Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 126

user: "tastefulphoto"

Oddly named user (who puts quotes in a username?) whose sole purpose here is exhibitionism. Dronebogus (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. "The Squirrel Conspiracy" (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

79.50.89.214

@Taivo: More LTA sock rename requests. Geoffroi 18:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• For other admins, this is a sock ip of GMatteotti. Geoffroi 19:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  Already done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Alexander Hauss2608, AlexHauss2608

• Alexander Hauss2608 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• AlexHauss2608 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Despite multiple notifications on the discussion pages of these two user accounts (presumably and likely used by the same person), the user(s) still uploads uncategorized pictures with watermarks referring to copyrights incompatible with Commons licensing. GeorgR (de) (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The watermarks may not be incompatible with the licensing. However, they are destructive for many of the images and simply make no sense for CC-Zero-licensed works. --Túrelio (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I've now watermark-tagged all watermarked images of both accounts. The 2nd (older) one has mostly non-watermarked uploads, the 1st (newer) one mostly watermarked uploads. --Túrelio (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I added 3 warnings: about scope, thumbnails, and watermarks. Yann (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

HUM35653

HUM35653 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Repeatedly uploading copyright violations after final warning, not responding to communication. TEMPO156 (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done blocked for a week. Jianhui67 ^T★C 04:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Also I closed the DR and deleted all his/her contributions. Taivo (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Lobbyruler Uploading copyvio after warning

Please offer firm advice to this editor 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

User Hayapawa

Hayapawa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is self-promoting user who posts self portraits with pompous titles. Most of his uploads has been deleted and the rest should be. He should probably blocked, too. Pierre cb (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed as spammer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Dibujito6900

Dibujito6900 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for two weeks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Trougnouf

This user is waging an edit war despite ongoing discussion and, pardon me, good arguments. I would appreciate it if an experienced administrator could take a look at this to help de-escalate the situation. Thank you. Lukas Beck (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Neutral. Looking at the photo, the color of the sky shows that the sun is quite low and there is so a kind of lighting diffusion in all the image, therefore it looks indeed to the begining of the golden hour to me as stated by Trougnouf in his user page. That being said I'm neutral because I'm not a huge fan of personal photos sorted in general categories. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Please note that while the discussion so far has only been about one image, there are other images from the user that were categorized as golden hour, and I can't even begin to see anything "golden" in them. For example: File:Låddejåhkå river along the Nordkalottruta in Padjelanta National Park (DSCF1398).jpg or File:Reindeer skull in Pärlälvens fjällurskog (DSCF2138).jpg Lukas Beck (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Christian Ferrer: Note that this photo is valuable enough to have been used on the Persian Wikipedia ( fa:کوله‌گردی ). I see your point nonetheless, the vast majority of the pictures I post are not so personal and I would appreciate for the type-of-light categories I add to remain. --Trougnouf (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• @L. Beck: when reporting someone usually we give a notification to the concerned user, no problem this time I did it. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you Lukas Beck (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Note that Lukas Beck performed the first and last golden hour related edit on File:A couple of backpackers posing during a hike along the Kungsleden in Sarek National Park (DSCF2728).jpg. They now removed the golden hour category on File:Tarraätno river in Pärlälvens fjällurskog (DSCF2364-DSCF2381).jpg, which was also taken during golden hour, without reaching a consensus here. I meticulously check the pictures I take to categorize whether they were taken during golden hour, civil twilight, nautical twilight, and astronomical twilight based on the sun angle, it makes a noticeable difference in lighting (even when taking pictures of outdoor objects and when the sun is not fully visible) and I would appreciate not having Lukas Beck or anyone else subjectively delete this data. --Trougnouf (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly sympathetic to your work on Commons. Many of your shots are truly excellent. That's beyond question. But I can only repeat myself. The golden hour isn't a time of day in the traditional sense. It can't be compared to sunrise or sunset, or to the twilight phases. Rather, like the blue hour, it has a poetic value for the photographer. And if the sky is cloudy, as is clearly evident in your pictures, the golden hour simply isn't visible in the images. It would be wrong to categorize these images as such. Please note that I have already written this to you on your discussion page. Lukas Beck (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lukas Beck: I have no idea why you think the "golden hour" requires a cloudless sky. Do you have any authoritative source for that claim, or is it just your personal opinion? - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I may have expressed myself a bit unclearly. Perhaps more clearly: In these photos, the phenomenon of the golden hour is not visible, presumably due to the cloud cover. I wouldn't generalize that a cloudy sky can't also represent the golden hour. Lukas Beck (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I am noticing that Lukas Beck has been removing more of the golden hour categories (than I can keep track of) from my pictures. Once again I am asking that they refrain from doing so unless a consensus is reached here that validates their activity (and regardless, not to unilaterally assess and delete my work on a given picture without discussing it and reaching a consensus first, since their contribution is obviously not consented to), and that they please undo their removal and restore my work. I haven't been contributing as much lately and I really don't want all my time and energy spent on Wikimedia Commons to be spent tracking down and restoring my work which was taken down according to a user's opinion and arguing over meaningless details.

I actually left Lukas Beck's latest reversal on the initial picture and added starting a discussion about this edit war in my todo list (which means it probably would never have gotten done) because I did not wish to devote my time and energy to it but Lukas Beck forced my hand by starting this discussion so here I am arguing, and on User_talk:Trougnouf#File:A_couple_of_backpackers_posing_during_a_hike_along_the_Kungsleden_in_Sarek_National_Park_(DSCF2728).jpg calculating precise angles, and now I guess they are tracking and taking down my work and I feel a bit harassed and worried for my contributions, and I really would much rather be devoting my energy to something else happier and more productive. Please stop and undo your destruction. --Trougnouf (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It makes sense to have this debate. It is not intended to discredit you or your work. It is meant to create a consensus and provide security for future edits. I have explained my point of view. It is reflected in what is stated in Wikipedia articles about the golden hour, and with that, I believe I can justify my changes objectively. By the way: There were just a handful of changes that I made to your images. So let's not pretend that I undermined hours of work on your part. That is not an accurate representation of the situation, and I will not accept that accusation. Lukas Beck (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how many changes you've made and I have no way to know how many and on which of my images without going through your contribution history between two indefinite periods (since you've continued your deletion work even after starting this discussion) and trying to recognize my files in the lot. That is problematic. And your list of Special:Contributions/L._Beck is quite huge, making it seemingly really difficult for anyone (especially someone who is not you) to revert them. --Trougnouf (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Since these are files you uploaded, all of my changes (as I said, about a handful) should be visible in your watchlist. There, you can, of course, easily track all the changes. However, please don't undo my changes; after all, there's no golden hour to be seen on these. ;-) Lukas Beck (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear administrators,
Can this be settled?
I would like to restore the golden hour categories and end this senseless edit war and arguments.
It all stems from a subjective assessment (see also: User_talk:Trougnouf#File:A_couple_of_backpackers_posing_during_a_hike_along_the_Kungsleden_in_Sarek_National_Park_(DSCF2728).jpg where Lukas Beck seems to say as much and associates the golden hour with some poetic value) and since we don't (and most likely will never) have some kind of golden-hour-approval-committee like we do at Commons:Quality_images and Commons:FP, I strongly believe that I, as the author of these images, am entitled to make this assessment w.r.t. my own work (so long as the sun's angle falls within the golden hour range). --Trougnouf (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure looks like golden hour to me. The lack of any terrestrial light sources makes it hard to say definitively. - Jmabel ! talk 20:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2016/Candidates

• Commons:Picture of the Year/2016/Candidates hyperprotected
• Commons:Picture of the Year/2017/Candidates not protected at all

Please change protection level of both to "autoconfirmed". Taylor 49 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done but on autopatrol level to avoid vandalism and allow all file renaming. GPSLeo (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Jhonvitor01 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Jhonvitor01 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Continued uploading of non-free images after being warned. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month- 2nd block- lets see if they get the message Gbawden (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

User:AI Editor User

AI Editor User (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Repeated uploads of copyright violations. User had been formally warned twice. 0x0a (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week by Herbythyme. Yann (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Ingyames

Ingyames (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) uploads previously deleted files and removes SD templates after warning. --Ovruni (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Ovruni, thank you for your message and notification.

I would like to clarify that the image I uploaded is a **professional portrait of myself**, published under **CC BY 4.0 license**, and is **relevant to my Wikidata item (Q136567729)**.

The speedy deletion (SD) template was replaced with a **standard deletion request** according to Commons guidelines, so that the file can be properly reviewed by administrators. I had no intention of circumventing the rules; my goal is for the file to remain **legitimately and verifiably available** for Wikimedia-related projects.

I am happy to provide any additional information if needed. Thank you for your understanding. Ingyames (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as spammer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

User:StPaul.jpg

StPaul.jpg (talk · contribs) -- LTA Livioandronico2013, easily identifiable per DUCKtest as yet another sock. --A.Savin 11:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him indefinitely, but did not revert or delete anything. Taivo (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Heroesdx9

Heroesdx9 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) - is uploading copyvios again. Has been previously blocked for the same. I did not have time yet to look at all the files, probably all their recent uploads need to be flushed. Jcb (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. User is blocked for a month. I deleted most remaining uploads speedily, the rest are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

User:LAK7474

Uploads vast amounts of supposedly AI images that appear to be copyright laundering of non-free images Dronebogus (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've deleted the AI images and blocked for a month. This isn't just about the AI junk - there are copyvios, personal attacks, and competence issues all mixed in. Any further AI hoax/copyvios and I will indef. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Michaelshaheed

COM:PENIS-only account Dronebogus (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

MrGreen105

• User: MrGreen105 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:ShehbazSharif-new (cropped).png after final warning for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The file that I posted was an extract from ANOTHER file by another user that I was unaware was deleted due to copyright violations. Aside from this extracted file, not a single file (given my scarce participation in Wikimedia Commons) that I have posted has been deleted due to copyright violations. I understand the issue with this extracted file; however, when I uploaded it, there was no deletion nomination for the original, so I hope you can understand. Besides this apparent flaw, I have upheld Wikimedia Commons guidelines to my knowledge. Thanks, MrGreen105 (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Seriously? This was the user's talkpage before last cleaning. I might have accepted that this file was a reasonable extract from another file, and that this was overzealous, but you claiming not a single file has been deleted due to copyright violations when I can see that talk page destroys any good faith I might have given you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not what I claim (or intended to claim). I am referring to files that are CURRENTLY posted; I am aware of previous violations, which I have taken into account through the cessation of any posting that involves dubious copyright statuses. MrGreen105 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

To say that your currently posted files haven't been deleted is tautological.

That said, the issue here should be what happens going forward. I'm out the door right now; can someone work out how many recent uploads have been a problem (and I wouldn't count a derivative work of something that was already on Commons, we've pretty much all made that mistake). - Jmabel ! talk 13:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked MrGreen for a week. Without his sentence "not a single file that I have posted has been deleted due to copyright violations." I would not block him. Taivo (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo and @Prosfilaes: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Toniker0501's removal of DR notices on PH congressmen images

I just discovered that Toniker0501 (talk · contribs) removed the deletion request tags that were added to the images of PH congressmen when I nominated those for deletion using VisualFileChange tool. For the removal actions, see this. IMO, the deletion request (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official photographs of members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines (2019)) is valid as it concerns the images being authored by a professional photographer from private sector instead of a government employee. Toniker0501 should have commented on the DR page if they oppose deletion, instead of removing valid DR tags. I'm requesting an admin to sanction this user, and revert all of their removals of DR tags on the nominated images. Kindly see also the images I nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official photographs of members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines (2016), as it seems the DR tags were removed, too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello JWilz12345 I'm so sorry for doing that please revert the nominating deletion on the images of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official photographs of members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines (2016). Thank you!!! Toniker0501 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Toniker0501: This is not acceptable. You need to self-revert - the DR notices need to be on those files until the DR is closed. Any further disruption will result in a block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay I will do that Toniker0501 (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Pi.1415926535 it's all done!!! Toniker0501 (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Iamsaifsarkar

continued to upload selfies after being warned. 0x0a (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@0x0a,  Done. Kadı Message 12:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Daniel Broomfield Ua

Can someone please block this person already? Their unconstructive POV pushing is disruptive and is wasting the time of all concerned. Geoffroi 22:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

My point of view is neutral. It means that it is you who defends certain political ideas. I just want to find out what legislation has to be applied to the panorama objects in Crimea. There are already three versions: Ukrainian, Russian, and US! So how can people contribute to Wikimedia Commons if you don't know what copyright law should be used and ban people who are finding it out? Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You're not finding anything out. You have no understanding of copyright, nor do you care. You won't listen to anyone. Nobody agrees or will agree with your political bullshit. Geoffroi 22:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Once again, my point of view is neutral. It means that it is you who defends certain political ideas. There is a simple question: what copyright law should be in Crimea? Using Russian law means violating Ukrainian law. Somebody says that it should be US law. I have already said that the most reliable source in this case is Wikimedia's layer conclusion. So why don't you just show such a conclusion? Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The question of what copyright law should be in Crimea is not relevant to Commons. And using Russian law doesn't mean violating Ukrainian law; if you obey Russian laws against murder in Crimea, you will be obeying Ukrainian laws against murder as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

He hates Russia and Russians. That's why he's here. You or another admin should block him so we don't waste more time on a discussion that's obviously going absolutely nowhere.@Geoffroi [1]

No, I just say that according to international law, Crimea is Ukraine. The UN point of view is the neutral point of view. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You know nothing at all about copyright. All you know is that you hate Russians and you want to troll Commons about it. Geoffroi 22:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd watch out for boomerang. Daniel isn't behaving perfectly, but neither is it okay to abuse him. Objecting to the invasion of Crimea is not hating Russians or even Russia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

He's casting legal aspersions above even on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. I linked their fair use policy and their legal noticeboard and without looking at it he said they're violating Ukrainian law. Sounds like a pov troll to me. Geoffroi 23:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

No, the UN point of view is not the neutral point of view. It is a point of view. We aren't Wikipedia, and we don't have the same NPOV rules, but in Wikipedia, you'd be forced to discuss the view of Ukraine, Russia and the rest of the world.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Topic banned: Quote: "Consider this a topic ban from discussing anything related to legal issues in Crimea (except for actual good-faith deletion discussion) for a period of 1 month." --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Update, the user violated the topic ban and is now blocked locally for 1 year. The user has also been globally locked indefinitely on meta. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Unixbytes2k25

Repeatedly uploading official portraits of politicians/royalties and claiming them as "own work". I sent a reminder to them to check the copyright statuses of these images and to not claim them as own work, however they've continued to upload such portraits afterwards (e.g. File:Queen Elizabeth II Final Portrait.jpg) with the own work claim. S5A-0043🚎 03:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a week and mass deleted all his/her contributions. Taivo (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Jeff G. and blocking users by snitching on the admins.

User:Jeff G. reverted my abuse filter problem and threatend to block me by snitching on the admins! He needs to be instructed not to have admins block people without discussion first cause I'm tired of this nonsense. DioMuchaMan (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

You've only joined 8 hours ago... Nakonana (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

And you've already reported Jeff on the vandal noticeboard[2]. Nakonana (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I know. But look, I'm very tired of Jeff G. snitching on me! I was focusing on uploading things since I've joined 8 hours ago like you said. DioMuchaMan (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Geoffroi 21:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

User is mass-emptying categories based on interpretation and personal preference and not policy

Several threads on User talk:Rathfelder show this user unilaterally changing the category scheme. Sometimes this is helpful and it is certainly well-intentioned, but the entire rationale behind many of these decisions is off-base and the latest rash of edits (such as this) are removing categories from the parent category Category:Scientific journals by name, which is supposed to list all journals together (minus those in its subcategories, but either way, Rathfelder is not inserting it into the subcats, so it is entirely removed). There have been many such problems, including one that was raised at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_97#User_unilaterally_changing_and_emptying_categories,_not_responding_to_others'_concerns. See:

• User_talk:Rathfelder#Why_are_you_removing_date_categories_from_files?
• User_talk:Rathfelder#Why_are_you_removing_dates_from_files?
• User_talk:Rathfelder#Category_removal
• User_talk:Rathfelder#Why_are_you_emptying_a_category_again? (the issue that I raised above)

I think that this user's reasoning is wrong and these edits are undoing a lot of work by other users. The additions that Rathfelder makes and diffusion of large categories is useful, but the removal of work and unilateral emptying of categories is not and this problem has been ongoing for a long time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I meant to add that in addition to doing some proper and useful diffusion alongside doing removals of valid and useful categories, this user is also inserting inaccuracies, such as labeling a journal as a book, which are two different kinds of publications in two different kinds of schemes. These are serious problems in judgement and undo a lot of useful work that others have done, making some categories much less useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I dont think there is a clear difference between scientific journals and books. Many of them physically are books and many are categorised as books. We could have a category for public health journals.

