Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
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
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	125, 124, 123, 122, 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	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	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

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~266
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~14
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-10: ~18

Other:

• Duplicates: ~197
• Advertisements/spam: ~1
• Personal photos/selfies: ~9
• Other speedy deletions: ~91
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~4
• Undeletion requests: ~9

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~27
• Interface admin: ~15
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~6
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

Bidgee copyright trolling

This user has demanded payment through Pixsy, for photographs that they've have free licensed on this site. They demand we pay $3000. This user needs to be stopped! Gto2567 (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended content

And you and cohorts need to be stopped doing license infringements. If you didn't pay attention to en:Creative Commons license or other en:FOSS terms for whatever reasons, then it's on you. Pay your learning fee, feel free to (try to) negotiate a reduction, but trying to put the blame elsewhere will not work. Thank you. Grand-Duc (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC) // EDIT 2025-09-24 GD Lest the following comment seem an excessive reaction, it should be noted that at the time it was written the now-edited remark above included the phrases, "If you're too dumb or inattentive to pay attention" and "shut up your aggressive tone." - Jmabel ! talk 02:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC) wow, how rude!! You must be there friend to defend such disgraceful behaviour over a minor error they gave no notice to fix. We had a apprentice who made a minor mistake. Bidgee clearly uses this as a business model and must be dealt with. Gto2567 (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC) It's still up to the supervisor of a trainee to check for errors. You fail at it, you pay for it. Furthermore, you're claiming that a rights holder has to get stopped, but you're not offering any more details about the case whatsoever: no link to the Bidgee image, no company name, no statement where and how it was used... FYI, omitting the creator's name or wrongly crediting "Wikipedia" instead is not a "minor mistake", but a serious violation. A minor one would be to state the license wrong like saying "Creative Commons", but not specifically which version, for instance. True "minor" violations aren't fined with 3000$, that looks more like a kind of complete copyfraud (meaning: no reference to the actual creator and claiming "all rights reserved" on the publication). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC) @Grand-Duc This is definitely not a proper tone to respond. I suggest you to retract your statements and/or rewrite them properly. Bedivere (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC) Seconding Bedivere here. @Grand-Duc: You're not an admin, but you are an experienced enough user that you should know not to take that tone with people who come to a board like this. - Jmabel ! talk 04:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC) I don't think Bidgee is doing this as a business. I'm not quite sure I understand or even like that he's charging for images (if this is, indeed, what he is doing) but he may be within his rights. I probably gave a very negative viewpoint of Bidgee below as we've had run-ins, so I feel I must correct the record. Bidgee is (was?) an excellent contributor to all aspects of the Wikimedia movement, and I would not in any way support punitive actions against him. He is the last person I know of who would want to harm any Wikimedia project. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC) I notified Bidgee --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC) Which are the images involved here? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC) And on which page/site where there image(s) used? Was there any good-faith attempt to attribute or follow the free license? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC) It wouldn't be a page on a Wikimedia project, as our technology links back to the image page and that is long-established as being adequate to meet any CC-by requirements. If the image was uploaded with an incorrect licence, that's a different problem and would be on the uploader, rather than the user. It would be a trickier legal case to then hold a user liable for events dependent on the actions of a 3rd party uploader. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC) (I'm asking which website/page Gto2567 used the image on, not which wiki-article it was used on. As to find out if the usage was commercial in nature or not.) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC) after how I was treated, I will not disclose our site or business. How can you allow such threats such as this money grab over a minor mistake Gto2567 (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC) Note: Since we have not identified the photo in question or the usage in question, and as I do not think Bidgee discloses their real name here, I have removed a link to an external document which includes a real name. Still happy to review/comment per what I said below, but I understand if the repellent welcome you received dashed any hope of support here. — Rhododendrites talk |  00:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Bidgee has been very open about who he is on Wikipedia, and has disclosed his name in the past as part of the WMF Australia chapter. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Did not know. You're welcome to undo my removal. — Rhododendrites talk |  00:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC) There is no need to do this. It's just not much of a secret is all. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC) So, we can't even verify if the image in question is even hosted here on Commons nor how it was used by you? Not sure what you want us to do here, unless you're able to show cause for administrative action, as User:Rhododendrites explained below. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC) So you want to protect a grifting leech who is violating the copyleft trolling policy? 1.129.111.134 00:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC) That is jumping to conclusions. There is absolutely no clear indication in any of the above that Bidgee has in any way violated the copyleft trolling policy, let along anything to justify characterizing them as a "grifting leech". - Jmabel ! talk 04:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC)  Comment, perhaps this issue is related to these two discussion here User talk:Bidgee#Your pictures on the website www.hellomondo.com and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/08#Concern about CC-licensed uploads used for repeated legal claims. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC) If it is (and I understand that it may not be), then this is not even anywhere near copyright trolling. If someone publishes copyrighted images and refuses to acknowledge the source, there cannot be a much more blatant sort of copyright violation. - Jmabel ! talk 04:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC) First, can some admin take a look at Grand-Duc's replies above and determine if they should be responding to requests here? Second, Gto2567 we need proper context to comment. Link the photo and your usage of it. What steps have you taken to try to resolve this issue, if any? Like any image hosting site, we cannot control how copyright owners enforce licenses. What we have control over is what we choose to host. So we cannot intervene with Pixsy, but if (and that's a big if) it is abusive (see Commons:Copyleft trolling), then we can choose not to host such photos moving forward. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC) What is going on with that guy? He has been passive-aggresively taking his bat and ball and gone home, now he's decided to charge for photos? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Your the best Chris! He hated that you better at category and photos than him! Hope he get banned for life. 49.186.196.63 00:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Whoa! I'm not advocating for this, and nor do I think that my photos were any better than his. Bidgee's photos are vastly superior to the ones I take, and Bidgee has many good ideas about categorisation. I don't think I want to encourage or even suggest he be banned. Bidgee is an excellent Commons contributor. I just don't like some of the way he does things, but I am not in any way anti-Bidgee. You can dislike aspects of a person but still see they are, by and large, excellent contributors. I'm sure he feels the same about me. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Wait, you can charge money to people to post images here? why the eff have i been doing this for free?? :/ need a better agent... Stemoc 02:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC) @Stomac: an awful lot of your recent posts here have been at least very close to trolling. Unless you are actively trying to get blocked, I suggest you knock it off. - Jmabel ! talk 04:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Most of the above is a bunch of vituperation in various directions, and warnings from and to various people to knock off the vituperation. There is no substantive accusation against Bidgee, just an accusation that he threatened to sue the owner of some unspecified website for making unspecified use of an unspecified photo. From what little evidence there is, it may simply be a case of Bidgee pursuing damages for a blatant copyvio, which would be entirely in his rights.

