Shortcut: COM:AN

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Should we do sometthing about Count of JK?

There seems to be a lot of complaints regarding his photos of adolescent Taiwanese school girls Trade (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Some of the images individually might arguably be mundane street photography, but looking at the user's uploads as a series seems CREEP. (From a quick look, I am unsure if the user knows much English, perhaps someone who knows Chinese can alert the user to concerns?) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts on this comment? Trade (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I welcome the change in assessment. You had previously closed two DRs as "keep".

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:公車上玩手機的女孩.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:穿短裙的女孩.jpg

If it was just one or two images, then one could argue that it's fine, but the user seems to specifically go for photos of school girls. I'm also having a hard time believing that the photos are about school uniforms because if that was the case then I'd expect that there would be as many photos of boys in school uniforms as there are photos of girls in school uniforms to give a complete picture of a school's uniforms, but there's only a single of photo of boys in school uniforms among the uploads while there are quite a lot of photos of girls so that it really feels like the focus is rather on girls than on school uniforms. Nakonana (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

* I have no objection to their being deleted; I see they already have been. Those listings were closed as kept per discussion on the listings and evaluation of the files as individual images. Given the uploader's pattern, I have no objection to wide deletion of their uploads even if some images may arguably be less objectionable if evaluated in isolation. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

coz this east asian phenomenon (students having to wear such uniforms, and subsequently people's interest in it) w:School_uniforms_in_Japan#Late_20th_century is mostly about girls. RoyZuo (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that, but if we'd argue in the uploader's defense that the uploader is uploading these images for educational purposes to illustrate school uniforms, then the expectation would be that they show us the female and male versions of the school uniforms. The fact that their photos almost exclusively show girls is probably what makes people uncomfortable about their uploads. (The other reasons being that the photos were seemingly secretly taken and kind of seem to focus on the girls' legs specifically.) Nakonana (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

One of the photos specifically looks like an failed attempt of an upskirt Trade (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest this problem/phenomenon be raised on vp for a wider discussion.

The problem here is, there are some enthusiasts about school uniforms, but for whatever reason they dont manage to ask pupils or adult models to pose in those uniforms for photos, so they resort to snapshotting pupils in the streets.

This is not the 1st user doing this I've seen on wiki. RoyZuo (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If the uploader does not respond on the consent concerns I would simply delete all photos of people by this user. GPSLeo (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

What would stop him from uploading more? Trade (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If the user does not respond to any concerns we need to block them. GPSLeo (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Might help if we had an editor who spoke their native language Trade (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

vp? Trade (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Trade Commons:Village pump probably. Nakonana (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

RoyZuo seeem more familiar with this than i am so i would prefer if he did it Trade (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Citing COM:AN/U rather than this board in Special:Diff/1028378106 was careless of you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hardly. Small technical error at worst--Trade (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a sock puppet of 氏子.

And these,

Check Count of JK's initial edits, too. The first account may be even earlier, but I cannot determine.

• File:私立永平工商夏季制服.jpg
• File:北一女中冬季制服與外套.jpg
• File:北一女中冬季制服與外套 (2).jpg <- face masked
• File:北一女中外套與冬季制服.jpg
• File:北一女中外套與冬季制服 (2).jpg <- face masked
• File:北一女中夏季制服.jpg
• File:北一女中夏季制服_(2).jpg <- face masked

All were uploaded by 寺人孟子.

Akishima Yuka (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

JK means Joshi Kousei (high school girl); I suppose the Count created this account solely for uploading high school girl pictures? Akishima Yuka (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

At least one of the pictures was shot in a university classroom, so they presumably didn't shoot only high school girls. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

in a university classroom

Not as the filename Taipei First Girls' High School indicates... Akishima Yuka (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Got it, you meant Commons:Deletion_requests/File:國立臺北教育大學學生.jpg (Student at National Taipei University of Education). Akishima Yuka (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 Do you think it's necessary to checkuser? Akishima Yuka (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I must open one, the user was reported to be a sock not only once by not only one user.

• Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_30#User:氏子 5 May 2021
• Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_91#May be sock 22 February 2023

Akishima Yuka (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/寺人孟子.

