Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 120

Category:Commons talk archives#Administrators'%20noticeboard/User%20problems

Ayratayrat

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I closed multiple bad deletion requests and blocked the user for a week. Next block can be indefinite. Taivo (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Prariwat Nuanma

0x0a (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a year (4th block) and will delete a lot of uploads. Taivo (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Rodlin LISEME

Rodlin LISEME (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is only uploading photos of himself, treating Commons as his personal photo gallery and advertisement. I flagged his uploads for speedy deletion and an administrator might want to block him.

Pierre cb (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Ada Quyn

Uploads stolen porn and nothing else Dronebogus (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

If you are supporting reporting someone at COM:AN/U you are supposed to notify them of that. I have now done so. - Jmabel ! talk 08:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Reporting, certainly. Supporting, not so much. :)   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Be careful with GMatteotti

Prolific sockpuppeteer GMatteotti wants advanced rights in Commons. His requests are generally declined (Naliloam for autopatroller, Salazor and Pal-lon-cin for template editor), but he successed with Yuonn. He uses multiple cosmetic edits to increase his edit count. I blocked yesterday Naliloam and today Pal-lon-cin. Often works with Japanese files. Be careful! Taivo (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo: Please add to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/GMatteotti as appropriate. I filed m:srg#Global lock for GMatteotti et al, as Stewards have more records to cross-check. @Abzeronow: FYI.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I've gotten wise to GMatteotti (so I didn't recognize that pattern with Yuonn since I didn't know about GMatteotti). Thanks for the headsup though, Taivo. Abzeronow (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
 Info: They now and then edit using IPs all of which point to Italy. Can be detected easily as they canvass for edits or deletions of files that they have uploaded using one of their sock accounts. --Achim55 (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Kwami Heude

Hello, this user use Wikipedia for self promotion only. See his user page history or this file history or this one or this one. All pics uploaded here are for himself. Article deleted twice and protected on fr.wiki and user blocked indefinitely. I think he should be blocked here too. Supertoff (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Supertoff: Thanks for your report. I notified the user about it on their user talk page, as you should have per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
@Jeff G. : sorry but I still was watching all what he was doing here and noted that: he is probably the sockpuppet of user:Kwami Izawaki (same first name, same date of birth, see and ). Kwami Izawaki has already 3 files deleted. I think notifying him won't work but I let you manage it. My job is done on french wikipedia where, for your information, he created twice and article on him (deleted and protected) and he bypassed it by writing it on his user page. Supertoff (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
@Jeff G. : it didn't work (as I expected). User page deleted by @Achim55 and recreated by Kwami Heude... If you need translation about what he wrote on his talk page :
"car c'est ma vie ma biographie et cela me permet que les personnes me découvre moi mon univers et mes choix" means "because it is my life, my biography and it allows people to discover me, my universe and my choices".
"Ma biographie, pour que les personnes me découvre" means "My biography, to be discovered by other peoples". Supertoff (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, after having deleted his user page twice I now added it to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kwami Heude. --Achim55 (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikicreator1231

Persistent uploading of copyright materials. File:Nichkhun.png is a reupload of similar deleted File:Khungolfing.jpg, File:Nichkhun HVK.jpg, and File:NICHKHUN.b.png. Wikicreator1231 also uploaded their uploads to Flickr to "loophole" their way in, likely to bypass scrutinization considering that it's autoreviewed by bot. In addition, on Special:Permalink/997790391#File:Nichkhun HVK.jpg, where https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJkRNoQf0c0 was mentioned by Wikicreator1231, in which the exact same frame for those undeleted/deleted images could be found in the same link, the undeleted one could be found around 12:25~12:30. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Blocked by Explicit for 1 week with copyvio deleted. Leaving this here for the record if any admin, including Explicit, wants to adjust the block considering their dishonest actions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

User:OperationSakura6144

It seems to me that User:OperationSakura6144 has recently moved from being a bit overly insistent that others make their personal priorities into a priority for everyone (e.g. Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/12#Replace non-vector files with its vector versions., Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/02#About replacing File:75B.jpg with File:Bandera de la Provincia de Córdoba.svg.), which I've found annoying but tolerable, to an outright Trust and Safety violation. Their recent posts on User talk:ReneeWrites (permalink) and the related post on COM:VP#How to archive my user talk page conversations? (plus a personal message for @ReneeWrites) (permalink), which is what drew my attention to this, are absolutely out of line, especially in that the last was a continuation after ReneeWrites said unambiguously, "This is all deeply weird, I'm sorry. Please don't message me again. Don't message me to apologize, either, I'm not hurt or angry but I don't want to speak to you again."

At the very least this calls for an interaction ban (that OperationSakura6144 may not communicate with or about ReneeWrites). I personally would be open to any sanction up to and including a global ban. - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I was going to say I would support sanctions but after reading the disturbing messages regarding ReneeWrites, a Commons ban (followed by global ban request) for Trust and Safety violations. Bidgee (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
@Bidgee: I agree something should be done, but we don't have a ban policy.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
but we do have an indefinite block for intimidation/harassment, which I'll be placing shortly. ✓ Done Bedivere (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
User requested an unblock by continuing to harass ReneeWrites and calling my actions "dehumanizing and discriminatory". Using autism as a wild card does not exonerate their disgraceful behavior. I've revoked talk page access and declined their "unblock" (if it can actually be called as such) request. Bedivere (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Bedivere. Good block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

And not letting it drop: (on a wiki where my only prior contribution was to change a link when moving a Commons category). This seems to me to be the actions of a person who is constitutionally incapable of acting appropriately. - Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Exactly this. This isn't just poor judgment, it's an inability to respect boundaries and follow basic community norms. The repeated harassment, entitlement, and fixation on being 'forgiven' make it clear that this user hasn't learned a thing. I would support a global ban request, given that the harassment is now cross-wiki. Bedivere (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

IA upload tool errors

When i am uploading telugu books using IA upload tools, I am not able to see the file content as a result of malicious code. This problem is encountered in most of my uploads. As a result we are not able to use this file in wikisource. Example: Please rectify the problem and help us. A.Murali (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Tubby3

Please see edit summaries at Category:Sabores regionales de la Provincia de Misiones and related issues. Thanks. 186.175.244.116 22:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Tubby3: can you please explain yourself here? Antisemitism is a pretty severe charge, and I don't see any evidence of it in the edit you reverted, nor do I see any good reason for your delinking the CfD. - Jmabel ! talk 22:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
I've now addressed this with a remark to User:Tubby3 on the CfD. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
I too responded the user. Chile had nothing to do in the original Tubby3 response, so I told them not to repeat that again, and explained the point of conflict is that the category is named in Spanish but would preferably be in English. Bedivere (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Akasahe28

Has uploaded File:2025 ST Open logo.png and File:2024–25 PVL AFC Logo Ad.jpg since having been reported in September with {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

NiseEdits

Keeps uploading copyvios after several warnings and blocks. I tagged three files as copyvios but more might be as well. Jonteemil (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 6 months (3rd block). Most files deleted, or nominated. Yann (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Kouroukoto,Mali

Please also revert the user's edits. Thank you! Prototyperspective (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. --A.Savin 13:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Bonanza1981

Uploaded several copyvio files as "own work" and then removed the copyvio templates (added by Skazi). Bonanza1981 is already blocked indefinitely in ruwiki after some personal attacks. — 2A00:1370:8186:2EDD:A863:1F0A:6F9D:22C3 19:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted, user warned. Bedivere (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Elinaxxx

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see that as wildly inappropriate. It amounts to a request for a courtesy deletion of their own upload, even if not well worded. - Jmabel ! talk 18:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. I declined all 3 requests and semi-protected the files. Taivo (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Ydlp19

Keeps uploading blatant copyvios despite several warnings and one prior block for it. See the upload history. Jonteemil (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months, obvious copyright violations deleted. Yann (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. I deleted speedily multiple copyrighted logos and nominated one for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

New sockpuppets of globally locked User:Wave of Pandas

DESKTOP-424GOAL-3005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has started uploading today, with the same useless night photos of Hong Kong as Wave of Pandas and socks. Krok6kola (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Ratekreel. Bedivere (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Can we get the files deleted again, as they were for the last round of socks? --Belbury (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I mass deleted them due to missing educational value. Taivo (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Achim99

Seems to be a (recently created) vandalism account. (The deletion requests seems to be nonsense)

--PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

So a block would be useful --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks to Achim55 :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Ferry tsang

I recently noticed this user uploading passenger ferry images with clearly visible and obstructive timestamp watermarks. After I gave him a message last week urging this user not to intentionally add watermarks to its own uploads, it completely ignored but continued to do so. I clearly stated in the message that if the user continue to do so on this repository, actions will be performed to delete all of your photos uploaded that includes timestamp watermarks in the photos themselves, so I requested multiple speedy deletion request for those images, and ended up with a vandalism warning.

I am not sure how this user contributes here but the most basic thing is that the user never responded in its talk page. As COM:WATERMARK is currently not a policy for Commons, I don't know how to acknowledge this problem. I proposed some of the following ways to make the user acknowledge the problem:

  1. someone help uploading a cropped version of the user's images,
  2. deleting all of the user's uploads that contain clearly visible timestamp watermarks (stated in COM:WATERMARK as destructive watermarks), and
  3. an immediate indef block/lock for this user.

I hope someone may address this problem as soon as possible, as the user would never have any communication and would continue this behavior on Commons. 興華街 (Hing Wah Street) - 💬 - 📝 11:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Anak Sago

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week and deleted a lot of uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Flag LTA

Uploads (fake "historical" flags) seem similar to what I recall from other flag-focused LTAs I've seen in the past, e.g. User:Nv7801, but I can't look up those uploads to confirm. Does this need a CU or is it obvious enough to block outright? Omphalographer (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yutyo77764

Re-upload images that were previously deleted in January because they either violated copyright or were not properly licensed. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. I deleted something. Taivo (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Lmngr34

After some blocks, this user restarted uploading copyvio photo. File:モー娘。ライブ「マイナカード」で本人確認 ハロプロ発表 デジタル庁に協力 不正転売防止など検証.webp Netora (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a year (3rd block), all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Zsfcsfcafsa4334534

Zsfcsfcafsa4334534 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user is repeatedly recreating and uploading files not in the project scope Cyberwolf (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef., clearly NOT HERE. All files deleted, again. Yann (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Cyberwolf (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Oviedo64 keeps uploading images from public sources as his own

Many of Oviedo64's uploads are obviously harvested from the Internet (newspaper sites, Instagram etc.) and then uploaded as "Own work", even submitted to WLx contests. Already checked the first four files and added copyvio template, but per his discussion pages, he has been doing that for years without ever responding to the notifications. Much likely there are still more copyrighted images in his uploads. Plozessor (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef-blocked. Not here to help. All uploads deleted. Bedivere (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
@Bedivere Question, I can't speak for all the uploads made by the user. But weren't the files File:Herbert von Dirksen 1938.jpg and File:Embajador Herbert von Dirksen.jpg modified to mention a real source (linking to the National Digital Archives)? I remember asking for permission to overwrite these files and modifying their descriptions a while ago, if so could these uploads be undeleted or do I have to open a request for it? Franco Brignone • Talkpage 06:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Bedivere (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Finley2014xox

Finley2014xox has repeatedly been creating massive "catchall" categories for content that is already properly categorised and diffused. For instance, today they were adding Category:List of NASA vehicles (which doesn't even exist, although they may have been planning on 'creating it at the end') to every NASA aircraft and spacecraft, that are all already categorised as NASA aircraft and spacecraft, and was adding both subcategories containing the images and the images themselves. They have now received four warnings for this and requests to stop, brushed off these warnings, and today when I asked them to stop with the NASA overcategorisation their repsonse, while they did stop, was to edit my comment , which is inexcusable. Requesting a block as 'not here to improve the Commons' and a rollback of the remaining ~150 additions of Category:List of NASA vehicles to images and categories. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Huntster blocked and I removed the bad category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. He was very clearly warned, explained why it was wrong, and still chose a dismissive attitude and continued on their way. They are not here to collaborate. Please watch for any socks that may pop up. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

User:TrentBuchet

Hello, I made a reply on a DR made by User:TrentBuchet, but I was called a “rat”, seen here . It appears the user is a sockpuppet of User:VoidseekerNZ, the original uploader of the image nominated in the DR. I don’t understand why the user felt the need to insult me, when I didn’t say anything remotely provoking. After the insult, I decided it’s probably the best not to interact with this user, to prevent any further aggression. So could any admins help me warn this user of their behaviour? Thank you. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

interjection
ˈrats
—used to express disappointment or frustration TrentBuchet (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Already blocked at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#TrentBuchet. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. Tvpuppy (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Hmd5i (3rd report)

Despite being warned twice to not personally attack me (being warned a third time after sending this personal attack), this user has persistently sent personal attacks, such as Calling me a dumb person, Falsely claiming that I vandalise with no evidence, and finally, telling me to "delete myself" off Wikimedia Commons here. I believe that this has gone way too far, as this is persistent, and since they have already been blocked once, I request that they be blocked indef. Thank you. 🗽Freedoxm🗽 (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Of course, "delete yourself too" is not polite, the user was warned for that and after that (s)he has not edited – already over 2 weeks. The previous block was not for incivility, but for copyvios. In my opinion nothing more should be done. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

New Boy666

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Ali t7

Has continued to upload copyvios since having been tagged with {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Potential block evasion by 24eeWikiUser

