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

Note

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

User:Altair Netraphim

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

• All uploads should be checked closely; (example File:Lorong Sanatorium Pakem.jpg, claimed as own work) fake EXIF ​​data has been addressed before, and User was blocked for a week. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 122#User:Altair Netraphim.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Sir/Madam,

First of all, I apologize. In the past few weeks, we have only just begun rechecking the uploaded images, as there are quite a lot of them. Many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, and some were uploaded by other colleagues on various platforms, including Facebook and cultural service (Dinas Kebudayaan). We are making efforts to establish partnerships with cultural heritage communities, relevant institutions, and agencies responsible for cultural heritage. However, the old images they provided have unfortunately lost their metadata. This is why I have only recently started reviewing each of the images that have been flagged on my talk page, one by one. Altair Netraphim (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim: Kindly review faster than you upload, so as to catch up.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay sir, thank you. I have revised some of the licenses. I have also requested expedited deletion for some of the images. I am alone in running this review process among our team. Altair Netraphim (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim „ Many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, and some were uploaded by other colleagues on various platforms, including Facebook and cultural services (Dinas Kebudayaan).“ What exactly is this supposed to imply? All I can detect in this previous example is incorrect EXIF ​​data for an image that was already on Facebook in 2021, including a caption "ARTABABZ", which was cut out. COM:PCP? זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 11:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention and response. Regarding the statement that many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, what I meant is that most of these files no longer retain complete EXIF information—either due to compression processes or because they were re-uploaded across various platforms, such as Facebook or websites managed by the Department of Culture. Some of these images were also not uploaded directly by me, but by fellow members of the cultural heritage community in Sleman as part of their collective documentation efforts.

As for the image with the caption "ARTABABZ" that was previously uploaded to Facebook in 2021, I understand that its EXIF data may be inaccurate or truncated. This aligns with my earlier explanation that many images no longer contain their original or complete metadata, likely because they have circulated across different platforms. Some of the images were provided to me by members of the cultural heritage community; we requested them legally and communicated directly with the contributors, who, to my knowledge, uploaded them themselves. If any of those images contain incorrect EXIF data, and this is considered problematic, please feel free to remove them. Altair Netraphim (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The image was heavily edited. An iPhone 11 Pro doesn't normally take images like this, nor do they produce pixelated ones like the two other images I discovered were copycat. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: There are further points to consider: COM:FR seems not to have been fully understood. You're specifically using it to renumber images. Why, for what reason? Renaming isn't intended for that purpose; it's not a Crit 2 error, an incorrect number is not meaningless if the rest of the filename is correct, nor is Crit 3, the number doesn't bother anyone, and especially Crit 4, is being misused. Remember: "Just because images share a category does not mean that they are part of a set." זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I understand that the iPhone 11 Pro generally produces high-quality images, and if there are photos that appear to have been heavily edited or show pixelation, it is most likely due to reprocessing, compression during upload, or format conversion by certain platforms. I also do not rule out the possibility that some circulating images originated from other sources or were edited by others before they reached me. If there are any images that are considered inappropriate or suspected to be copies, I am more than willing to review them and remove them if necessary.

Some of these images have already been submitted for removal and have been taken down, while for others, I am still in the process of tracing their sources—particularly from publicly accessible, copyright-free platforms managed by the Indonesian government. Kind regards. Altair Netraphim (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim, Your so-called copyright-free platforms. It's interesting how, when you visit these sites, you can always see copyright notices (example 1) (example 2). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:direktoribudaya.slemankab.go.id I have some issues with the claim that these are government sites, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand that copyright issues—particularly regarding sources from government websites—indeed require careful examination. When I referred to certain platforms as "copyright-free," what I meant was that some Indonesian government websites (such as the Dinas Kebudayaan Sleman), including those managed by local cultural agencies, often share materials intended for educational and public documentation purposes, even if they do not always explicitly state an open license on every page or file. I truly appreciate you pointing out relevant examples, including the deletion discussions on Wikimedia Commons. It was never my intention to mislead, and I am, of course, open to being corrected, including removing related content if it does not meet the appropriate requirements.

Regarding the "Perpustakaan Digital Budaya Indonesia" platform, to the best of my knowledge, it is managed by IACI (Indonesian Archipelago Cultural Initiatives), with support and funding from the Kementerian Kebudayaan dan Pendidikan Indonesia (Indonesian Ministry of Culture and Education). Contributors who wish to submit cultural materials to the platform must undergo editorial review, and submissions are not published automatically.