Akishima Yuka (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked the user and deleted all of their photos of people. If they want to explain why they are uploading photos of minors taken without their consent or knowledge, they can do so in an unblock request. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Could you at least leave them a message on their talk page to explain why you acted as you did and give them a chance to explain themselves? And modify their block so they can still participate in this discussion (and any future related discussions regarding their contributions? It feels wrong of me to make an AN thread that the user in question is prevented from participating in Trade (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I will leave a talk page note (in English - others are welcome to translate). Again, if they want to explain themselves, they can do so in an unblock request. Uploading nonconsensually-taken photos of minors is a 'block first, ask questions later' scenario. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Alr. ill see if i can get anyone to translate your talk page message once you have placed it Trade (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Your responses here consistently suggest that uploading photos of minors taken without their consent is grounds for a block:

• First comment above: If they want to explain why they are uploading photos of minors taken without their consent or knowledge, they can do so in an unblock request.
• Second comment above: Uploading nonconsensually-taken photos of minors is a 'block first, ask questions later' scenario.
• Block log entry, quoted in its entirety: Uploading photos of minors taken without consent
• Most deletion log entries, quoted in their entirety: Photos of minors taken without consent

But merely uploading photos of minors taken without their consent does not even come close to justifying a block, especially without warning.

You also closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Count of JK after just 16 minutes as Deleted: per nomination. The entire deletion rationale was: Out of scope as unusably bad quality. All of these images have heads cut off and many are shot at weird angles. We have lots of way better images in Category:Senior high school girls of Taiwan.

But that deletion rationale does not justify a speedy deletion, especially when two of the files had already survived deletion requests (Commons:Deletion requests/File:穿短裙的女學生.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:公車上玩手機的女孩.jpg).

To be clear, I’m not saying that your actions can’t be justified. But I am saying that they can’t be justified by the comments you made. Brianjd (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I am confused because of what I wrote in my previous comment.

I am also confused about the broader issue. Apparently, Count of JK’s actions were so serious that they justified speedy deletion and an indefinite block without warning. But they were not so serious that they required referral to the legal team. Trade’s ‘Thoughts on this comment?’ links to Jmabel’s ‘upskirt’ comment, which was discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:公車上玩手機的女孩.jpg, where I noted a similar contradiction. Brianjd (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, Commons:Deletion requests/File:國立臺北教育大學學生.jpg suggests that one subject was actually an adult. Pinging @Ikan Kekek. Brianjd (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that I may have seen most but not all of the photos that were nominated for deletion, I think this is an overreaction. Concentrating on photographing girls and not both girls and boys is neither a crime nor something we should be judging; I doubt if he photographed both, that would actually make people more comfortable; and enough of his photos were usable for it to be worth stating some kinds of standards of what will lead to deletion (for example, a photo of the torso without the face that seems to overemphasize a minor's bosom or anything suggestive of a nonconsensual upskirt photo). It also seems completely absurd to me not to attempt to have a discussion with this individual in Chinese. There are admins who speak Chinese, and their help should be requested. Otherwise, I hope Brianjd's remarks are addressed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Could you ping those admins? Trade (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Anyone could. I searched on COM:Administrators. On the right side, you see this:

Administrators as of May 2025

Listing by: Language • Date • Activity

I clicked "Language", got Commons:List of administrators by language, and scrolled down to the end of

Administrators as of May 2025

Listing by: Language • Date • Activity

knowing that "zh" would be at least close to the end. So User:Jusjih, User:King of Hearts, User:Minorax, User:Mys 721tx, User:Shizhao. Next time, do it yourself instead of asking someone else to do it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Geeez calm down dude Trade (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Unwarranted assumption. I'm perfectly calm and showed you how to do that so you don't even have to make the efforts I made to find the right boards, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

call it what you want then i suppose--Trade (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Brianjd brings my name into this above, presumably because of . I stand by that. The photo in question was creepy but presumably legal. It was certainly out of scope. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indef blocked by Pi Gbawden (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Which is fine, but do we have sufficient usable photos of girls in these types of uniforms with even perfectly OK photos by this user deleted? My opinion, which may be a minority one on Commons, is that I judge each photo by what it shows and don't believe in deleting all photos of a user - in this case, including one of college students - because they were blocked or their motives are believed or determined to be problematic. I also think unilaterally summarily deleting all their photos is downright bad and presumptuous, considering the threads we've had proposing the deletion of other banned users' photos that were voted down, for example those of LivioAndronico. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

usable photos of girls in these types of uniforms

I tried to check other pictures and found that many of them were shot with the same device.

