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 (, , , , , , ) in hopes of stopping its deletion out of process.

Even when reverted and warned about it (), they removed the tags again (, , , , , , ) and blanked their talk page (), 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 . 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)

Adamant1

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: , . 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.

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 and here . 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 SpinnerLaserzthe2nd's talk page are at best awkward, and arguably creepy. Certainly another such edit would be a reason for a block.

If another admin thinks this has already reached the level for a block against JLStevenNgao, I won't object. - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I am yes familiar enough with the World Cup JLStevenNgao (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@JLStevenNgao: That wasn't in question. What was in question was whether the changes you made are appropriate, and the way you posted on SpinnerLaserzthe2nd's user talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I see an image of an kitten. Am i missing something vital here? Trade (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

First, JL had vandalized the page because in his words “Okay Wait The Philippines As Th First The 2026 FIFA World Cup NOWǃǃ”. This is not the only time that he does this (1, 2, 3). The qualification process is still ongoing.

Second, he gave me a brainstar with any no real reason (just give a description of a TV staff from Switzerland).

Third, he gives me a kitten that said “so cute!!” in relation to the vandalism I had reverted. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: There are two largely separate issues here (vandalism accusation & possibly inappropriate talk page message). Let me focus for a moment on the first: I still don't understand why the addition of the Chinese flag there would be vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 18:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I guess it had to do with cuju as the earliest form of soccer (according to FIFA). *shrugs* But that is not part of the problem. The focus is the two separate issues (namely placing the Philippine flag under qualified even though the Philippines is eliminated and the inappropriate talk page message). I do hope we get real answers from JL. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Might have wanted to start out with the context. The complaint just looks silly otherwise Trade (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this is the relevant thread: User_talk:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd#A_kitten_for_you! Jerimee (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Anak Sago

• User: Anak Sago (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Selamat datang di Nagari Minangkabau.webp after block for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. 2 weeks block. Taivo (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged

• User: Laurel Lodged (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Opened Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Dioceses of the Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate), evidently after the cat was emptied by someone else. Has a history of arguing about naming related to orthodox churches and their divisional units on this page. See for example Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 110#User:Laurel Lodged and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 113#User:Laurel Lodged.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  Opened a discussion nomination? That's a sin now? Of what exactly am I being accused please? It is usual to supply the accused with a list of charges. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: I accuse you of obstructing the correction of a mistake that offends 5+1 religious organizations of the "autocephalous church" level. Ыфь77 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Again, as I wrote below, it is pretty much anyone's prerogative to challenge the deletion of a category, unless they've been topic-banned. I would say that this comment by Ыфь77 is unconstructive in the context of this AN/U discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  While LaurelLodged has done plenty that I'm not happy with, I believe it is pretty much anyone's prerogative to challenge the deletion of a category, unless they've been topic-banned. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  Most of my further remarks are at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Dioceses of the Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate). The upshot in terms of administrative matters: LaurelLodged and Ыфь77 have had a slow war over the category names in this area. I believe that in the course of that each of them have made more than one controversial category move without any effort to get consensus in advance, which is counter to policy (Commons:Rename a category). If either of them makes such a move again, I intend to block them without further warning.

  Note that that is a process matter, having nothing to do with who is ultimately correct about how the categories should be named. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  So there is nothing wrong with challenging a speedy delete request. Thank you. I expect that @Jeff G.: will want to withdraw this nomination. I will take note of Jmabel's advice and let others judge in the case of the Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate). Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

User:2004user

• 2004user (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continued to upload unfree internet images despite final waring. 0x0a (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hooman Mallahzadeh

• User: Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:بندرگاه بوشهر 2.png after final warning for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G. Dear I asked a question about it at Commons:Village pump#Satellite maps of GoogleMap and OpenStreetMaps. So I want you to be kind until I get my answer. Thank you. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Me myself will remove all 4 images form GoogleMap if the answer is yes. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: I answered there at 15:14 before reading the above. I am kind until you violate any of our laws, policies, or procedures.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.  Done I myself added Speedydelete template to all four images from GoogleMaps. Thanks for your answer. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: Thanks, but what about all the other files you uploaded that were deleted for copyright reasons, or have not yet been checked for copyright violations? You have 236 uploads.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G. I took all of them by my mobile phone camera. Is there any problem by this image?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D8%B9%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%81%E2%80%8C%D8%A2%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AF_1.jpg

For others like some sculptures, before upload, I asked from museum manager that they are free, and I'm really sure that they have no copyright. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: Per COM:FOP Iran, "There is no usable FoP provision in the copyright law of Iran", and the garden complex was built in 1863, so your photo of that fountain with the garden building should not be a problem, as the copyright for the architecture of the garden building expired long ago (50 years after the death of the architect (possibly Mirza Ali Mohammad Khan Qavam al-Molk II)). Much of what I just posted was based on Google Translation of fa:باغ عفیف‌آباد, the Persian version of article en:Afif-Abad Garden.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: There is a difference between "free" to take photos of for personal use, say, and "free enough for Commons" per COM:L. Also, Andy Mabbett found four more questionable files.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me the user is reasonably competent, well-intentioned, and learning. I don't see an administrative issue here, but it won't surprise me if they continue to need some guidance. - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Ok,  I withdraw my nomination, but I think a mentor who understands Persian and COM:IRAN would be helpful. I don't qualify based on language.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ebrahim, Mhhossein, and Satdeep Gill: would one of you either be willing to mentor or able to recommend someone who can?