24eeWikiUser (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

24eeWikiUser is currently under a six-month block on Commons for repeated uploads of copyright violations. However, their en-wiki account has continued to create several pages. On 28 January, Nkunda102 (previously dormant since mid-2024) uploaded a high-quality portrait photo of Ghirmay Abraham. (The image, a professional-looking portrait photo with EXIF data stripped, is credited to "Protais", which 24eeWikiUser, whose account was previously known as MrTallBoy, has disclosed on Metawiki as his own name.) The next day, the IP address above added it to a en-wiki bio of Ghirmay Abraham created by 24eeWikiUser. Then, on 13 February, Puerta25 (previously dormant since September 2024) uploaded a dubious "own work" photo of Tsion Gurmu (it has visible signs of being a cell phone screen capture). Minutes later, Puerta25 added it to an en-wiki bio of Tsion Gurmu created by 24eeWikiUser. A checkuser query was inconclusive; I don't know if this is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry but the apparent coordination and focus on images for 24eeWikiUser's en-wiki creations after long periods of inactivity suggests a connection, particularly since 24eeWikiUser cannot edit on Commons right now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be block evasion.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Socks blocked. Yann (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
24eeWikiUser requested unblock. I did not close it immediately, in my opinion discussion is needed here. Taivo (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I let a message on their talk page. For the record, 24eeWikiUser was not blocked for sockpuppetry, but for uploading unfree files after warnings. Yann (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Not an admin, but sharing for perspective: 24eeWikiUser should not be unblocked early. He has been blocked before for image license problems and still continued to upload copyrighted photos as his own work right up until the most recent block. Due to my role as a new page reviewer on en-wiki and his prolific new page creations, his work comes across the new pages feed often. I have several of 24eeWikiUser's pages on my watchlist due to edits done to remove text copyvios and request revdel, so I noticed when photos (similar in style to those added by 24eeWikiUser before his block) were added to these articles by otherwise dormant accounts and an IP from Rwanda, which 24eeWikiUser has disclosed on Metawiki as his location. Hope this helps as you evaluate this block. Edited to add: Regarding the sockpuppetry, 24eeWikiUser stated on his talk page: The images were uploaded in good faith and credited properly, with no intent to violate policies. If he did not upload the photos from Nkunda102 and Puerta25 accounts, how would he know that they were credited properly or be able to comment on the good faith of the uploaders? He has also not addressed the fact that Nkunda102 attributed the photo of Ghirmay Abraham to "Protais" as noted above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

8diq

8diq (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Continued to upload copyvio images after unblock. Almost every image uploaded is a copyvio. Does not communicate on user talk page. Northern Moonlight (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months (2nd block), all files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

User talk:प्रबुद्ध प्रसून

User talk:प्रबुद्ध प्रसून re-uploads already deleted images and copyvios, out of project scope images despite he is warned. we need a block here. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 11:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Phoebetan10

Phoebetan10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent uploading of copyright materials. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Reuploaded File:Kim Hye-yoon 2024 profile.webp again. They also uploaded deleted File:Kim Hye-yoon profile picture.png after the last warning was issued. Also that note, user is blocked indefinite on English Wikipedia hence they're using IP to evade block just to add image uploaded here onto there. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Also noted on en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoebetan10. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Uhuru1234polad

Uhuru1234polad (talk · contribs)

Uploads problematic images, many from a site dedicated to curating assets, but the assets themselves have no indications that those are freely licensed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done I have deleted the content, but not yet blocked the user. --A.Savin 14:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. This thread can now be archived from now on. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

user:Sex01001010

Inappropriate username and prurient behavior/uploads Dronebogus (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

there's no such user Bedivere (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
ah, it's been renamed. I've deleted their uploads. ✓ Done Bedivere (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

EF5

Since late last year, EF5 (talk · contribs) (at the time, SirMeme God) has been aware of the copyright issues around third-party images hosted on the website of the US National Weather Service. They were certainly aware of (and participated in) the RfC that found that such third party images found there could not be presumed to be in the public domain or available under a free license.

However, last month, they uploaded a large number of images from an NWS page where they are clearly attributed to a third party (Dr. Keith Mountain). One of the images uploaded by EF5 comes from a position on the source page directly beneath the third party attribution. There is no credible way that EF5 believed these photos to be the work of the NWS as they claimed when uploading. The affected files are:

(Aside: I have previously been in correspondence with this photographer over other images from this set. He still owns the copyright. He was amenable to the idea of releasing them under a free license, but stopped responding to me without actually filling out Commons release documentation. My correspondence with him is captured in ticket:2024091210003958)

In another batch of images they uploaded around the same time (source), they acknowledge that the photos belong to a third party (Wayne Mahoney) but claim "Should be in the public domain as no copyright notice is given." After many months and many thousands of words of discussion, EF5 is well aware that no such notice is needed for images created in the United States after 1989. The affected files are:

EF5 is displaying an ongoing flagrant disregard for creators' copyrights. There are many others I can see that they have uploaded that are at least questionable and will also need checking. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

To my eye, the source couldn't be much clearer about this. @EF5: did you somehow miss that or what? - Jmabel ! talk 02:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
With the New Pekin photos, I think I saw that other aerial shots (i.e. the Henryville aerials) were from storm damage surveys and I believe I mixed them up. Not sure why I uploaded the Henryville tornado photos, that was just a complete lapse in judgement. I've gone through my uploads and FfD'd some of my questionable files, but that obviously doesn't excuse my issue with uploading copyvios. EF5 ._. (talk - contribs) 02:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
@EF5: I assume you understand that at the moment you are not skating on the thickest ice. I'm inclined to take what you said here at face value, but if you were to continue to make similar mistakes/"mistakes" in the near future, I couldn't give you the benefit of the doubt.
@Rlandmann: I hope that EF5's response and mine suffice for you and that you are willing to consider this resolved. If so, then I believe we can close this section. I would suggest that if you have concerns about files other than the ones above you communicate them to EF5.
Jmabel ! talk 02:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I am satisfied for now and concur we can close this. I will point out though that there is a pattern of behaviour I am familiar with from this user, here and on en:w. If I see the pattern again, I'll go fishing for the specifics and present them in a new AN/U thread. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 02:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Hjart

Hjart (talk · contribs)

Once again deletion vandalism in edit-war modus on Category:Bornholm rundt. --A.Savin 13:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Once again, you are describing a content dispute quite unwarrantedly as 'vandalism'. Our policies have long been quite clear that this is unacceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Can you please express yourself more clearly? Which policy are you talking about and what exactly are you referring to? Lukas Beck (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I followed the last Edit War and even if I am of the opinion that one side alone cannot be held responsible for it, I find the new Edit War started by Hjart and continued by Hjart without any discussion to be unacceptable. --Lukas Beck (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Category protected for one month, user blocked one week for edit warring. Bedivere (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Arslan7a7

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

Persistent uploading of copyright materials, ignoring any warnings. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Potential copyvios from User:Dvp777

Dvp777 (talk · contribs) As early as March 2024, many of user:Dvp777's uploads were deleted as copyvios, which lacked metadata and were previously posted on the Internet. Although user:Dvp777 claimed that the photos were his own works, he didn't contact VRT or upload the version with EXIF. And just now, I checked several of his later uploads and found that almost all of them are still missing metadata; some of them were previously published on social media. I suspect that there are still some copyvios in the remaining photos. I don't have the energy to reverse-search every image. @Dvp777: He must disclose which are his own works and which are not, and provide appropriate evidence. 0x0a (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dvp777. Yann (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

ToPSURJ4311

ToPSURJ4311 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - persistent copyvio uploader, removing copyvio nomination from own upload after warning and after explanation at their NL wiki talk page on how copyright works. Jcb (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

No activity since the last time they were given a warning. I'd have no problem with a block if this continues any further, but it seems kind of weird to warn, have nothing occur, and then block. - Jmabel ! talk 04:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that warning was the result of this post I think. I will get back here if the behaviour continues. Jcb (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Dessplaywtf

Uploads File:Budapesti Honvéd SE 1950-91.png which seems like a blatant copyvio and has been blocked before for copyright violation. Jonteemil (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted and blocked as very likely sockpuppet. Bedivere (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Daniel12121212

Uploads File:Honved-se-budapest-logo.png after having been tagged with {{End of copyvios}} the day before.

Given the overlap at File:Honved-se-budapest-logo.png and the similar uploads I suspect this user and the one above are sock or meatpuppets. Jonteemil (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Bedivere (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

A1Cafel upload restriction review

See User talk:A1Cafel/Archive 14#F2C ban to familiarize yourselves with the context. In October 2024, I imposed a topic ban on A1Cafel from using Flickr2Commons due to issues raised on this board. A few days later, I discovered that he was using Flickypedia to transfer Flickr images just as before, the only difference being the choice of automated tool. To close this obvious loophole, I restricted him to only built-in MediaWiki upload tools and additionally imposed a limit of 10 uploads per day, since a major concern in that discussion was his indiscriminate upload of large quantities of images without due diligence. A month later, on appeal, I agreed to allow him to use automated tools again, but with the 10-upload limit in place. Recently he has asked me to increase the limit to 20 per day. To me there's not a huge difference but it just seems like kicking the can down the road. What does the community believe to be the best way of ensuring that A1Cafel handles large-scale uploads properly? (Note that I have previously banned him from F2C per an AN/U thread in April 2020, but agreed to lift it on appeal a few months later. Clearly that hasn't worked, so I'm trying to find something that does.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Have there been problems with his uploads this last few months? If not, 20 is still far from bulk, and presumably still leaves him in the range where he will have good motivation to review what he's uploading instead of grabbing randomly. Again, intention should be to prevent trouble, not to punish. - Jmabel ! talk 17:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
As long that there has been no evidence of any issues with uploads he has done, I do not see a problem with increasing it to 20. Bidgee (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
 Support. I agree as well, 20 is allowable. Taivo (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
 Weak support A1Cafel is a tough case. They do a high volume of good work, but we have to build these fences around them because they also have a history of going off the rails (overzealously, not maliciously, I would add). I see A1Cafel as a net positive and want them to stick around, and am content to trust the people that have been managing those fences keep doing so. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
 Support As the person who made the flickypedia discovery, 20 sounds well within the range that he can manually check. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
 Support A1Cafel has done a lot of good work in the past and increasing it from 10 to 20 seems like a small enough change where it won't cause any concern. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
@King of Hearts I think there's consensus to raise the limit. Bedivere (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
@King of Hearts, Bidgee, Taivo, The Squirrel Conspiracy, Alachuckthebuck, and Bedivere: Marking this as resolved/done.
@A1Cafel: you can consider your limit now to be 20/day, with the usual reminder to be cautious about what files you bring over and not to "game the system." This is still probationary, but headed the right direction.
✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Diamocasin

Keeps uploading copyvios, all related to "Frikimalismo" podcast. Most of them are screenshots from the podcast, some of them are scans of posters advertising the podcast. Doesn't react to warnings on the talk page. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked by Bedivere. --Ratekreel (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

ToPSURJ4311 (again)

ToPSURJ4311 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - continued copyvio upload after multiple warnings - Jcb (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked for two weeks. --Ratekreel (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Steamlox

  • User: Steamlox (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  • Reasons for reporting: Vandalism. Continued copyvio uploading after warning for doing so (including marking as own work files which are evidently not own work). Recreating a file deleted due to consensus. Not responding on user talk page. Making nonsense and incomplete deletion requests.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

With regards to the last - creating baseless deletion requests with rationales copied from other unrelated requests. Omphalographer (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Putting invalid no source since templates from User:Umbento

The account seems to add the above templates to numerous files even though they have verifiable copyright status (like own work pictures with metadata or third party work with links). The account is also made just this day. HyperAnd (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

WestSydPol

Keeps uploading images taken from the web or screenshots from TikTok videos of (probably mostly non-notable) influencers. As their uploads have been repeatedly deleted for copyright violations, they seem to have switched strategy and are now uploading copyright violations in which they have replaced the background with a solid color, making the tracing of the copyright violation harder.

Examples:

ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and all uploads deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Hi-s24

After copyvio warning, this user didn't stop uploading copyvio logos. See also his log. Netora (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, obvious copyvios deleted. Other files may be PD-textlogo, but they have a wrong license. Yann (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Tantofazz

Keeps uploading screenshots from a likely copyrighted video game as well as full-length copyrighted movies. Examples: Back To The Future Part III, Ghostbusters. No valuable contributions, only copyright violations. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

User Hua0316

Only dick-uploading User:Hua0316 vandalises Deletion Requests when his files are proposed for deletion. 186.172.10.255 04:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Files deleted. No new uploads since final warning. Revisit if they return. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

user:Idriss755

  • User: Idriss755 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  • Reasons for reporting: Continuous upload of copyvio material, also, the user never responding, which might be for the better, as the user is very generous on insults on the French Wikipédia, with death threats and other (but his last contributions are nearly all as violent as this one). Would it be possible to act on his uploads, or at least to give him a firm reminder, please?