Again, it is not my intention to mislead, and I fully support the removal of any content that does not comply with the necessary guidelines. Kind regards. Altair Netraphim (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim: So you admit to sharing your login details to allow other people to upload here? How does that work, exactly?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Have the same question. Phương Linh (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim, we would like to get a answer. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 13:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

User is now @Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening: . Answer still missing. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Dr. Thomas Liptak

It has been brought to my attention by user Taichi that this user Dr. Thomas Liptak has been recurrently uploading photographs using contradictory, incompatible licenses. At first I found no problems, but having a closer look, it appears this user publishes the files under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. However, by reading the metadata, the photos have a clear notice saying "Online copyright statement https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/de/", and "Usage terms CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 DE". I am tempted to speedy delete all of their uploads but wanted a second opinion first. Bedivere (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I cannot change the original metadata in the photos. I used these by default at the time of capture. The current license information (CC-BY-SA 4.0) should be crucial when uploading to Wikimedia; otherwise, I will not be able to provide any more photos. Dr. Thomas Liptak (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, so the valid license is CC BY SA 4.0 (or similar? I saw there was one licensed CC BY)? Bedivere (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dr. Thomas Liptak I'm waiting for your response. Bedivere (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the valid license is CC BY SA 4.0. Dr. Thomas Liptak (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dr. Thomas Liptak I'm fine with that, but your previous pictures will need to be updated, in order to remove the incorrect metadata, to avoid any potential conflict. If you could do that, I'd be very grateful. Bedivere (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere: there's a really similar thread going on at COM:VPC#Flickr statement vs. Metadata, where Gnom concluded that both licenses were validly granted. And I do not really understand how it comes that the metadata showing the license cannot be changed. AFAIK, this field should even be editable with Windows on-board tools in the editor. Otherwise, any photo editing software should do the trick, I know for sure that the Adobe products do. Dr. Thomas Liptak: Schau dir mal COM:Exif an. Mit der Software EXIFTool (gibt auch eine GUI dafür: "EXIFTool-GUI" ist der Programmname) kannst Du alle Fotometadaten bearbeiten, mit üblicher EBV-Software sollten es zumindest Einträge in Copyright- und Autor-Feldern sein (bei Adobe Bridge, Photoshop und Lightroom geht das definitiv, GIMP etc. kenne ich nicht für genug). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the hints. I will change the license information in the meta data of the images and upload the new versions of the photos. Dr. Thomas Liptak (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

User:RodRabelo7 and User:Dronebogus

This user, who was recently blocked for making abusive comments directed at me, is still following me around targeting my edits in various annoying and hostile ways:

• Speedy closed a nomination I started immediately after I opened it; while COM:INUSE is a legitimate SK reason (and I was unaware that the file was in use at the time I nominated it, and was considering reverting it) the existence of Category:INUSE files deletion requests/pending shows that it’s not mandatory to close them ASAP; the fact that they were blocked in a disagreement over the files in this series makes this seem highly vexatious.
• They tagged a file I uploaded with the Category:Images of low quality tag, which based on both the files in the category and personal experience is basically never used for “illustrations someone considers poor” (practically all the files are small or blurry photos). They were blocked in part for lambasting my artistic ability in an ad hominem attack, referencing this exact image.
• I can’t easily provide concrete evidence of this, but they are abusing the “thank” feature to ping me every time I say something less-than-positive about their conduct or for other things that make no sense to thank me for. I can provide screenshots if I really need to.
• I asked them to stop this sort of behavior on their talk page; they just reverted it without a response beyond yet another vexatious “thank you” ping.
• They have not shown remorse for the behavior that initially led to their block; they reverted their block message with “keep this playground to yourselves” (implying everyone else were the ones acting childish) and removed a bunch of good-faith, purely automated DR notices as “trolling”. They also returned from their block with this message, which I think speaks for itself.