I am attempting to categorise journals of all sorts by country and by year. I dont think Category:Scientific journals by name is very useful. Most of the content needs to be added to other categories. if fully populated there would be many thousand entries. My guess is that less than 1% were included before I started moving them. Journals quite often change their names over time and there is not agreement whether for example the name should include "The", so it isnt very helpful to sort them by name. Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I think a category for journals by name is helpful as some sort of "reference work" or "glossary" where you can simply look up a journal name alphabetically. I don't know in what field of work you are, but I often find myself using alphabetical lists of all kinds at work. Nakonana (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

This is illustrative of the exact two complaints that I have above:

• You don't think something is useful, so you personally remove it.
• You think that since only a small percentage of a given kind of work is done, therefore you should undo the work that has been done (e.g. see on your talk page where I mention how most files here don't have descriptions in Korean: that's not justification for removing the ones that do!)

These are the recurring issues that I have in a nutshell. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

While like many categorizations, there can be confusion at the edges, scientific journals are periodicals and treated differently by the bibliographic community. To go into a mass deletion because you don't think they're distinct is unreasonable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Concur with Prosfilaes. - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

So would people see a category like Category:Scientific journals by name, with perhaps 30,000 entries, as useful? Rathfelder (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

All X by name or X (flat list) categories are made for listing all such things in a big category. Even some categories that do have diffusion schemes still list all instances as subcategories, such as Category:Surnames. You cannot impose a top-down hierarchy model on all categories here: that's not how it works in principle or practice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Meh. I don't know how to use it, but there are people who do find it useful, and on a collaborative project, that's frequently enough reason to leave it alone. Moreover, there's many categories of the type, and it's not really an argument that should be had on scientific journals alone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

But doesnt it give rise to problems like Category:Books in French. Too crowded with 92,466 files. They arent even in alphabetical order. How would anyone find this helpful? Rathfelder (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Probably mostly for category intersections. Just like many tags on sites that use those. - Jmabel ! talk 13:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I dont understand. Can you give some examples? Rathfelder (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: have a look at Commons:PetScan/Generate list of Commons files. - Jmabel ! talk 02:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

How is all this consistent with the instruction: Please remove redundant categories and try to put this image in the most specific category/categories? Rathfelder (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: That instruction in the expansion of {{subst:chc}} to {{Check categories}} with parameters doesn't tell you to remove the way you have been doing it. Please go ahead and make your case for why particular categories you have been removing (and thus have been emptying) against consensus have been redundant, using as much specificity as you need. We'll wait.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

copyright violation by userMostabed

please delete all these uploads and block the user. Non of these are own works of user

rcenet deletes[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences, I deleted the uploads and warned the user. If Mostabed continues, please inform me.  Done. Kadı Message 13:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

User:MoniqueB87 and User:MoniqueB1987

• MoniqueB87 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• MoniqueB1987 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User has nominated the same file for deletion 3 times for a spurious reason using a sockpuppet. See Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504) (cropped).jpg and [[3]] -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I blocked the sockpuppet, warned the oldest account, and closed all DRs. Yann (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nard,

Thank you for your message. I’d like to clarify that I am not using any alternate accounts — all of my edits have been made solely under this account (MoniqueB87).

If there’s been any misunderstanding on that point, I’m happy for the administrators to verify it directly.

As for the deletion requests, they were submitted in good faith and based on Commons’ own verifiability and licensing requirements (COM:V and COM:L).

The Flickr source linked to this file — https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343 — is now private, which means the Creative Commons license can no longer be independently verified.

Under Commons policy, past verification cannot substitute for a currently verifiable source, so the file’s license is now effectively invalid.

My only goal has been to ensure that Commons continues to meet its own licensing standards — there was no intent to spam, duplicate requests, or misuse the process.

Thank you for your understanding,

MoniqueB87 MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: As explained on your talk page, we have a license review process, which can certify that files were under a free license at the time of upload. Once this is the case, we do not care if the source disappears. And yes, you used the alternate account MoniqueB1987, which is now blocked. Yann (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Yann — I understand your position and appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Just to clarify, I did at one point lose access to my previous account (MoniqueB1987) and therefore created this one to continue contributing transparently. I’ve used only this account since and have no intention of editing under multiple usernames. My intent has always been to raise legitimate policy questions in good faith.

On the licensing point — I fully recognise that Commons maintains a historical license review process. However, Commons policy (COM:V and COM:L) also specifies that free licenses must remain independently verifiable.

When the Flickr source becomes private, that verification is no longer possible.

This isn’t about revoking a license — it’s about whether Commons can still confirm that the license is valid today, as per current verifiability standards.

In practical terms:

• The original Flickr link now leads to a private page, so no one can confirm the license.
• Therefore, the “green review” may show past verification but cannot satisfy ongoing verification requirements.

I’m raising this not to contest process, but to ensure policy integrity — both for Commons’ credibility and the accuracy of its archive.

Kind regards,

MoniqueB87 MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This shows paid editing, so any further such edit should lead to an indefinite block. Yann (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yann, I want to clarify that I am not a paid editor and have never accepted compensation for any edits or actions on Commons.

All my contributions have been made independently and in good faith, with the sole purpose of ensuring accuracy and compliance with Commons’ own verifiability standards.

If there’s any misunderstanding, I’m happy for administrators to review my account activity — everything has been transparent and policy-focused.

Kind regards,

MoniqueB87 MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yann, with respect, the issue here is not about me, my account, or any suggestion of paid activity.

The issue remains purely policy-based — there is no longer a valid or verifiable source for these images.

Commons’ own policies on verifiability and licensing integrity are clear:

if a license cannot be independently confirmed at source, its validity on Commons cannot be guaranteed.

By continuing to host these files under an unverified license, Commons risks undermining its own standards of accuracy and trust.

This is not a personal matter — it’s a question of maintaining policy consistency and public credibility.

Respectfully, fighting those who highlight this concern does not reflect well on Commons or its commitment to data integrity.

Kind regards,

MoniqueB87 MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: Hi, You do not need to repeat the same thing again and again. Please read what I wrote on your talk page, and this page: COM:LR. Yann (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Yann, thank you for your note. I’ve read your replies and reviewed COM:LR carefully.

I want to clarify that my concern is not with the review process itself, but with the fact that the source is no longer valid or publicly verifiable. Without an accessible source, the claimed license cannot be confirmed — and that is the core issue I’m trying to address.

Could we please focus on the validity of the current source rather than on procedural assumptions about my account? My intention has always been to ensure that Commons’ licensing integrity is maintained.

Kind regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not a dispute about policy interpretation; it’s about the integrity of the license. A license that can no longer be verified is, by definition, invalid under Commons’ own standards. I believe this deserves attention on its own merits, rather than being dismissed as a procedural matter. MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Yann,

Kindly click on the original source link below and verify for yourself — it no longer leads to a public page:

🔗 https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343

As you can see, the Flickr source is now private and therefore cannot be verified. This makes the existing Commons license unverifiable and, by extension, invalid under Commons’ own standards.

I hope this helps clarify the factual issue at hand.

Best regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: The file in question was license-reviewed by FlickreviewR 2, an automated bot operating under the Commons:License review process. That means the license was independently verified at the time of upload, not by the uploader. In other cases where the bot can't verify (perhaps due to crops prior to upload here) it may be reviewed by a highly trusted user or administrator after upload.

Once a file has passed license review, Commons policy treats it as permanently verified, even if the original Flickr page later becomes private, deleted, or otherwise inaccessible. This is standard practice and fully in line with {{Flickr-change-of-license}}.

If you believe the file infringes on your copyright despite this review (i.e. you are the copyright owner, and you refute that the image ever was freely licensed despite this automated review), the appropriate channel is not further on-wiki discussion but a formal DMCA takedown notice sent to legalwikimedia.org.

From a Commons perspective, the issue you are wanting to discuss is closed. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jonatan,

Thank you for clarifying the process. I understand that FlickreviewR 2 performed the automated license review at the time of upload and that Commons treats such verification as permanent.

However, I respectfully submit that this situation falls outside the intended scope of that policy. The Flickr account in question was fraudulent, and Flickr itself has since confirmed that the images have been made private at the source. In other words, the “verified” license was issued under false pretences — it was not a legitimate free license at the time of upload.

This means the license was not just withdrawn later, but invalid from the outset, which fundamentally changes the context of the automated review. The question isn’t whether the license was later revoked, but whether the license ever existed in good faith.

I’m raising this not as a procedural disagreement but as a matter of accuracy and integrity. A fraudulent upload cannot create a valid or “permanent” license.

Thank you again for taking the time to engage with this. I hope it can be reconsidered in light of these specific circumstances.

Kind regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: I am a license reviewer myself, so I know what to be on the lookout for when doing license reviews. Hence my question: how would you demonstrate that the old Flickr upload was fraudulent and thus amounts to COM:FLICKRWASHING?

And while it's true that the actual source file for File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg (and its crop) was removed from Flickr, the upload here carried over a complete set of metadata (EXIF). These EXIF here on Commons are conform to other uploads by the original author still visible on Flickr, the shots were made with the same entry-level DSLR and lens, and the software is also the same. This circumstantial evidence points towards the image being a legitimate upload with a legitimate license, not a fraudulent one. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Grand-Duc,

Thank you for your detailed response and for explaining the reasoning behind your conclusion.

To clarify — the issue here is not whether the EXIF data or equipment details are consistent with other uploads. Those elements can easily be replicated, especially when images are re-uploaded from secondary or fabricated accounts. What establishes legitimacy in this case is not metadata similarity but the verifiable authenticity of the Flickr account that originally applied the Creative Commons license.

In this instance, Flickr themselves have confirmed that the account was not legitimate and have since made all of its content private. The platform’s own action demonstrates that Flickr no longer recognises the account or its uploads as valid, and therefore any license attributed to it cannot stand.

This is why I referenced COM:FLICKRWASHING — because a false Flickr account applying an invalid CC license falls directly within that definition. The “circumstantial” evidence based on EXIF cannot outweigh the primary source (Flickr) no longer standing by the license or its visibility.

I understand the importance of consistency in Commons processes, but when the source platform itself has acted to restrict or disavow the original upload, continuing to host the file here under a “verified” but now void license undermines the integrity of Commons’ licensing standards.

Thank you again for your time — I’m raising this purely to ensure that the project’s licensing accuracy remains sound.

Kind regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

No. The file is private (403), not removed or deleted (404). Flickr has not made any determination that there is anything wrong with the upload that you can discern from that link. We operate under the Precautionary principle, but you have provided no evidence that would justify invoking it here. You are effectively throwing around accusations of fraud without supporting evidence, as if repeating speculative claims generated by tools such as ChatGPT. The Flickr user seem to be a professional photographer and I don't see any evidence that they may have committed any COM:FLICKRWASHING. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jonatan,

Thank you for your reply. To clarify — regardless of why Flickr made these files private, the key issue is that the original source is no longer publicly viewable or verifiable.

https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343

Commons policy (COM:L and COM:V) requires that a Creative Commons license remain publicly accessible and independently confirmable. Once a Flickr source becomes private (403), that verification chain is broken. A license that can no longer be verified cannot remain valid.

Even if a license was previously reviewed, its validity depends on the continuing public accessibility of the source. Since that is no longer the case here, the file no longer meets Commons’ verifiability standards.

I’m simply raising this to ensure Commons’ licensing integrity is upheld — this is not a question of preference, but of verifiability.

Best regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: please have a look at en:WP:DROPTHESTICK.

• There's no violation of Commons' policies and guidelines visible at File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg. The license was confirmed from the Flickr source. A nowadays dead source doesn't hamper a validity of a license demonstrated in the past. There's no need to have a perpetual ability to confirm licenses.
• There are no indications that the Flickr source engaged in fraudulent uploads. The specific file is hidden, true, but your sentence "Flickr themselves have confirmed that the account was not legitimate and have since made all of its content private." is plain wrong. The account from Sean Reynolds and its photostream are visible at/from https://www.flickr.com/photos/littlemissizzyb/ .
• It is true that EXIF are datasets that can be edited, see Commons:EXIF. But this needs some somewhat advanced knowledge about tools and characteristics that aren't really widespread. Especially if you have the aim of actually faking a dataset to make it look like a genuine photoshoot, there's a plethora of things to watch out for: serial numbers for lenses and body in a format that conforms to the manufacturer's standards, exact dates of captures down to the second or even millisecond, software versions, original filenames - and taking care of not duplicatinmg anything... It is REALLY easy to overlook things when engaging in such faking activities, leading to inconsistencies, especially when there's an aim to fill a Flickr account. I checked several uploads from Sean Reynolds on Flickr, and I didn't spot anything unusual or unexpected. The EXIF on Flickr and the local EXIF corroborate a valid licensing.

Your case to get the file(s) deleted is a really weak one - it won't result in a success for you, as far as I can tell. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Grand-Duc,

Thank you for taking the time to review this. I’ve read your message carefully and fully understand the perspective you’re outlining.

However, the issue here is not about the technical EXIF data or assumptions about the photographer’s intentions. It’s about verifiability and licensing integrity under Commons policy.

According to COM:L and COM:V, the validity of a license depends on the continuing ability to verify that the work is indeed available under a free license. Once the source link no longer displays that license publicly, Commons can no longer independently verify it.

Whether or not the Flickr user’s photostream still exists is not the point — the specific source URL cited on Commons is now private and therefore unverifiable. As a result, the chain of evidence confirming the license is broken.

Commons itself cannot act as both host and verifier of a license that can no longer be demonstrated from an external source. That’s the core concern being raised here.

Best regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain why your client hates it so much. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nard,

With respect, this discussion is not about personal feelings or anyone’s preferences — it’s about Commons policy, specifically the verifiability of a license and the validity of a public source.

Comments implying personal motivation are not appropriate or relevant to the issue under discussion. I’d appreciate it if we could keep the focus on policy.

If you check the source link yourself — https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343 — you’ll see that the image is no longer publicly visible. You are effectively protecting a file whose supposed source no longer exists in public view, which raises a clear issue of verifiability under COM:L and COM:V.

Thank you,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Can someone block them per en:WP:NOTHERE? We just keep going in circles and MoniqueB87 refuses to drop the stick. Bidgee (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

With respect, Bidgee, I’m not here to “go in circles.” I’ve raised one clear and verifiable concern:

The file’s source link is no longer publicly accessible, which means the claimed Creative Commons license can no longer be independently confirmed.

This is not a behavioural issue; it’s a licensing and verification issue. Labeling it otherwise doesn’t resolve the underlying compliance problem.

I’m engaging in good faith and would appreciate if the discussion could remain focused on Commons’ policies — specifically COM:L and COM:V — rather than on user motives. MoniqueB87 (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

You are going around in circles. The community has stated that just because it is no longer publicly visable, doesn't make the license invaild nor that it is no longer verifiable but you keep looping around with the same argument that is getting you no where and is wasting this communities' time. You say you're not doing paid editing yet you said "client" within the topic discussion. Bidgee (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Bidgee, with respect, I’m not “going in circles.” I’m addressing one unresolved compliance issue — that the license is no longer independently verifiable because the Flickr source is private: https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343

You are correct that Commons policy allows reliance on previously verified licenses, but that is not equivalent to ongoing verifiability, which COM:V requires. The public evidence that once supported this file’s license no longer exists, so it cannot be independently confirmed by any future user.