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: I'm trying to find you someone appropriate you can readily go to with questions. - Jmabel ! talk 05:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I really try to consult them from now on. Specially, I'm familiar and friend with user Ebrahim. Thanks for your advice. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel Thank you for the ping. I not an expert in Farsi yet. Since, the user mentioned knowing user:Ebrahim, I am glad they have at-least one contact. But @Hooman Mallahzadeh feel free to reach out to me anytime. Farsi kam-kam midonam. - Satdeep Gill (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Problems with User:마이산

User has problems with copyright, see User_talk:마이산. And threatens other users ("위키미디어 새끼들은 절대 하지 마라. 없애버릴 거다./Don't do it you Wikimedia assholes, I'll get rid of you.") . --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Several edits by this user should be reverted as they consist entirely of vandalism. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@PantheraLeo1359531, indefinitely blocked.  Done. Kadı Message 19:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

User:ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 &

ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This editor has repeatedly uploaded the same copyrighted content that has been previously deleted despite being warned to stop. A second warning would be pointless as their behaviour here, and on the English Wikipedia show that warnings have been ignored and content that has been deleted or removed is simply recreated or added back with no discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done All uploads deleted; blocked for 1 month. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Gereja Yesus Sejati Salatiga.jpg license

"© Avelin Mulyati, Licensed with CC BY-SA 4.0" Is this file licensing consistent with Commons rules? Wieralee (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, CC-BY-SA 4.0 is a valid license on commons. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 15:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

And, in fact you must own a copyright to grant a CC license. - Jmabel ! talk 23:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Minky Avelin/Disclaimer has nofacebook features.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G., nofacebook? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 19:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nofacebook and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2020/09#Is Template:Nofacebook valid?, 3+ years before your time here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

See also Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates. User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer was discussed at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 115#User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer, but not actioned.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Altair Netraphim swept under the rug my notification of this section in this edit, rather than commenting here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Despite not commenting, they do actually seem to have removed their "no Facebook" template from all of their files in response to that, late on the 23 April. Their template is no longer in use on any files.

They've also edited Minky Avelin's files to remove the similar User:Minky Avelin/Disclaimer template. This isn't very clear, but (from the fact that they seem to be crediting each other as co-creators of photos) I guess the two users know each other and are helping each other out. Belbury (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I tried a couple more times to get some clarity on that at this pump thread and this licensing thread late last year, but those discussions also went stale. I've yet to see a clear consensus on whether, when such a user fails to engage, we should delete their "no Facebook" images, step in and remove the templates, or leave them all in place because technically the user has {{Multi-license}}d their uploads, making their demand unenforcable (in a way that neither they nor most Commons visitors will realise). Belbury (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

User:UrLocalGarvin reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

This user has been uploading fake Estrella TV logos onto Commons and then putting them on Wikipedia using weird formatting. I have marked their uploads for speedy deletion. This is clearly a w:WP:NOTHERE situation. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done? The user is warned. You can nominate inappropriate uploads for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Dilovan kovli

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

Keeps uploading internet copyvio after final warning. 0x0a (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Kichkin

Kichkin (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) recent copyvio after the last warning: File:Троллейбус в Ашхабаде.jpg. Quick1984 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Other files need checking. Yann (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: It seems to be that except for three photos taken by the Olympus [model VR325,VR320,D725] camera, all other ones are from the web. Quick1984 (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Quick1984: You can create a mass deletion request with Help:VFC. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Trotskists

Trotskists (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Today 4 cases of blatant copyvio after multiple warnings, including the last one. Quick1984 (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Футболло: as the user, who started RfDs. --Quick1984 (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Definitely in favour of restrictions, since this isn't the first time this has happened. These photos were intentionally uploaded for one purpose - to illustrate this article with photos of soldiers. Futbollo (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Florenciac

Long-term user (and apparently professor) who is suddenly making a bunch of generic anti-porn nominations with boilerplate rationales. I looked at her edit history going back through 2021 and this seems unprecedented so either she’s just suddenly gotten offended by this type of material or her account has been hacked. Either way it’s weird and disruptive. Dronebogus (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus Hello!

Thank you for keeping an eye on my user account. I am participating in an activity on Women's Health and we were looking at different pictures related to vulva and vagina in the working group. We came across a lot of repeated pictures, and they exceeded what is educational information about sexuality... it was more like pornographic type material. I was reading what I found about deletion requests and I understood that this was the procedure ( Commons:Deletion policy) . If this is not the correct procedure, where can I get information? Thank you very much. Florenciac (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m not an admin, just wanted to chime in here. Although others may disagree with your nominations, you are correct that it is the usual procedure if you have doubts on whether an image should be kept here and require a discussion with other contributors for it.

However, just an advice for @Florenciac, before you nominate an image for deletion, you should also check if an image had been previously nominated for deletion (it should show on its talk page), and see if the reason of why they were kept addresses your doubts. If you have a similar reasoning as the previous nominations and you still have doubts, it is better to discuss this on Commons:Village Pump first.