That, said, if there was substance to the original complaint, any intelligent discussion was headed off by a non-admin with no obvious connection to the matter making rather abusive remarks to the complainant and driving them away from the discussion, and by other users (mostly IPs) being comparably abusive toward Bidgee. I'd have no objection if some other admin wants to pursue some blocks or other sanctions of the various disruptors.

 Not done No administrative action taken. If there is something substantive here, start a new thread. & thanks to Chris.sherlock2 for suggesting I come back and close this. - Jmabel ! talk 05:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to the user who contacted me privately to inform me of this unfounded allegation.

I will keep this brief, since I’m making this comment during an unpaid break at work.

I do not use Pixsy to deal with any licensing infringements, I do not have and have never held an account with them. I have in the past requested for those who fail to follow the Creative Commons license requirements to address them, only in extreme cases I will take it to a copyright lawyer.

The OP is either lying or is being duped (fraud). I would like to know more, since there would be stolen identity fraud if it is a real claim. Bidgee (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Since there's a closing mention, I don't know whether any edit is still needed; nevertheless, I rewrote my comments above. Still, an individual who's, by all appearances, representing a company ("They demand we pay[..]"), finding the ANU board (instead of the help desk or village pump) with his first edit after registration on the same day and leveraging accusations that also look by all appearances as a try to shift blame will IMHO never become a contributor that can participate in building a good media repository. I am aware that it may be usual to express denials or refusals in a roundabout way in English-speaking regions, that's at least the content I recall from essays about different company cultures I read in media outlets over the years, but calling out ineptitude still felt right. Or do you want to bother with a new guest who's waltzing in, claiming having suffered some torts and asking for punitive measures in the third sentence they ever wrote? This behaviour is much much more closer to classical internet trolls populating the commentary sections on news outlet sites or social media offerings than to people genuinely requesting assistance. Last but not least, there weren't any indications whatsoever of Bidgee engaging in intensive defence of his IP rights on his talk page. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m a bit weirded out that one of the anons knew that I had a bit of a dispute over categories with Bidgee. Something didn’t seem quite right. Whatever animosity or troubles I have with Bidgee, he doesn’t deserve whatever these folks are dishing out. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s all a bit strange. Still waiting in them returning to address they false accusations but not holding my breath. Bidgee (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I also had such a case some years ago where an organization wrote me that a copyright lawyer on behalf of a large photo agency demands money from them for using a photo I made. They never responded after I wrote that I do not work with these agency or lawyer. But they could also not confirm that they really used my photo and not the one of someone else looking very similar. GPSLeo (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I hope you are OK Bidgee and this didn’t take you away from work too badly. Despite our differences, you have done a lot for Wikimedia and I know of a mutual friend you once looked after when others were being horrid to him. You’ll always have my respect for that. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

IP vandal User:193.207.178.219

See here and repeated invalid rename requests. Geoffroi 23:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked multiple IP-s and protected some files. Taivo (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Now the user has been blocked again at 79.40.236.98 because of speedy requests for category redirects without special characters at Category:Sanjiro Sawaguchi and Category:Tatsujiro Sato.

Would it be possible to protect these two redirects for all non-autopatrollers? Then bots can move automatically all files that get into the redirects to the target categories with those special characters for Japanese language, also the ones that are protected for non-autopatrollers. Without the redirects, this is not possible for the bots, and files would stay in the red, deleted categories. Also, most people don’t have Japanese keyboards and can’t type those characters. Therefore, they better shouldn’t be deleted. —176.1.2.134 06:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Done, after another 2 speedy requests for those redirects, they are protected now. The user has some complete different ranges. This time it was IP 95.233.236.196. —176.1.2.134 09:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

IP socks of globally locked LTA Category:Sockpuppets of GMatteotti. They use to switch their IPs once a minute if necessary. --Achim55 (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Lhoussine AIT TAYFST

• User: Lhoussine AIT TAYFST (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:ⴰⵎⵏⴰⵢ ⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖ ⵜⴰⵙⵏⴰ ⵜⴰⵎⴳⴳⴰⵔⵓⵜ.jpg after three blocks for doing so. Not addressing concerns on user talk page like bad DR creation.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. As Yann said giving previous block: next time it will be indefinite. It is now. Taivo (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Adamant1

After reviewing this lengthy discussion, and taking into consideration that there is community consensus to indefinitely block Adamant1, I have applied such block on the following grounds (extracted from this discussion): 1) there is a pattern of disruptive behavior, with the user having a history of conflicts, incivility, noted by multiple editors; 2) the discussion is replete with examples of Adamant using improper language, insults and personal attacks (for example, "cry bully", "absolute pandering ass cry bully bull", acussations of others being "dishonest", "axe grinding", etc.); 3) despite requests and warnings from several users, including admins, Adamant has refused to drop the stick, in other words, to disengage from this and other conflicts, choosing to escalate disputes, for example, with this counter-proposal to block Josve; 4) the very clear community consensus for an indefinite block, reflecting a widespread view that Adamant1's continued editing is detrimental to the project.

I apply this block with much regret, as I think Adamant is a knowledgeable contributor, but certainly this does not excuse their persistent toxic behavior that drives away other volunteers, consuming community time and patience with repetitive disputes.

Adamant may request an unblock after six months by demonstrating a sustained understanding of these behavioral issues and a concrete plan for avoiding them in the future. Their user rights will also be removed, and they may reapply when unblocked.

I am not taking action against Pigsonthewing and Josve05a. As for the first one, a strong warning is issued in light of the recent events. Future similar conduct will certainly result in sanctions. The counter-proposal to block Josve05a is dismissed entirely as their procedure was correct. --Bedivere (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can somebody please stop User:Adamant1 from reverting my edits to my own talk page?

I have repeatedly removed posts in which he is abusive (accusing me of "playing dumb", for example); sometimes with additional abuse on the edit summaries, only to find him restoring them within seconds - at least six seven times in the last few minutes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify. I renamed File:Mabbett and Edge auction postal card Skiddaw Bank, Keswick etc - 1894 - obverse.jpg from "postcard" to "postal card" since it's an image of a postal card, not a postcard. Pigsonthewing reverted it and then removed the message I left him about it on his talk page. He repeatedly reverted me when I changed it back, removed subsequent comments about it, and all while claiming I was abusing him just because I said it didn't matter what the file was called and the whole thing seemed like nitpicking. Saying something "seems like nitpicking" isn't abusive and it's not an excuse to repeatedly remove or revert good faithed attempts to discuss the issue. It's extremely rude and un-collaborative to repeatedly revert someone while going off about how "I told you not to be abusive" over and over again. I don't see what the issue is here or why Andy has an issue with the file being renamed to begin with. It certainly doesn't warrant the way he acted.