I am tired of this user following me around using standard commons processes and tools in a vexatious manner. It’s clearly passive-aggressively hostile behavior and even more annoying than just being insulted directly. I cannot assume good faith was intended in any of these superficially innocuous actions because this user cannot even bring themselves to apologize for a blatant personal attack. I request that they either stop this behavior immediately or for an admin for force them to stop. Dronebogus (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WP:BOOMERANG: Please first explain why you nominated an image used in a project in which you do not even have an account, for deletion. Also explain why you insist on the nomination. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I nominated it by mistake. I don’t insist on it; I left your close in place and reverted my restoration of the deletion tag. Plus I don’t need an account on Russian Wikinews to nominate an image there for deletion— that makes no sense. I could just as easily ask you why you are defending an image on a project you edited exactly once. Dronebogus (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I am defending the COM:INUSE official policy. I have no interest in the Russian Wikinews, but I respect their right to self-determination—something you did not do when you attempted to Wiktionary:vandalise#Verb their project. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I respect INUSE; I wouldn’t have made the nomination if I had noticed the fact that it was in use. I made it in the heat of the moment out of frustration and didn’t follow all the proper steps. On the other hand, nothing you’ve done has been explained or justified. Why are you following me around targeting edits in topics we’ve fought over, if not to spite me? Dronebogus (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

RodRabelo7 I think you need to stop misusing the Thank feature for a start. If you have been asked to stop doing this, then I suggest you might want to seriously consider that it is a legitimately upsetting thing to do and not in the spirit of the feature.

It is also completely unacceptable to accuse a very respected Commons contributor The Squirrel Conspiracy of using your talk page as a "playground".

All in all, I think the evidence presented here does look like you are harassing Dronebogus. Dronebogus can be abrasive at times, but overall is not a bad sort. I don't know what the history is you have with him, but it's not a good idea to do at least most of the things he has pointed out.

In terms of the COM:INUSE nomination - well, I think on this one Dronebogus was unwise, but he has apologised and it was just an error of judgement. It's a controversial image, it's hard for me to say. Certainly he doesn't deserve the treatment you are meting out to him right now. Please stop. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

RodRabelo7 why did you add the file itself into this DR. I'm sure you're familiar that usually nsfw files are supposed to be mentioned as such in the DR, in addition to the fact that images aren't added separately as the heading already links to the file? You are sort of being disruptive in this, seemingly bcs you dislike Dronebogus. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

There was just a very long discussion about Dronebogus's nominations of these Geekology images. There is an open deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology). This is obviously a contentious area. So why is Dronebogus continuing to open individual deletion discussions about these images? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Because a few of them had distinct enough rationales to justify separate DRs. That’s all. Dronebogus (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

That’s not convincing. I’m sure we warned you this is disruptive. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

You made a bunch of suggestions about warnings/“reminders” that were never carried out. The discussion had no formal conclusion, no action was taken. A bunch of users there were entrenched in the ongoing discussion (the original reporter was RodRabelo7, the user who prompted me to start this discussion), and the three admin opinions were “please be more careful” “actually not a problem at all” and “not a noticeboard-worthy issue”. There was no unanimous “warning” like by a unified group of concerned parties like you seem to think there was. In any case how many did I nominate? Two or so out of 800-and-something? If I am no longer allowed to make individual DRs for Geekography or whatever, then that’s fine. I will not nominate a single file until the current discussions are all closed. But I think whatever I did wrong here pales in comparison to RodRabelo7’s behavior, which is still ongoing. Dronebogus (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, since you opened the deletion discussion covering all of these files on 19 May, it looks like you've started dozens of deletion discussions about Geekography images or groups of Geekography images. Even if there are individual reasons to delete these, why couldn't these wait until the original discussion was closed? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reverse ekiben position.png has been opened by RodRabelo7 since this COM:AN thread was opened. That is deeply unimpressive. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

  The timing sucks, but the last close was ridiculous. There were valid reasons to delete, so how on earth did the conclusion come to “per discussion”? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

  The only other image available at the time was a bad AI image. The reasoning to keep made perfect sense at the time. If someone nominated it in good faith, this wouldn’t be a problem at all since even I don’t care about the image and don’t think it will ever be used now. But this is more than “bad timing”; it’s RodRabelo trying to a) continue harassing me without outright breaking any rules, and b) distract from his own conduct with an irrelevant nothingburger controversy you’re feeding into. Who cares about an uninvolved admin’s decision to keep a file almost a year ago and whether it was a good call? It has nothing whatsoever to do with RodRabelo’s conduct right now. Dronebogus (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Support block Dronebogus isn't the easiest person on the project to talk to during a contested DR, but RodRabelo7's behavior towards Dronebogus is unacceptable. I placed the last block on RodRabelo7 and should probably not place this one (especially considering their response to it), but I do think a longer block is now warranted here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