Also @Dronebogus, I think this could be first resolved in the DRs, or even their user talk page. I don’t think there is a need to bring this to AN/U, since it does not appear to be an admin problem. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy @Infrogmation Thank you for your explanation. Before I clicked on the ‘Nominate for deletion’ link I had visited the discussion pages of the files in question and they were all in red, nothing about previous nominations appeared. At the same time, I didn't understand that I was supposed to make an argument, but to choose the reason for my deletion request. I take note and learn from this, thank you. I take this opportunity to ask where I can see that these images have already been proposed for deletion and rejected? Because at least for me, on my computer, the discussion pages still show up in red, for example, this one File:Human_vulva_urinating.gif ... Thank you very much for your time, Florenciac (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Florenciac Thank you for your understanding. As demonstrated in the discussion below, nudity images are a quite contentious topic in Commons, so it is better to provide a more detailed argument for their deletion. And yes, you are correct the images File:Female genital and nipple clamps.jpg, File:Human vulva urinating.gif hadn’t been nominated for deletion before, so their discussion pages are empty. I was referring to the other images you nominated, File talk:Coca-Cola bottle and vulva 20080406.jpg and File talk:Vulva during orgasm.gif, where there are links to the previous deletion requests in their discussion pages. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy: Reading this whole discussion, it is clear to me that this is a controversial and attention-grabbing topic. Thank you for your time and detailed explanation. Florenciac (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What you consider “pornography” other people might consider educational, even if that purpose is to illustrate the concept of pornography. Very low quality, obviously redundant material can be deleted; one of the only high quality files we have illustrating the process of a female orgasm is clearly neither of those things. A file illustrating how female urination works is not un-educational; you could argue it was unusably poor quality if you could point to a superior example. The other two might not illustrate what you’re looking for but could illustrate erotic photography or nipple clamps. Dronebogus (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Florenciac It looks like pornographic material because it is pornographic material. There is a lot of it here. Some people seem to use Commons as their own private repository of pornographic or erotic images. It is a well-known issue. Good luck. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Whereas other people, seem to feel that their minority view (among the participants in this project) that pornography is inherently out of scope should become policy, and disparage other users as pornographers.

For what it's worth: (1) there is a guideline that Commons is not censored. (2) Conversely, we are well aware of the problem of potentially becoming overwhelmed by images only of pornographic interest. We definitely impose a higher quality standard in this area than in any other (see COM:Nudity, which is policy). Basically, newly uploaded files of this sort will often be deleted as redundant, whereas (for example) equally redundant photographs of the Eiffel Tower will not. In general, though, if a file of this sort has been around a year or more, it probably will not be deleted as redundant. That is because there is a need to provide some predictablity for reusers, whether because they "deep-linked" to the image itself or in terms of them having the file page as documentation that the license they used is valid. - Jmabel ! talk

@Jmabel You seem to want to have an argument with me about things that I haven't said. You do not know my views nor have I ever disparaged anyone as a pornographer. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Counterfeit Purses: you wrote, "Some people seem to use Commons as their own private repository of pornographic or erotic images." If that wasn't an accusation against other (unnamed) Commons editors, who did you have in mind? Presumably anything here is uploaded by a contributor. - Jmabel ! talk 22:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel It's not an accusation, it's an observation and I stand by it. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has made this observation. Am I anti-porn if I don't think it's appropriate to have private collections of pornographic or erotic images on a public and collaborative project like this? If your office asks you not to put up nude pictures of your wife does that make them prudes? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Counterfeit Purses: This isn’t “your office”. It’s a multimedia library. While it’s not appropriate to abuse its free status to upload large numbers of mediocre personal images, it’s also not appropriate to look up “vulva” and get offended because you see images of vulvas. Dronebogus (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Also it’s kind of hypocritical to attack other users for posting porn when your only upload is literally porn. Dronebogus (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus It would be nice if you and Jmabel would stop trying to put words in my mouth. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Making what is possibly the only logical inference from another person’s statement is not “putting words in [their] mouth” just because you didn’t quote them verbatim. “Some people seem to use Commons as their own private repository of pornographic or erotic images” followed by “It is a well-known issue. Good luck.” is not a neutral observation; it’s a negative insinuation about users who post porn (which includes you) as well as the entire concept of pornography on Commons. Dronebogus (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Florenciac: Healthy women have vulvas and vaginas. What is wrong with documenting them?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment It looks to me that many of Florenciac's deletion listings were ill considered, but apparently well intended. I'm not sure this needed a prompt COM:AN/U as opposed to discussion on the user's talk page first, but that's been done. Florenciac, please note that in addition to above linked Commons is not censored, that human anatomy and human sexuality are within project scope. When nominating images for deletion, I also suggest that you check 1)Was the image nominated for deletion before and kept? If so, perhaps make sure you have a different or better argument why it should be deleted before renominating. 2)Is the image in use in any Wikimedia project? If so, that's generally an indication that the project where it is in use considers it useful, ergo in scope for Commons. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Even with the definite knowledge that looking into this would mean looking at NSFW material, I was not prepared for File:Vulva during orgasm.gif. I wish I could un-see that. Yes, the rationale for keeping it is probably solid, but I cannot for a moment blame someone who may not have known how to look up the history of prior DRs for thinking it should be deleted.