Really, he should just be topic banned from re-naming his own uploads if he's this incapable of dealing with people when they rename his own files. It's just a super ridiculous, petty way to act over something this meaningless. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The text in the image says "post card", not "postal card", though, and given that, it would probably fall under COM:FRNOT: As a matter of principle it's best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist. Nakonana (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• I've warned both users to stop COM:Edit warring. However, this is not the first time Adamant1 has been warned about edit warring - even been blocked at least once for the same behavior. As it says on en:WP:Edit war: Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Where exactly did I claim that? I don't think I said anything about it either way, but I was told by an administrator a while ago that the number of reverts doesn't really matter to edit waring and that people at least shouldn't remove good faithed comments from their talk page. The reverts to the file are a different matter, but Andy was clearly being over confrontational and aggressive by repeatedly reverting me when I tried to discuss it on his talk page. What other way to deal with it would there have been at that point if Andy was just going to throw a tantrum about it? You know as well as I do that I'm topic banned from ANU. So it's not like I could report him. So what other options are there to deal with someone throwing a fit and repeatedly refusing to engage in a good faithed effort to resolve something? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I was addressing both of you and anticipating the likely argument. The point is that both you and Pigsonthewing engaged in repeated reverts, and that is edit warring. Right now both of you seem more focused on explaining why you were correct, or why it doesn’t count as edit warring, instead of recognizing that the back-and-forth itself is the problem. Please stop reverting and use proper dispute resolution instead.

If you are topic banned from AN/U, the correct way forward is to use other venues: discuss calmly on the other user's talk page, start a discussion on the file's talk page, or use the appropriate file move template and let another editor handle the move request. What is not acceptable is to try to force your preferred outcome through repeated reverts. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

"throwing a fit" QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

discuss calmly on the other user's talk page @Josve05a: No really? I did that and he repeatedly removed the comments. I'm not sure what your talking about with the "appropriate file move template" or whatever. Is there a way to request a file move without actually doing one? I'm more then willing to do it that way next time, but I didn't know it was an option. All I see in the tools drop down menu is "move and replace" though.

@Nakonana: Normally I wouldn't have a problem with that but as I said on Andy's talk page, technically they were called "correspondence cards" at the time and postcards were called "private mailing cards." But essentially everyone just calls the former postal cards and the later postcards for the sake of brevity. It would be totally unworkable on here to call postcards put out in the two years where they were called "private mailing cards" that. The same goes for calling postal cards "post card" just because that is printed on the top. Know one calls them that. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Know one calls them that. The post card itself calls itself post card. That is likely already grounds enough for COM:FRNOT. If you normally wouldn't have a problem with that then just leave it be because the file already had a valid name and your change would fall under FRNOT and because there's objection to the rename, so that's three reasons to not rename. If you want a third party to make the decision then use {{Rename}} and include all relevant links to all discussions regarding the rename in the renaming rationale in the designated place in the rename template. Nakonana (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Then please restore the file to its original, valid, name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you asking me? (because it looks like you are replying to me) Nakonana (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: I'm aware. But again, that's not what they were called at the time and no one calls them that now. If the card said "duck" we wouldn't rename it to "duck." That's not what the guideline says or how it normally works with file names. Your just Wikilaywer. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

If you would normally not have a problem with it then why are you being so insistent? Even if the file name would use the German word Postkarte or the Russian word открытка this would still fall under FRNOT. Your rename was more on the cosmetic side, and if there's objection to such a file move then we tend to honor the uploader's file naming scheme (especially since there's an objective reason to name the file "postcard" with the text on the card). That it is an outdated way to refer to them doesn't really matter because it's the correct term for the time in question. If you'd start to rename files that contain the name "Kiev" into "Kyiv" you'd likely also get in trouble even if "Kiev" is considered outdated, because we don't rename files to make them have slightly better looking names.

But anyway, the correct way for you to proceed from here is to either drop the stick (because you normally don't have a problem with it anyway, as you said) or to leave the decision to a third party via {{Rename}} while pointing to all relevant discussions that have been held on the matter. Nakonana (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

If you would normally not have a problem with it then why are you being so insistent? Because there's thousands of images and categories on here already for "postal cards." Including ones for postal cards printing during that time period that say "post card" on the top of it. Be my guest and do a proposal to rename those thousands of files and categories to "post card" but you can't just name one image whatever you want against the clear consensus that their called "postal cards." That's not how it works. If someone uploaded a photograph of a mountain and named it "pencil drawing of a cat" we wouldn't just let them. This is the problem with allowing people who have no experience or editing history in an area dictate things.

That it is an outdated way to refer to them doesn't really matter Yeah sure, I agree. Which is why I never said it's "outdated." What I said is that know one has ever called them "post cards" even if it's printed at the top. I'm sure you get the difference between something being outdated versus never being used at all to begin with.

The correct way for you to proceed from here No, the correct way for you and/or Andy to proceed here is to propose changing all the thousand of images and categories that currently use "postal card" to "post card" if you think that's what they should be called. I think Andy needs to drop the stick baring that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

And stalking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I voted in that because saw the DR message on your talk page. That's not "edit stalking" and people do it to me all the time. Nice try though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

This much move-warring is an abuse of file-mover rights, even if the cause be right. This shouldn't have had happened at the first time. Why stand there carrying the damned ball for five+ times. @Pigsonthewing, the warning stands equally for you as @Josve05a pointed out above. You are equally at error here. :) _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 15:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I may be at error, but I am not "equally at error", because did not repeatedly post abuse at anther editors talk page, then repeatedly revert the removal of that abuse by the editor whose talk page it was. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I've certainly had people say much worse then that I was being nitpicky and was dismissed for supposedly being defensive when I took issue with it. So I don't really see what the issue is here. I fully support you being blocked for repeatedly removing my comments, edit waring, and intentionally filing a false ANU complaint when your the one who wasn't willing to discuss things if that's how you want to be about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

"clearly being over confrontational and aggressive by repeatedly reverting me when I tried to discuss it on his talk page." No: I removed one edit which said I was "pointlessly nitpicking and controlling" and "you can't handle someone renaming a file you uploaded. Which is just stupid"; and another which said "your [SIC] playing dumb". As noted in my OP, both of these removals were repeatedly reverted, restoring the abusive comments, sometimes with additional abuse in the edit summaries.