Furthermore, Jonatan Svensson Glad has already acknowledged this same concern in connection with VRT ticket 2023061210005132, where he previously added a noindex tag to this file in 2023 — confirming there was internal awareness of the issue. I’m simply referencing the same underlying problem, not inventing a new one.

And to clarify: my use of the word “client” was a general reference to the subject concerned — not evidence of paid editing. I am not a paid editor and have no financial relationship with any party involved.

It would be helpful if we could focus on the factual question — whether the file’s licensing remains verifiable — rather than on assumptions about motive. MoniqueB87 (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm referring to this request[4]. What specifically about this photo distresses Rebecca Wang so much? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Nard, this isn’t about personal distress or preference — it’s about accuracy and integrity of licensing data.

The file you’re referring to cites a Flickr source that no longer exists publicly: https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343. Without public access, the claimed license cannot be verified by any future user, which undermines Commons’ core standard of verifiability.

This is why the issue has been raised — to protect Commons’ credibility, not to question any individual or past process. MoniqueB87 (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I just realized why these files seemed familiar. I'll disengage from further discussion here since I might be considered involved. See Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2023#When_should_the_{{NOINDEX}}_tag_be_applied... regarding ticket:2023061210005132 for context on why I added a {{Noindex}} tag back in 2023 (which was later removed) to one (or more) of these images. My summary at the bottom of that discussion is especially relevant. And for those with VRT access, there is additional and more recent context on ticket:2025032610009337 concerning the privatization of the Flickr file. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87, about "[...] you’ll see that the image is no longer publicly visible. You are effectively protecting a file whose supposed source no longer exists in public view, which raises a clear issue of verifiability under COM:L and COM:V." Please understand that there is NOT a "clear issue of verifiability". A diligent verification of the license took place in 2020 and there aren't any clues to as that license was fraudulent. All circumstances point toward a photographer exerting his copyrights in granting a suitable license. Please stop your endeavours, the file File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg and the crop will not be deleted on copyright grounds as long as no other evidence of a fraudulent licensing comes up. There are also no other policies or guidelines which would show for a deletion. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Grand-Duc.

I do understand your point regarding the 2020 license verification, but respectfully, the situation has changed. The Flickr source that formed the basis of that review — https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343 — is now private and therefore no longer publicly verifiable.

Under Commons’ own COM:L and COM:V standards, verifiability must be ongoing and independently confirmable. Once a file’s source becomes inaccessible, the chain of verification is broken — regardless of any previous review.

I’m not questioning anyone’s intentions or the integrity of the 2020 review. I’m simply noting that, as of now, the evidence supporting the license no longer exists in public view. That’s a factual concern, not a procedural one.

I’d appreciate if we could focus on this key issue — verifiability, not assumption. MoniqueB87 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jonatan,

Thank you for clarifying — that context is very helpful and appreciated.

Your note confirms what I have been saying all along: the privatization of the original Flickr file is documented within Wikimedia’s own records under ticket:2023061210005132. That fact alone establishes that the source used to justify the Commons license is no longer public or verifiable.

With respect, this goes to the heart of Commons’ own policies.

COM:V and COM:L both require that a file’s claimed free license remain verifiable through a publicly accessible source. Once that source becomes private, the verification ceases to exist — meaning the license can no longer be substantiated in good faith. The passage of time or past bot verification cannot override that fundamental requirement.

In addition, the prior decision to apply a {{Noindex}} tag clearly recognised the sensitivity and ambiguity of this case. Its later removal, despite the privatization of the source, only amplifies the inconsistency between Wikimedia’s internal documentation and what remains publicly visible.

This is not about preference or perception; it’s about maintaining the integrity of Commons’ verification standards. I am simply asking that policy be applied consistently.

Respectfully,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Please stop repeating same points again and again.

• MoniqueB87 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• MoniqueB1987 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) banned

* flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343 dead link

* flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8464869504 dead link

* File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg

* File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504) (cropped).jpg

* Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg kept

* Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504) (cropped).jpg kept

* diff, possibly paid editing

Taylor 49 (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

MoniqueB87 seems to be LLMTALK-ing. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 12:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: you're proven wrong again in "I’m simply noting that, as of now, the evidence supporting the license no longer exists in public view." The verified license is now hosted via Commons, there's no break in the chain of verification (Commons took over from Flickr), and furthermore, even the Flickr source can still be checked using the Internet Archive. When accessing the link https://web.archive.org/web/20230314023434/https://www.flickr.com/photos/littlemissizzyb/8464869504/ , you see the CC-By-2.0 reference bottom right, and when inspecting the source code of that archive page, you'll see with https://web.archive.org/web/20230314023436im_/https://live.staticflickr.com/8375/8464869504_5fdd6bfe5a.jpg that the archive page indeed hold the very same motif as File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg.

And you're continuing to disregard the fact that a license that got proven at one time doesn't need to be perpetually verifiable. The concept of "ongoing verifiability" is not existent. You cannot make it happen true by repeating it ad nauseam, it's the same thing as the bogus US voting fraud story from 2020. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked MoniqueB87 for wasting the community's time:

• Obvious LLM usage, such as referring to policies totally unrelated to the matter at hand
• Refusal to listen to anything that is explained to them about Commons policies and practices
• Repeating the same points ad nauseam
• Lying about the reason they want these files deleted, and refusing to clarify their apparently paid editing

Any further use of LLMs, or unblock requests that focus on the files rather than user behavior, will result in talk page access being pulled. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

copyright violation by user:Clonerofhearts

Please delete all these uploads. None of these files are users own works

some taken from here sixth dropbox from right to left

other from google image

and block the user [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences,  Done. I deleted all of the uploads. If the user continues, please inform me. Kadı Message 10:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Taylor 49

Curious interventions from User:Taylor 49 on a deletion request, the user user being adding files to it, and curiously insisting
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Yntzkwl

All uploads with content taken from internet.DnaX (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yntzkwl (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Special:Log/Yntzkwl Registered 2 days ago, of 7 files uploaded only 4 have already been deleted. File:Catedralamantuiriineamului.jpg is pirated from F*C*-B**K. User warned, block indicated if problem persists. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Ziv

Retaliation request. The files were deleted with a good reason: the license is not valid. Yann (talk) 16:31, 29 October 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.

---

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

This user deleted my images based on false information.

Thie user justified their action using this [https://turdef.com/article/two-koreas-hypersonic-arm-race| article]

as a source. However, it turned out that the article itself had illegally used those photos without authorization.

The missile introduced in that photo was part of the 2021 국방과학기술대제전, a defense technology exhibition held between November and December 2021.

As of January 2022, when the article was written, it was impossible to obtain such photos legitimately.

(Evidence:https://www.bizhankook.com/bk/article/22956)

When I questioned the deletion, the user simply replied that they were not an administrator and told me to “handle it myself.”

I was deeply disappointed to see my images deleted this way.

Not only were they removed based on false claims, but I also had to go through the recovery process on my own to restore them.

I admit that I am not yet fully experienced in uploading images.

However, instead of providing guidance, the user made a false deletion and then proceeded to file a report against me — which is quite unreasonable.

Moreover, the user deleted my images without a proper understanding of Korean copyright law, under which photos from public institutions are generally considered not subject to copyright protection.

Throughout the discussion, I never used offensive or disrespectful language toward anyone.

I repeatedly asked why my images had been deleted under an incorrect copyright claim, yet received no response.

If the user had simply admitted it was a mistake and apologized, I would have accepted it.

Instead, they insisted that I “handle it myself” and left the matter unresolved.

I believe this system itself has a problem.

While it takes only a short time for someone to delete an image under a copyright claim, the person affected must spend significant effort to recover their work.

I kindly ask for a fair and wise judgment on this matter. Klgchanu (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

And once again: I didn't delete anything myself; it was the admin @Túrelio: , but i tagged the copyvios. An unjustified lashing out from a newbie who doesn't know anything about licenses. A news portal is not a government website. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 16:26, 29 October 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.

JET311

User: JET311 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reason for reporting: This user uploaded a bunch of military aviation-related photographs. But that was done with an apparent complete disregard to actual authorships and sources.

• File:VMFA-251F-35CNellis.jpg was claimed as own work, is actually a PD-USAF image.
• File:Rafale Gascogne.jpg was claimed as own work, but has a clear origin statement in the EXIF that does not corroborate that. Deemed a copyvio.
• File:P8blackseaAASdeployed.jpg may or may not be a PD-USN image. The website of the German aviation magazine Fliegerrevue ran a story about a Black Sea incident with that image and attributed it to "Screenshot via X". Deemed a copyvio.
• File:JacksonvilleF35Gator.webp may or may not be a PD-USAF image. The WEBP format is a clear hint at it being a grab from some internet site, the official US military sites use JPEG, or TIFF for modern imagery, as far as I know. I didn't find a source yet by reverse googleing it.

I'd like some hints or advice on how to educate that user to pay more attention on copyrights and media sources. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi i'm JET311, I'm sorry about this. Many of the pages are using old images. How do I bring images from DVIDS which is basically a defence image poster and post them so they don't get flagged. Many squadrons are getting new aircraft and I would like to keep wikipedia current but I dont want them taken down as copyright. PLease let me know what I should do thanks. 73.189.56.19 01:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for answering, JET311 (if you happened to write while logged out)! We have several tutorials and guidelines aimed at this very question.

1. Uploading works produced by US military people in exercise of their duties is fine. The US government states that these are in the public domain. There's a list of licensing tags for such US Gov works: COM:TAG United States.
2. Keep always in mind that you cannot say that something is your own work when it is not! While you can legally do that for public domain media, it's morally and educationally/encyclopaedically wrong. Naming your sources it always the right thing to do.
3. Uploading US government works amounts to in fact Commons:Uploading works by a third party.
4. So, if you take for example an F-35 image like File:VMFA-251F-35CNellis.jpg from DVIDS, you have to use the appropriate licensing tag, like for the USAF or the US Navy (or whatever branch is fitting). You must put the source link into the source field. I already fixed the File:VMFA-251F-35CNellis.jpg, so you can use that as pattern. Or you can look for similar images in articles on the English Wikipedia.
5. The US military image databases always offer a full-sized resolution in some download menu, as far as I'm aware. Don't download previews or similar in WEBP, look for the original JPEG or TIFF and take those. Please use as much from the original description as is sensible!

Those are the things to do. Now, about what you mustn't do:

1. The US government is peculiar in granting a blanket public domain authorisation for its media. But this is the rarer thing worldwide. Most other states don't do that. So, a e.g. French Dassault Rafale image can't usually be taken from French military sites.
2. If a service member is publishing images privately, e.g. on Facebook, then you can't surmise that these were taken in exercise of their duties. Thus, the service member retains a copyright to his shots.

For further reading:

• COM:Copyright rules by subject matter
• COM:Copyright rules by territory
• and of course, COM:Licensing.

Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

ICTYVTYC1261212012

• User: ICTYVTYC1261212012 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Univox Coily.jpg after final warning for doing so. Inappropriate username per COM:IU. Creating incorrect DRs.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a week, all uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Kontributor 2K

• User: Kontributor_2K (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Hello, please can I request an admin to look at User:Kontributor 2K's persistent failure to understand how to nominate a category for discussion. He simply removes all the images from a cat he does not like and then nominates it for speedy deletion. I have explained to him that the correct way to do it is to nominate it for discussion, and that in doing that he should not remove all the images before the discussion is held and resolved. The cat in question is Category:Crowns in heraldry by country, from which he removed about ten images back to Category:Crowns in heraldry. I have tried to have a collegiate discussion with him but to no avail.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, convenience links:

• User talk:Kontributor 2K#Category:Crowns in heraldry by country
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/11/Category:Crowns in heraldry by country

Tvpuppy (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Lvova

What does that mean "Your name is becoming more and more a household word." [5] ? I don't understand this user's relentless pursuit, although we disagree on closing the photo nomination process in QIC. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

If their native language is Russian (as the username implies) and they used Google translate, it suggests that the original Russian expression would have been "имя нарицательное" which kind of means "famous but not necessarily in a good way"[6], sort of? Nakonana (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Strange place for Sebring to ask. So after one request he told me that it is boring to behave politely and then went here because decided to be offended by relentless pursuit (what?.. no, I understand the translation), and didn't notify me. The problem on QI was very similar, it's boring to notify.

Nakonana gives the good answer on the question, I am not sure what to add. Probably I can mention that for me after that talk Sebring is a reason to take a rest from QI, because recently a lot of newcomers did some mess and I tried to manage it, so if I have someone who is bothering this process, it may be chaotic further, why not. I believed before that restless pursuit is not 3 messages and such decision, but now I have new horizons. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 08:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Lvova: The original issue was just that you closed consensual review of an image on Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list prematurely (less han 48 h after the last entry) and Sebring12Hrs reopened it - correctly IMO, but without an edit summary. In addition, I suppose that the explanations on Sebring12Hrs' talk page may be rather hard to understand. This may be due to language problems or may be it's just that I personally do not understand this. In the meantime someone moved the image back from CR to the general section where it got declined. This is rather odd and I wouldn't do anything like this ever, but the outcome looks o.k. to me. I would prefer reverting an image to "/Nomination" as long as it is not in CR yet (with an appropriate comment), i.e. if someone set it to "/Discuss" without a vote. Or I would just wait for 48 h after the last entry if the image can be promoted or declined or until 8 days of consensual review are over in all the other cases. Anyway, I don't see any reason for hot disputes and please do not feel offended and please also try to avoid wording that could be considered offensive. I see no convincing reason for administrative action or for staying away from Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list, but that is not really any of my business, of course. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Robert, if Sebring didn't understand the phrase, it doesn't mean that the language problem is on my side. I can understand that 'if smth is on CR let's wait more', but I explained my action in my edit, and he

- could make an edit summary,

- could move it from CR by himself

- could answer me normally on the request.

He didn't do anything of it because it is BORING (probably it's interesting to say that 3 phrases on his talk page is a relentless pursuit). This is the problem, it is too BORING for him to be polite. I didn't cancel his edit, did nothing to fight that it should be closed exactly in my chosen way. And even after his rudeness, I'm not an author of the request here; probably should, but I don't try to behave like this.

Also the original issue started when a person sent their image to CR when they should not (after they did this mistake for several times). I corrected it again and again, with pings and explanations, and this time didn't, just closed. I tried to work with the short descriptions of the rules on the page, I helped to find on QI talk page that the rules are broken in every language but English; Sebring did nothing to solve the problem, just behave in the comfortable way. So I'm strongly against your idea about 'you just misunderstood his action', but if my actions have no result but unpolite unreflecting cancelling, it is a good reason to quit. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 11:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The initial problem is that you marked a procedure as "decline" when it should have remained in "discuss" or "nomination" mode, since the last entry was less than 48 hours old. And regarding "could move it from CR by himself," well, I moved it back to "discuss" myself; I don't understand your complaints about me on my discussion page. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Moved back - do whatever you want, I am not surprised by this decision from you. Everything is explained. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 13:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Lvova: Once again, reopening the prematurely closed discussion was correct IMO, even though I agree that the action itself was suboptimal, because the edit summary was missing and because Sebring12Hrs failed to add at least a comment about reopening. However, moving an image back to the general section is very unusual, to say the least. There was even an opposing vote at the time, which means that the nominator could have rightfully requested moving it back to CR once again. So why not just wait until it is at least 48 hours after the last entry? If someone has images moved to CR without a prior vote, I recommend notifying the user who did it on their talk page that they should not do that anymore. Anyway, this is something that happens quite frequently. That said, staying calm and friendly is much better than strong wording (on both sides, by the way, at least in my opinion). This is just not worth it. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

And, by the way, if you reset something to "/Nomination" in the CR section it will be removed by the bot as well. This should be done only for inconclusive results after 8 days of consensual review. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Robert, I will not do it, I am not crazy, but understand the situation, please: if I will go now and will set /Discuss status randomly for several days in a row, what should you do? Probably you'll try to manage it, for example, mark it is as /Nomination again (or as /Decline, if it was a voice oppose). That's what happened.