What if there's one person used above 6 accounts to upload such pictures during a very short period of time? Do you have any clue on why they utilized so many accounts with random usernames?

February 2023 accounts:

• Special:ListFiles/YWXF9QRkTB at day 8
• Special:ListFiles/Zsrjw1QD8W at day 9
• Special:ListFiles/MeCNMR5kRh 10
• Special:ListFiles/KvYLkGYwcZ 11
• Special:ListFiles/RvYWTeKZeI 11

March 2023:

• Special:ListFiles/FcobicpTdW

October 2023:

• Special:ListFiles/DqPN1S3yAR

November 2023:

• Special:ListFiles/KobeghentF34F9

January 2024:

• Special:ListFiles/Leanmails64E99 at day 4
• Special:ListFiles/Rearwater7295D at day 8

March 2024:

• Special:ListFiles/J7kuLDKf0X

April 2024:

• Special:ListFiles/Hueydome88E92
• Special:ListFiles/Goreydonne69AFD
• Special:ListFiles/CedespantB5671

May 2024:

• Special:ListFiles/Copyhums21357
• Special:ListFiles/Khufubrake
• Special:ListFiles/Racysteep68270

June 2024:

• Special:ListFiles/Paveddeeds
• Special:ListFiles/Stretchglobe9303

September 2024:

• Special:ListFiles/Deniel_marquise at Internet Archive
• Special:ListFiles/Jaysiah_samrat

Akishima Yuka (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Quite a lot of them, same device. Special:Search/女生+制服. Akishima Yuka (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I guess an application that utilizes Wikimedia Commons as image hosting has been developed. Akishima Yuka (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I've started blocking and wiping those accounts. They switched from a ASUS_AI2201_F to an ASUS_AI2205_D in 2023, and some of the accounts upload crops from stills of a specific YouTube video, but thankfully the accounts interact with each other enough for me to be comfortable all three (2201_F, 2205_D, and YouTube stills) are the same account. Without a master, I've tagged them {{sock|ASUS_AI2201_F sock farm}}. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Of course that still begs the question what exactly was he hoping to accomplish that required multiple sock accounts Trade (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

a second time would be accompanied by a referral to the relevant Taiwanese police authorities for prosecution.

As suggested.

Pretty sure they live in Taoyuan, Taiwan. See,

• 桃園市政府警察局 (Taoyuan Municipal Police Station)

Akishima Yuka (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I should instead contact legal-reports at wikimedia.org or write to their local authority directly? Akishima Yuka (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

They don't have any public email addresses; I'd better write to Wikimedia Taiwan instead. Akishima Yuka (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

legal-reports@wikimedia.org? Trade (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

A second time doing what? I didn't see the photo described above as an "attempted upskirt", but User:Jmabel, who warned him about it, said "The photo in question was creepy but presumably legal." Did you see something worse, such that you have something to say to the police? You should note that when I made the suggestion you quoted, I thought the photo was actually worse than described, an actual upskirt photo of a minor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

No. If it's legal, nothing more than a suspicion or concern can be reported in that not yet drafted letter. I'm still hesitant and considering it. Akishima Yuka (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The photo in question was tagged with the categories "adolescent girl" and "upskirt" so someone must have thought it that way before deletion

You ould ask an admin to look the history and see who added the categories if you want Trade (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to have anything to do with that photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The photo is now hard-deleted, so I can't re-verify exactly what I saw. If I remember correctly, you could not see anything much higher than the knees. Count of JK added the categories himself, including both Category:Upskirt in sitting and Category:Adolescent girls with protective masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as Category:Senior high school girls of Taiwan and many others. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems weird that someone went through the trouble of hard-deleting the image but leave the uploader itself unblocked and without any warnings (i don't count Jmabel's comment because i don't think he's even able to hard-delete images in the first place) Trade (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like an deletion request would have been useful Trade (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

It feels like we're currently in a consensus-building phase, where opinions clash and no clear outcome is visible. For what it's worth, a similar discussion took place in a DR that I opened: Commons:Deletion requests/File:常春藤高中高中部 女生夏季制服上衣 正面特寫.jpg. I'd like to have more insights about actual Taiwanese law concerning identifiability and consenting in photography. Is there somebody around who has the relevant language knowledge? (Tvpuppy, you're the first who comes into my mind...) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, apologies it took a while for me to reply, since I went through the discussion above and typed out all this below. I only vaguely remember some of the photos that made it to the DRs in the past. So, my recollection may not be accurate. I haven’t seen it but let me first address the photo of an attempt upskirt mentioned above.