In between, when Adamant1 made a less abusive post, I attempted to discuss the a matter with them, only for the abuse to resume. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

No, you repeatedly removed every comment I made. Including ones that didn't contain the things your citing. Again, there's nothing abusive about that and even if was that doesn't justify removing every single comment! I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I'm certainly pretty sick and tired of how low the bar on here is for what people are to allowed to file ANU reports over. So I fully sport you being blocked over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment It looks like Nakonana renamed the file back to "postcard" for some reason even though it's not the established term for similar images. Can someone, preferably an administrator, change the name back to "post card" per similar images and categories are named until it's at least discussed and we've decided either way? Otherwise I think both of them should be blocked. Nakonana for making a baseless move against the clear established naming practices and Andy for filing this. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  I fail to see why this is a hill you're so keen to die on. I'm not convinced that the uploader's original name is sufficiently incorrect to justify renaming. It certainly isn't sufficiently incorrect to justify an edit war. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The Squirrel Conspiracy I already explained it a bunch of times but "post card" isn't a used term for postal card, here or anywhere else. F2 of the guideline clearly says that files can be renamed "to change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image particularly displays." So I really don't see how me renaming the file is was an issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes I restored the original name because the burden is on you to provide a convincing renaming rationale. The burden is not on Andy since he is not the one who is requesting a rename. By moving the file back to its original name you can now use the template {{Rename}} to start a renaming request and to convince an uninvolved third party to have the file moved to your suggested name.[1] I have also opened a topic about it on the file talk page.[2] Nakonana (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Repeated renames under "harmonisation" are not justified unless files form a coherent set (COM:FR#4), and Commons policy is to leave generally valid names in place even if a slightly better one exists (COM:FRNOT). As Commons:File renaming states, "A user repeatedly renaming files under invalid reasons can be stripped of the filemover privilege. Warning: certain cases of wheel-warring—such as reversal of a preceding renaming which had a valid reason—may result in removal of the filemover privilege even for one infraction." Your actions and comments above show that you do not appear to understand or apply the file renaming criteria, which is required in order to hold the right, and the repeated cosmetic renames therefore fall under this standard. Because of this, I have revoked Adamant1's filemover permission. If you believe a rename is warranted, please use {{Rename}}. You are free to re-apply for the right later, but restoration would require a clear community consensus. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: 99% of the images and categories for postal cards on here are called "postal card." "Post card" isn't used anywhere, with file names, categories, or anywhere else. Let alone is it established. Commons:File renaming says a "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image particularly displays." So I really don't see what the issue was or why my file moving rights should be revoked when I was literally just following the guideline. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The criterion "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image particularly displays" does not apply here because the original filename "postcard" is already descriptive of the content and not ambiguous or meaningless. According to the examples on COM:FR, renaming is intended for cases like "DSC1342.jpg," "Smartphone.jpg," or other generic names that fail to convey what the image actually depicts. Your insistence that this guideline justified changing "postcard" to "postal card", as reflected in your own comment above, directly illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the COM:FR criteria. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it's not descriptive. "Postcards" always refer to privately printed cards with stamps on them. Whereas "postal cards" refer to pre-stamped, government issued cards. So in no way is ""postcard" is descriptive and yes it is ambiguous in meaning. I'm telling you that's not what they are called, how they are named, or categorized on here or anywhere else. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

No, not being 100% correct does not make a term ambiguous or meaningless. While postcard may not perfectly match the historical terminology, it still conveys the content of the image clearly. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Look, I have thousands of these things in my bedroom closet and 99% of my edits on here revolve around postal cards and postcards. The issue isn't that it's not 100% correct, it's that they are completely different things. "Postcards" and "postal cards" are printing, published, collected, talked about, written about, Etc. Etc. differently. Period. Calling both of them "postcards" is 100% ambiguous and not descriptive of postal cards. And again, I say that as someone who actually has years of experience and thousands dollars worth of both. Postal cards are considered stationery, postcards aren't. Postcards are printed privately by companies, postal cards are printed by the government. Postal cards are pre-stamped, postcards aren't. Etc. Etc. You just don't know what your talking about.

Again, this is the issue with letting people who have zero experience in the area what-so-ever dictate and control things. Now I have to deal with my file mover right being removed just because you don't know the difference between a postal card and a postcard and can't be bothered to listen to what I'm telling you. 100% F2 applies in this situation, but who gives a crap. I should lose the right anyway because you can't be bothered to do a little research or read what I'm telling you. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but the revocation is not a judgment on whether "postcard" or "postal card" is more accurate. The issue is the application of the file renaming criteria under COM:FR and COM:FRNOT. Per COM:FRNOT, files with generally valid names should be left as is to avoid unnecessary disputes. The F2 criterion applies to names that are meaningless or ambiguous (e.g., "DSC1342.jpg"), which does not apply here. The repeated back-and-forth moves, without using established processes like the {{Rename}} template, escalated into edit warring and wheel-warring. Policy warns that repeated reversions of a rename, even for a single infraction, can result in revocation of filemover rights. This is separate from the merits of the name itself. I am also not happy with how Pigsonthewing acted, so I leave it to other administrators to decide how to proceed. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I told you "post card" is ambiguous because it doesn't describe postal cards and has overlap with actual postcards. I feel like your intentionally ignoring the explanation though. Regardless, lets say I grant you that you honestly think it's not ambiguous. Cool. I honestly do as someone who mainly works in and has years of experience in the area. So really don't see how it justifies removing my renaming rights since it's honestly not a misunderstanding of the guideline. I actually think it applies based on my experience and the facts. How exactly does you disagreeing with me about if it's ambiguous as someone who has no experience in the area justify the right being removed when I cited the guideline, said how I think it applies, and have an honest disagreement with you about it (again, as someone who actually works in the area compared to you not having experience in it what-so-ever)? It's clearly not an abuse of the right just to disagree where the line is. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the term "ambiguous," but there are clear examples on COM:FR of what constitutes a meaningless or ambiguous filename. These include:

• Absolutely no information at all.
• Composed entirely of random letters, numbers, or generic words like "Flickr", "original", or "crop", which do not describe the subject of the image.
• Only information is the photographer or rights holder.
• Only information is the date.
• Only information is the location (broad), where the location is too general to identify the subject.
• Generic category rather than a specific item, such as "smartphone", "queen", or "bird".
• Acronyms or initials that do not directly identify the subject.
• Names that are coherent but do not describe the file.
• Filenames that are normally acceptable but inappropriate for the specific content.

The filename "postcard" does not fall into any of these categories. It conveys meaningful information about the image and is already generally descriptive of the content.

F3 of COM:FR covers obvious errors in filenames, such as misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, or misidentified objects. However, the page explicitly states that "This criterion does not cover moving a file from its common usage name to its scientific or technical name." By analogy, changing "postcard" to "postal card" is a shift from a generally accepted common name to a more technical or historical term, which is not covered by F3.