I recommend notifying the user who did it on their talk page that they should not do that anymore - it is easy to check that I wrote to this user on QI page, I pinged, I wrote to his page, and did it recently probably for 5-10 people, also put the difference between /comment and /discuss on the visible place, and again, mentioned the problem with the rules even here now. I did everything (and during the whole last month I didn't get any messages against such decisions, it is absolutely not the first case), in a random moment got rudeness from the person who didn't, and after that I am not friendly?

For you it's also easier to give me an advice or decide that my English is so bad, but not to check that you're talking about what has already done. I did something for a month and noone said a word against. If you support his idea, why didn't you come and tell me - let's do it in another way? I am not against another way, but if something has already done, it is not normal just to cancel without any comment; okay, he could not see my edit summary, so I showed it, and what I got? Why I am punished with advices when I tried to communicate? Because I am not friendly enough to the user who told me that communication is boring? Hey, even now he tries to make a conflict bigger, as far as we're talking with you, and he just doesn't understand and continues to revert, even when he knows that it is not a neutral action during a conflict (and again, I am not surprised); I do nothing with it, but do you believe that I am the one who needs an advice here?

Anyway, if you try to stop something - I do nothing bad that can be stopped, I literally wrote that I don't want to do anything after such attitude. We can discuss what to do with the initial problem with random newcomers actions, but why here (and I am not sure if I want to discuss exactly now). Анастасия Львова^ru/en 14:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I've notified Lvova of this discussion. Geoffroi 01:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sebring12Hrs: That should have been done by you per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes sorry, thanks. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Blatant violation of COM:NPLT

Here -- Zimbonte (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

IMO yet it's not a legal threat. However, if it's true what they claim, it might indeed be a mess if "our version" is used for official papers, as it's quite different than the (assumed) real version see [7]. --Túrelio (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

If a file from a Wikimedia project is used outside Wikimedia projects, the "mess" lies with the person using it. For sure not with Wikimedia projects, as per Commons:General disclaimer.

Also, in heraldry, there's no “real version” of a coat of arms purely in terms of stylistic rendering. A coat of arms is defined by its blazon (the textual description found in the decree granting the arms). As a textual description, it allows almost every stylistic interpretation. For example, if a blazon reads "azure, a lion rampant or", then any golden/yellow lion rampant is acceptable, and any shade of blue is acceptable.

A coat of arms itself is not a logo; therefore, from a stylistic standpoint, there is no such thing as an “exact” coat of arms. Nor does the version adopted by a public body have any sort of precedence: any drawing that correctly follows the blazon constitutes a “valid” version of the arms.

That said, it's pretty clear that a municipal administration may adopt (for its own activities and sponsorships) its own proprietary design of the coat of arms, protected by copyright, which in certain respects functions as a logo. The administration may impose and regulate its use, for instance by publishing an informational page on its website, an official visual identity manual, or other regulations. However, this applies solely to the activities of the municipal administration; Wikimedia projects don't fall within this scope.

Moreover, under Italian law, the official drawings of coats of arms (those used by institutions) are considered "intangible assets" of the institution itself and therefore cannot be released under a fully free license, as their use for commercial purposes is prohibited (#11). This makes them incompatible with Wikimedia Commons - and btw, there's still plenty of such images here, uncorrectly licensed, that should be deleted at once.

In short, if a coat of arms complies with its official blazon (that is, with the textual description), there is no urgency for replacement, the claim should therefore be rejected and of course there's no room to evoke any legal threat. -Zimbonte (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

User:207.241.245.140 / User:204.210.149.11

• User: 207.241.245.140 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user/204.210.149.11 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

User is changing their IP for the sake of placing multiple votes. --Trade (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked both for a week. Taivo (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Ingvarooo

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

Continued to upload copyright infringing photo despite being warned by multiple users. 0x0a (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

User Klgchanu

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

User uploads images under false licenses and then becomes rude when addressed. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 15:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Account created 8 days ago, Special:Log/Klgchanu of 8 images 5 have already been deleted. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

We are currently discussing the wrong photo license. Please delay the process.

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File: 현무 4-4 발사.jpg

• ^^^^ this appears to be a bad link. Most likely Commons:Deletion requests/File:현무 4-4 발사.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 01:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

2. Commons:Deletion requests/File: 하이코어 극초음속 발사체.jpg

Klgchanu (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Users continue to upload non-free material under incorrect licenses, which is problematic. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv It’s surprising. You reported it as belonging to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) without even checking the source.

File:Hypersonic Missiles,The Front Line of the Arms Race (Defense Prime Episode 82) (Defense Media Agency).webm

and File:Launching Ceremony of the Jang Bogo-III Batch-II 1st Ship, Jang Yeong-sil.webm is SOUTH KOREA.

You said 'The video footage uses images not taken by the Korean Central News Agency.'

It's KFN(Defense Media Agency) and Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN).

This confirms that @Ziv filed a report without properly verifying the source.

Klgchanu (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Klgchanu: What you are doing on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests is spam. This page is only intended for restoring already deleted images, not for preventing a deletion. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyright is interpreted by the user as they see fit, like "The image was used by a government agency and must also be free of copyright." זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv I am raising an issue with the fact that you filed a deletion request without verifying the source.

If you had clicked on the source even once, you would not have reported it for deletion.

Klgchanu (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv oh, I mistake. Last time requested deletion, it was processed immediately, so I thought it would be the same this time. Klgchanu (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

All your uploads have either been deleted or their deletion is currently being discussed. Just a side note, and a reference to the user disk of User_talk:Revi_C.#Other uploads by Klgchanu. I don't believe a constructive cooperation with Klgchanu can be expected here; rather, it would only be exhausting if every upload had to be discussed in detail. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It started by you making all quick deletion requests. (including mistakes)

As you have requested a quick deletion, I think you should also be responsible for the act.

As I said, please check the source by pressing the link at least once before requesting deletion. It seems to me that it was just copied and pasted.

Klgchanu (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Another false claim! Do you really think I wouldn't check your sources? זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You did it. You said 'The video footage uses images not taken by the Korean Central News Agency' in File:Hypersonic Missiles,The Front Line of the Arms Race (Defense Prime Episode 82) (Defense Media Agency).webm and file:Launching Ceremony of the Jang Bogo-III Batch-II 1st Ship, Jang Yeong-sil.webm.

It was by South Korea government, and South Korea navy.

I kindly entered all the copyright holders.

If you click the source and check copyright holders once, you didn't claim deletion. I was watching you request deletion in real time. The time of each deletion request was precisely short, and all the reasons for deletion requests were the same.("not taken by the Korean Central News Agency")

That's what I said you didn't check the sources. Klgchanu (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I really wonder why you're doing that to me. All my requests for deletion of images are only requested by you or you to ask another manager. Why do you request deletion without even checking the source? I think you are a meticulous person who doesn't usually do this, but I think you are swayed by emotions. I feel like I'm being cyberbullyed. Klgchanu (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Klgchanu, I'm sorry you feel that way, but this isn't directed at you personally. Checking files to see if they meet community standards and whether copyrights are respected, suggesting files for deletion if necessary, that all is a normal user activity on Commons. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 13:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

OK. I understand your intention.

Klgchanu (talk) Klgchanu (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

User:BOKOBA veroly

This user has uploaded photos that are clearly not his own as own pictures. Examples: File:Présentation en.jpg, File:Excellent.jpg

I was one of the organizers of the event and do not know him. He does not respond to inquiries on his discussion page, even though he edited a Wikipedia project yesterday [8]. Given his discussion page in this project, I think administrators should take a look at this user. Stepro (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@BOKOBA veroly please reply here and explain this. Otherwise we might have to delete all your uploads per our precautionary principle. GPSLeo (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Ice743

User:Ice743 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
User constantly modifying the licenses on flag or emblem files: latest example.
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

In this example both the original and the new license are incorrect. The file needs a correct license or has to be deleted. GPSLeo (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if PD-shape was relevant in the example, since it's "own work based", and the linked website claims "Copyright © 2019". Also, I'm still not certain about the relevance of the user's other interventions. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It has to be some kind of PD-old or PD-gov. Creating a vector version of a raster file does not create a new copyright. GPSLeo (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Alachuckthebuck

He goes on after me and threatens to block me cause he thinks I'm a sock Ungulatte (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this retaliation? [9] You hit some abuse filter[10]. Nakonana (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is likely a sockpuppet of a known LTA. (I reported them last night, nothing to do until then) All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Boomerang block by Elcobbola. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, can you add the socktag? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thecameraman arras

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

I deleted all of their uploads CSD F10 (they're all made-up flags accompanied by personal essays in the file pages). IMO, it's clear that they're NOTHERE, and they've already been blocked as such on EnWiki, but since each time I deleted their files, they left a wall of text on my user talk page, I figure I'm too involved to block them. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed as clearly NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I've requested a global lock as well so he doesn't move to another wiki. Geoffroi 21:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. The user is now globally locked and I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Uploads by User:AntoineIDE

Hello dear colleagues,

A Wikipedia contributor mentioned me this user, active on Commons since June 2022. I was asked to delete a clear copyvio uploaded by AntoineIDE (File:CF1976.jpg). I had a look on the other files uploaded by this user and most of them are really suspicious. AntoineIDE claims that his uploads are personal work but the quality and the fact there are no Exif make me feel that these pictures are all copyvios. It would be nice if another admin could have a look on his remaining uploads.

On his talk page, we can read that he received many messages pointing his problematic uploads, but he went on uploading files found elsewhere as his personal works. Could we regard blocking this account for a while ?

Best regards, Pymouss Let’s talk - 20:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pymouss: Here's one thing I found. Compare this with File:Michel Polnareff 012023.jpg (screenshot per exif). It looks like he may have taken copyrigted professional concert video and edited it to create this image. His remaining uploads may meet COM:PCP for deletion too. Geoffroi 20:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This was all despite a final warning 16:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC). I notified them of this section for you, despite their legendary history of uncommunicative behavior. Hopefully, this user's empty block log will be no more.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 endorse a block with TPA to try and get them to communicates. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Pigsonthewing

User:Pigsonthewing uploaded a lot of photos, but does not categorize them (well enough or not at all). I put a message on his talk page about this subject, but he reverted it (what for me is the same as deleting and I know not any better than this is formbidden). I put another message with a question about this reverting, but again he reverted it. Can he get a warning? JopkeB (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Please notify the user per the notice on the top of this page. I have done it for you, but won't do it next time. Bidgee (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

LaloLanda28

• LaloLanda28 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Buenas necesito que algun administrador bloquea este ,ese usuario es un títere (sockpuppet) de LaloLanda26 (osea mismo nombre LaloLanda) y también publico una bandera municipal en Venezuela que contiene el escudo de armas que tiene copyright como este (File:Bandera de El Socorro (Guárico).svg). AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Should we delete all files? Yann (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Yann Yes,please AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done OK. All edits also reverted. Yann (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Kontributor 2K

They have labeled the liecence on the flag of Maine as Creative Commons. all us state flags are in the public domain, they are abusing copyright. Ice743 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

 Boomerang OP is a sock and has been blocked. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

BidishaD87

BidishaD87 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Single-purpose dick pic account Dronebogus (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment One more warning, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Minorbx

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

Repeated vandalism. Consider protecting Template:Diffuseat as well. Thank you. Gikü (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Account globally locked. --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

User:BOKOBA veroly

This user has uploaded photos that are clearly not his own as own pictures. Examples: File:Présentation en.jpg, File:Excellent.jpg

I was one of the organizers of the event and do not know him. He does not respond to inquiries on his discussion page, even though he edited a Wikipedia project yesterday [11]. Given his discussion page in this project, I think administrators should take a look at this user. Stepro (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@BOKOBA veroly please reply here and explain this. Otherwise we might have to delete all your uploads per our precautionary principle. GPSLeo (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Info Retrieved from the archives.
@Sysops: Please process this report instead of letting it go unresolved and end up in the archive. This user appears to be uploading large quantities of copyright infringements and passing them off as their own work. I don't think this should be ignored. Stepro (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment delete uploads per PCP. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done blocked for 6 months. If this resumes when they return, then an indef-block is certainly appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

User:1970gemini

• 1970gemini (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user has engaged in repeated violations of Commons' file overwriting policy for years, despite having received warnings about this numerous times (three formal warnings and several more informal ones, see their talk page archive and search for "Bildbearbeitung" for reference) and being taken to the Administrator's noticeboard over it once before.

The latest warning was from me, which was a template warning followed by a more in-depth explanation of the problem with his revisions. This received no response, and the user hasn't changed their behaviour and continued overwriting files. The changes made to File:Großherzog Friedrich August II Von Oldenburg.png and File:Nassau hall princeton university.jpg in particular are egregious.

His responses to warnings given in the past has been to either ignore it (as has been the case for me) or to dismiss it (as seen in the ANU discussion or his talk page archive); over the years there has been no acknowledgement of wrongdoing or understanding that there even is a problem with this behaviour in the first place. Yann mentioned in the ANU discussion that if he continued this behaviour it would lead to a block, but I think revoking his file overwriting privileges is more appropriate. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree completely. The changes made to File:Großherzog Friedrich August II Von Oldenburg.png and File:Nassau hall princeton university.jpg are both overwrites with distinctly inferior versions of the images; it makes me wonder whether 1970gemini is working with a poorly calibrated screen.

I'd say the only question here is whether this calls for a block at this time, or whether if 1970gemini now promises to stop, we should block only if they do this again. - Jmabel ! talk 19:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: Pinging you since you've dealt with this user and issue previously. I think a block is long overdue. Geoffroi 20:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. No answer here or on talk page despite editing on Commons. Hopefully they get the message. Yann (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Esoksekolah01

Esoksekolah01 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

User keeps on removing deletion request tags from their problematic uploads despite the warnings. 0x0a (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. Only copyvios, out of scope files, and vandalism. Also blocked indefinitely on tr.wikipedia.org. Yann (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

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

@Yann It looks like a sock based on their interactions (e.g. Diff/1116179465 and Diff/1116676330). 0x0a (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. You should create a request for check user, so that the range and sleeper accounts are blocked. Also these accounts should be globally locked. Yann (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Yahachy

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

User continued to upload copyright infringing photos despite the final warning. 0x0a (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Moyojnr

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

User continued to upload tons of copyright infringing images after final warning. No own works. 0x0a (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 1 month. --Lymantria (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyright violation by Amirsotoodehbeydokhti

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

none of these uploads are user own works

• File:خلاصه اصول تعلیمات ورویه معموله سلسله علّیه نعمت اللهیه گنابادی در کتاب بقعه متبرکه سلطانی بیدختی صفحه 6.jpg file like this from book's page
• File:1320 عزاداری محرم بیدخت.jpg file like this is belong to 1940s
• other taken from google image or Instagram pages

please delete all and gave waring to uploader

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences: if you are reporting a user on this page, you are required to notify them of that on their talk page. I will do that for you this time. - Jmabel ! talk 03:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The uploads consist of a number of obvious copyright violations (example: File:عکس هوایی از تخریب زلزله.jpg), numerous scans of images out of printed publications with unclear copyright status as the source has not been provided (example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:حاج ملاسلطانمحمد لطانعلیشاه.jpg), and a set of more modern photos with low resolutions and no EXIF data. All uploads are marked as {{Own work}} even if a source has been provided in its description (see here). So I wonder if any of the uploads is genuinely the own work by the uploader. In my opinion, we should give the uploader a week or so time to react. If they are not forthcoming, we should delete the whole set per COM:PRP. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, Amirsotoodehbeydokhti has been warned multiple times at fa:wp (see fa:بحث کاربر:Amirsotoodehbeydokhti). This included also a warning about uploading non-free images. His galleries with uploaded images were reverted (example). After the last warning yesterday, Amirsotoodehbeydokhti went on a spree templating articles which was ended by an indefinite block by Persia. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

In the hours after the notification by Jmabel, Amirsotoodehbeydokhti continued with uploads without license, unlikely to be Amirsotoodehbeydokhti's work. Last upload was on 12:43, 12 November 2025. Afterwards, Amirsotoodehbeydokhti continued with vandalisms on fa:wp (as described above). Since then, we got no reactions or edits either here or in any other project. Hence, I will now nuke all remaining uploads per COM:PRP as we cannot be sure that anything of this is the uploader's work. All the more recent photos had low resolutions without EXIF data. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done --AFBorchert (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Excalibur

This user is indefinitely blocked by arbcom on the English Wikipedia. Today he posted a complaint about Wikipedia here on the talk page of the Village Pump [12]. He has 12 total edits here on Commons. It's inappropriate for this user to move his problems to Commons after being blocked on another project. Can he please be warned before he further disrupts Commons? Thanks for your time. Geoffroi 18:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, you can warn this user. I don't see any administrative action needed at this point. Yann (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Whatever. Geoffroi 19:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there sweetiepie!