I can see why User:Florenciac would have seen these as meriting deletion but, again, "Commons is not censored." Florenciac, if you want to work on policy changes, you might want to propose ideas for how we might make it less likely that someone would accidentally stumble over these when it isn't what they are looking for, but nominating individual files for deletion on the basis of "It's porn, and I don't like it," especially if they've already been kept after prior DRs, is not OK. As long as you don't keep doing that now that you've been told, unless some other administrator strongly disagrees, I don't think there is an administrative matter here and we should close this discussion as "not done." - Jmabel ! talk 23:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t really understand the logic of clicking on a file called ”Vulva during orgasm.gif” and being shocked by a gif of a vulva during orgasm. This is really a “dead dove, do not eat” situation, and I’m sorry you’re disgusted by female anatomy. Dronebogus (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: nothing in the name of that file suggests four split screens in super-closeup showing what appears to be the same video slightly out of sync (I didn't look long enough to know for sure) and an enormous insertable (I didn't look long enough to know its nature). This might be literally the most extreme nonviolent pornographic image I have ever seen, though it's not like I've conducted a comprehensive search. It is extreme enough in how it is presented that in my view the only topic it could usefully illustrate is pornography itself, and even there it would be an example of an extreme of genital focus.

The decision was (more than once) made to keep it and, no, "Ick" is not an argument for deletion, but that doesn't mean it isn't shocking, even given its title. It is not a normal, representative example of the subject indicated by its title. - Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know what you think is a “normal representative example” of a female orgasm, but I don’t know how you would represent it without an extreme closeup to adequately capture the genital contractions. Dronebogus (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Florenciac As they say, the more the better, although in this case it might make me look like a pervert. It's curious that you nominate for deletion images of "pornographic", repeated vulvas, while hundreds of nearly identical photographs of the same subject, Michelangelo's Pietà for example, are left untouched. Is it a moral issue, or is it simply your field of interest to pore over images of vulvas in search of the perfect one? RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

User:X-trem0680

X-trem0680 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Despite a a message (in french) on 19 April that what can be found on the Internet is rarely free, this user has downloaded new pictures, identifying f them as "own work" which is false. As the main wiki of this user is the french wikipedia, perhaps a French-speaking admin will be more convincing than me.

[In French for X-trem0680 / en français, pour X-trem0680 : Malgré un premier rappel le 19 avril que ce qui se trouve sur Internet est rarement libre, cette personne continue ses téléchargements en les identifiant tous comme "travail personnel" alors que c'est faux. Comme son wiki principal est WP en français, peut-être qu'un admin parlant français sera plus convaincant que moi.]

Thanks. Habertix (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC).

 Comment I added a "last warning". If this user doesn't answer, I suggest a block from uploading only. This could allow them to fix the license of the files which might be OK. Yann (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done I blocked this account from uploading files. Yann (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Anatha Rahadi Rahmat

• Anatha Rahadi Rahmat (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Keeps uploading internet copyvios despite the final warning. 0x0a (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Svva.aviation

• Svva.aviation (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Problema (reason):Este usuario publicó logos complejos (above too) de aerolíneas venezolanas por ejemplo:
• File:Vensecar Internacional logo.png (removido por fair use en wikipedia en inglés)
• File:Rutaca logo 2025 black.png (es el mismo logo removido por "above too" en Commons:Deletion requests/File:RUTACA Airlines logo 2024-12-01.png)

y otros logos que el publicó por ejemplo:

• File:Logo transmandu.png
• File:Perla Airlines.jpg
• File:Sasca airlines logo.png
• File:Aerocaribe logo.png

Necesito que algun administrador advierte al usuario que dejen de publicar logos complejos. AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: Puedes advertirle tú mismo y explicarle el problema. No necesitas un administrador para ello. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Ya le advertí al usuario usando este {{End of copyvios}}. AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: Pero la plantilla no explica nada sobre la umbral de originalidad. Se el usario aún no está familiarizado con ello, no le ayudará en nada a comprenderlo. Nuestra intención debe ser explicar y ayudar, no castigar y amenazar. - Jmabel ! talk 20:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Wikkyshor

Wikkyshor (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) please stop the user, who is nominating for a speedy deletion dozens of files and categories, despite being warned not to do that, because at most it's a matter of regular deletion. Quick1984 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I removed some speedy deletion tags. Models may be an issue, but real planes and other items should be OK. Yann (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

GyroidGalaxian

• User: GyroidGalaxian (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: After block, the user tried to blank User:Christian Ferrer in two edits, tried to make a vandalistic gallery in Special:AbuseLog/11526075, and complained in Special:Diff/1024276512. They also told me to "shut it" in Special:Diff/1025773061.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Done All good things come in threes: copyvios, vandalism and intimidation. User blocked indefinitely. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Christian Ferrer: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Danisclaud

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

This user appears to be unwilling to participate in the community's collaboration. They uploaded all external images as "Own work" via cross-wiki tool to enrich their Wikipedia articles; and then these images (most of which are probably public domain works) get deleted after few days due to missing essential information; and then continued to upload, get deleted; get blocked to start the cycle all over again. They have received nearly fifty deletion notices on the talk page. Even though they were asked to provide essential information for those images by multiple editors, they never responded. From the above behavior, it is clear that they are not here to contribute, and I believe that the patience of our participants has been exhausted.-- 0x0a (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a year (3rd block). Yann (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Sarvagyana guru

• User: Sarvagyana guru (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Vandalism, copyvios, and intimidation. Accused me of "vandalism" for having added "irrelevant and incorrect messages and templates" and removed my previous posts in Special:Diff/1023558923 and Special:Diff/1025973748. My previous posts in Special:Diff/1023516608/1023547146 included final warning {{End of copyvios}} and explanations. The warning should have stayed until the issue of adding copyvios had been addressed. See the redlinked files above the warning.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Already reasons for clearing those templates are given in your Talk page. You may refer the same and I once again suggest that you be more careful and discerning in splashing Talk pages of other Users with unreasonable templates and messages. Rampant misuse of these messages and templates will cause these templates to lose their significance and importance. Hope everything is clarified. I also suggest that you personally remove all those messages and templates from my Talk page. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. I do not see copyvios after final warning. But I see 2 very well sourced collages and that's good. Taivo (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