Renaming in this case is therefore not supported under F2 or F3, as the original name is descriptive and generally valid. The issue is not a disagreement over terminology, but whether the renaming criteria were correctly applied. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

he filename "postcard" does not fall into any of these categories. It conveys meaningful information about the image and is already generally descriptive of the content. No it doesn't because it's not an image of a postcard. It's an image of a "postal card." I'm tired of saying it, but they are different. I really don't see how "names that are coherent but do not describe the file" would apply given that it's not an image of a postcard though. Otherwise it just seems like your sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to what I'm telling you about it. Literally no one calls them postcards and they weren't called that at the time, we don't name images of them postcards, we don't categorize them as postcards, but it's a postcard and calling it one is descriptive and valid. Yeah, OK. Right. Right. Makes sense. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

You are very tenacious. Watching the image I read "POST CARD" is it not? --Lymantria (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes it says "post card", but so what? Category:Postal cards and Category:Postcards are separate category systems on here and me, as well as other members of Wikiproject Postcards, have been spending the last couple of years better organizing images of both. It wasn't even my thing to begin with either BTW. Regardless, I don't really think it would be useful or serve anything to say screw it and dump all the postal cards in with postcards. That's on me for following the exiting system though. Clearly it's more important to not hurt Pigsonthewing's feelings by renaming the file. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Once again, I really don't see why you're so dead-set on dying on this hill. You get dragged to this noticeboard at least once a month - and while some of them are spurious - the commonality between the ones that aren't is that you are incapable of dropping the stick. You burn lots of time and goodwill fighting round after round even after it's clear that the issue isn't going to get resolved the way you want, and if you spent your time on just about anything other than fighting, you'd wind up here a lot less often, and people would be more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you do show up here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm mostly still here because the right was removed. I'm fine dropping the ANU report on my end and touching grass for a while until the administrator board discussion is worked out though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy. Calling oneself "Adamant" does not require one to make every possible disagreement of nuance with well intended other users into an epic life-or-death battle. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

And now this, on my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

{{Totally cry bully. Screw this project anyway. I didn't even know the right could be removed for edit waring, didn't even warning about it, but who cares? Take the thing away but don't remove it from Pigsonthewing even though he's equally at fault here. Absolute pandering ass, cry bully bull #$%$#. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Given either of those comments, surely the only question left is how long your block ought to be? Even ignoring any issues of edit-warring or file moves, this behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I struck the comment out since I agree it was probably in bad taste. To bad you weren't willing to do the same when I took issue with this comment about how I was doing "make-work playing at adminship." I do love how your always fine jumping on any random ANU complaint to try to get me blocked but can't be bothered to keep your own bad attitude in check in the meantime though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• Striking the comment out after my complaint of it hardly changes anything! That's just a hollow pretence of an apology, knowing that you're going to have some penalty imposed otherwise.

This thread is about your behaviour, not anyone else's opinions of your behaviour elsewhere. You are a nasty, vindictive person and should not be editing here. You had a reasonable dispute with PotW over a matter that is obscure and subtle, one where you could have explained what the issue was, and how it makes a difference in the world of philately (even if I still don't think it passes FRNOT). But you didn't, because you never do and you always have your unshakeable faith that your opinion is absolutely correct and that all other editors are merely here for you to abuse. So instead you go straight to edit-warring and really excessive abuse of PotW and then any other editor who doesn't take your position. If you can't stop behaving like that, you shouldn't be here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

You could have explained what the issue was, and how it makes a difference in the world of philately @Andy Dingley: You mean like this whole thing on his talk page where I did literally that? It's not my problem that he repeatedly remove the discussion. It's you don't know that or that I didn't go "straight to edit waring" since I've said I discussed it and he just removed the comments multiple times now. That's the problem with people like you. You seen the screen name and make assumptions without bothering to read the actual discussion or research the issue before commenting because you don't care about the actual issue. Your just in it to be petty and axe grind. You can't be bothered to write a single comment that's not insulting or based on what actually happened if your life depends on it for some reason but I'm the nasty, abusive, vindictive one. Sure Andy. It's hilarious how I blocked for harassment just for calling you an opportunist (even though you clearly are one) but then it's totally fine for you to write super insulting messages like that one. You really can't make this crap up. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

"I didn't go 'straight to edit waring' "—Yes, you did. You only posted on my talk page after you renamed the file for the second time. And while edit warring you even said "I just renamed the image again. So I guess this is a non-issue". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: My understanding of edit waring (and what I've been told by administrators before) is that two edits doesn't usually qualify. Especially if they are done in conjunction with leaving a message about it on the person's talk page. Otherwise people could never revert anyone who reverts them. Since it's technically two edits. You'd have to agree that's not how things work on here. I'm carious though, what exactly did you do to resolve the issue on your end though? Did you message me about it? No. Did you respond to my messages? No. Did you stop reverting me and start a conversation about it on the files talk page? No. So literally nothing huh? Go figure. But I'm apparently the devil incarnate if I revert you twice and leave a message on your talk page explaining it. Weird how that works. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

"You'd have to agree that's not how things work on here."—I would not.

I have already explained, elsewhere on this page and with diffs, that when I did try to engage with you to explain why I do not agree with your edits, I was met with (further) abuse.

You continue to use falsehoods to try to spin what happened in your favour. It won't wash. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, your not any more honest then Andy Dingley. We'll have to just agree to disagree. I appreciate that you couldn't cite anything you did on your end to try and resolve the problem though. And no I wouldn't call reportedly removing the discussion while crying "abuse!!" over and over engaging or explaining why you don't agree with the edits. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

"you couldn't cite anything you did on your end to try and resolve the problem"—"I have already explained, elsewhere on this page and with diffs, that when I did try to engage with you to explain why I do not agree with your edits" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Cool you wrote one or two extremely short comments that didn't address the problem or deal with it and then repeatedly deleted the conversation when I tried to reply. Wow, you did the absolute basics to justify reporting me to ANU instead of putting any actual effort or discussion into it. Good for you. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: could you please explain what difference you see between "postcard" and "postal card"? I tried to check that with the Oxford English dictionary, and the entry "postal card" is apparently declared a synonym of "postcard". Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I've explained it add nauseum in other comments both here and other places. So it's not really something I feel like resaying. Read my past comments. Honestly, I don't really care either way myself but they have been categorized, named, and treated differently on here for years. So I'm just following the exiting system. I didn't know that would lead to be treated like the literal devil though. My bad. Really, F the exiting system that's been in existence for years because the of Oxford English dictionary. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

If it's already been explained in detail, perhaps a courtesy link to that would be helpful to anyone who hadn't been following such earlier discussion, thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy quote from this comment: Postal cards are considered stationery, postcards aren't. Postcards are printed privately by companies, postal cards are printed by the government. Postal cards are pre-stamped, postcards aren't.

