempted upskirts

There is an user here whose photo i believe to be an failed attempt at taking upskirts photos

Any suggestions as to how i should proceed? Trade (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not know if this is worth bothering emergencywikimedia.org with so i have not emailed them for now Trade (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'd start with a warning on their talk page. At very least alert them to COM:SCOPE and Commons:Personality rights. (Not knowing more about this case, I don't know if immediate block is needed, but it may well be.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  That would be their second warning

  Also doesnt answers what to do with the photo in question Trade (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Trade If the user has few or no other contributions, CSD F10 qualifies. If the upskirt is of an identified person and there's any question about the consent, CSD G3 also applies. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Would CSD G3 still apply to an failed attempt at capturing an upskirt Trade (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  no, but F10 would. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  I dont believe the image is out of scope. its just the attempted upskirt that bothers me Trade (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  First would not apply and i am unsure if she can be considered identifiable in that photo Trade (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• We do have COM:CREEPSHOT. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  I just dont know if it would count since it failed Trade (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  Another option is to open DR and handle it that way. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 19:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's hard to know what you mean by "failed" without an example. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism

The users "User:Looui67" and "User:Dooxcc22" are doing vandalism in 1, 2 and 3 (and there are more in their "Contributions" page), for example. Since I don't know how to use Wikimedia much, except for uploading images, I don't know how to send notifications or warnings to their talk page. Please, undo those "edits". Thank you!--Agent010 (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I reverted vandalism, blocked both vandals and semi-protected the file indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Also I created a request for checkuser, who confirmed sockpuppetry and found one more sock. All blocked and reverted. Taivo (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

User:اليان الغالي

اليان الغالي (talk · contribs) wants to promote an obsuce singer for which a picture was deleted. You can see their actions here [20] and here [21]. Would it be possible remind him about the rules of Commons and to protect the page Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elian ghali .jpg, please? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done User page deleted, user warned. This may be sufficient for now. Yann (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

JLStevenNgao

I don’t know if this is report worthy but JLStevenNgao keeps bothering with some really creepy messages. Also, he also vandalized the FIFA Nations/Canada-Mexico-United States 2026 despite the fact that the next matches is in June. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: when you report a user on this page, you are required to let them know on their user talk page. I will now do so for you. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: I am not familiar enough with the World Cup to even begin to judge who is right or wrong about any of those edits. In general, 'vandalism" means not just being wrong, but deliberately adding wrong information, removing accurate and appropriate information, and/or persisting after being corrected. If you want to bring such an accusation, you should provide diffs and a clear indication of what is wrong with the edits in question.

@JLStevenNgao: your edits on 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)

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)

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)

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

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

1. Don't upload media without a license, at all. A lot of this seems to have already been hashed out and agreed to.
2. 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Again

Now Adamant1 is threatening me on my talk page: [22]. When will be get blocked? Yann (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

 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)

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

• 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)

  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)

  I don't think they need to be desysopped. Bedivere (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @Bedivere, do you think an Iban would solve the problem? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  Now I’ve seen this block, I have to agree. What a mess. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  I owe you an apology as I missed Yann’s block. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  no problem Bedivere (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 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)

@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)

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)