User:jaybirdsrainbow

Exhibitionist account, not here to do anything constructive Dronebogus (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Warned again, all files deleted. Let's see if the message gets through. Yann (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Hi-s24

• Hi-s24 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Through copyvio warning and a month blocking, this user didn't stop uploading copyvio portraits and logos. See also his log. Netora (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

ː Comment - some of those logos look TOO simple to be copyrighted Gbawden (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Shinagawabooster

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

This user continued to upload more suspected internet images after receiving a final warning and multiple file deletion notices. 0x0a (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

ː Done Blocked for a month Gbawden (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

MOHAMMED KASSAR

• User: MOHAMMED KASSAR (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:WonderTreePoster2025.png after final warning and block for doing so. Refusal to engage in constructive dialog. Might benefit from an Arabic speaking mentor.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

They claims that poster is their own work. I Already asked for permission(s) to use. — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 10:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months. This is their last chance so lets hope they get the message Gbawden (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Fabio ferroviere

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

continued to copyright violations despite being warned. 0x0a (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

ː Done Blocked for a month Gbawden (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Agustín Hurtado

Agustín Hurtado (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. It appears to be another sock puppet from Summerry2024 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log). --Ovruni (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

In Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Summerry2024 it has been established that it is possible or probable that Agustin Hurtado is a Summerry2024 blocking evasion. --Ovruni (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Nagar1020

• User: Nagar1020 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued oos uploading after warning. Copyvio uploading. Vandalism. NOTHERE.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Yann: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

MBC3 Fan 2022

• User: MBC3 Fan 2022 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:A happy twin girls touching her beautiful twin's her face.jpg after final warning for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for week. EugeneZelenko (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Sailor Puck

Sailor Puck (talk · contribs) doesn't seem to understand the various licenses they are assigning to uploaded files. Lots of copyvios. JayCubby (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked from uploading new files, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sailor Puck. Yann (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Paras Brahmani 123

• Paras Brahmani 123 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Uploading a plenty of selfies, using commons as personal web host. 0x0a (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Files deleted. User warned. GMG^talk 12:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

HolaChau150

HolaChau150 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) two re-creations of the same copyvio upload after speedy deletions. Quick1984 (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know it was necessary to mark that the image was a YouTube screenshot.

I'm so sorry with this mistake.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6MqpK91bEA

Author: Vatican News

If uploading the screenshot is still not allowed, I will not try again. HolaChau150 (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

it isn't, if you reupload, you will get blocked. Bedivere (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

See COM:YT. Quick1984 (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

user:Sbb1413 and “unusual”

This user unilaterally went through and obliterated an entire category tree as explained in Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Unusual, and then closed the discussion about it as basically “I destroyed this whole category tree so it’s a moor point”. This user is not an admin and therefore had no right to close this discussion, let alone implement an extremely drastic action because of it, since there wasn’t an obvious consensus outside of a weak minority. There is no obvious way to reverse this decision regardless of merits but playing fast and loose with policies with such extreme actions shouldn’t be tolerated. Dronebogus (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

So this doesn't turn into a pile on like happened to me once on another WMF project, can we please get Sbb to revert the changes he made? He may have thought he was doing the right thing by making the changes and has inadvertently caused a bit of a mess. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, strike that. He's made a big mess. I think he needs to stop working on the project until he has reverted all the changes he made. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus and Chris.sherlock2: Apologies for any inconvenience. I will revert these changes soon. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I closed the CFD in good faith, and I never understood that there will be concerns regarding the CFD closure. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Good faith isn’t an excuse for making a huge mess that is basically impossible to fix. Dronebogus (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Says you. It is totally possible to fix a major error. Yeah, he's going to get a lot of opprobrium for his actions, but why don't we give the guy a chance. I've been in his shoes, and I sure as hell would have liked people to have given me a chance to revert the mistake I made. Instead, I was drubbed out of a community I loved.

So in this case, I'm keen to prevent it happening again. Sbb1413, I think you know by now that you've made a huge mistake - you are going to have to revert all your changes. Like, all of them. Once you have done this I think you need to make an apology and cease closing any discussions for some time. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think longstanding category trees need more protection than this. Not too long ago a user went around making huge changes to how the sexuality category tree worked that seemed to be little more than useless busywork which I had to go around reverting. Dronebogus (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  If need be, I'm happy to start up chuckbot to help with the mass rollbacks, assuming Sbb made no other edits during that timeframe. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 15:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Alachuckthebuck: Thank you for help. I have paused my edits on Commons till my changes related to "unusual" categories are all reverted. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I am still looking forward to solving the category trees like Category:Unusual with proper discussion and consensus. I took the initiative to determine the consensus of the CFD, now it is up to admins or other experienced users. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413, did you make any edits to commons that weren't in relation to the category tree unusual while editing that tree? (if you did anything other than page creations during the edit period, then they could get rollbacked if i don't know) All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: Yes, I made such unrelated edits from 5:33 to 18:14 UTC on 7 May 2025. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Is that the only case? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