If it's a distinction that is commonly unknown and often leads to misunderstandings and Adamant1 doesn't want to waste too much time repeatedly explaining it, he could consider saving a brief explanation of the difference on his userpage and then link to it whenever the question comes up. This way he wouldn't need to waste time and people would still get an explanation. Nakonana (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I did explain it on Andy's talk page several times but he just removed the comments and claimed I was being abusive. So...It wouldn't have helped in this case anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

This is untrue, as this diff shows. I continued the discussion, and only removed it from my talk page after being told "It's not on me that your [SIC] playing dumb just to get your way." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Anyone can look through your talk page history to see that you repeatedly removed the whole discussion instead of just removing the one or two comments that you thought were abusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like anyone is really arguing that adamant was wrong on the central issue regarding the filename. To Grand-Duc et al., it's right there in en:postcard and en:postal card. Sources e.g. the USPS, which says at the top Stamped cards, called postal cards prior to 1999, refer to mailing cards issued by the Postal Service with postage stamps imprinted on them. Postcards refer to privately printed and sold cards that require a stamp for mailing. Yes, the words look similar, but so do different species of the same genus, yet we don't consider moving to the correct species a small change.
We do manage an educational resource here, so there's certainly no benefit in moving it back to the less precise name (even if it's just a small amount imprecise vs. very imprecise). But let's say Andy wasn't aware of the difference, assuming the terms are similar enough. Here's how it should've gone: (a) adamant moves it, (b) andy contests the move, (c) discussion somewhere, which can always escalate as needed. Instead, both edit warred. Trout for both on that, but I don't see singling out Adamant for misuse of filemover.
Where things took a turn was edit warring with someone on their own user page, which is always a bad idea and is going to cast everything else in a different light because it's such an egregious thing to do. Adamant, deserved or not you have a reputation for not letting things go. Here's where things stand now: because of this reputation and because of the edit warring with Andy on his own user page (and, as I write this, the diff linked by Andy above), you've effectively -- socially, if nothing else -- forfeit the original argument. Continuing to argue is probably just going to dig deeper and eventually get you indeffed. I disagree with removing the filemover right over this, support a trout for both over the initial edit war, and suggest letting other people sort out the postcard/postal card business for the time being. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Rhododendrites - thank you for the clear simple explanation of the terms. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I get it as I'm fortunately acquainted with a philatelist (in German, it'll be Postcard = "Postkarte" and postal card = a kind of "de:Ganzsache" I think. But weirdly, the latter interwiki goes to en:Postal stationery). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

"It doesn't seem like anyone is really arguing that adamant was wrong on the central issue regarding the filename." Yes it does. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: That's certainly a fair comment. I removed a couple of messages from my talk page a few years and was roundly attacked for it. If I'm remembering correctly, even by an administrator and from what I remember was told not to remove comments from my talk page again. So it seems to be an issue. That said, I guess it's on Andy if he wants to be that way. I know some things on here only apply to some people in certain situations but not other people in other ones. I was basing the reverts on previously being called out for removing comments from talk page though. I don't care either way but it's not my issue if one administrator and/or user has a particular problem with something but then others don't. The endlessly shifting standards based on who's participating in the discussion at the time really doesn't help things. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Late getting here, replying mainly to a couple of the last few remarks:

• I think Rhododendrites has it exactly right. (BTW, I'm a former philatelist, still have a decent collection but haven't added to it in decades.) Which is also to say that on the fact of the distinction in terms, Adamant is correct, though not so on how he handled this. There was no emergency here: the name was wrong, but not hideously wrong, this did not need to be handled by what amounted to fighting. Conversely, I really cannot make sense of Andy's current position on the naming itself. Andy, are you disagreeing with Adamant1, Rhododendrites, and (now) me on the distinction between "postcard" and "postal card" or are you saying there is something else at issue here?
• @Grand-Duc I suspect the reason Ganszache is mapped to Postal stationery is to include things like what the British call aerogrammes and Americans usually call airletters. I believe those also fall under Ganszache. But I believe there are also some non-postal Ganszachen; it's one of those things where the words in the two languages don't line up neatly.

- Jmabel ! talk 01:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems needed clarify that the central issue is not which term, "postcard" or "postal card," is more technically correct. Under COM:FR, the question is whether the original filename is sufficiently misleading or ambiguous to justify a rename. Furthermore, the repeated uncivil tone in some of comments on talk pages and edit summaries has not yet been addressed. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File talk:Mabbett and Edge auction postcard, Skiddaw Bank, Keswick etc - 1894 - obverse.jpg. You have three people saying that there's a difference and it's one that matters. Two of us are collectors. I have 7 years and thousands of dollars on my side. Yet on your side, there's Pigsonthewing. Someone who's only experience in the area is uploading a single file and who's arguing the three of us are wrong because of the title of an eBay listing. Honest question, which one out of the two of us is being more unreasonable and uncollaborative here? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Put differently, a filename can be technically imperfect without being ambiguous. The guidelines define ambiguous as a name that prevents a reasonable reader from understanding what the image depicts without additional context, and they make this distinction explicit with examples to prevent unnecessary renames based on minor technical differences rather than actual confusion or misidentification. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I really don't get the hang up about it your end since I've explained it pretty thoroughly but it's not a "minor technical difference." You repeating that it is doesn't make it one. It's the difference between a car and a truck or van. All three are vehicles but it would be super weird and disingenuous to say it's a small difference that doesn't matter in file names. Know one would argue a photograph of a car should be named "bus" just because both have engines and a steering wheel. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Someone who's only experience in the area is uploading a single file. A blatant falsehood. How much longer is this going to be allowed to continue? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Adamant1 is featured on various noticeboards on a regular basis, recently also at UCoC enforcement, has been previously blocked, and may be this is about time for a long-term or indefinite-duration block. If the user can not learn how to work collaboratively, they should not be welcome here.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I might be thinking about a different user, but didn't you and a couple of other Russian users on Wikivoyage recently discuss me in a rather insulting way and imply I should be indefed over the whole thing with categories for Russian monuments? And now look, your advocating for exactly that. Go figure. Really bringing out the best of Commons here. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure. You are right, everybody else is wrong. I am not Russian btw. Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Good to know you admit it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• If you've recently been discussed by a whole different group as someone maybe justifying an indef block, then do you think that makes the case here weaker for an indef block? Because I'm pretty sure most of us would see it as making it a stronger case. This isn't some one-off event because it happens to have been on your favourite subject, it's a pervasive feature of all your editing here, and all your interactions with every different group of editors. Wherein the common factor is you. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: No because it's not a project I contribute to and I've never interacted with Ymblanter or anyone else involved in the discussion in my life. It's not my issue that random users of other projects that I don't talk to or have anything to do with are obsessed with me for some reason. Really, they have spent way more time complaining about Pigsonthewing then me. So it's not really the argument you think it is. Ignorance is bliss though or it's at least low effort fodder for you to continue the axe grinding. That said, I fully support Pigsonthewing being blocked because a bunch of people on another project have a massive issue with him if you really want to go there. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I am sure I interacted with you on Commons before, and I am sure the interaction was unpleasant for me, but I do not remember what it was, and I am not going to look for the diffs now. Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember interacting with you on here but it's possible we exchanged a couple of messages years ago. Who knows. It's a side thing to (and has nothing to do with) the comments on Wikivoyage by you and other users about me though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