Possible attempt upskirt photo

• In 2023, a new offense is added to the Criminal Code of the Republic of China, which is called “Offense against Sexual Privacy and Synthetic Sexual Videos” (Chapter 28-1). The offense states in Article 319-1, “A person who takes photos, videos, electromagnetic records, or use other technological means to record sexual images of the victims without consent shall be sentenced to an imprisonment of not more than three years” and “an attempt to commit an offense specified [above] is punishable”.
• In Article 10, the definition for the term “sexual image” includes images of “genitals or private parts of the body that are able to objectively arouse sexual desire or shame”. And per this court ruling of an upskirting case , it confirms that the “root of the thigh” and “underwear” are considered private parts.
• Before 2023, it is only a crime if an upskirt photo was “successfully” taken. So, if the offender was caught before taking the photo, or the photo was taken in a bad angle and failed to capture any private parts, it won’t constitute a crime. The 2023 amendment fixed this “loophole”, so upskirt attempts are now also punishable.
• Jmabel’s comment above did say the photo only show up to the knees, so it is likely the image is not illegal, but at the same time it could be illegal if it was indeed an attempt of upskirting.

Other photos

• Since the photos are now deleted, I can’t comment on them for certain. But from what I gathered from DRs and the discussion above, the images in question are girls in their school uniform but without their face shown. In Taiwan, as mentioned in Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Taiwan, the “right of portrait” only apply if the “facial features” are recognizable or shown fully. And the Personal Data Protection Act only applies if the image contains identifiable information personal data about the depicted subject (i.e. names, phone numbers, educational background) (Edited, see comment below). Also, if the image doesn’t show any “private parts”, then it will not constitute as an “offense against privacy”.
• However, this would be fine if we are evaluating them individually, as mentioned above by Infrogmation. The problem is that the uploader had a pattern of uploading series of schoolgirl photographs. This reminds me of a recent case in March 2025, seen here in this BBC Chinese article . This case is in a much bigger scale, which there was a whole website dedicated for sharing images of schoolgirl in uniforms. The person created the site was arrested for violations of copyright, personal data protection, and most importantly for “offense against morality” (妨害風化罪).
• In Article 235 of “offense against morality” states it is an offense to “distributes, broadcasts, sells, publicly displays, or by other means to show an obscene writing, picture, audio record, video record, or any other object to another person”. The law doesn’t have definition for “obscene” but in Interpretation No. 617 (2006) , it refers “obscenity” as “objectively sufficient to stimulate or satisfy sexual desire, which its content can be connected with the description and discussion of sexual organs, sexual behaviour and sexual culture, but must limited to those who caused shame or disgust of ordinary people, and violated the moral feelings and hindered the morality of society“ (rough translation of “指客觀上足以刺激或滿足性慾，其內容可與性器官、性行為及性文化之描繪與論述聯結，且須以引起普通一般人羞恥或厭惡感而侵害性的道德感情，有礙於社會風化者為限”).
• Obviously, the case for the schoolgirl uniform website is still ongoing, so it is unsure if images distributed in this nature will be considered “obscene” by the courts. However, just the fact that someone was arrested for distributing mass amount of schoolgirl images and there is a case ongoing is enough for me to say this behaviour should not be allowed on Commons for the time being (and hopefully for the future).

In summary, I support the deletion of the images in question, given the fact that it is not like a couple images out of all their uploads, but a clear pattern of uploading series of schoolgirl uniform images. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Personal Data Protection Act only applies if the image contains identifiable information — Would wearing a school uniform of a particular identifiable school possibly count as "identifiable information"? Nakonana (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I used the term “identifiable information“, but I meant “personal data”. In Article 51 of Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), it states the PDPA does not apply “where audio-visual data is collected, processed, or used in public places or public activities and not connected to other personal data”. This means if the images are in fact “connected to other personal data”, then PDPA applies. Also in Article 2, the definition of “personal data” includes “educational background”. So, my understanding is just depicting someone wearing an uniform will not be in violation, but if the school name is also indicated (which is the case for many images in question), that could be in violation of the PDPA (if without consent). Thanks for pointing this out, I edited my comment before to include this. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed information. Seems there are enough reasons for calling them. For example,