yes Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This was already addressed at the Village Pump and a discussion at CfD is ongoing. Opening an ANU case against a user demanding he be banned for, by all accounts, acting in good faith (at worst making a mistake in doing so) is excessive. Also, you don't need to be an admin to close CfDs and act on their conclusion. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I've posted at the CFD, and will wait for response. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You don’t need to be an admin, but the conclusion should be super unambiguous, which this wasn’t; and as I just said good faith is not an excuse for making drastic, irreversible changes to a huge number of categories especially if you’re not an admin and especially if there’s only a vague semblance of a consensus. Plus, where did I or anyone else “demand” a ban? The worst that should happen here is that Sbb1413 is not allowed to close discussions or dismantle entire longstanding category trees, the latter of which IMO no non-admin should even be doing in the first place. Dronebogus (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You don't see to have made any demands in your initial report. Can you be clear what you would like the admins to do? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I just said: this user should not be allowed to make these kinds of decisions (elaborated above). If there’s a magic admin tool to revert their mass category purging that would also be nice. Dronebogus (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

No, you didn't actually say specifically what you wanted. This is the first time you've specifically said what you would like to have happened.

It doesn't seem unreasonable, but not forever. Perhaps we need to have a measure for when they might participate? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I said “Sbb1413 [should] not [be] allowed to close discussions or dismantle entire longstanding category trees, the latter of which IMO no non-admin should even be doing in the first place.” I’m sorry if I didn’t make it clearer that was my proposed sanction. Dronebogus (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

JohnCheddermanthe3rd

• User: JohnCheddermanthe3rd (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Shozin Fukui.jpg and File:The Hiding (2008 Film).webp after final warning for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.,  Done Kadı Message 22:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kadı: Thanks for the action and the ping!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Ələddin.Məlikov

• Ələddin.Məlikov (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

User is uploading copyrighted(CC-BY-NC) images and pdfs. He is also claiming them all as own work- the username is the same as the editor of the journals where the pdf is from- but there is no evidence he actually is that person. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

And a blank user page, which really should be left as a red-link if that is what you are going to do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the only way these files (and this account) can be kept is for him to go through account verification, as described at Commons:Username policy. - Jmabel ! talk 19:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done No cause for disciplinary action. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Don't we need verification for the account name? - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, good point. But it feels a bit BITEy to block them immediately after this issue has been discovered so late in the game. I would monitor their edits and if they resume activity without responding to your inquiry, that's the time to block to force them to the table. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The user have not actually replied to anything since almost the start of their contributing. I also actually brought it bcs of the dubious copyright of their uploads. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of the user, files in Category:History of Science journal should be deleted immediately, as they are published under the CC-BY-NC license. 0x0a (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

If he is in fact the editor, could that mean he can republish them here under CC-BY, or some other license. Also, should I nominate his other contributions to? He has like 100 uploads from another CC-BY-NC publication. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the author already included in the file name? As you listed at Deletion requests/Files in Category:History of Science journal. I don't see any files matching his name. 0x0a (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Not the author, Aleddin Melikov is the editor of this journal and another journal. What I'm asking is that if this user is in fact him, would that mean he could change the license unilaterally? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I have sent him an email asking for clarification on the matter. 0x0a (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I am writing to inform you that these articles were published in the journal of which I am the editor-in-chief. At that time, permission was obtained from all authors to post their articles. Then I posted them. There is no vandalism here and there is no question of it. Thank you in advance. --Ələddin.Məlikov (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ələddin.Məlikov: Then please go through the COM:VRT process to verify you are who you say you are. - Jmabel ! talk 16:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Joseph Vladimir Rios Canales

• Joseph Vladimir Rios Canales (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

continued to lift a photo from Facebook despite my final warning. 0x0a (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Cestbondse

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

Is back at uploading copyvios, despite having been warned about it two days ago. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

User:MedicineScience

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

Serial exhibitionist, just returned after a long hiatus to spam more porn. Dronebogus (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done It's clear they're not here to contribute constructively. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged

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

Online translation: I ask you to block participant @Laurel Lodged: for edits in the topic under discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/04/Category:Dioceses of the Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate). He started a war of edits & etc. Ыфь77 (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Both users blocked. Enough is enough. You two cool off. Bedivere (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say it on 6 May but if you continue with your disputes, which seem to have reached a point of no return given that you can't get to agree on anything, next time you both will be sanctioned further with an interaction and topic ban, with a longer block. --Bedivere (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Adem

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• User: Adem (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting:

The user Adem, authorized to modify file names, uses this permission to change the names of villages from Kurdish (local names) to Turkish using criterion 4.

And sometimes, he doesn't even provide a reason for this change...

Criterion 4 does not allow changing file names in the imported language to another language. In case of a title error (there is no error here) or standardization, the original language must be used. This is therefore a dishonest and misleading use of this criterion for political purposes, in this case, to change Kurdish names to Turkish ones. This user is thus abusing the rights granted to him.

I am no longer very active on Wikimedia and, as a result, I cannot review all of this user's modifications due to lack of time (he obtained this right in 2014). Hence my warning directly on this page regarding this user's behavior, whose impartiality I doubt concerning files in the Kurdish language.

I believe his file renaming rights should be revoked because we cannot spend our time checking his modifications.