What exactly is your formal authority to make such sweeping and definitive judgements? I do not recall voting for you, so you can piss in the wind for all I care - and I am sure that most honest wikipedians would be lining up and enjoying the show! Excalibur (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The keystrokes of a keyboard rang / bringing the sound of a BOOMERANG / and the red nose of Rudolph the reindeer / illuminates evidence for NOTHERE. SCNR Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

That is an entirely in appropriate response. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Warned last time to be civil. Ellywa (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indef as NOTHERE. I predict they'll continue digging and have TPA revoked, and likely be taken to SRG, but let's just start with a block. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

He's still attacking me on his talk page! Can you please take his talk away? He's abused his talk three times now! Will you please stop him from trolling Commons users? Geoffroi 02:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done — Huntster (t @ c) 02:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

User:てれとぴあん

• てれとぴあん (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

After receiving copyvio warnings, this user didn't stop uploading copyvio logos. Other logos uploaded with incorrect licensing description. Netora (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately this user ignored my warnings and still continue uploading copyvio photos. File:Yoshimi Ogata.webp Netora (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Harpalsinghjadon1

Is there a way for me to request speedy mass deletion for these files as well as the new ones the user has uploaded? I only know how to request either mass (regular) deletions or individual speedy deletions. I also think the user should get warned and blocked if they are unwilling to stop. It's moon (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

You can use COM:VFC to add speedy deletion templates. In this case, I've blocked the user as NOTHERE and deleted all 191 (!) selfies they uploaded. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! It's moon (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done See above. Yann (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Claims of adminship by user Beeblebrox

Hello, it's a fairly simple one but Beeblebrox is claiming to be an admin on the English Wikipedia but he is no longer one.[13] I asked him why this was so on his talk page [14] but his response indicates he is not interested in removing the userbox.

I am a bit concerned that someone with elevated rights on Commons is making material misrepresentations of themselves of Commons. I initially thought it might be because he had forgotten about the userbox, but the response tends to indicate otherwise. Could I please have this reviewed? Thank you. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Diff for the response is Special:Diff/1119038198.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I removed the user box in this edit, citing WMF's ToU §4 in the edit summary. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I consider the issue now addressed. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Who cares who is admin on en? ;) If it was a big issue another user could have addressed it, but it seems that part of the problem is that is was coming from you. :( Isderion (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It shouldn’t matter who it came from. I have only been polite and respectful in my message. And many people do care about misrepresentation when the person has elevated rights on Commons, even if you do not care :) The WMF, for instance, cares under Wikimedia Terms of Use §4 – "[...misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity[...]". - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: you are walking on thin ice. You promised to not pester Beeblebrox anymore and Beeblebrox said to you the same. I thought about blocking you, but decided at moment not to. Your next conversation with Beeblebrox can result a block. Taivo (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me, but my report resulted in his user page being edited by an admin. You are in no way in the right for telling me this. At least one admin agreed with me, so I am not in any way in any danger of being blocked. I have done nothing wrong, I have not been rude, uncivil, nor have I done anything in any way out of policy.

Your threats are absolutely not in any way convincing, and I will take it up on the admins noticeboard should you make similar threats in future. I suggest you think very carefully about how you threaten someone and any admin action you take against me.

If you think you can unilaterally threaten me, you’ve got another think coming, and I would suggest you are on thin ice with your tone.

Should you have blocked me for this, or should you do so in future, I will vigorously defend myself and ask for your actions to be reviewed, - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

It's the responsibility of any user to bring violations of the terms of use to account, and it looks like a number of users and admins agree with the original point being made. Your response to Chris seems very aggressive and unnecessary given this has at no stage gone beyond a simple, courteous conversation, COM:GTA suggests "You are expected to enact the community's consensus" and "You are expected to consult with other admins if you are unsure about an action" -- it appears you did neither of these things before going all the way to threatening blocking, which should be a last resort. Orderinchaos (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I had just seen that Beebs had made a claim he was an admin, which he is no longer. It was a one-line, courteous query to ask why he was still claiming to be this. It was more a bringing to his attention that he hadn’t removed his use box, which he might have forgotten about. His response made me realise he didn’t intend to remove it, and as he pinged another admin, I asked them for advise and they suggested I report it here.

To say I was ”pestering” Beeblebrox is a gross mischaracterising, and I have followed the adviseof an admin I know and respect.

As I say this matter is now resolved, and I have no real urge to communicate with Beeblebrox further. However, I reserve the right to communicate with them for things such as this. Say, for example, I happen upon a file that needs deletion review, I would be well within my rights to submit it, and this would necessitate a message. That would not be in any way harassment nor would I be in violation of any policy. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• There is seldom anything more petty and senseless than policing up other user's talk pages, especially those who are not currently active on the project. Consider that Bb had not been an en admin for months now and nobody here seemed to notice or care. Presumably, if these goings on hadn't gone on, then everyone would have just as happily carried on not noticing or caring. The situation would have been different if the user had been pulling out their status on en as some kind of badge to win points in a debate, or had literally done anything at all on Commons since you so contritely pledged to stop interacting with them.
  Scoring some interpersonal technicality does not excuse users from the expectation that they will make a good faith effort to exercise the emotional intelligence of a house plant or greater if possible. GMG^talk 16:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  You’ve certainly interpreted a lot into a single sentence. You also have an axe to grind against me from your Wikipedia days. All I did was ask him why he still claimed to be an admin on the English Wikipedia. As I say, this issue is now resolved, and I carried out what was advised of me by another admin. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't the faintest idea who you are. GMG^talk 18:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  I was Ta bu shi da yu on Wikipedia. I’m sure you voted to ban me. If I am misremembering, then I apologise.

  Characterising my single query to Beeblebrox as “scoring some interpersonal technicality” and of “policing up other people’s user pages” could also be seen as not exercising the “emotional intelligence of a house plant or greater”, and not really conducive to a rational discussion. :-) - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe you need some introspection if your automatic reaction to others is that you must surely have some sordid history and they're out to get you. Leave the user alone or I'll block you myself for harassment. GMG^talk 18:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  I’ve not harassed them in any way. What would your period of block be, incidentally? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  P.S. given the issue has been resolved, and Beeblebrox says he is inactive, I don’t have any reason to communicate further with him. I made one query to him about an inaccurate userbox, which he has admitted was in error, he didn’t change it, but at the same time pinged an admin. That admin suggested I take this here (in other words, limiting my direct interaction with Beeblebrox). Beeblebrox’s response to me was noted, another admin removed the userbox due to being a violation of the WMF terms, and I thanked them and said I believed the issue was resolved.

  You then noted something about me having the emotional intelligence of a house plant (I’m assuming you were making a sardonic attempt at humour, but comparing one to a houseplant has never, in my experience, helped discussions progress productively). I have no need to communicate with Beeblebrox any more, and the only reason I have done so was in this thread, but as the issue is now resolved and an admin took action, I don’t see the need to respond to him any more. Thus, you need not worry about blocking me and I will continue my work on extensively contributing photos to commons. Something I doubt a houseplant would be able to do :-) - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• This appeared on my Watchlist. Interesting topic indeed.  Question @Chris.sherlock2: considering you're blocked on Wikipedia "per self-disclosure to the committee", could you please confirm whether you had any dispute with Beeblebrox on your previous account? Yacàwotçã (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  No, in fact I didn’t. Though Beebs, whilst part of ArbCom, did decide to extensively comment about myself on a Wikipedia attack site. In fact, a lot of people did, but he was the only ArnCom member who did so. He got into a lot of hot water for disclosing personal information he gained through ArbCom and was suspended, so he has form.

  Look, I’ve explained that I asked him why he was still claiming to be a Wikipedia admin, it was a single sentence. He then insulted me with a fairly horrendous personal attack, and pinged another admin. I then asked that admin for advise and they advised me to take this up here, which I did. From my perspective, Beeblebrox has been granted elevated rights on Commons, and after his abusive comment I just followed through on what was suggested to me.

  The userbox has now been removed, and the issue is resolved. I’ve not asked for him to be blocked or sanctioned, only that it seems strange to me that he would materially misrepresent his status on Commons. Initially I had thought, in good faith, that it was an oversight, but his response wasn’t to make a correction, it was just a torrent of abuse. Another admin has now removed the userbox, pointing out it is against WMF terms.

  I’ve neither abused Beeblebrox, nor swore at him, nor accused him of doing anything nefarious, I merely enquired about why he made a claim that is no longer true. I wish Beeblebrox well, as I have said a number of times. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  I forgot to remove a userbox... I'll admit that, crime of the century, I'm sure, given that I've been almost totally inactive and wasn't otherwise pretending to be an admin.

  One does have to wonder why Mr. Sherlock is apparently obsessing over the content of the userpage of an inactive user who he has previously promised to leave alone. I don't check in here very often, so it's annoying to say the least to find that when I do, this person is being a pest again.

  This fake victim playing and equivocating is extremely tedious. I would again ask only that this user leave me alone and find something else to obsess over. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  No, it wasn’t a crime and I never said anything of the sort. I merely asked you why you were claiming to be an admin. In fact, I thought it was an oversight. But instead of correcting it, you decided to unleash a torrent of abuse and you didn’t correct the userbox so someone else did it for you. It wasn’t an unreasonable thing to have asked you. Also, I’m in no way obsessed with you. As you have pointed out yourself, I’ve not said a single thing to you in over 4 months. I wish you well, Beeblebrox and I’m sorry you have taken such umbrage from me asking why you didn’t update your userbox. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  I made a tiny mistake. And guess what, I didn't correct it because you are the one that brought it up and you need to back off from your obsessive behavior. Your denials ring hollow when you are still bringing up things from years ago that have nothing whatsoever to do with Commons. Just leave me the hell alone, that is all I have asked of you, and you already promised to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Beebs, I was asked a specific question about my relationship with you on Wikipedia. I answered it, which was that I didn’t have any disputes with you. I didn’t bring it up. The issue is now addressed. It’s over. Peace. :-) - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  It was over before you started it. There was no actual problem here except your own behavior, it's sad and alarming that you can't see that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  I think this discussion can be closed by now. Almost 50 messages only here. Come on... I'm sure there are more useful things to do on Commons. Best regards to all, Yacàwotçã (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yacàwotçã (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged

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

I ask you to block the user @Laurel Lodged: for numerous wars of edits in the Category:Protestant churches by country: 1, 2, 3 & etc. In the Category:Protestant church buildings by country should be categorized as "Protestant church buildings", not "Protestant churches". Ыфь77 (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

You two again. Both blocked six months. Bedivere (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I fear this is the only way to stop the two from warring. I am amazed this is still ongoing. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

On this topic, we can agree. It's crazy that every time I do check in here, these two are at it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Correr123 removing deletion tags

Correr123 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user This user uploaded File:Loopy.jpg which is marked as a possibly free (but fair use) file on enwiki. I nominated it for deletion since it might be unfree, and if it isn't the request would create some sort of consensus on whether it is free or not. The user removed the deletion tag on the page three times and is screaming in all caps on their talk page in response to my message telling them not to remove the tag. They were also previously blocked on eswiki for similar behavior. HurricaneZeta (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Was partially blocked from the file namespace as I was placing this request - can close now, I guess HurricaneZeta (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Partial block from the file namespace, to encourage them to participate at DR. @HurricaneZeta, while I think they got the message this time, in the future you can use {{subst:Dont remove delete}} for the warning so that there's a translation. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

User talk:SLBedit

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

@SLBedit: is persistently modifying the kits on S.L. Benfica kits. This incident and their previous activity seems to indicate a COM:OWN issue to me. I have reverted their edits several times, on each occasion leaving reasoning in my edit summary and also addressing it on their talk page. SLBedit has consistently refused to engage in discussion and their edit summaries here and here shows no sign of intending to do so. I cannot bothered, neither do I want, to be involved in an edit war with someone who is repeatedly ignoring guidelines. SLBedit seems to feel they have control over the page. As a side note, an account on the mainstream wiki with the exact same name has received several blocks/bans over this exact same issue of edit warring/page ownership etc. Obviously there is no definite proof they are the same user but the behaviour is strikingly similar. Anywho I've warned them that if they carried on I'd bring this here and now I have.

I'd greatly appreciate input/help on this matter. I am happy to discuss it and if needed change my opinion on it but I am yet to find any reason why there can be no logos and this seems to be the only way to get SLBedit to actual respond to me. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: Hi. Since 2015, they cannot be different users; they appear to be one person obstinately editing against consensus. Also, Special:Diff/1061475936 and Special:Diff/1089545062 actually illustrate what you are writing about.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thanks for the reply. I reckon this will need dealing with by an Admin since they aren't gonna listen. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: Of course; this is one of the Administrators' noticeboards, after all.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019, Jeff G., and SLBedit: I gave this a few minutes, but I can't readily see what are the relevant differences here, partly because it seems the edits change the layout of the page so I can't do a quick visual comparison. Can someone be specific about exactly what have been at least some of the substantive disagreements here? - Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Of course. Basically it was originally a minor matter of should kit manufacturers logos i.e. Adidas, Nike etc, be included on the kit templates. SLBedit is opposed to their inclusion despite literally every other kit page on WikiCommons having them. Their reason for why they shouldn't be included has changed a few times, ranging from 'They are trademarked and can't be used on Commons' (they can), to they make the page look worse, and currently it seems to be simply 'I don't like/want them on the page'. This is what I can tell from the edit summaries at least as they won't answer any of the messages I've sent them. They have also removed an unrelated section on alternative kits but haven't provided any info why so far.

It's basically a matter of me saying, 'this is on every other page and the kit templates are not prohibited in any way'. I don't understand what the issue is with them being on the page and SLBedit is yet to provide any concrete reason as to why they can't either. I've been editing kits and kit pages on Commons for years and I have never one come across this kind of situation/opinion.

That, at least, is my side of it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that this appears to be SLBedit's sole activity (at least recently) on Commons, and that they refuse to engage and discuss, I'll block them from editing S.L. Benfica kits as a way to get their attention. I hope that will get them to come here and discuss the matter. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Why on earth are you adding trademarked logos to the kits? Why are you adding 10 kits per row, when they are overlapping Tools menu? You are NOT improving that page! Stop. SLBedit (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@SLBedit: on the kits per row, you may be correct; that is going to depend on screen/window size, so not everyone will see the same thing, but REDMAN 2019, I have that problem viewing the page also, and you should probably defer to him on that point (or better yet, rebuild this using a technique that will take window width into account). But on the trademarked logos, SLBedit, you are definitely wrong (and I am speaking as an admin here): if a trademarked logo is part of the kit we should show it, as long as there is no copyright problem. Many things can be trademarked that cannot be copyrighted. Other than marking the file page with {{Trademarked}}, that is not an issue for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@SLBedit: , @Jmabel: which rows are not displaying properly for you guys? It's fine on my end but that may just be my screen size. Are the rows too wide and if so by how much and I can fix it. Thanks! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: Rows are too wide, probably by one kit. I have a width of 1920 and keep both sidebars active. I suspect that if you shrink your window to that width you can see the problem. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@SLBedit: if you will agree to stop removing the logos, I will remove the block so that your account is not stigmatized. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I won't remove them. SLBedit (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

{{ad}] block was lifted a few days ago, issue seems resolved. - Jmabel ! talk 23:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

User:~2025-32925-15

• ~2025-32925-15 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This unregistered user has doing a lot of categorising work lately, and they have been causing couple problems.