• legal-reports@wikimedia.org
• meta:Wikimedia Taiwan
• Taoyuan Police <- their website doesn't have a public email address

The last factor must know this user's IP addresses, or less it's useless, which will expire in 3 months, and are protected by foundation:Policy:Privacy policy. What's the proper method to get they acquire that? Akishima Yuka (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Have sent one asking for assistance to the first address. Akishima Yuka (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

It might be useful to also try the Institute of Watch Internet Network (website: https://i.win.org.tw), they are an organization set up by the government in Taiwan to handle complaints about inappropriate content online, see zh:iWIN網路內容防護機構. Note that their website is completely in Chinese. Tvpuppy (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you believe the images should have been up for an deletion request instead of having been outright deleted? Trade (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree having a DR can be useful because it would have allowed for discussion among users (including the uploader) and let the admins see what the consensus is. But in a way, I feel like this thread is similar to a discussion in DR. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Revdels requested

• File:Robert Prevost in 2012 A.webm
• File:Robert Prevost in 2012 B.webm

Please revdel the original uploads and leave the newest revs, which have music trimmed from them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Help needed from German speaking admin

Please see Template talk:NoUploads/i18n/de Jarekt (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

In the first paragraph they are complaining that list items start with a capital/uppercase letter instead of a lowercase. They argue that lowercase would be the correct thing to do since the list items end with a comma or semicolon instead of a period.

In the second paragraph they point out two typos/grammar errors:

• „und es gilt eines der Public-Domain-Lizenzvorlage für die USA“

should be changed to

• „und es gilt eine der Public-Domain-Lizenzvorlagen für die USA“.

And

• „können in die englischsprachige Wikipedia hochgeladen werden“

should be changed to

• „können in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hochgeladen werden“

Nakonana (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

In their second post they point out two more typos/grammar errors:

• unter einer offenen Lizen

should be changed to

• unter einer freien Lizenz

And towards the end of the text the word "Schöpfungshöhe" is missing an "ö" letter. (The correct spelling is "Schöpfungshöhe" with two ö's in it.) Nakonana (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, IMO, it's unnecessary to change the capital/uppercase letters in the list. The 2 mistakes in the "Public-Domain-Lizenzvorlage für die USA"-sentence should indeed be changed, also the "offenen" to "freien". I found Schöpfungshöhe written correctly in both instances. Any changes here likely require a translation-admin, "normal" admin-rights are probably not sufficient.--Túrelio (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

These 3 users seem to be the same person:

• CumulonimbusNube (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• CerroSeler (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Fosfatow (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

They all use the same camera to take the photos of the same clouds within seconds according to the timestamp (File:Nube cinturón de la nube Cumulonimbus.jpg, File:Nube Cumulonimbus.jpg and File:Nube cumulunimbus.jpg). The accounts have been created successively, each uploading a limited series of images and then becoming unused. The uploads are not vandalism and I am not sure what an administrator could do but I want to report it as this seems like the creation of sockpuppets.

Pierre cb (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done All blocked. User may request unblock on ONE of them, if they agree not to create any further socks. Bedivere (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

CNEcija12345 (new report)

• CNEcija12345 (talk · contribs)

Repeat reporting of this user after no action over Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 99#CNEcija12345.

Kindly check again, the user's uploading behavior resembling that of Valenzuela400 (talk · contribs) cannot be ignored. For example:

• The tendency to overwrite and leave messy file history (compare this and this).
• COM:WEBHOST-style contributions, with near-duplicate redundant files, for instance, File:Sapang Maragul Bridge Sluice Gate CNE 05.jpg, File:Sapang Maragul Bridge Sluice Gate CNE 07.jpg, and File:Sapang Maragul Bridge Sluice Gate CNE 08.jpg (with Category:Sapang Maragul Bridge - Sluice Gate hosting an excess of 15, instead of reasonable number of files for an ordinary sluice gate within a day, like 2-3 files for that particular day). Compare this with: File:2025-01-01 North Triangle Common Station construction facade4.jpg, File:2025-01-01 North Triangle Common Station construction views10.jpg, and File:2025-01-01 North Triangle Common Station construction3.jpg by Valenzuela 400.
• For uncropped ones, the image resolutions are strikingly similar: 4096x3072px and are cleared of metadata (presumably to avoid detection of being connected to other related accounts). Compare: File:Kitchenware in museums 74.jpg (from CNEcija12345) vs. File:El Pollo Loco Philippines dining3.jpg (from Valenzuela400).