Here are his latest modifications:

• File:Cirzê-2.JPG → File:Taşlık, Savur.jpg (without justification) / “Cirzê” is the Kurdish name; “Taşlık” is the Turkish name
• File:Keleha Bûnûsra.jpg --> File:Kalecik, Nusaybin.jpg (C4) / “Keleha Bûnûsra” Kurdish name; “Kalecik” Turkish name
• File:5 Girê Mîra Nisêbîn Mêrdîn 4063.JPG / File:Girmeli, Nusaybin.jpg (Criterion 4) / “Girê Mîra” is Kurdish name, “Girmeli” is Turkish name
• File:Dengiza-4.jpg --> File:Serenli, Savur.jpg (C4) / “Dengiza” Kurdish, “Serenli” Turkish
• File:Bihêrkê bi shev 2010.JPG --> File:Eryeri, Artuklu in 2010.jpg (C4) “Bihêrkê bi shev 2010” (The village Bihêrkê at night in 2010) Kurdish]]
• File:BAŞMELÜ - panoramio (1).jpg --> File:Başören, Bismil.jpg (C4) BAŞMELÜ Kurdish / Başören Turkish
• File:Girê Izêr-1.jpg --> File:Doruk, Bismil.jpg (C4) “Girê Izêr” Kurdish, “Doruk” Turkish
• File:Diêm.JPG --> File:Sürekli, Kızıltepe.jpg (C4) “Diêm” Kurdish, “Sürekli” Turkish|

Ping @MikaelF, Gomada, and Dûrzan cîrano: (authors of images) Ghybu (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment The user's claims do not reflect the truth actually. I have been participating in the WikiData Coordinate Me campaign with the WikiData Free Image Search Tool since the beginning of May. In this context, I connect photographs of local settlements in Turkey to Wikidata statements. During this process, I noticed that many high-quality images had not been used in Turkish WP and (some other languages) ​​for many years. For ex, this file although it has been on Commons for 15 years, it has not been visible to readers. The main reason for this is the Kurdish name, because there are no language versions using the local name other than the Kurdish Wikipedia. Being villages in Turkey and having a different official name than the local known name prevents these photos from being viewed on the Commons portal and used in appropriate articles. I evaluated a set of images in Criterion 4 to harmonize their names. This part may include more technical details, but my main mission is to make the files accessible and use them in more articles. If an incorrect file name moving considered, a naming process using Turkish and Kurdish names together in parentheses is also possible. Adem (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Adem: Commons:File renaming overtly spells out that "Files should NOT be renamed only to translate the filename to another language" (capitals and bolding in the original). In this case, this is particularly fraught because of the obvious cultural sensitivities.

  I'll assume you made these moves in good faith; they should still be moved back, which at this point will have to be done by an administrator. (If no one else volunteers, I'll get to it some time in the next few days. It's a pain-in-the-butt task.) If you intend to continue as a filemover, I suggest you re-read Commons:File renaming, know the rules, and abide by them in the future. If something like this comes up again, I for one won't really care whether you acted in good faith or not. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  And, for the record, this is not what "harmonization of names" means. It means things like if you have successive pages in a book, mostly in sequence, but a few files are weirdly named, it is OK to harmonize those with the other names. Similarly, if we have a standard naming scheme for files from some archive, we might apply that even to a file that some user uploaded independently of batch processes. It does not mean imposing a particular language's place names. If I encounter a file whose name refers to "シアトル", I don't change that to "Seattle", and that isn't even politically fraught. - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  I moved all from the list back to the original name. GPSLeo (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  • @GPSLeo: Thanks. Am I right that the only way to do that was a bunch of "hand work"? - Jmabel ! talk 03:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

    No, the move gadget handled the deletion of the redirect. This was therefore very easy. GPSLeo (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  @GPSLeo, thank you very much! MikaelF (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Jmabel Thank you. "Harmonizing of names" it'a typical soft saying by assimilation policy supporters in relation to their minoritized neighbours in their country. The method is changing an original name into a bilingual one, and then changing/harmonizing the bilingual one into only one "official" name. I have named my files in Kurdish as they refer to places, people or items in Kurdistan. Other files are named in other languages and do no wish to be "harmonized" either. MikaelF (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and for seeing that I acted in good faith. @Jmabel: , @GPSLeo: I'm going to go over the file renaming rules again because I may have forgotten or misinterpreted some of them. I would expected the user who opened this section and the person above to take this in a more constructive tone, but it looks like Commons:Harassment and Commons:No personal attacks. Adem (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Adem: If you are saying what happened to you here amounts to you being harassed then, sorry, no. You did something you shouldn't have, and that you should at least have been aware would rustle cultural sensitivities. I can't really blame someone who is connected to the ethnic/linguistic group you—presumably inadvertently—offended for failing to begin from an assumption of good faith in a case like this. I can expect them to accept that this was an honest error an move on. - Jmabel ! talk 19:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Who are the "assimilation policy supporters"? Is doing something I shouldn't have done a reason to be accused or personally attacked? Is lack of information or misinterpretation a crime on the Commons portal? Is it considered good faith to leave a warning message on my discussion page before moving the topic to the administrators' board? In fact, not consciously carrying out the moving processes with any ethnic or cultural motive is a critical point for the evaluation of the process. I would like to see other admin opinions as well. @Geagea: , @Taivo: , @Kadı: - Adem (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Adem, @GPSLeo, @MikaelF and @Jmabel: This can not be considered as an assimilation policy. These lands are controlled by Turkish government. These areas' official names are in Turkish but with the affection of sociocultural factors, some of the lands have original names in Arabic, Kurdish, Armenian, Greek etc. As Commons is a multilingual project, the uploaders have a freedom to give names in all languages. Therefore, the renamings done by Adem is not acceptable according to the policies.

