Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Note

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

User:Florenciac

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]

User:X-trem0680

[edit]

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

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).[reply]

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

User:Anatha Rahadi Rahmat

[edit]

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

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

User:Svva.aviation

[edit]

y otros logos que el publicó por ejemplo:

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

@AbchyZa22: Puedes advertirle tú mismo y explicarle el problema. No necesitas un administrador para ello. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel:Ya le advertí al usuario usando este {{End of copyvios}}. AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

User:Wikkyshor

[edit]

Wikkyshor (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) 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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

GyroidGalaxian

[edit]

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

User:Danisclaud

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Sarvagyana guru

[edit]
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)[reply]
 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)[reply]

Agustín Hurtado

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

User:jaybirdsrainbow

[edit]

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

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

Adamant1 (again)

[edit]

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

Boomerang

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

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

That is pretty far from an apology for either the language you used toward Abzeronow or the even more excessive language toward Yann on your talk page. Normally, I've been one of your strongest advocates here, and I think you do a lot of good work, but that does not give you a license to abuse other people. - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I was only logged on for like 20 minutes before Yann reported. I was actually planning on leaving Abzeronow an apology on their talk page but I wasn't given a chance to. Ergo one of the reasons why I think Yann should be sanctioned. It's absolute BS for an administrator to give someone a warning while their logged out and then to report them the second they do for supposedly backing off and apologizing. If Yann actually cared he would have given me a chance to resolve it on my own when I logged back in and actually had the time to. I'm sorry I didn't wake up 4 in the morning to apologize for something just so Yann wouldn't act like an antagonistic bully though. You guys have to do a better job giving people an opportunity to fix their own problems on here. I don't know how many times I've been warned about or blocked for things that I was in the middle of dealing with. It's just an unprofessional, trashy way to treat people. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, It can sometimes to be difficult to communicate with you because you tend to show up to a discussion ready to fight. So I sometimes have to step away before I respond to you because I don't want to feed into the feeling that discussions have to be arguments when I'm talking to you. I still think you can contribute in a valuable way. As for apologies, I leave that decision to you, if you wish to do so, then you may do so, if not, then don't. I am not going to let hotheaded words sway how I deal with you, but I'd like to talk with you in ways that are conducive to collaboration. Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: That's fair. I appreciate the level headed way you generally handle things. I had a pretty rough day yesterday because of things going on IRL. I should have just taken the time offline to deal with it instead of snapping at you. I apologize for the less then civil tone though. I should have phrased things better. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to address one misconception you have, since the comment was about me, I can't be an arbiter of things that involve me, so I can't be the one to block or sanction. Yes, I probably should asked you to retract the uncivil comments, but I also did not want to escalate. Yann strikes me as a reasonable administrator, I do have my disagreements with him on policy but Yann has never given me the impression that he seeks out arguments. But anyway, I do appreciate that you can see what you could have done differently and I would appreciate if you could retract "a lazy ass slack off". Abzeronow (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop being abusive in the first place. It’s not good enough to sake something inflammatory or rude and then need to apologise. For most people, this can occasionally happen and we give them some slack. But if you are entering into discussions, regularly making these sort of remarks, and then find 20 minutes later you need to apologise then that is not Yann or anyone else’s issue - that’s something you need to deal with. If you are being pinged almost immediately by Yann after the umpteenth time (I’ve been away for about 9-11 months and I see you are *still* having the same issues) then you can’t complain about *his* behaviour.
You need to modify your behaviour. Once you do, then people will stop demanding you change your behaviour. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: I've actually calmed down quite a lot in the last year and it's not a regularly thing by any means. I still have bad days once in a while just like everyone else does though. Just because I was kind of a asshole 4 or 5 years ago doesn't mean I deserve to have Yann or anyone else has to be up my ass trying to get me indefed the second I say something rude to someone. There's still the presumption of good faith and basic etiquette. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it wasn’t 4 or 5 years ago that I saw these behavioural issues. It was just over 9 months ago. I’m sad because I think you are, by and large, a productive member of commons. But it doesn’t mean your behaviour is acceptable at the moment.