This has gone all over the place. @RodRabelo7: can you explain how any of what you have written here justifies the way you were using the "thank" feature and why you think this was appropriate? In particular, why did you write "I can only step away", implying that this is the last you would engage with the subject, and then continue to be as involved as ever before? - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanking is a way to show that I am aware without making an edit. If I had written “OK”, would there be all this fuss? So why can’t I just press a little button and make it clear to just one person that I am aware? 2) The file was and still is COM:INUSE; therefore, it was appropriate to close it because that deletion request would have been a waste of time. The very user who so often nominates nude photos of women for deletion admitted that they acted incorrectly. Insisting on this point is a waste of time. 3) The template on my user page already says a lot about this point. I am away from the project, meaning I will not spend energy, money, or time to enrich it. That does not mean I cannot deal with vandalism appropriately. I don’t see you complaining about my copyvio tags, for example. 4) And please ask the other account that is the subject of this thread to answer the question above. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

No, thanking is a way of saying “I think this was a good edit and appreciate it”; when you “thank” someone for a negative remark it comes across as either “I’ll take that as a complement” or “I’m just trying to pester you as much as possible by filling up your notification bar with annoying nonsensical pings from someone you don’t particularly like”. Dronebogus (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I've collapsed part of the discussion above. RodRabelo7, Dronebogus, and Chris.sherlock2: Most of the conversation in this thread thus far has been rehashing previous conversations, and going around in circles doing so. Please all three of you to disengage from this thread. The admins are aware of the history here, and any that aren't can look it up pretty easily, so the continued rehashing is just getting in the way of any resolution being reached. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I'm "engaged". - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

You’re making yourself engaged by starting or engaging with irrelevant tangents RodRabelo then uses to filibuster the discussion with the Chewbacca defense. You clearly don’t approve of RodRabelo’s conduct; stop making it easier for them to get away with it (not that they’re likely to given the overwhelming evidence and lack of acknowledgement of any wrongdoing) just because you have a few minor issues with my conduct. Dronebogus (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

You keep using that word “filibustering”… I really don’t think you know what it means. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Filibustering is obstructing congress with irrelevant yapping; I’m using it here to refer to obstructing a discussion with irrelevant yapping. I know what it means. Dronebogus (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I do see your point now. I withdraw from this discussion. I apologise for any confusion or unhelpfulness my words may have caused. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

•  support block per squirrel. this has gone too far. --Bedivere (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• RodRabelo is now explicitly disrupting this thread by reverting User:The Squirrel Conspiracy’s collapse of a large part of the aforementioned irrelevant yapping. Why has no-one done anything to stop this behavior already? Dronebogus (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  The fact that you refuse to answer a simple question proves it all. Every accusation is a confession. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  What question? You’re the one not answering any questions about your actions. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• I have no idea what the point of this edit is but it’s almost certainly some kind of trolling. --Dronebogus (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Well, turning DRs into a soliloquy is itself pretty confusing and unhelpful. It's as if RR7 actually does think that attacking nominator or having a pissing context for who loves Commons more, is somehow relevant to deletion.
  Doubling down and bragging about your block, while continuing the same approach does not bode well for finding a resolution other than a longer block. GMG^talk 16:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  User:GreenMeansGo With all due respect, why are you not just blocking him now? You’ve seen the evidence, combined with the total lack of remorse, and the user is still being disruptive even with this discussion open. What more do we have to wait for before someone puts their foot down? Dronebogus (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment (partly by way of response to Dronebogus just now) there has been so much flooding the field that it gets hard to work out what exactly is going on. One of the problems is that by firing off in 17 directions, RodRabelo7 has deflected almost all intelligible discussion of the original charges, making it difficult to say what are the grounds of the block.

 Done I will block RodRabelo7 for two months for just that, making a circus of this process instead of addressing the accusations against him. No problem on my side if another admin wants to change that for either duration or rationale, but at least we will be done with this mockery of a discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you did something, the charges are pretty clear and based in evidence presented during this discussion: stalking, harassment, vexatious abuse of process and tools, disrespectful and rude conduct, and trolling. He is going to come out of this block exactly the way he came out of the last one (learning nothing, doubling down, still playing the victim and probably still harassing me). They have shown clear evidence that they think because of their substantial investment in the project they are above the rules. That attitude is incompatible with Commons. The only solution here is an indef. Dronebogus (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