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done This user should be blocked indef. on the French Wikipedia for such a comment. Warned here, and probable copyvios tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
He's blocked. It's unacceptable, and I suspect he still continues to vandalize pages under an IP. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
RFCU is this way! All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
@CoffeeEngineer, @Alachuckthebuck, and Yann: I filed m:srg#Global lock for Idriss755 for you yesterday (12:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

user:Idriss755 #2

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment User has received last warning and continued to upload problematic flags. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 00:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
There is a similar section above from 13h28m earlier (look for "10:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)").   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked indef., all files deleted. Clearly NOT HERE. Yann (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)


SuzyLover

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

Persistent uploading of copyrighted materials and ignoring final warning. Final warning issued at 15:04, uploaded File:SUZY LONGINES 2025.jpg (deleted at 15:25) at 15:09. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, file already deleted. Yann (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

BENJAMINHPP

BENJAMINHPP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - persistent copyvio uploading. Recently blocked for the same behaviour, just continues the behaviour after expiry of the block - Jcb (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

user:سعد المؤرخ

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

user:Mahram3

COM:NOTCENSORED violations, vexatious deletion nominations Dronebogus (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This seems a little excessive for one single DR. They've not done any other relevant DRs, and I don't see any other relevant edits.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
 Not done per Prosfilaes. No activity since the 8th either. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

AI0912J

Keeps uploading promotional photographs tagged as "own work" despite them having been deleted and having been asked to stop tagging third-party images as own work. Note that after the last batch having been nominated for deletion they have already uploaded further images instead of engaging in discussion on the DR. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Last warning sent, all files deleted. Should be blocked at the next problematic upload. Yann (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
@Yann: They are at it again. File:Patahuddin Bupati Luwu 2025-2030.png, File:Muhammad Dhevy Bijak Pawindu Wakil Bupati Luwu 2025-2030 (another version).png ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Sohanur Rahman 2.0

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Already warned, no new uploads. Yann (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
@Yann: Per Special:Diff/1006494036, "the user again started doing same thing." CC আফতাবুজ্জামান, Moheen.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I also informed him about this issue. The problem is that the user hasn't responded on his talk page, so it's hard to figure out what exactly the problem the user is facing. ~Moheen (keep talking) 15:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
@Moheen: Lack of respect for copyrights?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. One week block for uploading copyvios after Yann's warning. Taivo (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks! I was just going to add "lack of respect for users commenting on their user talk page, even in their native language".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

New sockpuppets of globally locked User:Wave of Pandas

  • Same MO as the others. Useless images of Hong Kong at night. Krok6kola (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. I took liberty to mass delete 20 night uploads. Taivo (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Andreibucurestiromania

Por favor advierten al usuario que deja de publicar logos complejos o que lo bloqueen a este usuario. AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Bedivere@Yann@Taivo@Bastique AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
¿Cómo pueden estar por encima del umbral si este es desconocido? Bedivere (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@Bedivere:Según Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Romania no dice nada del TOO en este país pero por ejemplo el logo de CFR Calatori no es simple porque aparece el símbolo de un tren ,es complejo y según Commons:Copyright rules entre 2 países EEUU y algun país pero si no tiene el TOO de un país como Romania hay que usar el TOO en USA. AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
A mi me da la impresión de que el logo es bastante simple. Bedivere (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Uploads by user 12akd

Unfortunately user:12akd is uploading out of scope, completely meaningless images by the hundreds. I think this activity must be stopped and these images should be deleted.

For instance:

At least the #77, #32, and #22 are fine. It is useful to have pictures of ordinary objects and places. Yann (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree exactly with Yann. - Jmabel ! talk 16:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by Adamant1

At Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/03/Category:BSicon Adamant1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) responded to my thought that his CfD may not be logistically practical in the real world, with accusations and abuse:

05:05, 11 March 2025

  • "The needless condescension on your end"
  • "all your [sic] capable of is swearing at other users"
  • "resorting to grade school level potty mouthing"

05:55, 11 March 2025

  • "It is a little rich that your [sic] being that judgmental towards me when you don't even know what website we're on"
  • "You either have no idea how this works or your [[sic] to [sic] busy throwing a fit over it to care. My guess is that it's a little bit of both. You're clearly overcompensating for something with the bad attitude."

20:24, 11 March 2025

  • "I know people love to knee jerk fear monger and throw around insults the second someone suggest something"
  • "The hyperbolic, knee jerk opposition really just comes off as bad faithed concern trolling at this point"

(Admittedly, I did accuse him of having snark and causing a shit-disturbance.)


He then moved on to Jkudlick:

02:02, 12 March 2025

  • "Your [sic] just trying to derail the discussion."

02:34, 12 March 2025

  • "I'd appreciate it if you and Useddenim did the same [bow out of this (discussion)]."

Useddenim (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Useddenim This is an issue for Commons to resolve, not English Wikipeida. Please raise it at :c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems instead. – robertsky (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@Robertsky: Thanks for moving the report. People pretty frequently think this is Wikipedia for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
⬆️ Further evidence of Adamant1's jumping to conclusions and/or sloppy editing (and including a back-handed insult, too). Please review the page history. Useddenim (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@Adamant1 the move was done by @Useddenim, after I told them so above. And Useddenim, unfortunately it is true that the English Wikipedia admin venues do receive reports about other projects, Commons included. We just point people the directions to the right venue(s). Robertsky (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
⬆️ "There's this thing that Wikipedia follows that's called w:wp:consensus and I'm not going to make a unilateral change to a major project."

Boomerang proposal

I'm aware that I'm topic banned from here King of Hearts said that I was allowed to post here to defend myself if someone reported me. So hopefully this is OK.

More to meat of the report, as people can see from [edit] Useddenim edited out of the lot both sides of our back and forth before filing this to make it seem less hostile on their end. It seems that a couple of their bullet points are also taken out of context. I'm not going to cover everything that was said here but a few points:

  • My comment that they were swearing and "resorting to grade school level potty mouthing" was directly in response to them saying "Go shit-disturb somewhere else." The last time I checked "shit" is a swear word. But they purposely edited it out of the discussion and didn't include it here to make it seem like there was no reason for my comment.
  • "I'd appreciate it if you and Useddenim did the same [bow out of this (discussion)]." What I actually said there was "I think I'm going to bow out of this on my end for now so other people have a chance to comment. I'd appreciate it if you and Useddenim did the same. The endless back and forth here really isn't productive." I really don't see what the issue with that comment is. The back and forth clearly wasn't productive.

The rest of their bullets points are much of the same. Comments that I made directly in response to (and as a result of) insults on their end that they purposefully edited out of the conversation and then didn't included here to make it look like I was just saying things randomly for no reason.

This was supposedly filed due to "accusations and abuse." Their whole "Go shit-disturb somewhere else" is clearly abusive. There's other things that they said in the original discussion before they edited it that aren't any better. It's also extremely beyond the fray for Useddenim to edit large parts of the conversation out in a way that makes them seem less hostile and then report me based on the edited version of it. So I'm proposing a boomerang block or at least a warning since this is clearly an attempt to use ANU as a form of harassment and bullying on Useddenim's end. Adamant1 (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

"shit-disturb" is not swearing in Canadian English, as a quick google search will show. My user page has indicated that I use Canadian English, implicitly since August 2016 and explicitly since November 2017. Useddenim (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
"Shit" is a swear word. It wouldn't suddenly stop being one if someone calls another person a "shit bag" or something. Maybe I'd chalk it up to the Canadian thing if you hadn't of edited that part of your comment out to though. You certainly didn't say it wasn't a swear word in Canada when I called you out for it. Otherwise maybe I'd believe you. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment

Looks to me like you both gave about as good as you got. I'd much rather leave you both alone than block you both, but at the moment that seems like the choices I've got. May I suggest that the two of you voluntarily agree to an interaction ban? Is there any good reason not to? And please don't respond to this by saying your own behavior was fine, it wasn't, neither of you. - Jmabel ! talk 05:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Its not hill I'm going to die on but I started the CfD and Useddenim was the one who instigated things to derail the conversation. Their one of the main people involved in the Biscon thing and we've never interacted with each other outside of this as far as I'm aware. So if we are interaction banned I would be forced to say F it to the whole thing. Whereas all that happens on their end is that they get their way because I'm forced to piss off it at that point. I'm more willing to accept an interaction ban as long as its under the understanding that they leave me along in relation to the CfD and anything else related to it though. Really, you should just ban him from participating in the CfD. That would essentially deal with it. I don't have a problem with him outside of that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think an actual interaction ban is needed as long as you both de Facto don't mess up with each other. Adamant, just let it be Bedivere (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
  • No problem with that from me, either, but it still requires both parties overtly agreeing to it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I am happy to limit my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/03/Category:BSicon to the subject at hand. Useddenim (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Same here. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
BTW, I volunteerly retracted the CfD. I'll just remove categories for "icon/legend/logos" from ones for logos when I see them going forward since they clearly don't follow the universality principle and there doesn't seem to be any other way to deal with it given the contentious of the issue. Hopefully that's a compromise everyone involved in this is willing to accept. I'm going to "let it be" beyond that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I hope that I am misreading the statement above, but to me it appears that the intent is to rename or delete any BSicon categories that contain "icon", "legend" or "logos"? That is not a "compromise" that would be acceptable to Commons:WikiProject BSicon; if however he means to add the icons in those categories to other, more conventionally-named categories that would be perfectly acceptable and indeed welcomed. Useddenim (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
No. To quote the comment "I'll just remove categories for "icon/legend/logos" from ones for logos." As an example, I removed Category:Icons for railway descriptions/legende/logos from Category:Logos of rail transport companies since categories for "icons/legende/logos" aren't an actual thing on here. Let alone is that how logos are usually categorized.
I'm not going to add the logos in a category like Category:Icons for railway descriptions/legende/logos into existing categories for logos because I don't think it's a good solution to the problem. Images of "Icons/legende/logos" just shouldn't be dumped into the same category to begin with. Simplicity_principle "We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category. There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided." --Adamant1 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I assume "Biscon" means "BSicon"? - Jmabel ! talk 06:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Correct. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

user:PelicandeOussou

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done indef-blocked. @CoffeeEngineer: you may want to DR or speedy any remaining uploads. I haven't been following this one closely enough to say that any given file is problematic. - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Mikuni1024

After copyvio warning, this user didn't stop uploading mass copyvio photos. Netora (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, most files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Mass out-of-process moves by AnRo0002

AnRo0002 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Today I noticed that AnRo0002 moved one of my uploads from File:Turkey vultures (01721).jpg to File:Cathartes aura (01721).jpg (changing the unambiguous common name to the Latin binomial). I reverted, as (a) that's not covered by COM:FNC, and (b) people tend to search for common names, so I use them in titles (we categorize by Latin binomial, so both bases are covered). I reverted and left a message at 15:23 today. Now I see that AnRo0002 has edit warred to restore the previous move and moved dozens (hundreds?) more in the time since I left the message. As they don't seem responsive on the talk page, I'm opening this. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 day block, unacceptable. --A.Savin 19:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Sunshinerealtybrokerage

Promotional account only. Nuke uploads and indef. Blocked on enwiki already. Jonteemil (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done indefblocked, nuked Bedivere (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Nadezjda198

Nadezjda198 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is a new user and seems to be a child that uploads his drawings, many of them already deleted. Could an administrator warn him/her and deleted any out-of-scope of Commons images and files. Pierre cb (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: I warned them and created Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nadezjda198 for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Concerns about Grandmaster Huon

Grandmaster Huon (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has a weird obsession with nominating things for speedy deletion. Almost all of their recent edits are just nominating things for speedy deletion, One of these are the MOTHER boxarts, which this user repeatedly claims and nominates for deletion because of the earth used in these logos (despite it being in the public domain) . Despite commons "explicitly permits the hosting of photographs that carefully reproduce a two-dimensional public domain work", this user still tries to nominate these files for deletion. Again, just a concern. TzarN64 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Adding onto this, This user has been asked many times to calm down on their mass deletion requests over a month ago, It seems like this has been happening for awhile, now. TzarN64 (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Most mass deletions have been successful though. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
and I perfer a strict interpretation of legal matters per COM:PCP. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Speedy deletion should only be reserved for obvious cases. For example, Mother 2 image should have been a DR, not a speedy in my opinion. COM:PCP also requires significant doubt about the freedom of a file, not merely theoretical doubt. Abzeronow (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Some files still need to be reviewed because of copyright concern. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
The MOTHER's earth Logo is substantially different from the NASA version. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Well isn't the point of Commons to be free of copyvios? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
If you don't want copyvios hosted on Commons, at least develop an automated program to at least tag them. I'm honestly tired of using visual file change to tag and notify copyvios, it becomes very tedious. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
The Earth in the Mother logo is not faithful enough to carefully reproduce the NASA photo, it seems to be a simplified tracing, see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Finnischer_Eishockeyverband_logo.svg. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
General consensus among users on this site after countless deletion requests is that the Mother logos/boxart are below TOO Japan and images deriving from those in PD are allowed in Commons. Repeatedly requesting the same images to be deleted would most likely get COM:SNOW'd and you would probably get indeffed, too. TzarN64 (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I know, I was giving further information that would be helpful if such a statement reoccurs. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Besides, there are various other Mother Logo deletion requests that are still active and must run their course before their final decision. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

New problem with that contributor today, nominating for speedy deletion files for more than dubious reasons. At least de minimis should be discussed first. Nominating that many files for speedy deletion is problematic. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. This user has a huge obsession with deleting things for some reason? And some of the deletion reasons don't make sense to me- they're either very obviously de minimis or falsely claiming files under COM:TOO. I believe this is really problematic and this user either needs to stop falsely tagging things as copyvios. TzarN64 (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@Grandmaster Huon: if there is anything much short of certainty, you should not be requesting a speedy delete. Please use the normal deletion request process if there is room for doubt. - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel This user has repeatedly been asked to stop mass nominating things for deletion yet he still does it. This is the second time he's been brought to AN/U, and he has had an history of mass tagging things as well. For example: Grandmaster Huon has been banned from both EN and FR Wikipedia for the same mass AfD nominations. This user has repeatedly kept doing the same disruptive behavior. Even if we ignore the mass deletion requests, most of their speedy deletion requests are either very obviously de minimis, or just images derived from pubic domain images, which has been allowed on Commons for years per COM:PDARTREUSE.
TDLR; Grandmaster Huon has repeatedly kept doing the same disruptive behavior over and over again even we asked to stop. TzarN64 (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
FR wikipedia was not in AfD, merely translation. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I am planning on visiting Tahiti for a few weeks, and I'd love to share pictures of my Holiday on the site too. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Most of my speedy deletions were successful though. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Grandmaster Huon has been banned from both EN and FR Wikipedia, mostly for the same kind of issues : AfD/TfD/FfD/MfD nominations and bad patrol reverts. Grandmaster Huon is simply repeating the same kind of disrupting beheaviour on Wikicommons. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, this makes sense. I will take a pause. I was not banned, merely blocked. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I understand what de minimis is now. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
EN wiki sanctions were done only a year ago, so was FR wiki and that was file transfers and inadequate translations, not for EN wiki reasons.. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Current and Previous disputes should not downplay the fact that I have uploaded numerous constructive photos to this platform. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@Grandmaster Huon: Yes, you've done plenty of good work, but that does not give you a license to be disruptive.
Given that you seem to have trouble telling where the line is between a speedy-deletion copyvio and a DR: please only use speedy deletion if the file itself is apparently a plagiarism of someone else's work, and you have the URL of where it was copied from. Anything else, if you think there has been some violation of copyright (e.g. photo of a sign or building in a country with no FoP; copy of an artwork by a living or recently living artist) stick to DRs so if there are nuances there is a place to discuss them. - Jmabel ! talk 02:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, I do not have an intent to be disruptive, and if it seemed to be disruptive, this disruption would only be temporary and a small price to pay for a better platform for free media, similar to how spring cleaning or the construction of a new building has a minor impendence to household or urban life, but eventually leads to a more robust environment. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@Grandmaster Huon: No, there is no upside to you nominating things as speedy deletions that should be handled as DRs. You don't do yourself any favors by trying to justify it. - Jmabel ! talk 05:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
It appears that Grandmaster Huon has continued to nominate files for speedy deletion that should have been a DR instead. Abzeronow (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I believe some action is needed, be it a restriction from speedying files or block. Bedivere (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
@Bedivere Grandmaster Huon has a large history of mass deleting things- which is why they got indeffed on the English and French Wikipedias. I don't really believe theyll stop mass tagging files after they continued to nominate things for speedy deletion. I honestly think blocking is the best option here. TzarN64 (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I've issued a preventative one week block. Discussion about sanctions may continue Bedivere (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Yep. I'm beginning to just revert some of these now. I'm shocked after two AN/U's he still hadn't learnt his lesson! TzarN64 (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