thiscis not about you “being a asshole 4 or 5 years ago”. This is about your behaviour now.
look, I know what it’s like to get targeted. In this case, I think you are in conflict with two other uses. But your accusations against Yann are off base. He’s not persecuting you. He’s trying to prevent all out war - caused in large part by the way you speak to others. He, and other admins, must step in to deal with issues you are involved in. And time after time, I see the same thing - you have said something inflammatory, the other party does the same, and the whole thing gets derailed needing someone like Yann to step into fix a problem you caused.
Whilst it’s excellent you recognise you often need to apologise, the consequence is ill feeling during the discussion, nothing productive is discussed and it devolves to insult, and admins have no choice but to step in. If you had not made the personal remarks, or insulted the other party, then a. You wouldn’t need to apologise, and b. we’d get to consensus better.
You need to do better. You’ve had years to do so. Apologies feel thin if the behaviour you have to apologise for repeats itself. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said "I've actually calmed down quite a lot in the last year." What I didn't say is that I've been 100% perfect in the last 4 or 5 years. I was certainly way more argumentative when I first signed up for my account though. But what I was responding to is your claim that I'm "frequently apologizing" for things, which is just patently false. Supposedly you haven't even been on here in 9 months but somehow you know I'm frequently apologizing for things when I never said I am and know one else did either. Again, I'm not frequently doing anything, apologizing or otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But here we are, on the admin noticeboard with you being accused of making personal comments that have derailed yet another deletion discussion. You aren’t doing a great job of convincing me you have changed. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: BTW, if you want another example of that Yann left me a talk page messaging about adding the proper licenses to some poster, I told him I was in the middle of doing it, and then he deleted the images almost immediately before I could. It's just an unprofessional, dumb way to deal with things. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn’t you add the license when you uploaded it? It’s not hard to do. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: I uploaded like 2,000 files that needed licenses added to them and an administrator told me I could take a couple of weeks to do it. So there wasn't a reason to add the license the second I uploaded the file. A lot of this stuff has really benign explanations. People just like to over react about things on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know the context behind this, you are the one who raised this as a grievance. If this was recent, then you should have submitted the licenses when you uploaded them, despite the kindness afforded to you by another admin. You’ve been on Commons for years. You know how it works.
Your example, sadly, shows you have again caused unnecessary work and drama for others. You seem impulsive, and as someone with ADHD I have some sympathy. But as someone with this condition, I have to take active measures to stop my impulsiveness on the project. I can’t consistently allow my behaviour to impact on those around me. You have the same responsibility.
And, to reiterate, you raised the example of the upload in this case so you I’m addressing it as you have raised it. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What unnecessary work and drama? I don't even know what your talking about and honestly I don't think you do either. I uploaded some files and an administrator said I could take a few weeks to add licenses to them. Know one cares and it's a non-issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet another admin clearly disagrees. I disagree. If you upload images everyone can access immediately, they need a license. It’s part of your agreement with Commons.
So that I can see the context (you raised this) can you point me to where you did the upload and where the admin allowed you to add the licenses afterwards? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel seemed to be fine with it to. So that's me and two administrators. Even if you look at the template for files that don't have licenses it gives the uploader a week to add one. Your free to disagree with that, but this isn't really the forum to discuss it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet… you then had to do a deletion request for dozens of posters where you didn’t have an appropriate license. Can you explain how that happened? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Partially copied from something I said to User:The Squirrel Conspiracy) Adamant1 has been blocked for hostility and disruptive deletion nominations in the past. Just recently, in Commons:Deletion requests/File:This Is Fine (meme).png, Adamant1 accused me of “drama farming” (twice), “cry bullying” (twice) “trying to instigate things in every DR for no reason”, staging an “axe grinding harassment campaign” against him, and “trolling” in the span of three comments. Those are all serious accusations and they’re mainly because I said he was being indiscriminate in his nominations— which I think is a legitimate interpretation since they tend to be rapid fire, rather sloppy DRs based solely on the fact that an image is AI generated, padded out with boilerplate arguments like “OOS” or “not a web host” and/or rambling complaints/asides. I think Adamant1 is a good user, but the moment you get on his bad side he snaps and starts calling people names. However, the real issue is not that he does this (nobody’s perfect), but that he does not seem to think it’s even a problem because everyone else is wrong and he’s always right. At this point I just don’t think that will ever change and regretfully propose an indef. Dronebogus (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to respond to everyone who comments but I think it's worth noting that Dronebogus has a history of trying to get me blocked for extremely minor none issues and was told to disengage from me twice now. He never had anything to do with until I voted against an interaction ban between him and someone from Wikipedocracy. I would 100% call someone who tried to get me blocked repeatedly for months on end over the last year and even after being told multiple times to back off me as being on an "axe grinding harassment campaign." I don't really know what else to call it. Especially again, consider that he had absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with me on here until I voted against an interaction ban between him and another user and he's been constantly up my ass since then. I'm not going to gaslight and act him repeatedly instigating things and trying to get me blocked over non-issues is an acceptable, normal way to act. Sorry. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you go back and add objectively worse language to an already uncivil remark? In what universe is that acceptable? Dronebogus (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't call "ass" uncivil. It's just kind of immature. I explained the lazy thing in the DR, but a good percentage of the images were clearly copyrighted. He kept all of them because a few weren't though and then when messaged him about it he told me to file individual DRs for the ones that are copyrighted. In any other situation the administrator would have just kept the few that weren't copyrighted and deleted the rest. So it just seemed like a lazy, disrespectful way to handle the situation on his end. I could have phrased it better though. But were all volunteers and administrators should be able to fix their mistakes without expecting someone to do 15 individuals DRs for images that are copyrighted just because they couldn't be bothered to delete them. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don’t think calling someone a “lazy-ass slack off” is uncivil I’d hate to see what your idea of incivility is. Dronebogus (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could have phrased the comment better. That's why I was planning on apologizing before Yann filed this. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn’t have been saying any of these things in the first place. May I remind you that you started your defence of your unacceptable remarks to Dronebogus with:
I'm not going to respond to everyone who comments but I think it's worth noting that Dronebogus has a history of trying to get me blocked for extremely minor none issues and was told to disengage from me twice now.
Now you are saying that you were in the wrong with the comments he specifically mentioned. Even in your defense here you clearly show you don’t understand how your behaviour is problematic. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought we had worked that out. I'm sad you think otherwise. I do make things personal sometimes, but often in response to other people making it personal first. Yann was told by other users to disengage from when I reported him for the same behavior last year and plenty of people have complained about similar behavior. That's not a conspiracy theory. Administrators are just held to a different standard then regular users and it's impossible to criticize their behavior without this being the result. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have always believed Yann has never been an exemplary admin, but that has nothing to do with you going around insulting people at every opportunity. Dronebogus (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dronebogus in the deletion request he cited above of me supposedly being uncivil. "Keep Adamant1 going around deleting every AI image he can find, especially if they are in scope at this point."
Two messages down from that "Please stop feuding with me and Prototype. Focus on the content, not the contributor." Dude cites a DR where he insulted me totally unprovoked and for no reason as an example of why I should be blocked for uncivility. OK. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first was frustration at seeing your name attached to yet another AI related DR. It wasn’t super nice of me to say but it’s tame compared to your default tone in these discussions. The other was requesting you stop looking for a fight. At neither point did I call you a lazy ass slackoff or too sensitive or not a real contributor a troll or whatever else you routinely call people you disagree with. Dronebogus (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And my response in those discussion was frustration at you and Protospective repeatedly accusing me of harrasement over and over for no reason. What's your point? I can't be frustrated when you and Protospective baselessly and repeatedly go off about how I'm harassing him for no reason but then I should be indefed if I get a little defense in response to it. Then you wonder why I said were cry bullying. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you acknowledge that you make things personal sometimes, then you need to stop making things personal *at all*. Are you saying, going forward, that it might be acceptable for you to make personal comments?
You see, AdamAnt1, most people slip uP occasionally. As in - rarely. But you don’t slip up occasionally. You make personal comments frequently - so frequently that you now admit that you reread your comments and realise you have to apologise not 20 minutes later. Well, that’s on *you* and nobody else. You should not be making personal comments at all. As I say, we all make rash comments at some point. These are not the norm. Yours, however, are now the norm so much so that you have frequently apologise for what you wrote only minutes after you submit the comments.