And if that happens, a third block for the same behavior will almost certainly be indefinite. Meanwhile, you would do well not to respond to every comment they make. The back and forth made the conversation spiral and meant it took longer to resolve, and continuing the back and forth only makes you look worse, because it shows you're not willing or able to disengage when the discussion is no longer productive. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

seconded, Squirrel. Rod will certainly get an indefinite block if they return to do the same. Bedivere (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus, you nominated some files for deletion, how can this user appeal? 〈興華街〉📅❓ 06:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked Dronebogus for a week for that. My full rationale is on their talk page. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

For the record, permanent link to the thread: . Yann (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

good call. when I entered Rod's talk page and saw the messages left by Dronebogus, I thought about blocking him for such poor judgment, but thought people would think I'm too quick on the trigger. anyways, well done, definitely unacceptable behavior from Dronebogus. Bedivere (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Good block. I would support anything up to an indef of Dronebogus after that DR nomination, under COM:CIR. It's such a petty behaviour that anyone who could even think the possibility of that being a good idea raises serious questions about their fitness to be here at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Ibadsk

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

This user is abusing in English. They are using unacceptable and slang words in hindi and threatning as per this Agent 007 (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I would  support a personal attack block here. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 00:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

padhe likhe jaahil insaan pheli baat They are using nhi he is using hota hai.. aur dusri baat meine sirf slang word use kiyaa tujhe koe threatning nhi di samjha.. mei message dal rha huna toh bahot soch samjh ke ek ek word daal rha hu.. mere saat apna dimag mat chala tera dimag khatam hogayegaa..

school nhi gaya tu, sikhaya nhi kisine tujhe single person aur multiple person mei kya fark hota hai ?? jaa phele padhlikke aa update yourself with education..

mera page delete kiu kiyaa ???? tu kya samjha mera ek page delete karega toh mei dusra nhi bana sakta.. abee tu mera ye acc wikipedia pe se block bhi karwaiga naa toh mei dusra acc banaa lunga tu woh bhi delete karwaiga mei teesra banaa lungaa.. and this will go on.. tu delete karwate karwate thak jaayegaa samjha.. Ibadsk (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

aur hindi mei issliye bol rha hu taaki tu sunn sake becoz mei english mei bolugaa toh tujhe hazam nhi hogaa mei english mei bahot acche aache word use karta hu issliye Ibadsk (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Given the response here, a clear indef block, and I guess we'll just have to block them each time they create a new account. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indef blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Reported to SRG. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 08:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

user-account impersonating Elon Musk

Elon musk official account (talk · contribs) blocked for inappropriate account-name. --Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Globally locked. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 08:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

User:D.kalezic

D.kalezic (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

• Copyvio after warning.

ManFromNord (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 13:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

-chanakyakdas

• User: -chanakyakdas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 18 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), over four years ago.

As precedents, ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke and was ultimately blocked indefinitely, Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman, and Mommy Debby was blocked 20:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC) by Jmabel for "Vandalism: + repeated incomplete deletion requests. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=957080538#Mommy_Debby" (now archived to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 117#Mommy Debby).

-chanakyakdas made this deleted edit on or about 14 February 2022 (UTC) to File:DunkirkPosterAswiki.jpg: indicating with malformed {{Delete}} a need to have their own upload deleted on creation day, within the parameters of COM:CSD#G7. I tagged that file for speedy deletion and then notified them of that, reminded them of their mistake, and instructed them in these edits ending 17:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC), creating User talk:-chanakyakdas#File:DunkirkPosterAswiki.jpg. They did not reply. They did it again in this deleted edit on or before 30 December 2023 (UTC) to File:Kolpitha.png: omitting transclusion and the subpage. I notified and warned them in these edits ending 12:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC). They did it again in this deleted edit on or about 1 April 2025 (UTC) to File:Ahomor Din.pdf: not including year, month, or day; creating the subpage with {{Delete}} instead of {{subst:delete2}}; and not transcluding, and I warned them a second time in Special:Diff/836721427/1015946207 these edits ending 12:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC). They did it again in this edit 02:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC) to File:সমাজ শক্তি (প্ৰথম খণ্ড) V2.pdf: not including year, month, or day. They still have yet to reply to me. Please block them.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

They finally replied in Special:Diff/1045163038.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me about this discussion. I appreciate the feedback and recognize that I made errors in my recent deletion requests regarding formatting and procedural aspects. I’ve taken note of the concerns raised and will carefully review the relevant policies (such as Commons:Deletion requests and Commons:Deletion guidelines) to ensure I follow the correct process in the future. If there’s anything specific I should address or clarify, please let me know. I’m happy to learn and improve.