• Despite warning from @Achim55 yesterday, today they have continued creating new categories instead of moving them. See Category:Hispano-Suiza HS.9 and Category:Armed Forces of the Slovak State 1939-1944 for recent examples.
• Creating nonsense categories, such as Category:Monica Bellucci right ear (I believe they are same IP user that created the other subcats in Category:Women ears) and Category:Sophie Marceau in 2026.
• Removing content from categories for no valid reason, e.g. see this Village Pump thread about it or this diff.

It doesn't appear the user is engaging with others on their talk page, so hopefully they will engage here. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Offhand, I'd say that the creation of Category:Monica Bellucci right ear is enough to merit a block. - Jmabel ! talk 22:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

There's a whole category tree of related categories (Category:Women ears by name) that were created by IPs, presumably the same individual behind ~2025-32925-15. There's a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/07/Category:Women ears that's been open for months without resolution. Marbletan (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I would also say that categories like Category:Collaborators with Axis occupation from Bretagne do not belong on Commons an we can not add a source for such statements. This is a job for Wikidata and Wikipedia not for Commons. GPSLeo (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, it appears the user is now using another temp account:

• ~2025-34477-45 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user.

See this diff for example. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. And

• ~2025-34392-70 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

as well. --Achim55 (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

~2025-34477-45 appears to be involved in vandalism: [15] [16] --Minoa (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The [17] Product Safety and Integrity/Anti-abuse signals/User Info is currently displaying the following information:

• "Temporary accounts from all associated IPs: 6–10" and
• "An aggregate count of all temporary accounts from all IPs associated with this account"

-- Ooligan (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I've closed Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/11/Category:Women ears by name and am in the process of upmerging. Besides any block, we should set up some filters or a bot to warn us in a timely manner if similar categories are created in the future. - Jmabel ! talk 20:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

For the record, just cleaning up the content from that one DR took me roughly an hour, and that was clearly not all the damage this user has done. Further, since I could not take the time to look at each individual file, some of these are doubtless now OVERCAT'd because (for example) if I moved something from a category about one of Audrey Hepburn's ears to Category:Audrey Hepburn, I couldn't take the time to check whether it might already be (again, for example) in Category:Audrey Hepburn in 1964. - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

On a "duck" basis, this is probably the same person who twice created Category:Audrey Hepburn with earrings, which I have taken the liberty of handling the same way. Ditto Category:Women with earrings by name, which had only one subcat. - Jmabel ! talk 21:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

~2025-34477-45 today created Category:Marina Aleksandrova smiling with closed mouths, and on the basis of that and the above, I am indef-blocking and reverting. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Ditto for Category:Marina Aleksandrova smiling with teeth, and I will start a CfD for Category:Marina Aleksandrova smiling, presumably the same person months ago. - Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

We have 130 other categories of women smiling by name. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 00:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nard the Bard: Feel more that free to add them to that CfD. I'm going to make a strong guess that many of those are due to this same sockpuppeteer. - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Or perhaps that "smiling" level is OK, which is why I went to a Cfd rather than be unilateral, but the with or without teeth part is absurd. - Jmabel ! talk 00:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Arslan7a7 again

Arslan7a7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Uploading copyrighted materials again. Previously reported here in in March 2025. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done All files deleted. I blocked indefinitely; although this is only their second block, their edits are spread out in a way that they may not be affected by (or even notice) a shorter block. No more prejudice against unblocking than there would be with a typical second block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Hunneybunch

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

User continued to copy non-free internet images despite receiving warnings. 0x0a (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. User is warned and all uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This user was already warned before, so I blocked them for one week. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

User:BPKEVIN01

• BPKEVIN01 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

User has been copying non-free internet images since the last block. 0x0a (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked 1 month. All uploads deleted except one text logo. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Kjw01150

• Kjw01150 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Repeated copyright violations. Keeps uploading copyvios and mass switching articles on Wikipedia to use them afterwards; considering they'll almost certainly get deleted it's creating burdens for other people. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon,  Done. Kadı Message 21:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

User:~2025-34613-24

• ~2025-34613-24 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

That's the 2nd time that an account comes into over-categorisation -at least- on the topic Sperlinga/Natoli, causing massive dirsuptions. The first time was on september 6th and 7th, by:

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

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: I see you deleted the linked category, is this resolved? - Jmabel ! talk 00:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, we can't know if they are operating under a pseudo-IP now. Yann (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: so when can we consider this section "done" and close it? - Jmabel ! talk 03:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

A'dam222222 and Koengerritsma44

Hi, as NL wiki Checkuser, I can testify that A'dam222222 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) and Koengerritsma44 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) are verified sockpuppets of eachother. When the first account got blocked at NL (for yet another sockpuppet), the second account took over the serial copyvio uploads. I think an indef block for both accounts would be a good idea. Jcb (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

 Question I blocked Koengerritsma44 for socking, and warned A'dam222222. Was there a previous account on Commons? Yann (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

No, as far as we know it began with A'dam222222. We identified another sock, but that one has no edits at Commons. Jcb (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

No sleepers found here. --Lymantria (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Ikeya hikaru

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

This user was released from indef block by that request. But soon from releasing block, this user uploaded mass copyvio game logos and those files removed. In the releasing request oath,

活動の限定: 当面、記事の加筆と自身で撮影した写真（CC BY-SA 4.0で提供）のみに限定し、コモンズへのアップロード活動を再開します。

(Translated and highlighted by me) Activity Limitation: For the time being, the activity is limited in just editing article and uploading self-shooted photo with CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

But this user's activity since releasing is only uploading other source's files. There are no photos taking by this user. This gap is clearly contrary to the oath. Additionally, the oath is composed by highly sophisticated sentences and probably generated by LLM.

Overall these points, the oath is a falsehood for our community to break the indef block at any cost. Regretfully we cannot trust again this user. Netora (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

We are very low on active admins who can read Japanese at this point, and I hesitate to act where I really cannot examine any of the evidence first-hand. @Taivo: you seem to be the one who made the decision to unblock, so could you have a look at this? - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Crappy. He appeared to use a sock puppet account 사랑이란 무엇인가 (talk · contribs) to blank out his talk page and highly likely to use LLM to assist with his initial request (detected with Gemini 3 Pro). --0x0a (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done? I reblocked the user indefinitely and deleted speedily one logo. I will look some other uploads for license review. Taivo (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Mass copyright violations by YJN-11

• YJN-11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

As I was exploring this place a bit and going through Special:RecentChanges, I stumbled across File:CRONICAS DE NAVIDAD - PELICULA.webm which is obviously a copyright violaton. Looking at the user's upload list, it seems they have uploaded more than 90 files with dubious source and license tags. Since there are so many files, I'm not sure where to go with this, so I'm putting it here. ChildrenWillListen (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user. All his/her contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Repeated upload of files out of project scope

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

Repeated upload of fantasy election diagrams. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done 3 months, by colleague The Squirrel Conspiracy. --Túrelio (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

copyright violation by KianXBe

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

none of these file user own world all are Iranian sports club official logo. Please delete all and block account because user 've already received warning. Thanks, [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user and mass deleted all his/her uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Repeated talk page edits and reverts by DB SBRP 15

Over the past few days, @DB SBRP 15:

• edited another user’s talk page message (courtesy ping @Filker123), which I reverted with a warning in the edit summary;
• reverted my revert, i.e. restoring his edit to another user’s message;
• edited one of my talk page messages (by removing it and then restoring it in edited form, for some reason), whereupon I left a warning on his talk page; and finally,
• reverted that, i.e. removed my talk page message (and then restored it and then removed it again for some reason), before leaving a message on my talk page.

While this is all mildly amusing, I don’t think it’s an appropriate way to behave on Commons. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Lucas Werkmeister: When you report a user on this page, you are supposed to notify them on their talk page. I will do that for you this time. - Jmabel ! talk 05:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! I guess it felt kinda pointless given what he’d done to my last talk page message just a few hours earlier ^^ but I pinged him, so I hope you’ll believe me I wasn’t maliciously trying to hide the report. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(To clarify what I maybe phrased a bit confusingly above: The main reason I didn’t leave a talk page message was just that I missed the bullet point near the top of the page saying that I was supposed to do it; otherwise I still would’ve done it regardless of how pointless it felt. And I guess I also assumed that there was no “multi-step process” on the basis that there didn’t seem to be a gadget for facilitating it, unlike e.g. deletion request where I trust the gadget to update all the needed pages for me. But still, I should’ve followed the process, my bad.) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done After a strange interference of a temporary account on their talk page, I did a CU check and found that this account is Confirmed evading lock of Left page. Indeffed. --Lymantria (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Great, thank you :) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

User:~2025-36580-27

• ~2025-36580-27 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Please block. User not making constructive edits, just nomination things for deletion randomly. RAN (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked the account, protected the files they've been nominating. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Moonsun147258

Moonsun147258 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

The above-mentioned user keeps reverting changes to File:Europe-blocs-49-89x4.svg. Even though I have posted on the file's talk page and on their talk page in hopes of engaging in a discussion, but have not received a response. Assadzadeh (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I have given them a 24hr block and warned them to address the issue Gbawden (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think that's enough. If you refer to the user's talk page, you'll note that they never responded to any previous warnings that they received. Assadzadeh (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment One formal warning. Yann (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Copyvios

Someone, presumably the same user, regularly uploads copyright-infringing photos of centenarians, creating accounts with the names of supposed relatives of these people. I came across three such impostor accounts at the moment: Михайловна1, Мария Гадючкина, Lisa Caterham and there may be more. If the admins know how to combat such activity, I hope they will stop the violator. @Yann: , who kindly deleted those photos. Romano1981 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I warned the first user, and deleted one more file. I think there is enough ground for a request for check user. Then they could be blocked indef. for socking. Yann (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Might be a bit too late of a report, but just in case

There are three TAs at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Martinsritt 2022 Sindelfingen 19.jpg, which was started on 27 November. The TAs made each one post to the thread between 27 and 30 November. Two of them made (semi) legal threats. The third one didn't do anything bad in itself, but just by the timing and the content, it seems like the posts might come from the same person or from people who know each other. Right now, things seem to have calmed down, though. Nakonana (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Have you considered filing a report at requests for checkuser? We might be able to DUCK block them, but CU can show us any sleeper accounts. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any experience in filing such requests. I'm also not sure whether they are socks or meat puppets. Nakonana (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, while I am not a German speaker, it appears to me that ~2025-36900-85 is at least very close to making a legal threat here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah they are saying: "Let me tell you one thing: if this goes to court, you, Giftzwerg88, will be in trouble, and Wikimedia will also have problems."

The other IP says: "I hope the children's parents will take legal action." Nakonana (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Exactly as I understood it; really only borders on being a threat.

Legal threat issue aside: it's not inherently a problem for the same person to have more than one temporary account. This is not really under their control, and would be inevitable if they used different devices at different times. - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/Vaibhav1506

All uploads since 2025 appear to be copyvios. Please perform a mass delete operation. 0x0a (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@0x0a: If you are bringing a case to COM:AN/U you are supposed to notify the user on their talk page. I will do it this time. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

They are continuing to upload, and have not come here to discuss, so I will see if a 2-week block will get there attention. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done blocked for 2 weeks. - Jmabel ! talk 02:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Rezaei az

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

Keeps adding unrelated categories to their uploaded files and reverting my edits. I have already explained this via email to them, but they doesn't understand. Nemoralis (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

We count you as a vandalizer. You called a political movemen fictional with no proof. Rezaei az (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Nakonana (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis, can you name some examples, please? Msb (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

[18][19]. Rezaei also recreated a previously deleted file: [20]. Nakonana (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Judging by the edit summary[21] this is promotional content. Nakonana (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Their statement on enwiki (while logged out)[22] confirms the promotional intentions. The whole thread: [23]. Nakonana (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep, that's enough for me. I just G10ed all of their uploads and left them the scope warning template. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

User:~2025-36927-86

Block evasion. We should consider restrictions on what new accounts can do. I am sure there are more than below. Most already blocked. --RAN (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• User:~2025-36927-86 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• User:~2025-36580-27 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• User:~2025-34613-24 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• User:~2025-32925-15 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• User:~2025-34392-70 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• User:~2025-34477-45 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gisella Marengo - 66th Venice International Film Festival, 2009.jpg you wrote that the nominator ~2025-36927-86 is blocked, but I see they are not. You say this is block evasion, but don't say here what is the account in question, and the action itself doesn't seem enough for a block. Who are you saying this is? (I realize I could probably do some sleuthing and work it out but I only have so much time for each thing that comes up.) - Jmabel ! talk 06:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I blocked-86 as a precaution Gbawden (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

~2025-34613-24 does indeed look like a vandal, I will block.

Someone else can look into the others. - Jmabel ! talk 06:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I added a missing digit for RAN.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I blocked ~2025-37392-02 and ~2025-37643-99 today. Whack a mole!

Gbawden (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I created Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/~2025-36927-86 and I'll look into a range block when I get off work. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: any further upshot? - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I did apply one range block but that's all. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Schestos

Schestos (talk · contribs)

He passes off other people's photos as his own. When asked, he claims to have permission to do so. Someone should take a look at all his uploads; they all look like copyright infringements to me. The origin of the photos is completely unclear; most of them are obviously selfies of the people depicted and contain no metadata whatsoever. I find this very suspicious. In addition, he has now repeatedly removed the copyvio template from his own photo: Special:Diff/1122781015.

I addressed this with him on his discussion page, but I am far from convinced by his response. Stepro (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Stepro: I just dropped a note on their page (under your exchange with them) suggesting strongly that they read COM:THIRD. As I'm sure you know, there are several tricky issues involved in uploading third-party materials, and I find it is usually best to aim people at that page for an overview. We'll see if they absorb it or not. Not sure if any further action is needed at this time. - Jmabel ! talk 05:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I really don't think this needs to be posted here. I'm only human, I can make mistakes. And I've already fixed the authorship, but I don't know how to do VTR properly. Schestos (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with mistakes, which is why I wrote to you on your discussion page first. Repeatedly removing the copyvio templates by yourself is already very borderline.

But what I do have a big problem with, however, is lying to us here:

• You claim here that you took the photo yourself with your phone.
• Then you state here that the source of the photo is Jamilla Rankin.

Both of these statements cannot be true.

And that is precisely why I opened this section here. Not because of possible mistakes, but because of the lack of credibility of your statements. Stepro (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, my bad. I was hastily trying to correct information that I obviously fucked up. Schestos (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@User:Schestos, please do read COM:THIRD. You are headed the right direction, but you still haven't done what would be needed to retain these pictures. Read that, work out which ones you think are salvageable, start the process to salvage them, and on any that cannot be salvaged please if there is already a deletion request, indicate overtly that those particular files can be deleted, and if there are files that cannot be salvaged and aren't nominated for deletion, start that process yourself. Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 23:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

All can be saved. I don't see how they couldn't be. Schestos (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@User:Schestos: so you believe you can get explicit licenses properly issued by all photographers involved? That is a much higher standard than I would have held you to, and I will be impressed if you achieve it. - Jmabel ! talk 03:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I said CAN. That doesn't mean will be able to. Technically one could contact them via DMs, but chances are they may not see the message or might discard it as spam. Someone could try emailing Football Australia and maybe they know? Schestos (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this calls for further administrative action at this time, but I do believe it would be appropriate to reassess the situation in a month and see if there are still images hanging out without even pending permission requests. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

User:The Wiki Historian's reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

License laundering (see contribs) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

And deleting warnings, including the one to come discuss this here.