Getting upset you are called out for this unacceptable at this stage. It is you who need to change your behaviour. You’ve had a *lot* of chances. You need to change your modus operandi. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: I had to apologize for that one comment. People make comments that they apologize for sometimes. That's just how it works. It's not frequent though. I'm not frequently apologizing for things and I never said I am. It was one comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You literally just accused Yann of sending threatening messages when he did not. This is not a one off. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said it felt threating because of him blocking me no reason and I've asked him not to leave warnings on my talk page. I'm allowed to have my own feelings about things. It's not that big a deal. I would have just preferred it if another administrator had of done it and/or I hadn't of been reported to ANU immediately after for no reason. It is against the rules to file false ANU complaints. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If somebody compiled a list of all the a) insults and b) other at least somewhat uncivil behavior by Adamant1, I think the list would be relatively long (and too long with too many too severe cases). It's certainly not rare exceptions and the user doesn't really durably change that behavior even when since a while ago generally choosing more moderate language after many ANUs. --Prototyperspective (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My perspective, shaped by Commons:Deletion requests/File:This Is Fine (meme).png among other recent DRs, is that yes, Adamant1 has problems communicating civilly to people that disagree with him, but it would be incredibly disingenuous to take Prototyperspective and Dronebogus's testimony at face value, as they give as much as they get. In that DR, Adamant1's filing was blunt and colorfully worded but fine. Prototyperspective came in with an accusation of wikihounding (this is, in my opinion, not true: Adamant1 targets AI images regardless of their uploader) and Dronebogus came in with an accusation that Adamant1 was acting in bad faith ("especially if they are in scope at this point") (this is also, in my opinion, not true: I also struggle to see how that image was in scope). Naturally, after those accusations, conversation devolved, and I collapsed it and told the three of them they need to learn to communicate better because they're going to keep running into each other at DRs considering all three are interested in AI-related DRs and Adamant1 and the other two are on opposite sides a lot of the time. The stuff with everyone else I can't comment on, but at least in the interactions between Adamant1 and Prototyperspective and Dronebogus, all three are in the wrong. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you consider my behavior subpar, fine. I have no illusions of being exemplary. But I think Prototyperspective is not in the wrong, or at least not in the wrong maliciously. They are in my observation consistently civil with Adamant1 despite Adamant1 being consistently hostile with almost everyone (once again, in my observation which is backed up by multiple uninvolved third parties); their accusation of “wikihounding” is probably incorrect but certainly not unfounded given Adamant1 nominated something like five of their uploads in quick succession and (as acknowledged by you yourself) has a long history of fighting with Prototype on this topic. Plus Adamant1 has a long block record involving incivility and deletion discussions, showing that they just don’t learn. Dronebogus (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment At this point, I see 3 soulutions to this issue ends.
    • The second ever 2 way Interaction Ban (IBan) in commons history is implemented between these users and Adamant1.
    • Adamant1 gets indefed.
    • All three get indefed.
    I think the 2 way IBan is the best option, but probably needs more nuance than the normal blanket IBan that enwiki loves. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support an indef for Adamant1– not out of a desire for punishment but because they’ve received multiple long blocks and not meaningfully changed the core problem of being extremely uncivil towards everyone they disagree with, making interacting with them tiresome for a lot of users (not just me or Prototyperspective). I would also support an interaction ban between Adamant1 and me and Adamant1 and Prototype (but not between me and Prototype obviously), either in place of or (ideally) in addition to an indef. As for a 3-way indef of me, Proto and Adamant— why? Prototype has done nothing wrong here besides standing up for themself when they felt unjustly targeted, and has a clean block log. And while neither my behavior here nor my block record are spotless, I was not the catalyst for this discussion, nor the incident several months ago that resulted in a one-month block. Dronebogus (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we would be totally shooting ourselves in the foot to indef-ban three users who all generally do more good than harm.
    I could be mistaken, but while I've often found myself in disagreement with Prototyperspective, I have had few, if any, issues with their civility; the worst I've seen is a little too much sense of somehow being "picked on" (e.g. accusing Adamant1 of "hounding" when it appears to me that he is clearly making DRs based on the content, not on who uploaded them; FWIW, the latter is the sort of thing I've never seen him do), but that does not even approach a reason for an indef ban.