—-chanakyakdas (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: would you agree that should resolve the matter unless there are further problems? - Jmabel ! talk 19:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Yes.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done per above. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Unnecessary file renames, continuing

After User talk:AnRo0002#Renaming 3 (and several earlier discussions on their talk page) and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/05#Unnecessary file renames, User:A.Savin blocked User:AnRo0002 for "after warnings: several file moves against COM:FNC despite requests not to do so". This was their second such block for the same cause.

The issue persists, for example recently in:

File renamed: File:Mountain Avens (Dryas octopetala) - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg → File:Dryas octopetala - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg

Please can we have the necessary action taken to stop this once and for all? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I think renaming images from geograph.org.uk does not affect users but if you prefer I don't rename files from this source agauin (@A.Savin, whats your opinion?) anro (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The source is immaterial. You also recently renamed:

• File renamed: File:20120901Filz-Klette Hockenheim2.jpg → File:20120901Arctium tomentosum2.jpg
• File renamed: File:Lamium album, Utterslev Mose, København, Denmark (26565586370).jpg → File:Lamium album (26565586370).jpg

Both of which discarded information; neither of which were from Geograph. There are ample other bad moves in your recent history. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20120901Arctium tomentosum2.jpg is a file created by anro. So I don't think that there is any kind of problem here. I am not entirely sure about File:Lamium album, Utterslev Mose, København, Denmark (26565586370).jpg, but is Søborg a part of København or is it not? So may be these are not the very best examples for excessive renaming. However, what is the reason for renaming File:Mountain Avens (Dryas octopetala) - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg, which is a perfectly valid name IMO? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

As I said "There are ample other bad moves". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

May be, e.g. just recently File:Atlas roslin pl Bluszczyk kurdybanek 3621 7088.jpg -> File:Glechoma hederacea Atlas roslin pl Bluszczyk kurdybanek 3621 7088.jpg and a number of similar images. I don't speak Polish, but "Bluszczyk kurdybanek" is the Polish version of Glechoma hederacea, see pl:Bluszczyk kurdybanek. Commons:File renaming is an official guideline. It says that criterion 3 does not "cover moving a file from its common usage name to its scientific or technical name" and that "if possible, language and schema should be preserved". Therefore, I cannot see any valid reason for such a move that discards the common (Polish) name for the scientific name, even though anro's name might be understandable for a larger number of people than the Polish name. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, the Polish name is still there, of course. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• I don't want to intervene 3rd time in this case, but I  Support further escalating block for AnRo0002, as the renames are definitely unnecessary and not covered by our policies. --A.Savin 15:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  There are also potential grounds for deadminship on misuse of advanced tools, and removal of filemover right.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

   Support both de-adminship and removal of filemover rights. Looking at their recent edits they rename a lot of files against policy on a daily basis (filtering by the "new redirect" tag, they have renamed files more than 500 times this month alone). This has likely been going on for a very long time. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't like piling on but this sort of thing is particularly out of line from an admin. It is very rare that a file that has a meaningful filename that is correctly spelled and not actively misleading should be renamed, especially for a file that has been around for a long time. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with Jmabel's comment. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Broadly agree with the above. I can see zero necessity for these renames, and there's no credible case being made for one. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Muhd Affiq Affiqal

Muhd Affiq Affiqal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

• User removes deletion templates from files.

ManFromNord (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done, for now. Templates added again. I missed a message from you on user disk about this report, but it's possible the user removed it. In my opinion, all uploaded files are "fair use" material. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv: what is "user disk"? New one to me. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I took it as "user discussion page" AKA "user talk page".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course I meant the User Talk page. Sorry for using some odd word we use on deWP. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll add it to Commons:Glossary. (Had me thinking of a virtual storage device of some sort.) - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

All they do is upload copyvios of TV show title cards copyrighted by Astro Ria network.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Realmalabarboys

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

Clear sock of Bobanfasil. Please nuke all uploads, account is already globally locked. Jonteemil (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done All files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Mehrdad ager

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

Uploads two clear copyvios after having been tagged with {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Taivo. Yann (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry/NOTHERE

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

Uploads COM:CSD#F10 violations only and reuplods deleted files with another account. w:WP:NOTHERE. Jonteemil (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Both blocked by Taivo. Yann (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

ABDULLAHI JAMIU

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

Violates {{No selfies}} the very day after having been tagged. Promo only account, COM:WEBHOST, w:WP:NOTTHERE. Jonteemil (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah... And seen as he also "visits" Wikidata with his self-promotion, I requested a global block on Meta. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Sev6nWiki reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Overcategorization Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me!