[undent]Given the name of this thread, I want to report another concern with Grandmaster Huon. They make a lot of good deletion requests, but I question a lot of them, and more importantly, a very recent action of theirs really shocked me. See User talk:Grandmaster Huon#Consider backing off a little and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Akihabara August 2014 09.JPG, particularly this difference and my response to it. I've never seen someone vote "on my behalf" like that, and I'm really shocked by the chutzpah of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Well you never explained how you think this deletion request is against de minimis. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@Grandmaster Huon: absolutely out of line to turn someone's non-vote comment into a vote. Raising a doubt is not the same as drawing a conclusion, and even beyond that, someone is entitled to express an opinion without casting a vote.
Further, clearly someone with Ikan Kekek's level of experience here does not need your unsolicited assistance in how to comment/vote on a DR. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Then what was Ikan's doubt, and how would this affect the file outside of the current scope of the deletion request? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
That is the problem. You don't get the point of your disruptive actions. Bedivere (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
The problem was that I did not follow preestablished precedent without bringing something substantially new to the table. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
No, the problem was that you took it upon yourself to pretend to vote on my behalf when I was explaining why I disagreed with your reopening a deletion request on a previously kept file. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Given that no new comments have surfaced since yesterday's preventative one-week block, and based upon the comments above, I believe there is consensus to indefinitely block Grandmaster Huon. Indefinite does not mean infinite, so inevitably the user may ask for an unblock anytime, but such an unblock would need to come with a compromise to stop their disruptive behavior. They are effectively restricted from requesting speedy deletion of files, indefinitely. They may only nominate files for deletion, even if they are blatant copyvios, since they may be speedily closed on sight by any admin (as common procedure). That way, any file will need at least one week before deletion, unless obvious cases, and there will be most likely more than two eyes watching these. --Bedivere (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Cross-wiki uploads by User:Ng Huy Hoàng

Ng Huy Hoàng was created on February 26, 2024, and remained unused for a few days before. On March 2, the account start cross-wiki uploading various files from other Wikipedia Commons, most of which seemed to have been tagged with {{Permission ticket}}, but also some which were tagged with {{Permission received}} and still in need of verification. Many of the early moves have " Ticket permission added by non-VRT member OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member" in their edit summaries. Ng Huy Hoàng has also created Template:OTRS chứng which could just be a Vietnamese translation Template:Permission ticket, but not sure. Ng Huy Hoàng is moving files at a fairly fast pace (sort seems like en:WP:MEATBOT) without anyone really checking on their work. Cross-wiki uploading is of course permitted by Commons policy, but it's also something that can be problematic because a fair number of files aren't properly vetted before being moved. Local files often get deleted by default once they've been moved to Commons regardless of whether they were OK to move in the first place; so, an inappropriate move could lead to two files being deleted. There have been several licensing related notifications already added to Ng Huy Hoàng's user talk page since the account was created, some of which have resulted in deletion. For sure, anyone can make mistakes, but these notifications indicate (at least to me) that maybe Ng Huy Hoàng is moving too quickly and probably should slow down. It might be a good idea for someone to take a look at all their moves to make sure they're OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I'm having trouble following some of that, which may be related to why this has been sitting for 20 hours with no action. Could I ask you to please reread what you wrote & see if you can maybe make this clearer? - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
This is looks like an evolution from the "no permission" spam from taiwanese accounts. @Krd, can you take a look, as you were involved the last time somthing like this happened? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: TL;DR: User:Ng Huy Hoàng is uploading copyvios falsely tagged with various permission tags, and moving files from other wikis resulting in deletion in both places.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
This is a full scale mess. I have no idea how this can be cleaned up. I suggest to block the user and delete all uploads. --Krd 16:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Can you implement that? I'm also willing to open a CU case if needed. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Please do. --Krd 16:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
@Jeff G., I can't find the original thread about the issue, do you remember where we had the dicussion? (@Krd, You were at that dicusssion as you were the deleteing admin. @Bedivere, Do you remember where the dicussion took place? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not aware that there was any prior discussion. Krd 16:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
This was due to Your mass deletion of a bunch of files falsely tagged with {{no permission}} about 5 months ago. This may have been at abuse filter, but I can't find the report in the archives. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't remember this incident at all Bedivere (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
@Alachuckthebuck: Marchjuly's post was the first I remember seeing of this; I just distilled that post. There was probably something on another wiki that I didn't see (perhaps enwiki).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
This happened a few months ago, and was due to some users going on a no permission tagging spree. 1 week later, Krd deleted the files, I noticed via IRC, and I forgot where the dicussion happened. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
@Alachuckthebuck Are you referring to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 97#Unusual Deletion of Images of Vietnamese Artists? Tvpuppy (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes I am, thank you for finding it! All the Best -- Chuck Talk 01:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@Krd, I have filed the case. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 02:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

My apologies Jmabel for not responding sooner; I was away for the past couple of days and was unable to edit using my phone. I also apologize if my original post was confusing. Basically, Ng Huy Hoàng made a lot of cross-wiki uploads from English Wikipedia and also apparently from Vietnamese Wikipedia over the past few days, and some of the ones moved from English Wikipedia probably shouldn't have been moved because they had be tagged with {{Permission received}} templates, i.e. an email was sent to VRT but was found to be insufficient. Some of the other files moved had been tagged with {{Permission ticket}} templates, but the edit summaries for some of those files (like this one) indicate the "Permission ticket" templates weren't added by a VRT member. So, I just thought that it might be a good idea for an admin or VRT member to take a look at the files Ng Huy Hoàng had already moved to see if they're OK for Commons. Most of the ones moved from English Wikipedia seemed to have been tagged for speedy deletion per en:WP:F8, which is fine if the files are OK for Commons but not so good if they're not. I'm not familiar any issues related to Vietnamese Wikipedia and the mistagging of Vietnamese Wikipedia or Commons files with {{No permission since}}. I really only noticed Ng Huy Hoàng and their uploads because four of the files COM:VRTN#Ticket #2024100410007511 and COM:VRTN#ticket:2024121610007888) moved from English Wikipedia had been still awaiting VRT verification; these files have, however, been deleted since I asked about them at VRTN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Just a note on the terminology: This is about file import from other Wikis. Cross-Wiki upload is something totally different. Cross-Wiki upload uploads the files to Commons never touching the local Wiki. GPSLeo (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my error GPSLeo. The files I referred to above were imported to Commons from English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@Krd: Since you've blocked Ng Huy Hoàng, there will be no new uploads to sort out for at least awhile. There are, however, files like File:Susan Hespos.jpeg, File:Ricardo Ernst.jpg, File:Robert Frykenberg.jpg, File:Vasilis Fthenakis.png, File:Fakhreddine Karray.jpg, File:Stephen Phillips.jpeg, File:Lingyan Shi.jpeg, File:George V. Mann.png, File:Lars Henrik Smedsrud1.jpg, File:Lars Henrik Smedsrud2.jpg, File:Ulrich Walter.jpg, File:Rolf Reitz.jpg and File:Anudeep wikipedia image.jpg that might need a closer look since they were all imported to Commons even though they still haven't been verified by VRT. In addition, there's also File:WMCA Good Guys 1964.jpg and File:WMCA-AM 570 Good Guys January-February 1964.jpg which were inported but also which seem to be the same image with different file names; one of these has been VRT verified but the other has been tagged with {{npd}}, which seems odd since (once again) they're the same image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
It appears al files have been tagged accordingly. Is there anything still missing? Krd 17:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
​ Not sure, but those that are tagged seem odd. For example, File:Ricardo Ernst.jpg looks like it was tagged with {{OTRS pending}} by the user who originally uploaded the file to English Wikipedia when they uploaded the file; however, the file is also tagged with {{Npd}} dated January 11, 2025. There's no record of this tagging in the file page's history; so, perhaps it's automatically added at some point due to the "OTRS pending" template. Either way, there's no record of the original uploader being notified about this that I can find on either their Commons user talk page or their English Wikipedia user talk page, and there's also no {{Permission received}} template indication VRT even received an email for this image. There are several files like this and all have the same issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
All done, I think. Krd 17:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Krd. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Aventury

Aventury (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  a new user that does not seems to know copyright rules as he uploads copyrighted website images or use copyrighted backgound s to make his creations. Should be warned and uploads be evaluated. Pierre cb (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned. @Pierre cb: Please note that no admin right is needed for that. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Ecotto29200

Ecotto29200 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and their sockpuppets (confirmed on enwiki):

have been mass-reverting hundreds of files to old revisions. I think a block is in order. C F A 16:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@CFA: Please give the link to English Wikipedia investigations. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ecotto29200. C F A 16:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked. Working on cleanup. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

User:К.Лаврентьев

К.Лаврентьев (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) continues uploading images with false rationale and clear derivatives as 'own works' after mass deletions for exactly the same violations and two long-term blocks (3 and 6 months). Komarof (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. 1 year block (3rd block). Next block should be indefinite. Taivo (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Jhon A Salvador

Jhon A Salvador (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violation despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

User:186.172.190.5

186.172.190.5 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This random Latin American IP address has attacked me multiple times by adding false and unnecessary split requests at 2 of my files and adding an inappropriate deletion request at a file. I even had to curse just to get this off of my mind. 🗽Freedoxm🗽 (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet of Wave of Pandas

User: Fogg0302 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Same useless photos of Hong Kong as globally locked Wave of Pandas et al. Krok6kola (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't have time to take this up right now, and yes it does look like Wave of Pandas, but File:Grand Harbour setle 09.jpg is probably worth saving. - Jmabel ! talk 07:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
possibly worth saving File:Regent and central.jpg as well. - Jmabel ! talk 07:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked Fogg indefinitely and mass deleted all his/her uploads (except one). Taivo (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

RowanJ LP

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Rowan for a week and deleted 2 copyvios. Taivo (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

User:L'Hommedusud

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Only 1 upload after last block, no edits during last 2 months. I do not feel urgent need to block. Maybe next time. Taivo (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Kürschner

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Those files are photos of a fur coat. As a useful object, they're not copyrightable. The underpattern in File:Saphir Nerzmantel, ausgelassen verarbeitet (4).jpg might be, but it's marginal; not the sort of thing I'd consider noticeboard worthy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Antwort: Ich schreibe als Fachmann in der deutschen Wikipedia über Pelze und dokumentiere die verschiedenen Fellarten, Verarbeitungsmethoden und die Geschichte der Pelzmode und des Handels. Dazu habe ich bisher etliche tausend Dateien hochgeladen. Ich bemühe mich dabei, das Urheberrecht nicht zu verletzen, immer wieder ist vielleicht etwas grenzwertig, wo man sich streiten könnte. Die sichtbare Ecke eines Futterdessins in einem Mantel halte ich eher nicht für schützenswert. – Aber zu sagen, ich würde permanent Urheberrechtsverstöße begehen, ist schon ziemlich mutig... Im Übrigen bin ich der Meinung, dass man mit solchen Anschuldigen vorsichtiger sein sollte, schließlich machen wir unsere Arbeit hier ehrenamtlich und bilden uns ein, etwas Gutes zu bewirken. Wenn man dafür derart angegriffen wird, zieht einen das runter und man verliert die Motivation. Mir geht es jedenfalls so. Schöne Woche. -- Kürschner (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: The photos are copyrightable, that's what he didn't provide licenses for until User:AntiCompositeBot tagged him.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
@User:Jeff G. It's not copyvio. He simply failed to provide a license to his own work. That's a much less serious issue. Maybe if there was a long term history of uploading works without licenses, or a willful refusal to provide licenses, that would be one thing, but a simple error is no big deal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Uploader just forgot to add a license tag. Many thanks to Kürschner for his highly valuable contributions during the past 16 years! --Achim55 (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Please all who are reading this, let's keep in mind this nonsensical report by Jeff G. for his next RfA run. I sincerely hope this user is never going to become a sysop here, otherwise the damage for Commons might be severe. --A.Savin 08:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@A.Savin: So COM:L and COM:EVID aren't policies any more? I reported what I saw as violations of them. How is that wrong? That was after I issued the final warning in Special:Diff/1002374998 17:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
@A.Savin, That jab at Jeff G. was not needed here. Speaking of @Jeff G., please remember to assume good faith, with both new and old users alike. This was a simple, easily correctible mistake by a longtime contributor who meant no harm. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
About the underpattern in File:Saphir Nerzmantel, ausgelassen verarbeitet (4).jpg: it should be De minimis / fulfil the Beiwerk requirements, as even another pattern would not change the overall impression of the photograph, which is the core saying of the law as far as I understand it. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Spurzem

Spurzem is highly active on the QIC page. Unfortunately, he tends to react emotionally when encountering opinions that contradict his own. His comments in such cases often border on personal attacks, including accusing other users of bad faith. This behavior previously resulted in a block in 2017. Spurzem also tends to carry conflicts from one discussion to another - for example, making ironic or passive-aggressive references to comments made by certain users he perceives as opponents, even under unrelated photos.