    I wouldn't oppose an IBAN (maybe for a year rather than permanent?), but for three very active users on a wiki with relatively few such, I don't see how it would work. Also, because Adamant1 does a lot of mass DRs, the bulk of them pretty well conceived, it would be hard for him to have to check the specific authorship of each file before including it. At the very least, we'd have to allow for accidents like that as a matter not leading to punishment (and I'm not exactly sure how that would work). - Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to weigh into the whole thing about a indef or interaction ban. But I do want reiterate that I was totally in the wrong with how I responded to Abzeronow. I've certainly been at the butt end of a lot of insults, threats, false ANU reports, Etc. Etc. over the years that know ever cared about or was willing to deal with. I think we could all do a better job using, and holding each other accountable to, basic standards of civility and professionalism on here. I'm just a particularly easy target for some reason.
I will note that Prototyperspective is topic banned from anything having to do with AI generated images on Wikipedia for the exact same behavior. So the idea that he was just standing up for himself when he was being unjustly targeted is laughable. At least I apologized. I don't see him or Dronebogus apologizing for how both of them treated me. Again, I'm 100% responsible for I acted towards Abzeronow and am sorry that I didn't act better. But Dronebogus and Prototyperspective have absolutely no room to talk. I think all three of us, me, Dronebogus, and Protospective should move on and just not intentionally have anything to do with each other. I mostly ignore both of them unless it's totally necessary. The same goes for Yann. I think all three of them should do the same. There's no reason Yann needs to leave threatening messages on my talk page or report for minor issues when there's 200 other admins on here. Dronebogus isn't entitled to participate in DRs or CfD that I start either. So all of us should just avoid each other unless it's necessary for us to interact for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of shocked at this response. People here have pointed out that when you interact with Prototyperspective and Dronebogus, it goes badly. You seem to recognize this as well. And yet you felt the need to take another potshot at Prototyperspective and Dronebogus. People here were already defending you. This kind of comment makes your position worse, not better, because it demonstrates that you can't really disengage and discourages people that have stuck their neck out for you from doing so again in the future. I came here to second Jmabel's statement that indef bans seemed totally out of proportion here, but now I'm just pulling the ripcord on this conversation instead. Whatever happens, happens. I leave it to more patient admins to sort it out. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting for the record that Adamant1 edited his comments after my reply The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: I'm just trying to deescalate things. If me, Protopsective, and Dronebogus interacting with each other causes problems then there's no reason we need to interact. You or anyone else can look through my edit history on here though. There's absolutely no conversation that I've joined and attacked Dronebogus in like he's repeatedly done to me. I've never advocated for him to blocked like he has repeatedly with me. I dropped it. He continued it by messaging you on your talk page and repeatedly said I should be indefed here. I Disengaged. He didn't. So I don't know what to tell you. Do you want to deal with the issue or just indef me and call it good? I don't care either way at this point but I do think the problem could be solved if me, Dronebogus, and Protospective just didn't have anything do with each other unless we have to. BTW, I edited my comment at the same time as you edited yours. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you needed to edit your comments. That’s the entire point! You shouldn’t have written what you did in the first place! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk)< Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: I added a couple of sentences and spell checked it. I didn't change the message in any meaningful way. That's totally allowed and other people do it all the time. Your just looking for things to have an issue with. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did a lot more than just add a few sentences - you also mentioned Yann who is a person you seem to have an axe with. You think that The Squirrel Conspiracy got forced to note you edited your comments for a minor reason like fixing a typo? C’mon man, you know that’s not true. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is the diff. I added four sentences and changed a couple of words at the top that sounded weird, which is essentially what I said I did. Again, people do that sometimes and it's not usually not an issue when they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You changed the tone of your comment. You also added “ But Dronebogus and Prototyperspective have absolutely no room to talk” - somewhat inflammatory specially after you apologised. You then added:
There's no reason Yann needs to leave threatening messages on my talk page or report for minor issues when there's 200 other admins on here. Dronebogus isn't entitled to participate in DRs or CfD that I start either. So all of us should just avoid each other unless it's necessary for us to interact for some reason
Well, I’ve checked the comment. There was nothing threatening about the request. Its unacceptable you master another personal comments about bother editor or admin.