What I said on the Wikivoyage is exactly what I say here: That you are on the edge of being indefblocked. This is just a statement of a fact. If the community fails to indefblock you, UCoC enfporcement will do. Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

You think I really care at this point? Trust me, the project needs me more then I need it. There's way to many problems on here that will never be dealt with because your to busy with petty in fighting and to captured by Kremlin shills and other paid actors to make the site actually usable and worth contributing to. So I could really care less at this point. I made my mark and have mostly accomplished what I wanted to. That's all I really care about. Sucks for you guys that its essentially 1930s Germany on here though. But I'm happy to wash my hands of it if that's the outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: What's the usual threshold for something like this to pass and how many votes does it need? I assume there would need to be more of both then with a normal block given the seriousness of the action. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Administrators usually assess the weight of arguments and overall consensus rather than requiring a numerical threshold. In clear-cut cases, any admin can review the diffs and comments provided above and act immediately, effectively bypassing the formal "vote" if they feel it suffices, so it is hard to set a fixed threshold. The principle is that stronger agreement is expected for more serious actions, but exact numbers are flexible. What matters is whether the community discussion shows broad support for the proposed remedy. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: Cool. Thanks for the information. Just an FYI, but I do appreciate the advice you gave me and had planned on finishing reading the rest of the guideline whenever I had the time. I'm actually kind of glad you did the proposal because the U4C case has been stressing me out quit a lot and hopefully this can settle it whatever ends up happening. I'll just be happy for it to be over whatever the outcome. So whatever. Just as long as it's done fairly, based on the guidelines, and results in whatever is best for the community. That's all I care about. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposed administrative actions

In order to avoid this matter being discussed endlessly without resolution, I am starting these two votes here so that the community can decide on the appropriate administrative actions. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to vote on any of this; a vote is unnecessary and this is not a democracy. Admins are given the tools and discretion to use them for a reason.

Not only has the egregious matter which I raised at the beginning of this section not been dealt with, but the abusive behaviour continued—on my talk page and here, targetting me and others—after I opened this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Adamant1 (vote and discussion)

Given Adamant1’s repeated instances of uncivil conduct toward other contributors, and considering that at least one of their prior blocks was only for short-term edit warring, an indefinite block is warranted. As Adamant1 themselves suggested, previous sanction does not appear to have had a corrective effect, since the pattern of incivility has continued despite warnings, in violation of the Universal Code of Conduct as well as basic collegial courtesy. An indefinite block would serve to prevent further disruption and uphold a collaborative editing environment. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Vote and discussion

•  Support as proposer. This vote concerns their repeated incivility and edit warring. The removal of the file mover user right (which was later restored per discussion on COM:AN) was not intended as a punitive measure, but reflected my belief that the user was not competent to hold that right. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Not for the edit-warring here specifically, but for their long-running approach to all other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support in view of my comments above. As someone said, Adamant1 seems to be in conflict with every single administrator, and therefore nobody would take action against them. Now it the call of the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support there were many final warnings in the past. Now there is the point where another final warning does not make sense. GPSLeo (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Not to blame you or anything, but you think the U4C case that you filed really help desculate things or maybe it just came off as needlessly antagonistic and just upset me to the point of making it that much harder to get along with people on here? There never seems to be any reflection your guys side about how the way you treat me doesn't solve anything and just makes the situation worse. Seriously, how do you expect me to get along with you guys when your endelss doing crap like that and won't just drop the stick or leave me the hell alone about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Support per nom.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support The nonsensical counter proposal below makes this finally convincing; there sadly appears to be no understanding why the behaviour is problematic. --Krd 19:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Krd: Do me a favor and read through the discussion on the Administrator board about this. I said there that the edit waring was wrong. But it was dealt with by receiving a warning and me saying I wouldn't do it again. The counter proposal below this is in response to Josve05a not accepting the consensus in the original discussion that a warning was an adequate way to deal with it. It has nothing to do with me not accepting responsibility for my side of it. Again, I already did that on the administrator board and it was dealt with there. He only opened this because of his unwillingness to accept that the removal of the file moving privilege was reverted, which is what the counter proposal is for. Not because I don't think I did anything wrong here. But this is essentially forum shopping because he didn't get the result he wanted since the issue was already dealt with in the other administrator board. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Support per nom. --Lymantria (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support per nom. Yann (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing (vote and discussion)

In the case of Pigsonthewing, the main concern is edit warring. While this conduct does not reflect a broader pattern of incivility comparable to Adamant1, the repeated reversions still disrupt normal editorial processes. A temporary block may be an appropriate proportional response, intended to reinforce the need for dispute resolution through discussion rather than edit warring. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Vote and discussion

•  Oppose The user has not been sufficiently warned, and there is no prior history of such behavior. Nevertheless, I am starting this vote to ensure a fair process. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose as for Adamant1. The major issue here isn't about edit-warring of this specific case. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't think Pigsonthewing deserves to be sanctioned anymore then I do. At the end of the day this a pretty minor issue that's only escalating because Josve05a is upset that his removal of the file moving right was reverted. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
• I do not think a block is needed. But there should be a clear warning not to engage in such edit wars again. GPSLeo (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose per above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Neutral An immediate block for edit warring (for both users) would have been the right thing to do. Days later, it does not make much sense anymore. On the other hand, the very experienced Andy should have known that what he was doing is unacceptable and it seems he deliberately crossed the line. --Lymantria (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Counter proposal

I'm proposing Josve05a be temporary blocked for removing my file moving privileges for reasons that were clearly invalid. Then failing to drop it and get the point when me and several users explained the difference to him between postcards and postal cards. The proposal for an indef block above this is just a continuation and escalation of that. He's just being retaliatorily because the removal of the file moving right was reverted.