Ping also @Beeblebrox: , to whom I reported about Valenzuela400 before. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll add that CNEcija12345's responses at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arnedo-Lacanilao House CNE 16.jpg gives some Judgefloro-esque vibes (due to very formal nature). ("I affirm that all photos here uploaded are taken by myself and no other despite some stress, and the shop attendant never touched the uploading, I just had them check my photos, after that, I finalized, but I notice the duplicating in uploading, so I had to upload new versions, apology if I ever made a mistake, and I personally took the photos without any aid from another, very truly yours.") JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

In this archived Archive 99 complaint by User JWilz12345 I submitted evidence against the allegations of the complainant. Here, I humbly appeal to all reviewing kind administrators and editors to look at the proofs hereunder submitted. My father from Kansai, Fujian left me a legacy of wisdom. "Life is suffering and if you face the trials, namely bitterness, anger, hatred and stress, remember One Word, Truth. It is the light that destroys every darkness." Now, I state my strongest ever opposition to all the allegations of JWilz12345. First, it is plain that I am accused of committing Cypercrime - stalker, imitator, falsely pretending in Commons that I am https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentino_Floro or his alleged blocked socks Valenzuela 400 and or User Judgefloro, by uploading photos for illegal purposes. To counter, my uploads are simply grouped into 3 categories: a. the culinary local and universal treasures - cuisines made from antique recipes, b. the heritage houses where even Jose Rizal with the rich and famous visited and had dinner at, and c. the graves and resting places of the artists, heroes, Presidents and other notable burials. Second, I never edited Wikipedia nor used its uploader. I reviewed the mass deletions requests and found that Commons prohibit FOP, web hosting, self promotion, etc. Thus, my main goal is that someday my photos would be used in International magazines, newspapers and thesis. Third, I discovered that due to hard works of editors, they take photos of their interests and insert them in Wikipedia or other sister projects. This is not my punto de vista. I desire that other users or even one will insert my photos in Wikipedia or its sister projects, instead of I editing Wikipedia and putting my photos therein. This makes me different from Valenzuela 400 and even Judgefloro socks. My works are for a legitimate purpose, I might have made mistakes especially the ongoing 3 deletions, editors also make mistake. My Special contributions and Uploads are the fruits of my foot walk hard working photography. I am an honorable person of Nueva Ecija and my name was never stained and I had and have no enemies.

Fourth, please kindly review my works which are totally different from Valenzuela 400 and Judgefloro: 13 Historic houses in Guagua, Pampanga, 5 Heritage Houses of Mabalacat 7 Heritage Houses of Apalit, Pampanga 8 Heritage Houses of Mexico, Pampanga Vivencio Cuyugan House some but not all of Henson-Hizon House 4 Old houses in Arayat, Pampanga Ciriaco De Miranda House Daniel Lacson House Ayuyao-David House Feliciano-Paras House Gueco-Aquino House Morales-Laxamana House Ordoñez-Calma House Sanchez Carreon House Cayetano Rivera House Andres Luciano House

Fifth, kindly see my heritage photos which are totally different in style and greatness from Valenzueala 400 and Judgefloro socks - 358 photos of 225 photos of Notable Burials at the Manila North Cemetery Burials at the Manila Memorial Park – Sucat 117 photos of Burials at Libingan ng mga Bayani 83 photos of Burials at La Loma Cemetery most of Roberto Gaa 57 photos Burials at San Agustin Church (Manila) 59 at Burials at Himlayang Pilipino Memorial Park in my current 7,671 contributions as of May 2025 from 11 February 2025, there are only 3 or 4 DRs and in one DR Keep comment by veteran editor Ping also @ User:Ikan Kekek. It is never the policy of Commons or its founders to block or punish one who contributes encyclopedic, heritage and landmark photos, contributions, it greatly saddens me that only one editor has gravely accused me of a prime sin which I never committed.