It’s why your edit got called out. You are not making this any easier for yourself. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: Yann has a history of being over zealous in giving people warnings or blocking them. He blocked me twice for reasons extremely questionable reasons. One of the was reverted by another administrator. I've also asked him multiple times to not leave block warnings on my page unless there's an extremely good reason for it and this doesn't qualify. So it was threating to me because of the prior issues. You can say there's nothing threating about it but you don't know the history. It certainly feels hostile considering that he's already blocked me for things that weren't legitimate issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did he block you over this issue? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore - your feelings are clearly not reality in this situation. You were not threatened. You were asked a reasonable question. You admitted yourself you went about it the wrong way. And now, suddenly, Yann is at fault. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, but what difference does it make? The warning was still threatening and totally pointless. Plus he reported me to ANU almost immediately afterwards because I supposedly didn't back off or apologize when I didn't have a chance to. At the bare minimum, if an administrator is going to give someone a warning they shouldn't then immediately report them to ANU. The person should have a chance to remedy whatever the warning was about first. Otherwise it just comes off as harassing. With your added comment, what question was I asked exactly? The last time I checked talk page warnings aren't questions and Yann never asked me anything when he left it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote “Hi, It seems that you uploaded a number of posters which do not have a proper license. Could you please fix that? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)”
it was not threatening. It was not a warning. It was a polite request that you fix your mass upload you made that had no licenses.
You the had to explain that you asked Krd for permission to get an “extension” of time to add the licenses after you had already uploaded them.
I think you need to withdraw your accusation of threatening behaviour by Yann. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the block warning! Not him just saying something about the uploads. Why would I care about that? You need to stop feverishly writing messages and take the time to look into this. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a standard template, and it’s not a threat. It’s a warning that your behaviour is not acceptable and you could be blocked.
But, oh god, this only gets worse. You then found that you had to delete a raft of the posters at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Posters of Russia. So you basically uploaded material you didn’t know the copyright. And you want people to treat your claim of threatening behaviour seriously? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be a standard template. That's not really the point. Just like an administrator can give someone a "standard" (whatever that means) block and it can still wrong. With the posters, people sometimes upload things and then immediately nominate them for deletion so they can be undeleted when the copyrights expire. There as actually a conversation about it on the Village Pump a month or two ago. In this case, I think like half the posters were kept. Regardless, it's yet another thing that's a non-issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you have not mentioned this in the deletion discussion. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I? People tend not to mention things that are non-issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: I don't think it's a very big ask that you add appropriate licenses to the images as you upload them. Even with the biggest assumption of good faith, supposing you got busy with work or family, this could potentially use a non-insignificant amount of other's time, which seems impolite. GMGtalk 14:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To address the recent interactions with me: the hounding was more a mention than some formal accusation, I think it would be in the early stages and I could be wrong but if it continued much further I think it would be such and then I would not just have mentioned it somewhere; I already stopped mentioning it and won't mention it again. The user does participate in lots of AI-related DRs but I have many if not most AI images on my Watchlist (since I identified and categorized many) and iirc quite rarely did he make DRs that are not or do not include AI image(s) that I made (and I haven't made that many) and it wasn't just about DRs but also other threads the user made at that time. It's not like he picks the worst cases of AI images to DR like those with misgeneration, but rather those that were so useful that they had been used until recently. In that thread about the This is Fine image I only replied twice to the user to address specific ontopic points (which is because I think if claims that I think are false or misleading stay uncorrected, it basically spreads misinformation and/or leads to flawed decisions since they'd be based on flawed claims, especially if those claims are about what I did, and deliberation is how decisions I think are made with 2 replies not being many but already stopped commenting there). The image is a rare example of a popular meme adaptation via an AI image tool plus either the only or one of two images illustrating that popular meme and for mainly the former reason was used in the well-watched article List of Internet phenomena for quite a while until some user bulk-removed AI images for the reason that they're made with AI so I don't see how that file must be deleted or how one could not see how it can be useful despite both the explanation and the former use so I think it's legitimate to address a few points (btw often with Adamant1 that develops into walls of text where clarifications are needed such as that I was addressing another user not him as he claimed or that I didn't claim what he says I claimed etc; and I've learned to keep my replies at a minimum – walls of text where the key points are not addressed are a problem I think). That's some context regarding the recent DRs. Note that all of this is not limited to interactions with me or Dronebogus or recent times, the user has a long and continuing track record of incivility. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hounding was more a mention than some formal accusation From what I remember Prototyperspective accused me of harassment and wikihounding in like 5 or 6 different discussions. Including on Wikidata. I explained to him why it wasn't harassment the first couple of times he made the claim but he still continued making it. Prototyperspective only stopped because I emailed Jmabel and he told him to knock it off. Otherwise he probably would have just continued doing it. Prototyperspective and Dronebogus act like my behavior was such a big issues when I'm the one who had to contact administrators so both of them would lay off me. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think of it as harassment but as targeting a single user one doesn't like and I stopped when I learned "wikihounding" is considered some kind of harassment rather than just the, for the lack of a better word, targeting of a user one doesn't like which making 5 DRs and 2 threads within 2 days or so (plus comments about & to me at multiple places elsewhere) seems like if it would have continued much further and when Jmabel asked. Whatever the correct term is, I think it's overengagement basically – sorry for a too early or inappropriate naming of wikihounding – and what you claimed is that you wouldn't be selectively targeting my files and the things I do, including what happened to all that bitching about how I was supposedly Wikihounding you?. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible Dronebogus was the one who used the word harassment but Wikihounding is a form of it. So it's a distinction without a purpose. Whatever you want to call it I still wasn't selectively targeting your files or things you do anyway though and you only stopped accusing me of Wikihounding because Jmabel told you to. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Adamant1. These accusations of wikihoonding on deletion discussions need to stop. If someone thinks this is happening, it comes here. Dronebogus, you need to stop making these accusatios on deletion discussions. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been pretty critical of Adamant1, but now I feel you need a small reality check. You shouldn’t be raising accusations of wikihounding in deletion discussions. How do you think that’s going to go? Accusations like that make it hard for an uninvolved third party like myself from commenting.
If you have behavioural concerns, you clearly know the appropriate forum. You didn’t use it, instead you decided to go to war with Adamant1 in the deletion discussion. You aren’t covered in glory here yourself. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
instead you decided to go to war with Adamant1 in the deletion discussion That's false.
And please also reread what I said about wikihounding such as that I already stopped mentioning it, that I think that was at most at the early stage of it and didn't know it was considered a form of harassment, why I brought it up, my apology related to it etc; I'm not going top repeat all of it. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree not to make accusations of wikihounding on deletion discussions? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course and have long stopped it as clarified at I stopped when I learned […] and when Jmabel asked […] sorry for a too early or inappropriate naming of wikihounding. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you can also understand how Adamant1 might have felt, right? Because I can see why he’d be upset with that sort of accusation. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing is not much related to this; the uncivil behavior now and the long list of prior incidents are all unrelated to that. By the way, he also made various accusations about me (e.g. making bad-faith accusations why I do certain things that take many hours of volunteer time that I do because I think they are particular constructive) in those 7+ recent threads. After spending many hours to do my best and even learning new skills just to close particularly important gaps of media, I get nothing but things thrown at me by the user in 7+ threads within 2 days, so please also consider how I have felt about that and that this accusation was meant to be a mention in the form of one of multiple points that I thought were relevant at the places until I learned more about this which I already apologized for. To make it short, the recent cases of incivility are mostly unrelated to this and those cases why this ANU were opened all are. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, The result of this discussion is clear: Adamant1 is not able to understand the issue. His comments are not acceptable. PERIOD. And since he doesn't understand that, and more generally does not understand what "civil" means (see comment by Dronebogus and others above), he should be permanently blocked from editing Commons. We do not need users with this behavior, however productive they may be otherwise. Yann (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hi-s24

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

User:Shinagawabooster

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

MOHAMMED KASSAR

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
✓ 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)[reply]

User:Fabio ferroviere

[edit]

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

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

User:Laurel Lodged

[edit]

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 [2] & etc. Ыфь77 (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=1028817439"