I drew attention to this behavior some time ago and warned Spurzem about it twice. On the second occasion, Spurzem accused me of attempting to intimidate him due to what he described as "ironically worded criticism." Each warning, however, did temporarily calm the situation.

Unfortunately, Spurzem's behavior has recently deteriorated again. He is now making comments that border on personal attacks in a discussion under an image that he himself previously attempted, unsuccessfully, to improve.

In my opinion, the situation has escalated sufficiently to warrant bringing it once again to the administrators' attention. I leave it up to you whether this warrants another block, an administrator-issued warning, or simply increased observation of his activity.

Examples and warnings (older):

And latest:

Regards, -- Jakubhal 15:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It's amazing what Jakubhal has collected about me. But is criticism not allowed? Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment I see no "teasing" in https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=853975074. It's a valid question whether a better image would be possible. - Jmabel ! talk 07:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment In https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=854220126, as far as I can tell the reference to "photographic junk" is not aimed at any person or image in particular. It is valid for Spurzem to say that he thinks that frequently the wrong images get QI status. - Jmabel ! talk 07:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment "ironic" comment etc.: I've got to say, I can see his point. The image immediately above seems also to have an issue of having much of its main subject in darkness. I personally wouldn't make either image a QI. - Jmabel ! talk 07:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I think I've looked at enough. This may not win Spurzem any prizes for the most polite person ever to engage in QI discussions, but none of it seems to call for administrative sanctions. - Jmabel ! talk 07:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't entirely agree with your assessment because you're not considering the connections between the comments. In some of my examples, he comments below votes by users he's arguing with elsewhere. You've also omitted some of his worst statements. However, it's clear to me I don't have support for this request. Apparently, other users at QIC aren't as bothered by this communication style. Therefore, the request should be closed. I'll do my best not to pay any more attention to Spurzem's comments. -- Jakubhal 12:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Alt accounts, acceptable use?

These two accounts seem to be the same individual. I don't know if it's allowed. Neither account is blocked and the newer one seem to have been uploading files that were previously uploaded by the older account and also nominated for deletion. The older account seem to have nominated all of its files for deletion. Jonteemil (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I have let them know that they are in danger of being blocked if they do not respond here and explain. If they continue to edit any significant amount without responding here to explain, I would urge blocking at least Jimmylondon.fotografie which has not been active since Jimart.fotografie was created.- Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I suggest to block the newest account. No useful content anyway. Yann (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Theron2

Please see Special:Contributions/Theron2 and also revert the user's edits. Thanks in advance. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I've informed them that if they turn any more dates into invalid values, this account will be blocked.
If there were other issues, then someone else can spell those out: I didn't have the patience to sort through a large number of edits to find out.
It would be very useful if people making reports here would explain what they think is the problem with the reported user's edits (preferably with diffs) rather than expect an admin to redo whatever research they did that had them identify a problem. -- Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
They're just spamming one or more YouTube links into random pages all across the project. Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
This should have gone to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism. It's just mass spamming. I've just reverted hundreds of spam links. No need to talk, just block immediately. --Sitacuisses (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
They haven't edited since the warning. But, yes, if they do this again, indef-block. - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Jmabel, this link has repeatedly been spammed by various accounts, see History of Category:CC-BY-SA-4.0. It has already been reported as long term cross wiki spam to m:Talk:Spam blacklist#youtube.com/watch?v=3f8VokxYQ4A, but the link wasn't blocked. --Sitacuisses (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Since the account has not yet been blocked and continues to spam, I've opened a new report at the vandalism board. --Sitacuisses (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Jmabel, thanks to your generosity, this account keeps on spamming hundreds of pages four hours after it was reported here. What a joke. --Sitacuisses (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Indeffed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Sitacuisses: if the complaint here had indicated that this was vandalism (or better yet, been posted to COM:AN/V) and/or indicated the nature of the vandalism, I'd have blocked. But, as it was, I was just told to look at their contributions. Picked 3 at random. Figured that could be someone just confused. Warned them. Said here that they should be indef'd if they continued.
Maybe I shouldn't have taken this on at all when I was about to go do other things for an hour or two, but if someone bringing an issue here doesn't take the time to describe the nature of a problem that they've presumably already got their head around, don't expect an admin to spend a bunch of time investigating. If you really think that was inappropriate on my part, please raise the issue however/wherever you think is appropriate. As long as you link this thread, I promise not to bother further justifying my actions: I've just said my part right here. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Don't worry everybody. Now this user is being globally locked (I've nominated this lock on SRG). 〈興華街〉📅❓ 13:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Cropped, repeated upload of watermarked material

KanekiXV (talk · contribs) uploaded File:Prof azeko2.jpg and File:Prof talifu.jpg. I've tagged for speedy deletion as these clearly have watermarks and likely belong to an agency and not the work of the uploader.

Since then, File:Prof sal.jpg and File:Profzek.jpg (cropped versions leaving out the watermark) have been uploaded with the same CC license and claims of own work. It's hard to view this as any other way than avoiding copyright issues. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning rather quickly, about the errors in my article. I can assure you that I have ownership of these photos. That notwithstanding, I am open to all the criticisms and corrections as they come, so as to make better articles in the future, Thank you once again. KanekiXV (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

user:Vijay6767

No productive edits, just censorship and OOS uploads Dronebogus (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you try not biting the newbies? The uploads should be checked by someone more familiar with {{BollywoodHungama}}, but Category:Tiger Shroff has a page on 46 Wikipedias; pictures of him are not out of scope. Yes, nominating explicit pictures for deletion is annoying, but people need at least one warning about it before it being dragged to the Administrator's board.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I thought that Bollywood Hungama's images are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license because images of other celebrities like Prajakta Koli, CarryMinati, Tamannaah Bhatia and Elvish Yadav are also uploaded from Bollywood Hungama. Vijay6767 (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Hmd5i (4th report)

AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Yann@Taivo@Bastique@Jmabel AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 6 months (2nd block), reverted. Yann (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
@Yann:Thank you 👍 AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

JohnnyL15

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

WikiGlobalEdit

WikiGlobalEdit (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - continues to upload (the same) copyright violations after warning - Jcb (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block plus I mass deleted all uploads. Taivo (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

User:মাত্রা

মাত্রা (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) continued to upload copyright violations after final warning. 0x0a (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, most files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

User:100jan0vski

100jan0vski (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has already been warned twice for uploading web content licensed as own work. Now they're removing speedy deletion tags without explanation or addressing source issues, and have done so after being asked not to do so. I believe at this point, the only remedy is a block. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed, because their response to this was some rather rude LOUTSOCKing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Osamaosamaosamaosama

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a week and deleted something. Taivo (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Gabegk14

Gabegk14 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  The user continued to upload unfree files after a final warning. 0x0a (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Bedivere

Ich glaube es hackt! Bedivere löscht meine Bilder wider besseres Wissen als "Copyright-Violation". Das ist krassester Misbrauche der "Knöpfe"! C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The automated message included an edit summary calling these copyright violations incorrectly, but the files were deleted as they were out of scope. This is the result of another thread. Discussion may continue there. --Bedivere (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Hifisamurai

Hifisamurai (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Repeated copyright issues. False attribution claiming things they ripped off from the web as "their own" or "government work" when they're not. Looking at talk page, I see they have had multiple copyright issues. Graywalls (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. Copyvios are deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Here is my source regarding Dennis Connors: https://www.teamusa.com/profiles/dennis-connors. I assumed Team USA was a government website but if that's not the case I acknowledge the mistake and will be careful moving forward.
Regarding the TEDxPortland logo, attributing it to myself was an oversight. I uploaded a screenshot I personally captured so I mistakenly credited myself. Upon reflection I realize this was incorrect. For what its worth, I found since then that TEDxPortland's website offer logo downloads in their media section so I should of uploaded that in the 1st place.
I appreciate you pointing these issues out and I'll make sure to properly attribute and verify content sources in the future. Hifisamurai (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
@Hifisamurai: What license does "TEDxPortland's website offer?" I can tell you that https://www.tedxportland.com/brand-guidelines offers no license, so their works were copyrighted as soon as (after 1 March 1989 in the case of the US) each was fixed in a tangible medium of expression because that's when the US joined the Berne Convention, whether we liked it or not. So, why did you invent a "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license" for File:TEDxPortland Logo on White background.png in Special:Permalink/1008897179? Also, content from https://www.teamusa.com/profiles/dennis-connors is "© 2025 United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee. All Rights Reserved." That's a committee, not a government. If you continue along these lines, expect to be sued by United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee, Legal Department, 1 Olympic Plaza, Colorado Springs, CO 80909 (see https://www.teamusa.com/terms-of-use section "5. Intellectual Property").   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Annisa Tiara Ramadhani

Annisa Tiara Ramadhani (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  The user continued to upload pictures with false CC license despite all warnings, most of which were still protected by copyright. 0x0a (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

RoyZuo

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

Blatantly protecting the interests of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 by reverting multiple edits:

Being blocked on enwiki and yuewiki for Wikipedia namespaces just to protect a user's stand. Admins please check his contribs. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 11:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

For users reading this, please see
  1. Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2025/02#c-Jmabel-20250301164900-HingWahStreet-20250301145600
  2. Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#c-RoyZuo-20250321102800-HingWahStreet
  3. Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#c-RoyZuo-20250321110800-HingWahStreet-20250321104800.
RoyZuo (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Since when is protecting other users and their hard work a problem on commons? Funny.
Is this user on a mission here to attack and annoy other users? When they are not constructive and collegial to this project, they should stop or be stopped from editing commons. RoyZuo (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
You are now making statements that are completely ignoring community discussions that this is CURRENTLY NOT CONCENSUS. If you are complaining who's doing such things far before I did it, complain it to LuciferianThomas instead. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 14:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Users please also see Commons:Village Pump#Respect and non-disturbance for long-term prolific contributor. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 11:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I think a block is also necessary for this user. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 11:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think so. RoyZuo is a constructive contributor and shouldn't be blocked. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
What constructive contributor? This user had made multiple disruptive edits on multiple wikis that are solely for its own personal interests previously:
Also the user had made numerous intrusive comments like these:
Therefore, this user was indef-blocked on both enwiki and yuewiki for editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces for disrupting discussions. The user is now clearly promoting its own personal interests to make everybody trust that what it did is no mistake. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 15:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
@HingWahStreet, a common thread in all of these prior dicussions is you going after RoyZuo, with no one else agreeing with your view point. Regarding the diffs from en-wiki: These aren't related to the issue being dicussed here, and while blunt, are still civil and explain their stance on the issue on that discussion. Please drop the stick. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
@Alachuckthebuck I'll walk away from this issue and let others make comments (but not decide), but please also call RoyZuo to walk away. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 16:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
@HingWahStreetSee my response to your ANV thread. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
 Info I blocked User:HingWahStreet for one month. Discussion on IBAN should take place centralized at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#HingWahStreet please do not add further comments here. GPSLeo (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Generic alien invasion.jpg

As it can be seen in the discussion, this is a discussion of whenever the article "Extraterrestrials in fiction" from en.wiki should use the file or not, not so much about the image in itself. I told the user Dronebogus, both here and at his talk page in Wikipedia, to discuss such a removal at the right place, the article's talk page. As the user clearly refuses to do that (he kept talking in the DR and listed the file as "removed" in Wikipedia, so clearly he already noticed the requests and ignored them), I would like to request this DR to be procedurally closed.

Note that the image was being used in an article, and that makes it in scope, regardless of subjetive assesments such as "I don't like it". Removing the file from articles in order to claim that the image is not used and thus out of scope is clearly gaming the system. Cambalachero (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Right but while I think a free AI image in the style that UFOs are often displayed in alien invasion fiction may help illustrate this article, I also think that this particular image is not good and not good enough for being in the article. Maybe you could improve upon it and create a better image. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done You could have posted this request at COM:AN Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

User:C.Suthorn

C.Suthorn (talk · contribs)

Back in January, the user had created a Category:Bundesglasfaser and uploaded numerous photos into it. On COM:Forum (in German), there was discussion on this, with consensus that this word is solely a product of the user's imagination with zero Google search result and zero notability on Wikimedia sites. The category was then deleted and emptied. The corresponding Wikidata item was deleted as well as non-notable.