I understand that I've overcategorized some files which already had a more specific category.

I'll conduct a review to fix any categorization issues I find. Sev6nWiki (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on my review, your feedback has helped me categorize the following items correctly:

File:Emblemo.png

File:Seal of the President of the Philippines (1953).png

File:CDG-Capital.png

File:CFOS LOGO.png

File:Рокетбанк Лого.jpg Sev6nWiki (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Suspicion of Multiple Copyright Violations for User:SHUBHAM KR SONI

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

I've marked File:Lotus Temple,Delhi,India.jpg as a possible copyright violation since I suspect it was stolen from Flickr.

User:SHUBHAM KR SONI has also uploaded a large amount of other files which seem to originate from social media platforms such as Instagram, Meta Threads, Facebook, etc.

File:Sanchi Stupa.net.jpg links to Instagram

File:Taj Mahal.net.jpg links to Facebook

File:Gwalior Fort.net.jpg links to Instagram

The files found on these social media platforms have been uploaded year or months before it was uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. The user also has previous copyright violation warnings posted in his talk page, which was also deleted for containing material posted on social media platforms.

With the current evidence, it seems obvious that this user has uploaded multiple files which also violate copyright. Thanks! Sev6nWiki (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Last warning sent, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SHUBHAM KR SONI. Other images need review. Yann (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

• VasylSh (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Nedya87 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This is most of the evidence, from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp	File	Uploader	Deleted file	Uploader
Jun 22 2025 12:17 PM	File:І ДЕ Я? Афіша2.jpg	Nedya87 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 11 edits)	File:Молодий Ідея.jpg (Und | Log)	VasylSh (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jun 22 2025 12:17 PM	File:Історія магії афіша.jpg	Nedya87 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 11 edits)	File:Історія магії.jpg (Und | Log)	VasylSh (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jun 22 2025 12:17 PM	File:І ДЕ Я? афіша.png	Nedya87 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 11 edits)	File:Instagram post - 55.png (Und | Log)	VasylSh (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)

Nedya87 also requested that File:Історія магії.jpg be undeleted, a file uploaded by VasylSh. Jonteemil (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Old acct. blocked for 3 months, new account indeffed, files deleted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Tp767

• Tp767 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Keeps uploading unfree files. One prior block for the same reason. Jonteemil (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month. While their last two copyvios were this one in June and one in February, and then you have to go back as far as 2023 for the rest of their copyvios, this is also their second block for copyvios. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

UmirovaDilshoda

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

Keeps uploding unfree files after last warning, {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked her for a week and will delete speedily some copyvios. Squirrel already nominated a lot for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao

• User: Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning and block for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I don't understand why tou tagged this file, there is nothing which could have a copyright here. File:Marker to Old Blue Bird Seminary, Simpson College.jpg is also probably OK. Either old enough, or no copyright notice. Yann (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

For File:George Washington Carver marker, Simpson College (2).jpg and File:George Washington Carver marker, Simpson College (1).jpg, there should be a regular DR instead of a speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I've long had some problems with Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I've seen them sometimes celebrated for copying lots of images for Flickr, but it seems to me the user wants maximum possible credit for anything they do with zero possible responsibility. They've admitted they pay no attention to what they uploaded after its uploaded. I've often found myself cleaning up messes made by the user years later. Their actions that have affected me personally most significantly is their insistence on prioritizing their role in copying files from Flickr to Commons above the role of the photographer and Flickr uploader, which resulted in Tulane University taking down their archive of free licensed photos, the University considering Wikimedia a disreputable institution, and a Tulane historian and photographer I formerly enjoyed an occasional cordial professional relationship with ending it and chewing me out at length when she found out I was connected with Wikimedia (I was at first puzzled by this, then figured out she perhaps thought I might be Ser Amantio di Nicolao or at least condoned their actions). I really don't think it appropriate for a long-term regular to continue to refuse to take any responsibility and just assume that all problems they cause will be magically taken care of by the collective while they go do something else. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)