Sixth - Overwriting was necessary here mausoleum where the alleged killer of James L. Gordon lies; I was afraid that FOP might be invoked so I put the latest photo, the entrance instead; my contributions never used Commons as blog or host for personal gain Web host; the P 7.5 billion Sapang Maragul Bridge - Sluice Gate has only 15 photos both of the bridge, the gate, the River and historical plaque. Contra this, please view the files of JWilz12345 - most of them, taken are circling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulilan particularly JWilz12345's Barangay Poblacion and Longos where College of Our Lady of Mercy of Pulilan Foundation Inc, Colegio de Santa Philomena, Pulilan Church, River and roads. JWilz12345's photos duplicate most of the tons of uploads by blocked User Judgefloro and socks. Here Meta Roller Skater, a roller coaster attraction at the Enchanted Kingdom in Santa Rosa, Laguna, the Philippines. Photo taken during our educational trip on October 16, 2019 I think this photo is not permitted by the school and I remember that a Pangasinan editor or sysop said that vacation (here school) photos are no no no at Commons but can be in Facebook. Regarding "xxx 4096x3072px and are cleared of metadata (presumably to avoid detection of being connected to other related accounts)xxx suffice it to say that I edit, crop, rotate and enhance my of original files, using internet tools, but I keep my originals for later private auctions; moreover, I need to hide the meta details for my security, since my present job is sensitive. In Deletion requests/File:Arnedo-Lacanilao House CNE 16.jpg I agreed to deletion due to duplicate file I suffered a bug or computer repetition when I pushed the upload button. Regarding the Judgefloro-esque vibes (due to very formal nature). ("I affirm that all photos here uploaded are taken by myself and no other despite some stress, and the shop attendant never touched the uploading, I just had them check my photos, after that, I finalized, but I notice the duplicating in uploading, so I had to upload new versions, apology if I ever made a mistake, and I personally took the photos without any aid from another, very truly yours.") - these are not Judgefloro's words. I did paraphrase the SC Certification of Non-forum shopping, "I hereby certify that I xxx" since a Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija Branch Clerk of Court asked my advice as consultant in Arbitration of trial cases and I browsed upon the legal form - flimsy accusations so to speak. Seventh, the real score and root of all these sock accusations, is, as I reviewed the long entanglement and discussions ad hominem attacks by User Judgefloro vs jwilz, and why was I included in this fight.Thank you CNEcija12345 (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC).

In addition, I humbly submit as counter-evidence my recent heritage photos:Guinness World Records certificates San Rafael Bulacan 7 photos Manila Marriott Hotel 5 photos Retaking of Nichols Airfield in World War II 13 photos Gordon Ramsay Bar & Grill (Manila) some of Interior of Casa Manila most interior 2025 photos of Barbara's Heritage Restaurant 37 photos Alviera Estates 39 photos State funeral of Nora Aunor sincerely CNEcija12345 (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC).

@CNEcija12345 kindly respond appropriately, and do not drag my uploads to your arguments. My concerns are regarding your uploads, which are too similar in uploading patterns with those of Judgefloro and Valenzuela400.

Your very lo-ong reply doesn't clear things up; you are confusing the entire matter. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@CNEcija12345: I have skimmed your overly long and legalistic reply, and will be damned if I am going to read it more closely. I was neutral on this before, and am now leaning toward blocking your account on sheer annoyance factor. - Jmabel ! talk 00:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that despite CNEcija12345's denial, I believe that they are another sockpuppet of Judgefloro. While they tried to evade detection by scrubbing EXIF data from photos and doing some cropping, the pattern of behavior (e.g., overwriting uploads, flooding of similar photos) and their overly formal speech patterns in their replies strongly hints that they are a sockpuppet. —seav (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

My defense on my uploads vs false accusations of CNEcija12345

CNEcija12345 cites File:EK Roller Skater 20191016jwilz.jpg as their counter argument against my concern of their Judgefloro/Valenzuela400-type uploading behavior. While it's true that I added reference to my past field trip in my file, I added it for transparency. Note also that I only shared two images of the same roller coaster of the w:en:Enchanted Kingdom (the other is File:EK Roller Skater 20191016-2jwilz.jpg). While it is true that I uploaded my photos of a couple of objects that Judgefloro took, like our town's church, it is evident that I have limits in photographing such objects; like, only two to five images of the same church for a particular day in a particular month or year, not like dozens of near-identical images which was the habit of Judgefloro. For roads, only one or two images per barangay segment within a year (like Category:Pulilan-Calumpit Road), not dozens of images within a barangay segment of a road in one particular year like what Judgefloro did. CNEcija12345's accusations are baseless and diverting the real issue which is their uploading habits that are likely mimicking those of Valenzuela400's. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done A duck is a duck. Bedivere (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Terugplaatsen foto's