Now it turns that the user keeps uploading tons of stuff into the same, no longer existing, category. (Including files of doubtful quality and usability such as File:Bundesglasfaser 0132.jpg), all named with the same imaginary term. Kindly request to consider whether it's gaming Commons at the very least, actually vandalism by adding out-of-scope content after a clear warning (discussions on Commons and WD). --A.Savin 06:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland hat zum Jubiläum ihrer Verfassung - dem Grundgesetz - einen Verfassungstag begangen. Dazu wurden von allen Bundesministerien Stände auf dme Platz der Republik errichtet. Der Platz der Republik ist für Deutschland das, was der Rote Platz in Moskau für Russland ist, was der General Post Office in Dublin für die Republik Irland ist, oder der Rasen vor dem weißen Haus für die USA. Um die Stände der Ministerien auf dem Verfassungstag mit Internet zu versorgen, wurde auf dem Platz der Republik ein Glasfaserverteilerkasten errichtet, der aber seitdem nicht mehr verwendet wird und dem Verfall preisgeben ist. Insbesondere liegen auf dem Platz der Republik verschiedene Glasfasern, die von der Witterung und von passierenden Menschen immer wieder hin und her gestoßen werden. Diese enden in Glasfasersteckern, die nicht für den Gebrauch im Freien vorgesehen sind. Selbst in einem Innenraum würden sie mit Schutzkappen versehen werden, wenn sichnciht in eine Buchse eingestöpselt sind. Auf dem symbolischen Platz der Republik verfällt also digitale Infratruktur unter den Augen von Staatsgeästen, von Touristen, von Politikern. Als mir dies aufgefallen ist, habe ich angefangen diesen Verteilkasten zu dokumentieren. Das ist ein fortlaufendes Projekt, bis dieer Kasten entweder entfernt oder in Stand gesetzt wird. Ich habe zunächst Fotos gesammelt für eine spätere Veröffentlichung. Dann habe ich mich aber entschieden mit der Veröffentlichung zu beginnen, da nicht absehtbar ist, wie lange dieser Verteilerkasten weiterhin verfällt. Für die Fotos habe ich den Namen "Bundesglasfaser" gewählt. Das ist ein eingängiges Wort, nur bestehend aus lateinischen Grundbuchstaben aus dem ACSCII, so dass es auch für MW-User, die nicht in der lateinischen Schrift beheimatet sind einfach handlebar ist. Da alle Fotos mit dem Namen "Bundesglasfaser" dasselbe Objekt ein einem ganz konkreten Ort, mit ganz bestimmten Koordinaten zeigen, ist es nach der Logik von Commons sinnvoll, dass diese auch alle mit demselben SDC-depict-Statement versehen werden. Um das zu ermöglichen, habe ich eine Kategorie erstellt, um damit eine Wikidata- Q-Item erstellen zu können, das dann in den SDC als depict verwendet werden kann. Wie diese Kategorie und das Q-Item heißen, ist dabei nebensächlich. Leider haben sich @A.Savin, @L. Beck und @Gnom zusammengetan, nicht etwa um die Kategorie oder das Q-Item umzubenennen, sondern um beides zu löschen und so zu verhindern, dass die Fotos, die ich im Projekt Bundesglasfaser erstellt habe und solange weiter erstellen werde, wie dieser Verteilerkasten auf dem Platz der Republik weiter verfällt, ein depict-Statement erhalten. Alle drei genannten sind bereits in der Vergangenheit gegen mich aktiv gewesen. Noch ein Hinweis: Bereits bevor ich das erste Bild hochgeladen habe, habe ich entschieden, diese Bilder mit einer 4-stelligen Numerierung zu versehen, da ich es für möglich hielt, dass mit der Zeit mehr als 999 Bilder zusammenkommen werden. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt konnte ich nicht vorhersehen, dass drei andere User beginnen würden, gegen diese Fotos vorzugehen. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
The Federal Republic of Germany celebrated Constitution Day to commemorate the anniversary of its constitution – the Basic Law. All federal ministries set up stands on the Platz der Republik. The Platz der Republik is to Germany what Red Square in Moscow is to Russia, what the General Post Office in Dublin is to the Republic of Ireland, or the lawn in front of the White House is to the USA. To provide internet access to the ministries' stands on Constitution Day, a fiber optic distribution box was erected on the Platz der Republik, but it has since been disused and is falling into disrepair. In particular, various fiber optic cables lie on the Platz der Republik, which are repeatedly knocked back and forth by the weather and passing people. These end in fiber optic connectors that are not intended for outdoor use. Even indoors, they would be fitted with protective caps if not plugged into a socket. Thus, on the symbolic Platz der Republik, digital infrastructure is decaying under the watchful eyes of state officials, tourists, and politicians. When I noticed this, I started documenting this distribution box. It's an ongoing project until the box is either removed or repaired. I initially collected photos for later publication. But then I decided to start publishing them, as it's unclear how long this distribution box will continue to deteriorate. I chose the name "Bundesglasfaser" (Federal Fiber Optics) for the photos. It's a catchy word, consisting only of Latin letters from ASCII, making it easy to handle even for MW users who aren't familiar with the Latin alphabet. Since all photos with the name "Bundesglasfaser" show the same object at a very specific location with very specific coordinates, it makes sense, according to Commons' logic, that they all be assigned the same SDC describe statement. To make this possible, I created a category to create a Wikidata Q item, which can then be used as a depict in the SDC. The name of this category and the Q-Item is irrelevant. Unfortunately, @A.Savin, @L. Beck and @Gnom joined forces, not to rename the category or the Q-Item, but to delete both and thus prevent the photos I created in the Federal Fiber Optics project, and will continue to create as long as this distribution box on the Platz der Republik continues to deteriorate, from receiving a depict statement. All three of the above have already taken action against me in the past. One more note: Even before I uploaded the first image, I decided to assign these images a four-digit number, as I considered it possible that more than 999 images would accumulate over time. At that time, I could not have foreseen that three other users would begin to take action against these photos.
translator: Google Translate via   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I  Oppose any action against C.Suthorn for this.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
unacceptable action, if there is a result of a discussion, everyone, even @C.Suthorn should accept that. Lukas Beck (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
C.Suthorn, Commons is not the place for your personal political project. We do not need hundreds of photos of a distribution box just because you have assigned it personal significance, and we certainly do not need a category or Wikidata item for it. Please find somewhere else to host your personal files. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535, I can see at lease some of the photos being within scope, but agree that uploading every single photo is a bit excessive, but I do commend their efforts to correctly catagorize and add structured data to their files. A dicussion should be had about the files, but none seems to have taken place on commons regarding their merit, just a warning. Everyone involved in the issue is at least partially at fault for this. This did not need to go to ANU, C.Suthorn's talk page would have sufficed, only going to ANU if it wasn't settled on their talk. @A.Savin, Can you link the relevant dicussion(s)? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
This one, however German language only. --A.Savin 00:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
What about wikidata? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 00:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't know whether this deserves any adminstrative action, but I have some doubt that the intended upload of more than 999 photos of a dilapidated distributor box is helpful for the Commons project. Apart from that, the author's term "Bundesglasfaser" is impossible to understand without the author's explanations. Therefore, the file descriptions are very bad. Why not just use the "headline" part from the huge Exif data block ("Schaltkasten und lose Glasfaser zwischen Kanzleramt, Paul-Löbe-Haus und Reichstag")? This would be so much more understandable than "Bundesglasfaser 2025". The deleted category should be emptied, of course. If the author insists on a common categorization for all these files, then this should be done in a personal (hidden) category below Category:Files by C.Suthorn. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
The problem is (as often) that this thread probably will be archived after a while without any action. Despite the fact that almost all participants completely or partially agree that the edits by C.Suthorn are problematic at least.
So, what else might prevent C.Suthorn from further spamming Commons? A kind request on his talk page not to do so? --A.Savin 15:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I've deleted all the photos in that category. If any particular image turns out to be in scope (I doubt it) they can be restored. Bedivere (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if any other measure, besides a warning, is needed. The user explanation is not really helpful behind the so called mystique of this decayed box. I suggest self hosting a Piwigo to document this local topic. Bedivere (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn I don't know what's the point of creating another thread when the reason of the deletion of the files is correctly expressed here. I would support blocking as trolling, uploading these files despite the January discussion is obviously disruptive. Bedivere (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I have blocked C.Suthorn for two weeks. On top of the out-of-scope uploads, filing a retaliatory AN/U thread with a personal attack is not acceptable behavior. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I will ping you Pi.1415926535 but really anyone can help. C.Suthorn uploads use a custom author template that causes a really long text to appear in Media Viewer (used by Wikipedias etc when you click a file). On my phone the text is 45% of the screen and it actually cuts off the preview of the file (and doesn't wikilink to uploader). I would like to discuss with C.Suthorn and don't think it is intentional, but they are blocked for 2 weeks. Commander Keane (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Actually the full text doesn't appear on desktop Media Viewer so it may be a software bug. I can reproduce by visiting on Mobile Special:ListFiles/C.Suthorn and clicking the first picture. I will post on Village Pump instead. Commander Keane (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Meh, I found Phab:T378431 (and its duplicate phab:T378732) that deal with this. High priority for 4 months. I won't bother with Village Pump, sorry for the nuisance. Commander Keane (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
See also: Metadaten bei Bildern. --AxelHH (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

HingWahStreet

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

  1. 17:44, 20 March: collapsed VP discussion with bogus reason https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=1012008466#User_pages
  2. 19:27, 20 March: their disruptive edits were warned by me User_talk:HingWahStreet#c-RoyZuo-20250320192700-Do_not_edit_other_users'_comments
  3. doing it again repetitively. prior warnings are apparently ignored.
    1. 02:12, 21 March special:diff/1012104292
    2. 09:58, 21 March special:diff/1012165369.
  4. removing this report repetitively:
    1. 10:36, 21 March special:diff/1012172245
    2. 10:44, 21 March special:diff/1012174299.

RoyZuo (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Added #4 4.1 4.2 .
Block appears necessary.--RoyZuo (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Can special:diff/1012189799 these ongoing nonsensical collapse of public discussions please be stopped already? RoyZuo (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
If you stop your accusement of your stand against other users, it will stop. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 12:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
See #RoyZuo and COM:Village pump#Respect and non-disturbance for long-term prolific contributor. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 11:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
You already got multiple final warnings on different problematic actions. You did not violate against what the final warning was on. But these edit pattern and how you react on these complaint here does not look like you unterstand the problem and that you are willing to change your behavior. GPSLeo (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Same as that of RoyZuo. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 12:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
 Info I blocked User:HingWahStreet for on month for ongoing inappropriate commenting on the admin boards after been warned the third time this year. I would propose an IBAN between User:HingWahStreet, User:RoyZuo and the "Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer" accounts. GPSLeo (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
 Support, per my comment at the other thread . Tvpuppy (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
 Support an iban between HingWahStreet and both RoyZuo and Anon. HK Photog accounts would be best. Abzeronow (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I dont know what rationales your proposal has or how your proposal contributes to commons. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  1. Many users have been helping with maintenance of Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 since the category was created in 2019 (whereas the photographer has been contributing since 2006, predating most people here. there was no problem for over a decade).
  2. I am merely one of the maintainers since a long time ago. examples I can find: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=RoyZuo&offset=20230201181111 .
  3. Life goes on quitely for years. A handful of users are constantly helping. We always see each other in file histories, quietly doing the work. (But I wont name them here so as not to bother them for nonsense.)
  4. Then these hostile users come along and make a big fuss.
  5. Now your proposal: I'd be banned from editing, if these hostile users have edited something first.
  6. 1 month later they come back and with their hyperactivity they edit all user pages categories files, make a big mess, and your proposal will penalise me if I keep doing work I've been doing before these people emerged.
  7. Unlike even small European countries which have a ton of active users, how many users do you know that have the knowledge and passion to handle media that come from Category:Guangdong, involve the use of Cantonese language and other local languages, have a good grasp of how commons category system actually works?
    Even Hong Kong, supposedly an anglospheric city, users from there still keep creating badly titled categories that I will never manage to correct all (can be seen in Category:Men of Hong Kong by name).
So as long as a user is daring enough to keep disrupting, other users will be prevented from doing anything or risk getting blocked?
Or, please explain how your proposal contributes to commons file and category maintenance. RoyZuo (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Under the IBAN you can still edit the same files as long as they are not uploaded by one of you. You are only not allowed to communicate directly and to revert each other, if you think that something needs to be reverted that was done by the other user you always have to make a request on the admin board. GPSLeo (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
This account's behaviour feels somewhat similar to a past case: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive 19#Yrellag. The account in the old case went dormant after 2023-05-30.
Why does this account reminds me of the old case? They both like to empty categories from files. You can still see 2 thread on this account's user talk page telling them not to empty categories User talk:HingWahStreet#About removing categories. RoyZuo (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, despite some dissimilarity between the two cases, I am now 60% positive that they are the same person, but I cannot reveal the evidence because it involves newspaper reporting. I have a conjecture on why the old case went dormant after May 2023 (because of real world events), and why the account in the new case would be registered in February 2024. RoyZuo (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, using the same phone model with serial number removed from the EXIF data looks very suspicious. GPSLeo (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
lol
G6zLZz2cEPKdEXB https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&namespace=14&newOnly=1&target=G6zLZz2cEPKdEXB&dir=prev
HingWahStreet https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&namespace=14&newOnly=1&target=HingWahStreet&dir=prev
Now I'm 80% positive. RoyZuo (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I also can’t help but noticed that HingWahStreet’s post here, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 119#User uploading own pictures over multiple usernames, has the same list as the one in Yrellag’s talk page here User_talk:Yrellag#Anonymous_Users. I think it might be worth it to do a checkuser to find out if this is actually the case. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
@GPSLeo @Tvpuppy kudos to you two. I totally overlooked the fact that both cases had uploaded own photos. And Tvpuppy, good catch at the list. 😂
I'll tell you the real world evidence indirectly, and especially Tvpuppy having chinese literacy can easily find out.
On the new account there are links to youtube channel. Google what you see there and you will find newspaper reports. The events reported in newspapers can quite reasonably well explain why the old case stopped in 2023-05-30 and why the new case first registered in Feb 2024. Also, the personality traits described by the news reports explain multiple aspects of the behaviour here. RoyZuo (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately checkuser will not help here as User:Yrellag did not edit in the last 90 days. GPSLeo (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I can take a break now. 😂 Having to deal with a hyperactive user is super stressful. RoyZuo (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
A final summary from me:
  1. Now everything returns to quietness (for 1 month). I hope these sections dont need my response again and can smoothly lapse into archives.
  2. There are many more users who constantly help maintain the files, such as Velma, Solomon203... Yall can check their contribs for yourselves. There's no problem for any reasonable routine maintenance like DR, categorisation, rename... It has gone on for years. Are yall even aware of these efforts happening under the cat tree cat:Hong Kong before this incident blew up?
  3. But hostile users (plural!) that find every possible means to harass other users, should not be tolerated.
  4. I am disappointed at some of yall for your poor judgment and pandering to these hostile users.