 Done 2 week block. It is possible that not every problematic file is undergoing a DR or speedy, but anyone can deal with that, doesn't need an admin. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

User:6D bulk uploading Flickr accounts

• 6D (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user seems to be bulk-uploading entire Flickr accounts to Commons, picking one account at a time and uploading every photo from it.

Many of these uploads have generic "DSCN1234.jpg" filenames and no description, and are given no category, so are a long way from ever being found or used for anything. 6D has had at least four talk page requests asking them to give the uploads meaningful names and/or categories, but hasn't acted on or responded to this. They may not be checking their talk page.

Randomly sampling 6D's upload history, their intention may be to find Flickr users who have useful photos of cars and airplanes, and then to indiscriminately import everything from those accounts to Commons - including blurry selfies (File:Charaka & Me (5811241710).jpg) and close-up photos of copyrighted packaging (File:SPAM 2009 (3221827762).jpg).

To take one such Flickr account, https://www.flickr.com/photos/contri/ has 4045 photos on Flickr. A search for their Flickr username returns 4,011 photos on Commons. A lot of these were uploaded selectively in the past by other Commons users, but 6D uploaded at least a couple of thousand of them last month, including (as with SPAM 2009 above) photos that have been deleted from Commons before. Many of these have generic filenames and no description.

Is this kind of mass importing a net positive for Commons, for archiving Flickr photos that may otherwise end up lost? Or does the required cleanup by other Commons users, and the risk of copyvios, outweigh the benefit? Belbury (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• No, it's not a net positive. If they're uncategorised, they're basically useless. Especially if the filenames are bad. I'm interested to hear 6D's comments on this, before saying any more. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Sigh. Yet another flickr mass uploader who refuses to curate files. I see dozens of copyvio and scope warnings, and multiple requests from users to improve filenames and categorizations, yet no change in behavior. Unless they can come up with a truly stunning response here, I will partial-block from uploading. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Agree with above, I think uncurated mass uploading is a net negative to Commons, since it will take more time and resources for other users to categorize, rename and check for copyvio/scope after the files are uploaded. And as long as they are not cleaned up, they are more useless than them not being uploaded, as it prevents other users who would curate them to upload these images.
• For the amount of uploads this user has done recently (tens of thousands!), it is unreasonable to expect other users to clean up after them. So, I support restricting their ability to upload until they are willing to cleanup all their previous uploads. Thanks.

Tvpuppy (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Through 6D's activities on COM:UNDEL and in DR, I formed the opinion that they have a penchant for a somewhat relaxed interpretation of copyrights and COM:PRP. This may be a (perhaps minor) point to be taken into account when dealing with this report, but I would support the ideas of Belbury, Andy and Tvpuppy (not a net positive for the project due to a lack of curating and it makes sense to restrict the uploading ability). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Some of their more recent uploads (their last few hundred are cars) at least have meaningful file names. I suggest we strongly warn them that they are required to provide some meaningful information about their uploads—description, categories, or file names—but if this is ignored, a partial block seems to be the way to go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The meaningful file names are taken automatically from the Flickr sources. I don't know if it's by chance or choice that the last few Flickr accounts User:6D has transferred have been users that named their own files. Belbury (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

6D here, I am sorry about that, I will categories many images that I uploaded as possible. 6D (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@6D: That is a good start,, but please provide more detail about how you are going to clean up your uploads and how you will avoid similar issues in the future. You have uploaded over 140,000 files, almost all of which need cleanup - not just categorization, but also filenames, descriptions, and copyvio/scope deletions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, 6D added an author category (Category:Photographs by km30192002) to several hundred uploads from April 2022. Yet 6D also uploaded another ~1400 new files without categories (during three periods of activity around 01:50 UTC, around 05:30 UTC and around 10:00 UTC). -- Gauss (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

6D has uploaded 1063 more files in the last five hours. They've also batch-categorised several thousand more of their earlier uploads into Category:Photographs by km30192002 and 246 to Category:Photographs by Samson Ng. These categories aren't especially useful for navigation, though.

Unless I'm overlooking some other edits, 6D has only manually added actual descriptive categories to four files, among those thousands of others, putting File:Airbus A330-223.jpg, File:Boeing 737-84P - 49603785707.jpg and File:Boeing 767-332(ER).jpg into relevant aircraft categories and File:Boeing 737-39K(SF).jpg into a redlinked category that hasn't been created yet.

@6D: Could you put the bulk uploading on hold for a while, and engage with the discussion here about your understanding of the situation and your intentions going forward? Belbury (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

2000+ more uploads overnight, again only two or three files given descriptive categories and the rest trivially batched into low value "Photographs by..." categories. It's helpful that the files currently being batch uploaded have meaningful filenames on Flickr, but I don't know if that's just by chance. Belbury (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

For the upload files, Yes 6D (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@6D unfortunately most of the ways that people find images online, especially on Commons, are text-based so without descriptions, categories, and meaningful file names, uploading images to Commons is almost completely useless because nobody can find it. For example, File:Idk (54451446496).jpg could be a useful illustration of that river or that bridge or the area where the photo was taken or of concrete bridges over water in that area or any number of uses that somebody else could think of. But with a name like "Idk (54451446496)", no categories, and no description, I don't know where that bridge is or which river it crosses; I can't even guess which country it's in, so if I'm looking for a photo of that river, I have no hope of finding it. And without any context, even people who enjoy making files easier to find have nothing to work with, which means the file will likely never be discovered or used. Does that help explain why people are concerned here? There are other concerns, like copyright and scope, but those would be easy to address if it weren't for the scale of your uploads. Harry Mitchell (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Because if the file without meaningful filenames and no category, it is very hard to find. 6D (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I, 6D, promises that I must need to do this things when uploading files and moving Flickr images to Commons:

• Having meaningful file names as possible. If not, a category must be added as fast as possible, if I don't have the knowledge for a specific file, do some research about it. If that's not sufficient, place it in a specific cleanup category (such as Category:Unidentified buses) or create a category named “Photographs by (Name)” (place it in if the photographer names category already exist) and place it in User:6D/Categories. However, even a file having meaningful file names, having categories and descriptions are recommended.
• I would not upload files that out of scope, blatant copyright violations, and random personal photos. If I mistakenly uploaded these images, send deletion requests or speedy deletion requests as fast as possible.
• I will clean up my past uploads as possible and I will avoid similar issues in the future.

Failure to do this will result user warning on my talk page, if I have 2 user warnings on my talk page, I will have listing consequences:

2 User warnings = 1 Admin warning

1 Admin warning = Pinging me and Report to COM:ANU

2 Admin warnings = Restrict the uploading ability for 7 days

3 Admin warnings = Restrict the uploading ability for 1 month

4 Admin warnings = Restrict the uploading ability unless I cleanup all of my uploads (fix filenames, descriptions, and categories) 6D (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Block They're still bulk uploading, even during this AN/U thread. That's a serious failure of basic competence and against the Law of Holes. If they can't even stop making it worse while we're talking about it, we're better off without them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  I am categorising files that I uploaded and newly uploaded files have meaningful file names. And also why you vote block me? 6D (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Just wait untill this issue is closed. Msb (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  OK, I will not upload any files until this issue is closed. I am focusing on categorise files. 6D (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  @6D: categories are fine. But please do also a review for copyvios (COM:FOP, COM:TOO, COM:DW!) and quality (COM:EDUSE), nominate files that'll fail these standards for deletion! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  OK 6D (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  @6D To make it clear: You are now topic-banned from all imports of files from external sources. (Uploads of own works with proper filename and description are fine.) Any violation will result in a technically enforced block. You can request the topic-ban to be lifted when you cleaned up the already uploaded files. GPSLeo (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  @GPSLeo should we add 6D to the flickr2commons ban list? (Special:AbuseFilter/208) All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Alachuckthebuck: wouldn't that be one of the possibilities Leo hinted at with "Any violation will result in a technically enforced block."? A quick glance at the last contributions seems to indicate that 6D is following is promise, hitting them with the gesture of such a block/filter setting right now seems ungrateful to me. Let them prove themselves that they can keep up their will and intentions. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Alachuckthebuck, well, 6D is willing to change their upload behaviour and as said, they must respect COM:FOP, COM:TOO, COM:DW and COM:EDUSE. Msb (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  If 6D sees the problem with their uploads, is trying to fix them, and isn't creating more problems, I don't think action like that is necessary. Harry Mitchell (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  I agree wholeheartedly ;-) Msb (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  @6D, I noticed that you have placed 100's of Volkswagen auto files into Category:Unidentified Volkswagen automobiles, when the files names have the correct model identified. Here is one example: File:Volkswagen Touareg 3.0 V6 TDI 4Motion (2021) (52018409221).jpg Please, see the 95 listed models at Category:Volkswagen automobiles by model.

  Also, do you have an alternative account? Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, I will move Volkswagen auto files into Category:Unidentified Volkswagen automobiles that uploaded by me to listed models at Category:Volkswagen automobiles by model. And what is the purpose of asking does I have alternative account? 6D (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Ooligan and 6D: "Unidentified" categories are not an awful first step, assuming you plan to go back and do a better job afterward but, 6D, may I suggest that you consider setting up one or more User categories if you need a place to store stuff temporarily in the course of catgorization? An example of something this is how I use Category:Jmabel researching. You could create a user category Category:6D categorizing, possibly with subcats (also set up as user categories) if that is useful to you. - Jmabel ! talk 01:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, I will set up. 6D (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

User contributions for Lk1155

Hi, request admin assistance with this editor please. They are editing at very high speed, overcategorising and adding code to category pages that causes categories not to display. I have visited their talk page twice with minimal acknowledgement. Link for contribs: [24]. I am au fait with aircraft engine categories and file naming, the mess would take me a few days to sort out. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

One edit per minute seems superhuman, is a bot or script being used perhaps? Nimbus227 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Strong warning sent to come here and discuss. I'd prefer that we give them a chance to answer here before we take any other action. - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

No, reverting the categories I added incorrectly is quick because I'm backtracking my own steps. I was using copy and paste to add a new category to photos of engines that only had a location category (e.g., the museum), but no specific category for the engine model.

And yes, I misunderstood "categories" (both overlapping multiple categories and using a summary), so I ended up creating some entangled subtrees after adding multiple categories for the same photos, which is what I was reverting.

Some categories are more hierarchical/granular than others, like the Tupolev SB (or the Ki-43) compared to the Tupolev Tu-2, so I can temporarily add a category to photos without a category.

If that's too troublesome, I'll stop. Lk1155 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The category structure for aircraft and aero engines is very simple, as are the vast majority of categories on Commons. High speed editing was happening long before the self-reversions, no tools (i.e. Cat-a-lot) are noted in the edit summaries. If these are human edits then no thinking time exists and no checking that an edit has not broken the page (the purpose of the 'show preview' button) is being carried out. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

It's ambiguous for companies with a large variety of engines or joint ventures, ie: Eurojet EJ200, BMW, RR, Junkers. Talking about the aeroengines sub-trees, of course. I'm not intending to change the category structures, my intention was uploading more photos of japanese engines and adding some missing category tags to index the "orphan" galleries/pics. Lk1155 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nimbus227 and Lk1155: if it amenable to both of you, I'm going to suggest that (1) Lk1155 tries to slow down a little, and commits to trying to fix any messes they made; (2) Nimbus227 takes on a bit of a mentor role here; (3) we take this away from being an administrative matter. I imagine there could be a win there for all concerned and for the project, assuming (as I think is reasonable) that you both have good intentions.

BTW, one side remark @Nimbus227: there are certainly times I'm going that fast, or faster, in an area I know well, and I don't think I'm being "superhuman" when I do that. But I do think I'm being two-decades-experienced. - Jmabel ! talk 05:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I fear this user, like many others, is not open to mentoring or any suggestions. They ignored my first post linking to COM:CAT on their talk page, I gave up posting welcome messages on new user pages on Wikipedia as they were never acknowledged, it seems to be the modern way. Same applies on article talk pages, a new user asks a question, I answer and they don't reply, possibly don't even read it, no manners basically. I am willing to spend time mentoring if the advice is heeded. Let's see what happens in the next few days. Nimbus227 (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I've corrected another 20 over-categorisations just now, I think I have caught up with the problem edits. I believe this user is not a native English speaker which could cause problems comprehending guidelines and policies (no racism, just an observation). Nimbus227 (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lk1155: if there is some language you speak better than English, you can say you'd prefer a mentor who speaks that language, and I'll seek one. Or you can suggest some other accommodation, but you can't just ignore this situation. If you don't respond here, I probably will have to block you. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't read the part of over-categorization, that was my bad, yes, I already mentioned my misunderstanding.

For some pics I added categories without checking if they were already at a lower level of the sub-tree (there're multiple categories with "to sort" files).

For others the problem arose because I was too cautious in not deleting other categories causing the same problem. Lk1155 (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

More oddness today is multiple additions of a category then immediately removing it, such as here (we don't add engine categories to aircraft images unless it is a very clear full frame image of the engine, we would have to add Olympus 593 to every Concorde image). Newly uploaded files have been uploaded in to a category then the category is removed leaving the file uncategorised (but not marked as such). File renaming requests have been added with unfeasibly long file names being requested, this appears to be a desire to denote exactly what is depicted (excessive and unwieldy detail). I declined a few and renamed them to the parent category name (default for 'Mass renaming'). I really don't have a clue what is going on. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C-46D_(91-1141)_P%26W_R-2800-75.jpg

2. Why did I add a photo of a Ki-46?

Because it's incredibly hard to find KINSEI photos that aren't some low quality scan of a WW2 photo.

Why did I remove the category just a few seconds after adding it?

Because I changed my mind, the other pic was good enough and I considered that adding more wouldn't improve the category. Did that break anything?

3."have been added with unfeasibly long file names being requested"

[name][origin][catalog number].jpg (ie: File:Kawanishi N1K2Ja, Shiden kai. Catalog -- 01 00081868. SDASM Archives.jpg)

I don't see a problem with that rename, was it a different request? Lk1155 (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

In this diff [25] the requested name was File:Kawanishi N1K2-Ja (s-n 5312) at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio.jpg. That is ridiculously long, I declined the request. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'll avoid the descriptive titles (location, year, situation, origin) to avoid hyperbolic remarks related to filenames. Lk1155 (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Labelling my comments hyperbolic is a personal attack. File naming guidance is at Commons:File naming. As I do not wish to get dragged into a debate about Commons guidelines I should leave this to the administrators to deal with. I will continue to correct problems unless edit warring occurs. Nimbus227 (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lk1155: I'll avoid the descriptive titles (I'm sure you know that is the opposite of the rules about file naming) and no response from you about accepting a mentor. I'll give you one more chance either to say you are open to a mentor (from the tone of Nimbus227's last remark it clearly won't be them) and to retract that about deliberately avoiding descriptive titles. You can either do that or the only course of action I see is to block you. (If another admin wants to propose handling this a different way, I'm open to that.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about this kind of titles:

"Nakajima Ki-115, Tsurugi - 01 00086222 SDASM Archives.jpg"

"Yokosuka P1Y Ginga bomber.jpg"

I'll upload with that kind of titles and remove the default title that can be long or weird.

And this "Kotobuki at the Aviation Museum of the UMMC Museum Complex.jpg" (because it's based on other's work).

Mentor? As I said it was my mistake for not reading and misunderstanding categories. I don't think I've done anything wrong since then or engaging in escalation (like edit wars) that that are not of interest to me.

I would like to see less open hostility. Lk1155 (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

On further thought: I'm still trying to avoid a block here. @Lk1155: will you at least agree to:

1. Slow down. You clearly were trying to go at a speed faster than what you could do well, and so fast that it made it difficult for someone to clean up behind you.
2. For at least a month or so, in this area, watchlist the files that you work on, look at what others do with them downstream of your work. When you see patterns of changes that are obviously good, learn from them in terms of what you do in the future. When you see changes that you don't understand, ask questions. If you disagree even after explanations, try to do so politely.

Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

User:JennyWakeman2000 reuploading same file several times

They claimed this file is Ichika Hoshino Government logo but instead it is copyrighted anime poster, and they reuploading this deleted file several times. And they doesn’t reply the warning. 6D (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I've already warned the user. If they upload it again they will be blocked by me. Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

... and I declined their undeletion request a few hours ago. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Realcosmixyt repeatedly uploading copyrighted files

Despite warnings on their talk page, this user has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted works as "own works" and made no attempt to remedy their behavior. Based5290 (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I nominated one file for deletion and blocked the uploader for a week. Taivo (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Nerissa Lyra

Nerissa Lyra (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user For stealing pictures from various sites. 0x0a (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

User:MCAACM

User has recently uploaded a large amount of images with "Wikipedia" as a source, in other words faking a large amount of uploads. An example is this one where the user also has proceeded to add the photo to all the Wikipdeia articles listed on the page. I can find no good faith in this, since I know of the same user's very problematic behavior on Swedish Wikipedia where h/s had been blocked several times for intentional mischief. Here, I recommend a firm block at once so as to prevent further damage. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

and don't forget to delete all their uploads, because any rights statement by this person can't be trusted. DS (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a week, but mass deletion of the uploads is not correct, some of the uploads are good. Taivo (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Please no nukes. It appears that the user was careless when it came to properly citing sources, but in terms of image rights, there is no problem with the images I have now evaluated. --Msb (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

What images have you evaluated as OK? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Mosbatho, since SergeWoodzing did not ping. Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I cannot tell you anymore they got all nuked, just one did survive. It was an image that was obviously a cropped version of an existing one; that existing one was published under a free license. @SergeWoodzing, ping in future, please. Msb (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I do not know how to "ping" - have never used that. Isn't this on your watchlist? I normally use the helpful (?) "Reply" function & believe that notifies the user I'm replying to. Wrong?

Why would you be using the word "nuke" several times? All those images were uploaded with "Wikipedia" as their only source and then spread all over Wikimedia projects worldwide. Would be nice if you'd agree with us about how serious these infractions were. Having been logged in since 2008 I've never see anything so destructive, and by a user who did not reply and so obviously did not care about our allowed procedures. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: "Nuked" in this context simply means "deleted," pretty common usage here.

Pinging someone is not difficult. I did it with the {{ping|SergeWoodzing}} that starts this response. - Jmabel ! talk 19:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! And "Please no nukes" means? I assumed that meant "Please let's go easy on this guy", one of the most destructive users I've ever run across intentionally damaging hundreds of articles in at least 6 languages after unethical uploads to Commons en masse. Looks like I need (?) to catch up on current jargon. I was around during the Cuban Missile Crisis and have relatives in Hiroshima. Nuke? OK then.

I also need to know why it's necessary to "ping" someone when we have watchlists and the "Reply" function. I'm not too fond of being pinged myself. Disturbs my train of thought, as soon as I log in and for no real reason I can think of. Right now, for example, I have no idea why I logged in. Maybe I'll remember. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Then I will assume that you will see this without my pinging you, but most users prefer to be pinged. Not everyone uses a watchlist on every project they are involved with (I only use one here, not on en-wiki, wikidata, or meta). The "reply" function does nothing to let the person know they were replied to, just indents your comment. - Jmabel ! talk 05:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Jmabel (self-report)

According to ~2025-39002-43, my reply at Commons:Help desk#A photographer is using creative commons to entrap_users was "nasty". I don't think it was, I think it was simply to the point, but I'd genuinely like to know if others think this was inappropriate of me. Bringing it here myself partly because I doubt this person with a temporary account would know where to bring a complaint (their post was partly about not knowing where to bring a different type of complaint).

I absolutely do not want a "boomerang" here against the temporary account, and I will refrain from further comment here myself unless someone directly addresses a question to me. Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that was a reasonable and not "nasty" response on your part, especially given their subsequent comments. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if the TA misunderstood "terribly" (as in "this is terribly vague") to mean that their request was "terrible"? I don't see any other way that could have been seen as "nasty". Omphalographer (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a great quote from the above ip user in that Help Desk discussion: "the points you make are valid, but irrelevant". Jmabel's responses were reasonable and polite. Geoffroi 23:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

There was nothing in the answer by Jmabel that deserves it to be labeled as "nasty". Jmabel was pointing out that we do not accept "overly harsh enforcement of licenses" and that we cannot act as long as the user remains unnamed and the respective web pages unreferenced. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The original report was very vague. Jmabel did nothing wrong.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Respectful and direct response by Jmabel, as usual. -- Ooligan (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Ricardalovesmonuments

Die Beleidigung in [26] muss ich mir nicht gefallen lassen. Die Benutzerin hat die Aussage zwar nach einigen Minuten von sich aus wieder zurückgenommen, ihr war aber klar, dass ich das mitbekomme. Bitte administrativ ansprechen. Grüße Rufus46 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done commented on talk page. GPSLeo (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Xena4patas

Xena4patas (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked her for a week. Taivo (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Jaredryandloneria

• User: Jaredryandloneria (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Sony, Rx1, The full-frame sensor.jpg after final warning for doing so. Possible joint account.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

uhhh... Quick question what is joint account Jaredryandloneria (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jaredryandloneria: Multiple people potentially referred to by the ambiguous "and" in your username in violation of longstanding practice (one person one account) and possibly COM:UPOLICY#Confusing usernames.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

But that is a side issue here. @Jaredryandloneria, what (if anything) do you have to say about the repeated copyright violations? - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Per their block on English Wikipedia, they have at least one sock (which has also been active on Commons): ContextCube (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC) Another issue is that they're not receptive to tagging their AI upscales as such and when they upload these images, they're just copy-pasting the original image's summary instead making it clear this is an extracted/edited image (ex: I just added the AI upscale & extracted tags to File:Arden cho (chopped 2 and colour graded).jpg). Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello I know I don't involve in this but I see his just use Adobe Lightroom mobile Cirmeson (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

You're also a sock of Jaredryandloneria... Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I was just coming here to say that despite socking issues elsewhere, we hadn't had anything really problematic here. But using one of your socks to comment on a matter about another of your socks? That crosses the line (running two different accounts for something about the same issue), and I think we have to block. - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Im already block Cirmeson (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jaredryandloneria, ContextCube, and Cirmeson: I see no reasonable alternative to indef-blocking all three accounts. If you stay off of Commons for at least 3 months, and you want to come back with one of these accounts, ask at that time to be unblocked. (If you edit under any other account in that time, including editing while not logged in, then this offer is void.) I will leave talk page access for one account (arbitrarily choosing Jaredryandloneria).

When you find yourself too deep in a hole, stop digging. - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Haddad Maia fan

• Haddad Maia fan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Confirmed (still in 2023) sockpuppet of globally locked long-term abuser Rodrigovgm44 (talk · contribs), freely editing here. Pinging Conde Edmond Dantès. Yacàwotçã (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Contributions seem overall OK to me, leaving that to the administrators. Yacàwotçã (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I want to sincerely apologize for my past mistakes on Wikipedia. A few years ago, I didn’t follow the rules and even created multiple accounts after being blocked. I now fully understand that this was wrong and disruptive, and I take complete responsibility for it.

Since then, I’ve reflected a lot on my behavior and spent time really understanding Wikipedia’s guidelines. I’m committed to sticking to this account only and contributing responsibly. Being part of Wikipedia matters a lot to me—I care about helping improve articles, sharing accurate information, and supporting the community in a positive way.

I hope you can give me a chance to show that I’ve truly learned from my past mistakes. I promise to follow the rules, collaborate respectfully, and make meaningful contributions. Thank you for taking the time to read this—I really appreciate it.

Sincerely, Haddad Maia fan (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Haddad Maia fan: You need to appeal your global lock by emailing stewards-appealswikimedia.org per instructions at m:Global locks. GMG^talk 15:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Done Haddad Maia fan (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

User:ToPSURJ4311

ToPSURJ4311 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - uploading copyright violation after being warned and even blocked for the same - Jcb (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done 2nd block for 3 months. Lets see if they get the message

Gbawden (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Abo Yemen

Repeatedly reverting the file c:File:Yemeni Civil War.svg to an old, unreferenced revision, despite being told that the revision they are reverting to is not backed by sources. Ecrusized (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I like how you never responded properly on that talk page, and how you were reverting my reverts with no edit summaries, and how you were ignoring COM:NOTWP. Ofc, this report is coming from the person who thinks that "If you say so" is a valid response. This report is clearly not in good faith 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

COM:NOTWP doesn't apply here, that file is used in over 40 separate Wikipedia's. You've already been told of this. Ecrusized (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

this is wikimedia commons. A commons policy applies on Wikimedia commons 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

So you're saying since this is Commons, you can add unsourced, or rather fabricated and imaginary content to war maps, and post these files all over Wikipedia. Got it. Ecrusized (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

except that it isn't unsourced and there is no reason for you to talk this way 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've limited overwrites of File:Yemeni Civil War.svg to autopatrollers, so people will have to reach some sort of consensus on the talk page. Not attempting to work out who was at fault here, this should presumably end the edit war. I haven't checked everyone's privilege level, but if someone makes comparably contention overwrites without discussion, they will be in danger of losing autopatroller status. - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Consensus was already attempting to be reached before Ecrusized pulled out a completely reactionary noticeboard despite being objectively incorrect in the argument. This was literally only made because he got upset Abo Yemen told him he was wrong. NorthTension (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

No attempt was being made to reach a consensus at the talk page. It was just back and worth reverts between the latest cited version, versus the unsourced and outdated version. The reason the file was being reverted to the outdated and unsourced version, is because editors doing the reverts do not know how to edit vector (.svg) files. So its probably best to keep the editing access to editors who can perform requests on the file, otherwise contentious files like this one turn into a battle space between back and forth reverts. Same thing had previously happened in the Israel-Hamas war map file, before it was autopatrol protected. Ecrusized (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

User:MB-one

MB-one (talk · contribs) is making thousands of edits on my files like this without botflag (not even marked as minor changes), with the result that my watchlist is now only showing these edits and any other recent changes are lost and I cannot filter anything. It is common consensus that such actions are not to be performed w/o botflag. Thanks --A.Savin 01:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

And they continue vandalising even after ANU notification. An ermergency block should be applied for sure. Any active sysop out there? --A.Savin 01:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

1) I don't see how it's vandalism.

2) They're using QuickCategories, so it's not a bot.

Marking them as minor changes would probably be a good idea if QuickCategories supports that, but I don't see this as a blockable issue.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

"They're using QuickCategories, so it's not a bot", how nice. Never heard of Duck test? --A.Savin 10:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

You can see your watchlist without those by hiding edits with the tag "QuickCategories [1.1]". - Jmabel ! talk 06:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I can't. --A.Savin 10:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@A.Savin QuickCategories will currently not set the "minor edit" edit flag, if more than one category is changed. But you could make a feature request to Lucas.

Apart from that, each edit is tagged as a QuickCategories edit, which makes it easy to filter them out on your watchlist.

Hope I could help. MB-one (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@A.Savin:

1. "Gadgets" carry out specific instructions from arbitrary users are considered distinct from "bots". Bots edit under their own bot account and typically receive their orders only from one bot operator, who is held responsible for what their bot does.
2. When you say, "I can't" do you mean you can't exclude any tags from your watchlist, you can't exclude that particular tag from your watchlist, you tried excluding that tag and it didn't work, or what?

Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

copyright violation by Hardeng

Hardeng (talk · contribs)

none of these files are own works of user. All taken from google image or websites. Please delete all.

Thanks[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Five of them are manuscripts or officials orders which date back to 1903 or older[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done warned with {{End of copyvios}}. If this continues, it will be a block. - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Phillipedison1891

This user made a strange and unconstructive edit in a DR here: [27], so I posted on his talk asking him not to do it again. His response on his talk [28] was another strange religious comment. I think this may be targeted harassment either by an LTA or because I'm LGBT with a pink signature. I also reported it to administrator Abzeronow who made this user autopatrolled a few days ago, but he brushed it off. I'm really concerned I'm being trolled because im LGBT. Geoffroi 17:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I would think my harmless (albeit humorous) intentions here are completely clear to most people. Nevertheless, I am willing to abide by a self-imposed long term interaction ban with this user. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

So why did you double down on it with your response at your talk? Geoffroi 17:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't want anything self-imposed. I want something administrator imposed that can't be abused without consequences. I don't believe this user had good intentions especially with the response on his talk. When I mentioned this to the admin above they didn't clearly know what this user was saying as he suggests everyone will at his talk. Geoffroi 17:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Comments that involve religion, race, ethnicity, etc are unnecessary and inappropriate in public discussions like deletion requests. Talk pages maybe, but not where it could offend or disturb other users. Geoffroi 18:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Phillipedison1891: I don't care who we say "imposed" the ban, as long as we are clear that you cannot unilaterally choose to revoke it. @Geoffroi: you may want to permalink this so that if he breaks it you can cite this when reporting.

I hope we can consider this resolved. I don't think there is a need to discuss further. - Jmabel ! talk 22:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Works for me. I will not interact in any way with Geoffroi for at least one year, and even then not without notifying administrators here. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

That's alright with me. I would also suggest simple DR votes that give a clear keep or delete rationale in future. Geoffroi 23:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Geoffroi: I would suggest that if you do not want him to interact with you, do not address him, as you did in this latest remark. - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Am I really asking to much for this person (and others) to just put in a clearly articulated vote that other users can understand and not feel targeted by? As an LGBT person, I don't feel comfortable with what this user did. If admins here are ok with his comments, who do I take it to next? Stewards or WMF? Geoffroi 19:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Geoffroi: Are you saying that an interaction ban does not suffice for you here? Because if so, you should not have agreed to it above. You cannot both have an interaction ban and a situation where you are free to continue publicly discussing his conduct. - Jmabel ! talk 23:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying that he should be banned from making religious comments in deletion requests. But that's just insane and too much to ask. So let him say whatever he wants wherever he wants. I'll stay away from deletion requests since there's no rules whatsoever. Have a great day. Geoffroi 19:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening

• User: Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after block for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

See also #User:Sekar_Kinanthi_Kidung_Wening_(Aka_User:Nefrit_Lazurit,_User:Tayuya_Karin,_User:Fandy_Aprianto_Rohman,_User:Altair_Netraphim) above. Sorry for the duplication.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations by XimenaFuentes33

• XimenaFuentes33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

XimenaFuentes33 has uploaded a lot of copyright violations in their time on this project. All images are unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, unknown sources. Some files appear to be cropped, and some others are copyrighted. Carlos yo (Discusión) 17:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Yann warned her. Currently that's enough. Taivo (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Teratomius Rex creating hoax images

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

This editor is creating fictional biographies in the English Wikipedia, and creating images in support of these fictional biographies in Commons, and does not appear to be doing anything else. The three biographies were deleted from the English Wikipedia, and the images are pending deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TeratomiusRex. The editor has been indeffed on English Wikipedia, and should be blocked here for cross-wiki abuse. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

User:ProScha56

• ProScha56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps re-uploading the same copyrighted image, warned in november last year. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

User:WikiGrower1

• WikiGrower1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Forging an RFD closure under the name of @George Chernilevsky: Special:Diff/1132978687. Omphalographer (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

This is gaming the system, and falsifying my signature. I'm surprised this user hasn't been blocked yet. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Neglected to create subpage Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penis with seeping pre-ejaculate.jpg when making this edit.

@Omphalographer: I notified them of this discussion, as you are required to do above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

There's IMO no real need to notify a subject of a report when that report is much more like a vandalism report instead of a true dispute. It was rather levelheaded by Omphalographer who apparently tried to avoid the stigmatising wording of "vandalism", to go to this board here when there's still the possibility of honest mistakes. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason that that the file hasn't been G3ed yet? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 03:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

If you mean the penis picture Jeff G mentioned - the file isn't obviously vandalism; the photo was uploaded in 2013, and the uploader has no other edits on any project. Omphalographer (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a year. Taivo (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)