Goedemorgen, wanneer worden deze foto's teruggeplaatst? Deze zijn op 2 en 3 mei onterecht verwijderd wegens copyright schending. Met vriendelijke groet namen het Cameramuseum Zierikzee, Hans Schalk. 05:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Muzeeland (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Muzeeland: Hallo en welkom. Meerdere foto's van camera's uit uw museum zijn verwijderd omdat onze redacteuren uw website "Camera Museum Zierikzee" https://cameramuseum.nl/ hebben beoordeeld en deze gemarkeerd hebben met "Copyright: Stichting Cameramuseum - 2025 - Alle rechten voorbehouden". Wilt u deze markering aanpassen zodat deze overeenkomt met "Copyright: Stichting Cameramuseum - 2025 - All rights reserved". Please either change that marking to match "the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license" ("de Creative Commons Naamsvermelding-GelijkDelen 4.0 Internationaal licentie") ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}) die gebruikt wordt in VRT/nl Ticket:2025042210009986, of breid dat ticket uit zodat de rest van deze foto's eronder vallen?

Hi, and welcome. Multiple photos of cameras from your museum have been subjected to deletion because our editors reviewed your "Camera Museum Zierikzee" website https://cameramuseum.nl/ and found it to be marked "Copyright: Stichting Cameramuseum - 2025 - All rights reserved". Please either change that marking to match "the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license" ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}) used in VRT Ticket:2025042210009986, or expand that ticket to cover the rest of such photos.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Requesting Adamant1 dispute handed to the U4C

There is again a dispute with User:Adamant1 (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Adamant1 (again)). There was an now self reverted formally incorrect block by involved admin User:Yann. The problem is that most Commons admins are involved in the dispute. Therefore I would suggest that we as Commons admins decide that we can not make a decision in this case and as we do not have our own ArbCom request the U4C to decide in this case.

Please do not discuss the dispute here. This intentionally separate thread is only to discuss if we should request the U4C decide in this case. GPSLeo (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that. Bedivere (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I would support that. This is a complex issue with several of the most active Commons admins involved. Having outside eyes would be useful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not involved and I'm almost every day available. I'm volunteering for next decision, if needed. But the problem is difficult and probably U4C is a good decision. Taivo (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

As one of the involved parties, I would support U4C assistance. Abzeronow (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to ask the U4C to handle this as part of the currently on hold commons case, due to similarity of the issues in both cases (admins blocking non-admins who they have a history of disputes with). All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Info I now created the U4C case m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/User conduct and block review where Commons admins are to involved. GPSLeo (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Request block for Moriay

The copyright upload have been marked and suspectious images for contributions because violating copyright. A belief matched for Tasnim. Tore3att (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done The first group was deleted as copyvios, but the second group was deleted as duplicates. Tasnim releases their work under a free license, as is immediately obvious if you follow any of the source links. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Request block for NudistPhotographer

An images publicly uploading are illegal pornography for images for contributions. Tore3att (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This seems to happen all the time. If you really want to block me then block me, but people are getting value out of my contributions. Every deletion request has been removed. NudistPhotographer (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Illegal where, User:Tore3att? I'm sure they're illegal in Saudi Arabia, but that's irrelevant. And they obviously should not be blocked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Nonsense, obviously. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  Not done not happening. --Bedivere (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Boomerang After looking at Tore3att's contributions more closely, I've indeffed them. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

im supporting the block for at least 1 year. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 20:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Modern primat: The OP's request or the boomerang?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

boomearng modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 07:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

DRs to remove

Can an admin remove the deletion request notices from these files please? (The nominator withdrew the requests by blanking the DR pages.)

• File:Le Forestier 2022 Roger Langevin.jpg
• File:Le Trimural à Rimouski de Roger Langevin Sculpteur.JPG
• File:La lectrice de Roger Langevin - sculpteur.JPG

Thank you. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Rosenzweig τ 23:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)