    Whereas I watched from start to end Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 119#User uploading own pictures over multiple usernames, their 1st attempt back in Jan 2025. I didnt respond coz it's trivial as long as no one endorsed their hostility. I only felt the need to intervene (on 7 March) after no one stops their forumshopping everywhere and gaining traction for over 1 month.

  5. Again, huge disappointment at how some users are inconsiderate, insensitive, and disrespectful to other contributors.

    Very few users could promptly point out the privacy concerns and how their actions amounted to stalking.

Thank you GPSLeo for action this time.
Now let's wait to see what happens 1 month later. 😂 RoyZuo (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Sid Igor

Sid Igor (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) recent copyvio after multiple warnings. Komarof (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Minderline10

Minderline10 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - keeps uploading unfree files after warning, including reupload of several deleted files - Jcb (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Jhon A Salvador

Jhon A Salvador (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations despite being warned and previously blocked. --Ovruni (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Last files were deleted for being out of scope, not for being copyright violations. But as they are not selfies, we would also need the photographer's permission. Yann (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Épine

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user – (s)he was not warned previously. Taivo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
@Taivo: What's this?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
@Taivo: They also vandalized this page in Special:Diff/1013111747.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Apparently, this user is quite insistent on getting me blocked. Look at my talk page, I clarified there that the removal of content outlined here was completely an error that I do not know happened at which stage of writing my message. I apologized to him for the inconvenience in my talk page. This user has problem assuming good faith. Épine (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
@Épine: Since your apology came seven minutes after Jeff's last post here, you can hardly expect him to have had a way to take it into account before posting here.
That said, I'll take the apology at face value and presume this was, indeed, just an error. - Jmabel ! talk 02:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
 Not done - Jmabel ! talk 02:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Épine

This user is running a bunch of fake accounts for his own purposes, to keep his files; which do not observe policies and are suitable for deletion. with those fake accounts he wants to fight here to keep his file. Pattybradshaw, a user who is new and immediately supported Épine. Hevi, the last edit of this user was 7 years ago, but yesterday he came to support Épine. Also, Épine has been complained by another user, right here above. apart from other notices on his discussion page. Zemen (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted the file. Bedivere (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
@Zemen: Please feel free to report at COM:RFCU, with evidence.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Posted here. Yann (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment The file has been restored. Yann (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
The accusation that I am using other accounts on Wikipedia is false. I hereby request a checkuser to confirm and have previously urged the user to file the request to verify whether I had any connections with these accounts. @Yann: I assume good faith, but taking the word of reporter for granted without taking proper steps to ensure whether this report has any basis or not comes across as abuse of privilages for me.--Épine (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
@Épine: FYI, I don't assume anything. Based in the discussion in your undeletion request, it seems that the file will be kept. Yann (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but that does not take away from the fact that you have misused your admin privileges to wrongly and prematurely delete a file based on an unconfirmed accusation that I have engaged in sockpuppetry. Épine (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
@Épine: I am trying to help you here, so do not accuse me of anything. This doesn't help your case. Stop arguing with Zemen. Admins will review the issue. Yann (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Following , I warned Zemen to stop false accusations, and arguing against Épine. Yann (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I also closed this and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kurdistan LGBT pride flag.png. I think this could be considered as Resolved. Yann (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
@Yann @Bedivere @Ikan Kekek @Jameslwoodward (Sorry for the tag) Allowing this file not to be deleted allows to create dozens of other fantasy flags in the project, without evidence and sources. Let's clarify: I didn't exactly mean that Épine runs a sockpuppetry account, I know there’s still every possibility, but I should have conveyed my point better in here; In the deletion request, Épine asked two users (Pattybradshaw and Hevi) to support him, and vote to keep the file. Does this comply with policies? isn't it obvious corruption? a user whose first edit in Commons is supporting Épine, then that user came to English wikipedia and reverted my edits, and a user who after 7 years comes to support Épine in this case!. Well, can I tell some of my friends and ask them to come here to support me in deleting the file? If this corruption isn't settled here, and it's not settled on Wikipedia, then what should I do? this is a group attack on a user and can't be easily ignored. It’s weird to accuse me of being a threat, and tell me "If you don't stop arguing, you will be blocked", while the user I complained about has already been accused on this page by another user. Zemen (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
@Zemen: Deletion requests are not elections. The decision is based on law and Commons policies. So it doesn't matter how many people support or argue against a deletion, if all their arguments are wrong. And, for the last time, stop arguing here. Yann (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Who said this is election? apart from anything, I explained that this user is against the policies. anyway, since you see it that way, I have no more. Hope someday others will speak about this mess. Thanks. Zemen (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
And I'm not a Commons admin, so I don't have to take a position on this question of discipline, other than that if there has been any bad behavior that requires a response, I will defer to the admins on that.
As for what you will do, Zemen, if the situation isn't resolved to your satisfaction on Wikipedias, I would suggest doing your best to enjoy life, anyway. Lots of online decisions have gone against my wishes, and it hasn't had any great effect on my life. And I'm serious when I say this: be happy you woke up today, are presumably more or less healthy and have a roof over your head. Many people did not, and do not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Edujab7

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, copyright violations deleted. Yann (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Nmccleary84

Nmccleary84 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  repeatedly uploads copyrighted logos licensed as {{PD-US-Gov}} despite two warnings on user talk page, no acknowledgement or engagement with messages. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Luke_atlas

This user received many warnings and deletions, but unfortunately his behavior isn't improved from no responding recent DR. Additionally I doubt why this sock master aren't blocked and still working in commons. Netora (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment There is no deleted file uploaded after April 2024. Yann (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Istanbulrealestatebpa

Istanbulrealestatebpa (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Spam/Advertise 茅野ふたば (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

User:LIBERALAICO

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The bloated version history is kind of epic: 10 overwrites spanning 3 years! Why is there no discussion on the talk page? Can't the other images just be uploaded seperately? Jerimee (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Hm... Working. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
What a mess. I'm not confident in the copyright status of either version and have opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Haiducii LIBERALAICO. I've also protected File:Paula-Monica-Mitrache-in-arte-Haiducii.jpg for now. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Is delete because bigly hassle an option? Let me know if I can help. Jerimee (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Khotine

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Nothing really useful here until despite 5 warnings, so not expected on the short term. Yann (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Katolophyromai

I would like to bring your attention to @Katolophyromai a.k.a. Spencer Alexander McDaniel. This user is uploading his own artwork on Wikimedia Commons and inserting them on Wikipedia, which constitutes self-promotion. The artworks have no encyclopedic value, as they are simple hand drawings and the artist is completely unknown. In some cases, I have found that the user is including links to his own external articles in the images descriptions. Example: Illustration of Jesus exorcizing the Gerasene demoniac.

Drawings that have been uploaded: Category:Spencer Alexander McDaniel. JohnMizuki (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure that there ain't nothing wrong with these. Jerimee (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
PS: Can you please fix the source on this file? File:Die_synagoge_des_satan.jpg You are currently listed as the author and source. Jerimee (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
You’re seriously objecting to a user uploading files to use on Wikimedia because you don’t like they look? Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Personally I would argue that such images are essentially fan fiction. They're what someone on the internet imagines a piece from the era might be. But that's an argument that needs to be had on the individual projects, and so long as it's approved of, tolerated, or overlooked, that's not our place to have an opinion as Commons. GMGtalk 15:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
    I dig the style, and I think it is because of the fan fict style you described. I find it to be more authentic not less; features not bugs! Some of the images have been used to illustrate their respective articles for five or six years. Sorry for slightly off-topic comment. Appreciate you. Jerimee (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

New sockpuppet of globally locked User:Wave of Pandas - Nel1123Nel

See

  • Basically the same MO, useless images of Hong Kong at night. I am convinced. Krok6kola (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked and deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

fake license / nor own works

must of files uploads by this user is not his/her work (all take from google image)- files are not from creative commons website he/she add creative commons license to the files / file from mizoline.ir deleted two days ago again upload today by this user - files for museum are not his/her own work too. please delete all the uploads and block this account - this user cheating by adding fack license and own works tags[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences, I'm looking through their uploads, and I haven't seen anything amiss yet. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck:

  1. All the files such as File:Ejeei.1.jpg uploads from mizanonline.ir is using fake license (this website is not under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license)
  2. All the files such as File:حبیب زاده مومن.jpg uploads from defapress.ir is using fake license (this website is not under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license nor on public domain to use )
  3. Files from "mizanonline.ir" which have previously deleted uploaded again
  4. user uploads Old Files (Manuscripts or portatratit belong to to more 150 years old such as > File:میرزا علی‌اکبر مجتهد اردبیلی.jpg
or File:کربلایی حسینقلی داوودی.jpg uploads as not own work of user
  1. Jomeh mousqe ardabil.jpg is not own work or user]
  2. this user cheating by adding fack license and own works

how did check these user uploads and you did not seen anything amiss yet? what are these [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

There's a bit of a hodgepodge, though. The copyright notice at the source of File:حبیب زاده 03.jpg says (courtesy Google translate): "All rights reserved, use of the material is permitted provided the source is cited.", which is IMHO more of a release for press and journalism only, not a {{Attribution}} one. On File:کندوی عسل اردبیل.jpg, we do have a genuine {{Cc-by-4.0}}, though. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

User:KamyyFallon

KamyyFallon (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  keep uploading unfree Internet images after a warning. 0x0a (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked for a week, everything's deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Mateo Inc

Please warn this user to stop upload complex logos or block them. (Google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted three files. Final warning. Bedivere (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

New sockpuppets of globally locked User:Wave of Pandas

Same useless, vague images of Hong Kong at night. Krok6kola (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

User: Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas

Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This user has been chronically problematic in several ways. The most concerning is their total lack of regard for local privacy laws, which is either severe ignorance of their own field or willful disregard for ethical and legal concerns; additionally some of their uploads can outright be considered creepshots (something they’re seemingly aware of) The second is cross-wiki sock puppeteering, which they apparently were unaware was even problematic behavior (another worrying sign). The third is general quality issues; they have a history of uploading COM:PORN of dubious scope and origins (often complaining the DRs are racist or something like that) as well as just plain bad photography and weirdness like File:Voies cyclables sur la rue.jpg (why is it so distorted? Is it even the photographer’s own work?). I let this behavior slide for awhile based on assuming good faith and feeling the constructive uploads outweighed the general behavioral issues, but eventually the pattern (combined with lack of improvement or remorse) becomes too obvious to ignore. Dronebogus (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ejemplo de plano contrapicado de la política mexicana Samantha Bulas Liguez.png Dronebogus (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the sexual images, the user makes the claim that non-white minorities are underrepresented on Commons, but most of the depictions I saw are of white or white-appearing Mexican individuals (including who I assume to be the user). At best that justification is disingenuous. Also, given the high number of problematic images that this user has uploaded, I'm very dubious that consent to publish these images was included in the consent to photograph them. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 16:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
There's a history of users uploading large amounts of weird photos of people in public, and there's a history of those people being blocked for those uploads. I see no reason that this user can't change for the better, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
This user has been responding to other topics. I'll leave another message asking them to respond here. Jerimee (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Obligatory “Mexicans aren’t white even when they’re white you racist” excuse incoming. Dronebogus (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
@Dronebogus, I honestly wouldn't have even considered it if it weren't a user who was already using creative justification to circumvent our rules and policies. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 16:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
You mean the whole "This image was taken in a public place. Thus, no reasonable expectation of privacy exists." thing? Trade (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I share Dronebogus's concerns. Jerimee (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
They have been blocked indef on wikipedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Miguel_Angel_Oma%C3%B1a_Rojas Jerimee (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Uploads of this user are indeed problematic. I just deleted a bunch of poor quality porn, and warned him. He should be blocked if any such upload occur again. Yann (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
@Yann: I have no more respect for this user or their uploads than you do, but this seems like an abuse of admin privileges to punish a user by arbitrarily deleting their uploads. MAOR is an active user and his files might suck but are at least notionally in scope and should be formally nominated. F10 does not apply here. By denying them “due process” in this regard you’re proving their point that they’re being “discriminated against” or whatever lame excuse they have. Please undelete and nominate them properly to let the community decide. Dronebogus (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Low quality porn is routinely speedy deleted. It doesn't matter if the uploader is new or here for some time. Yann (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
@Yann: I don’t see many examples of this occurring; most SD’d porn is driveby uploads from user:JohnnyHardDick titled “muh dick.jpg”. This user is at least nominally editing an uploading in good faith, and F10 is exclusively for “Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions.” Since at least some of his uploads are harmless and useful, this clearly does not apply. Dronebogus (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't know how relevant this is, but they have been warned - I think by you in some cases - repeatedly over the years and they persist. I think they have an indef on wikipedia. The uploads (and descriptions!) are confusing, but the willingness to ignore policy is plain enough. Some of their uploads are constructive I have little doubt, but given the pattern of behavior I don't know how we can determine which with any degree of confidence. Jerimee (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
@YannAs much as I want these files deleted, Unilateral F10 deletions was not the way to do it. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Given the history of the user's uploads, I think we can question the consent to publication of any of his graphic photos. I agree with Yann's action. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
That wasn’t really Yann’s to decide, unless there’s a privacy concern SD I don’t know about Dronebogus (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
There isn't a privacy concern SD, there is PII oversight/supression, but deletion can be used as a stopgap until an OS can get to it. But that doesn't apply here. Do I agree with the end result of Yann's action? Yes. Would I agree with the action if it had been done before the DR was opened? Also yes. Do I agree with speedy deleting files at DR that had been WITHDRAWN from the DR by the nominator, they were only listed due to a mistake. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Some of the deleted files weren’t even photographs. This isn’t the first time Yann has acted more like Commons’s nanny than a neutral enforcer of rules— in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Algorithmically-generated art of a French maid teasing the viewer.png he voted “delete” as “sexually and ethnically derogatory” (a bizarre reason in and of itself) and then deleted it himself. In both cases Yann played fast and loose with administrative protocol to target sexual content he disapproved of without appropriate community consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
All else equal, without extenuating circumstances, if something is "derogatory" that is a valid reason and deletion is required. I understand "derogatory" is often subjective, and nearly every file has it's own set of circumstances, and those warrant discussion. There is nothing bizarre about taking exception to bigotry; we are explicitly required to do so. Jerimee (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
BLP doesnt apply to fiction obviously Trade (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I was thinking of COM:DIGNITY Jerimee (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
The thing is Yann was seemingly complaining about something being “ethnically derogatory” because it had the word “French” in it (even though “French maid” is just a compound term referring to a type of costume, akin to “French bulldog”); as for “sexually derogatory” I legitimately have no idea, it was just a racy image of an anime-style maid. This is what I’m talking about where Yann does these weird morality police deletions that have no basis in policy, like here where he bulk deleted a bunch of uploads because they were sexual in nature, not because of a privacy concern. Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I think they should just be indeffed at this point. Whether it’s dishonesty or incompetence I can’t stand users who go out of their way to act weird and suspicious then make up weird and suspicious excuses. Dronebogus (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
This is for the community to decide. Not just you Trade (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not well versed with our protocol for "this sort of thing" and don't want to create more work for User:Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (should they ever respond) let alone the rest of community. Should I refrain from doing individual delete requests for inappropriate files from this user? Jerimee (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
You should nominate any files you think are questionable or OOS. If they’re similar then bundle them. I also think it’s suspicious the user hasn’t responded when he obviously knows this discussion is going on (he last edited after it was filed). Dronebogus (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
You should just bundle them regardless. Splitting them only serves to drag this DR out longer than needed Trade (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
got it; appreciate both of you Jerimee (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Yutyo77764