Also, I see that renamings which have done by Adem are reverted but MikaelF's comment is not acceptable and seems like a personal attack. MikaelF, please do not continue this behavior and please assume good faith. In addition, I see that Adem has understood the issue. Thanks for pinging. Best wishes to everyone. Kadı Message 21:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Adem, @Kadı, @GPSLeo, @Jmabel Fine, I will also assume Adem's good faith, and I apologize for my comment above, it was not necessary and it was not meant to be a personal attack, I was just expressing my frustration over how easy it is to change the names of the files without any previous discussion. I am fully capable of giving the name to my files according to my own and Commons criteria. As the file names were moved back to their original, I apologize again, li min bibore. Regards. MikaelF (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @MikaelF for this kind gesture. I also apologize for the incorrect moving processes. I am aware that I need to be more sensitive from right now. Believe me, I have no prejudice against defining as a Kurdish language. Also thanks to @Geagea, @Kadı and @GPSLeo for their "objective admin approaches". Best wishes. - Adem (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Adem, Commons:File renaming is the renaming policy of Commons. -- Geagea (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

According to the last messages from MikaelF and Adem, I see that the issue is resolved. So, this section can be archived. Kadı Message 13:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Duylinhfjfjfi4

• User: Duylinhfjfjfi4 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: COM:IU. Vandalism. Copyvios.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. No activity after your warning. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Actplus.student Outlook-bot

• User: Actplus.student Outlook-bot (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: COM:IU: gives the impression of a bot, but has no bot flag.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user indefinitely due to inappropriate username, but also mass deleted all uploads as copyvios and speedily closed his/her DR as kept. Taivo (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Mrfefe1

• User: Mrfefe1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Uploading copyvio images after being blocked multiple times previously.

Agent 007 (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. 6 months block (third block). I'll delete the last remaining upload as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for scrutiny of quite-new user Іванна Маргітич

Hello,

I do not feel confident that the uploads in Special:ListFiles/Іванна_Маргітич are truly "own works" (I most likely wouldn't pass images like these if encountered in the LR queue). No EXIF, not even from cropping tools, really small files, technical quality all over the place, all of these factors give a definite NETCOPYVIO vibe. The uploader operates their account since one month. As I saw that User:EugeneZelenko tagged one of these files with "No permission", I contacted him to ask for his opinion. He advised me to post here, so as to invite more users for a scrutiny and for possibly reaching a consensus to delete (-> COM:PRP). So, here it is. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis and necessary actions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

User:رائد المحمد

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

continued to upload copyright violations after a final warning. 0x0a (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Илона И

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

Persistent uploading of copyrighted images. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

You know how it is hard for common people to understand all these copyright rules and not in Native language to boot? Bashing just for trying will not do Wikipedia anything good and also gatekeepeng updates. I spend 7 hours yesterday trying and learning all these copyright rules just because I want that Wikipedia of my favourite actor had decent photo. I already tagged copyright pics for deletion and found right CC BY license video and uploaded screenshots from it.Илона И (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Илона И, I understand it is difficult to know and understand correctly all of the Commons rules and copyright laws. However, what I can suggest from now on is if you are unsure about the copyright status of the photos you wanted to uploaded here, the best thing to do is to ask for help at Commons:Help Desk or Commons:Village Pump/Copyright before uploading them. This means we can avoid having copyright violations unintentionally uploaded. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Tvpuppy! Thank you for your advice. Actually I finally get which yt videous we can use and my last screenshots got uproved. Unfortunately very small amount of videous tagged as CC BY :(.

Anyway I will try to avoid further violations.

I am waiting for last photo approval, bcs photographer who took it find Wiki too complicated so she gave me photo I uploaded it and she will send to VRT team her permission for use. I hope it will turn out well.

Thank you for understanding. Илона И (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Илона И: Thank you. Please use {{subst:PP}} to protect the last photo while permission discussions about it proceed, and ask the photographer to carbon copy you on the email message to keep you in the loop. Revealing the ticket number here could hasten the process.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Jeff G., yes I added this tag to my last photo.

Ticket number will come as answer to her email? Илона И (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Илона И: In the subject line, but yes.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Илона И: you might find it useful to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party, though I suspect that by now you've worked out at least most of this for yourself, the hard way. By the way, translations of that page into other languages would be very welcome. - Jmabel ! talk 03:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel yep, in the future I will try my best to avoid Wiki commons and uploading any photos except my own, it is just my fellow fans were asking for help and they had no clue how to work with Wikipedia... As turn out me either. I didn't expect it will be this hard and complicated sigh.

Thank you for article I read too many but didn't find this one. Илона И (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if there is or isn't a VRT ticket.File:Kim Seon Ho at Weverse live in 2024.jpg is clearly screenshot from copyrighted Weverse Live video (signup required; not paywalled). There is no evidence of permission from Weverse Company (as required under Article 8 of their Terms of Use), its parent (Hybe Corporation), or any rightful copyright holder. The uploader appears to have received "permission" from someone who reposted the screenshot on Instagram, but the individual is not the copyright holder and also appears to have violated Weverse's Terms of Use. Therefore, they cannot license the file under CC BY 4.0. This is a clear violation of Commons licensing policy, which has been consistently communicated since at least 17 January 2011, as seen in the various licensing warnings and translated guideline versions posted onto the uploader's talk page. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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 (, 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

  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)

   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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)