I'll also note that I had absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with Josve05a until we got into a disagreement on the Village Pump a few months ago about AI artwork. He's subsequently been involved in essentially every minor issue I've gotten into. As well as trying to stir up drama and get me sanctioned on Meta for no reason. Josve05a says the proposal for an indef is to stop the ANU complaint from going on endlessly. He and the other couple of people who are unwilling to drop it are the ones continuing it. His proposal does nothing but causes more drama and it would have died out otherwise. There's clearly some harassment and abuse of the role to intimidate me because of the original disagreement going on here.

(vote and discussion)

•  Support as proposer. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ridiculous proposal, just illustrating my comments above about Adamant1's nature and why they can't edit here. It is entirely unreasonable to treat every enforcement against them as a particularly personal slight, requiring the admin to be defrocked for their hubris. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

You say that but then his justification for removing the file mover right was that I didn't read the last section of the guideline about how Stwards can move files on multiple projects. So it certainly seems personal to me. Either that he's just completely incompetent. Take your pick. He should be blocked to avoid it from happening again regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose. We don't ban here, the sanction for improper use of administrative tools is removal of those tools, not blockage, and this seems like petty revenge.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Sorry, I meant block. Not that I expect you to support it anyway, but I at least wanted you to know what I actually meant. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose. Wheel-warring should not happen. My only strong, disagreement with what he did was the asymmetry, because if it was about wheel-warring, clearly both sides were equally guilty, but that is certainly not a blocking matter. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: What's the appropriate way to deal with Josve05a not accepting the consensus on the Administrator board that a warning was fine and forum shopping to try and get a different result then? Because I don't think doing the de-admin process would go anywhere or is justified. But if a normal user did the same thing it would be procedurally closed on it's face and they would be warned or blocked. So what are my options here? Just give him a free pass to repeatedly take the thing to different forums until he gets result he wants because he's an admin even though he was already reverted and told to drop it once already?

This is super unfair to me and people who participated in the original discussion who said a warning was enough if nothing else. If anyone should accept the consensus and drop it when asked to an administrator should. So what other options are there to deal with it besides a block? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Josve05a dislikes the consensus but is abiding by it. I'm not sure what here you think constitutes forum-shopping, but I've certainly had a few times that I had a strong enough disagreement with an outcome that I started a discussion elsewhere (I believe always linking the original discussion, but I can't swear I never failed to do that). If I lose on the second try, I abide by the consensus, and I expect the same of Josve05a. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose It is said that attack is the best defence, but not in this case. No block for such action as Josve05a did. --Lymantria (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright violation

Please deleted below uploads. None of them are uploader own work.

Special:Contributions/Mehrabpr. [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not sufficient to assert "None of them are uploader own work"; please provide evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Please create a regular bulk deletion request, so that everyone can discuss it. Taivo (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences: Your signature seems needlessly complicated. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mehrabpr. Yann (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Andreasc2000 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Andreasc2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Please block this user: Uploaded multiple copyrighted files in the past few days (which have since been deleted). May try to upload more copyvios. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Yann warned Andreasc. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Arn0 dugge

• Arn0 dugge (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - reupload of copyvio logo after warning - Jcb (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Not done Warned them for the re-upload. A block is not necessary at the moment IMO Gbawden (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Gbawden: I think you posted the wrong standard warning to their talk page, your warning doesn't seem to make sense for what this user did. Jcb (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• @Jcb Doh. Thanks Gbawden (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Grevasion

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

User exclusively uploads pornographic copyvios Dronebogus (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as VOA, NOT HERE. Yann (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Tosurasit

Tosurasit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a pattern of placing speedy deletion tags, such as {{No source}}, on files, particularly those from offline sources, without providing a rationale when questioned. This behaviour has been observed on Thai Wikimedia sites, where the user, under the username Rameshe999, was permanently banned for mass deletion nominations. The user has also operated several sockpuppet accounts, as documented here. It is requested that their edits be reviewed and potentially reverted. --Wutkh (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Another thing I just noticed, they tagged {{No source}} to their sockpuppet accounts' photo (e.g. Special:Diff/1091144685, upload by Pitpisit) --Wutkh (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I also blocked all socks: Category:Sockpuppets of Pitpisit. Yann (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Newqoreyaaalogag

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

Newqoreyaaalogag has been adding a lot of categories about the size of women's breasts; I came across this because of this edit on one of my photos. I can't specifically say these are wrong, but I do think they are inappropriate and, in particular, inappropriately objectifying. We do not do similar categories on the size of people's hands, biceps, heads, etc.; this seems only to happen to portions of the anatomy that are heavily eroticized. (For the record, I'm not happy with the prior category there either, Category:Female human breast size, added some years ago by Albedo, but I didn't notice it at the time.)

This is not necessarily entirely an issue about this particular user, and I'm not necessarily asking for a block; I could have taken this to a different venue, but this user seems to be "on a roll" with this, including a lot of category creation, and I think this needs to stop. - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I reverted a couple of edits, and added a warning to their talk page. Yann (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The entire category tree is most likely rather useless because

• a) categorization is based on wild guessing,
• b) a whole lot of people (including women!) have no idea how cup sizes are determined so that the wild guesses will likely be extremely inaccurate,
• c) there are no globally standardized cup sizes so that a cup E in the UK is called cup DDD in the US (see [3]),
• d) the category is misnamed in that it claims to be about "breast size" when in fact it is about "bra cup size" (of an unknown country),
• e) the category makes random medical diagnosis (like gigantomastia) on living, identifiable individuals (and is misnaming the medical condition to top it off: Breast hypertrophy).

And that's without even getting into the whole objectification issue. Nakonana (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I apologize if it seemed objectifying, but size ctegories were actually already present. I merely tried to expand upon the previous categories of that nature. But seeing the above reasoning I understand and am concurring with the rationales presented. Thanks for the feedback and enlightening me on its controversial / sensitive nature. Newqoreyaaalogag (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I have self-reverted all my edits, so this issue is resolved now. Newqoreyaaalogag (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

User:KainanCity CP

they says a employee of a city office. but, we don't verify it (COM:UPOLICY). is it correct? eien20 (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Eien20: Convenience link KainanCity CP

I am not sure what you are asking. If you are asking for verification of what someone says on their user page they do for a living, no, we do not normally verify that. Is their some situation in which you believe they are doing something that would be invalid if that claim were not true? - Jmabel ! talk 20:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't verify they are city officers. e.g. File:Kainan-city-streetscape.jpg is same as [4], File:Kainan-city-sakuas-roadside-station.jpg is same as https://www.instagram.com/p/CwpBi3lRcRG/. is they a city office really? --eien20 (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)