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 13:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@זיו「Ziv」: I declined your last speedy deletion requests. The template says Polish pictures until 1994 are in the public domain, so these should not be speedy deleted, and I don't see any reason for admin action. Yann (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Yann
That's fine with me, but I'm pretty sure they'll continue to upload problematic files. Regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

User:PortariaPortal

Please keep an administrative eye on PortariaPortal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . The contribution history is not very promising, as it shows a disregard towards IP rights. The person committed quite a lot of copyvios, including from Getty images as of late. Furthermore, there's seemingly an understanding problem towards our project scope. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

They could have received a final warning for copyvios in January. However, being that you just placed the template now, I'm fine waiting until their next copyvio before blocking. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
That was my intent behind the report, having you and/or other admins observing the situation, too. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Incall

Incall (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information). An inexperienced user, with little to no English and a poor grasp of licensing principles. Has received extended rights from Abzeronow and uses the interface provided by these rights to remove speedy deletion tags from files uploaded by him: and threatens to rollback such edits, makes unfounded accusations of vandalism and lies: . Komarof (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

You have to give a reason for the removal rather than just saying «copiovo». Also you should not say that I have bad English, I speak well maybe there are mistakes but I have a purely academic language, not slang. Incall talk 05:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
This was a specific and comprehensive reason: . The problem is that you don't understand what is written there. Komarof (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Under YouTube's standard licence? Incall talk 05:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. So you demonstrate a lack of experience, which you try to compensate for with careless edits and unfounded accusations. Please familiarize yourself with COM:YT. Komarof (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I realised my mistake. Incall talk 05:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Jeff G.

Jeff G. (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This has gone too far! This user keeps snitching on people who are not long-term abusers and wouldn't give them a chance to speak! As far as it goes, he should learn that I'm trying to add categories that are dedicated to things they like! DannyH19 (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@DannyH19: If this is a dispute over categories, you could have discussed this with him on his talkpage. And you're required to notify the user that you've opened a thread on ANU about them. Abzeronow (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I think it's rather obvious that this isn't DannyH19's first account. Creating an account, adding some categories, and then finding this noticeboard within 10 edits? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
@DannyH19 is one of the Special:AbuseFilter/257 LTAs that likes to call me a snitch, quite possibly globally locked jermboy27. I have taken to responding on COM:FILTERT, where I run into his ilk frequently (the last time, they threatened "snitches get stitches"). I do what I can to alert Achim55 to their antics, as Эlcobbola has not been heard from in months. Admins, please bring the WP:BOOMERANG into full effect, give each LTA their own filter to make reporting easier both here and at m:srg, and act on the hits on such filters.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done DannyH19 blocked. Bedivere (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
@Bedivere: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
@Jeff G., It isn't just you getting targeted, I've had 257's go after me and my talk page in the past. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
@Alachuckthebuck: I guess we must be doing something right. :)   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Someones gotta pick up the slack left by a MIA CU. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
@Bedivere: Also, FernieT12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) .   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Gone Bedivere (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
@Bedivere: Thanks again!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
@Bedivere: 47.195.236.244 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log • Abuse filter log) may be the same user.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
blocked one week, can't revert at the moment so hopefully someone will Bedivere (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Reverted all the IP's removals. Are you having an error rolling back? Bidgee (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
@Bidgee: I was unsure, thanks for doing it first.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
no, I just couldn't at the moment for other reasons, thanks Bidgee. Bedivere (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Blessingedi76

Blessingedi76 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This user have been asked to stop using depicts (P180) to add awards and occupations to structural data twice only to apologize and continue doing it anyways--Trade (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I stop it Blessingedi76 (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
He did not stop even after this message above. I wrote him, in French, hopefully he gets the point now... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
@Blessingedi76: } Also please stop doing things like what you did at File:Judy Nunn.jpg (which I have reverted). This file page already indicated that it depicts Judy Nunn (Q3491691). There is no point in further adding (for example) that it depicts writer (Q36180). That is, once we have a property linking an item for the specific person, any professions of that individual belong on the Wikidata item, not on a particular picture of that person. - Jmabel ! talk 05:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi , I have inderstood Blessingedi76 (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
@Blessingedi76: You and Iamgreaced are both doing it - where is the photograph in File:Marelle de livres, Hommage á Julio Cortázar (2014).jpg? de minimis items should not be represented by depicts.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I am sorry about that please Iamgreaced (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Esther-Benbassa.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1014908597 Trade (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
As reference: Commons:ISA Tool and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T390391 Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
@Iamgreaced: but you continue.
I am beginning to think blocks are in order, including one against the person who started this contest and is apparently making no effort to monitor its effects. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Arent Donia (WIA) working for the foundation? We can just block her? Trade (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Being a Foundation employee does not mean you cannot be blocked.
Not that there shouldn't be a process, and what I'd most like to see is an end to this nonsense. I'm not interested in punishing someone, but if I were, for example, to put up a cash prize for the person who could add the most dates to files regardless of whether they were accurate, and got people adding thousands of bogus dates, and I persisted in doing such things I would presume that I would be blocked for that. Similarly if I asked for "depicts long sleeve (Q29125938)" to be added to every photo of a person in a long-sleeved shirt or jacket (to use an example of something I actually removed, which was added in the course of this contest). How is this different? - Jmabel ! talk 01:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
"de minimis items should not be represented by depicts" Did we ever got consensus for that? I dont think we did Trade (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
@Trade: Please see Special:Diff/1015686448.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Here i had to remove two occupations not even a day after he already apologized several times for doing exactly that--Trade (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be Commons:ISA Tool/Challenges#Tell Us About Her: Women in Literature - March 2025. I have indefinitely blocked Iamgreaced and Blessingedi76 from the file namespace, as they have continued to make bad edits after being warned. Several other editors including Kwameghana(Bright Kwame Ayisi) (5529 edits in the campaign) and Kolobetsoo (502) have the same pattern of bad edits, but they have not yet been warned. I would advocate for a mass rollback of all edits from this campaign, with exceptions for users 999real and Madamebiblio who appear to have made high-quality contributions.

@Donia (WIA): Of the 19,000+ edits in this campaign, the vast majority are poor quality. Are you aware of the issues with this campaign? If so, why have you not stopped the campaign? If not, why are you not monitoring it? You as the campaign manager are responsible for this problem and need to address it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

As you, Pi, said that there were no warning for the other prolific editors, I wrote them one: Special:Diff/995469894/1015557166 and
Special:Diff/752472166/1015557757. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Subject: Request for Unblocking – Commitment to Improve Contribution Quality
Hello Administrator Pi.1415926535,
I am contacting you following the blocking of my account for "Repeated addition of poor-quality structured data after warnings." I understand the importance of maintaining high standards for structured data on [project name], and I regret any contribution that may have fallen short of expectations.
I would like to clarify the following points:
1. Understanding the errors: Could you please specify the main issues identified in my additions so that I can correct them and prevent them from recurring?
2. Improving Contributions: I am willing to follow the necessary recommendations and adapt my contribution style in accordance with best practices.
3. Commitment: If my account is unblocked, I commit to improving the quality of my contributions by taking feedback into account and reviewing the help pages and recommendations before making any changes.
If adjustments or a monitoring period are needed before a full release, I welcome any suggestions to ensure continuous improvement.
Thank you for your feedback and assistance.
Sincerely, Blessingedi76 (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello dear administrator Pi.1415926535, I am really sorry for my bad behavior, I did not know. And I learned a lot from my mistakes. And this will allow me to not repeat them again and I come to present you all my apologies, because I made enormous stupidities and I come to ask you to unblock me, because we have campaigns in progress at home and so please I need my user account to participate in the events. Blessingedi76 (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Well for one you kept apologizing several times while continuing to add the very same bad data you were told not to do Trade (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Blessingedi76, with "I did not know", you seem to tell us a blatant lie. Your talk page is a huge evidence towards that. With Special:Diff/899830638/1010737792 (17th of March), Special:Diff/1010737792/1014490367 (28th of March, you replied to it in French), Special:Diff/1014496445/1014645962 (28th March, again) and Special:Diff/1014645962/1014658947 (29th of March, message in French in case you indeed happened to have comprehension problems with English, you replied to it, too), you were told what exactly is the issue. So, you have ample information for answering the questions you raised.
  1. ) "Understanding the errors" - well, let me repeat that again for you: the errors are in adding depiction statements about overly broad or marginal items of an image. This is unreasonable and henceforth unwanted, refer to Commons:Depicts#What items not to add for instance.
  2. ) There is apparently a conflict between your aim and Commons' aims. Due to an unsound built ISA campaign, you and several others were incentivised towards edit farming, meaning trying to make as much edits as possible, in contravention to the main project object, improving Commons. Monetary greed seemed to have led you and others astray. There won't be room for adaption your edit style unless you state that you'll refrain from aiming for edit high scores.
  3. ) Per point 2, participating in ISA campaigns is the root cause for your block. So, an unblock just to continue these participations is contrary to the actual block aim.
Trying to weasel out of the situation by offering excuses, just to avoid any changes in your behaviour will not work out. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Might be time for someone to reach out to the one responsible for the contest Trade (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
That's actually already mostly done. Pi pinged them, and the Phabricator link should also raise their awareness. Donia (WIA) was not recently editing, though, so I'm going to inform User:دنيا as declared second account about this discussion. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
See also my remark here and the discussion it links to. We currently have two project pages that contradict one another on how depicts should be used. - Jmabel ! talk 22:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
I very have inderstood Blessingedi76 (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
"the errors are in adding depiction statements about overly broad or marginal items of an image" Well ill wager the issue is mainly that he keeps adding depiction statements for abstract concepts. Trade (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Ciaox1234

Please block: disruptive editing, uploading many cocks, junk rename requests, junk deletion requests. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked and gone. Bedivere (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
@Bedivere and Taylor 49: Ciaox requested unblock. I almost unblocked him, but would like your comments. Taivo (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't mind if they get unblocked as long as they don't upload yet another genitalia picture we don't need. Bedivere (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. I unblocked Ciaox on condition, that he will not upload photos of genitalia. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
@Taivo And keep the level of activity low, and not upload and request deletion thereafter too frequently. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Elizium23 has lost access to his account

Greetings all, especially admins:

Elizium23 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has lost access to his account, deliberately and (he hopes) permanently.

He scrambled his password, and he's deleted his MFA secrets, as suggested by the enwiki admins on the mailing list.

“Email this User” may or may not work for his account yet...

He's mulling over creating a fresh account, however he's “absolutely, positively, permanently punished”: indeffed on enwiki and en-wiktionary both, and unsure whether it's ethical to rejoin while “under a cloud”. No block appeals or ban pleading shall be forthcoming from him. “It's a Fair Cop,” as they would admit in 1970s England?

But he’s not stopped editing logged-out from IP addresses, mostly all tracing back to en:Cox Communications in Arizona, and he’s not aware of being disciplined or blocked on Commons currently, so is this “Tolerable” or “Verboten” activity? 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:8F44:C11F:20AE:8EA7 07:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Elizium23's behavior that lead to their en.wiki block was repulsive. However, blocks on sister projects do not automatically carry over to Commons, and Elizium23 has never been blocked on Commons under that account. Assuming that none of their other accounts were blocked on Commons, it is not against policy for them to create a new account and edit here. However, unless their behavior has changed significantly since that en.wiki block, I would not be surprised if they eventually earn a block on this project as well. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
I still dont get what the point of that whole discussion was Trade (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
 Not done. I agree totally with Trade. Nothing should be done. Taivo (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

User:ZakiWafiIdlib

Por favor advierten al usuario que deje de publicar o bloqueen. AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done El usario no hizo nada durante los últimos 4 años. Entonces, no hay nada que hacer. - Jmabel ! talk 23:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Ayratayrat

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. Difficult decision, but I decided to block the user for 2 weeks. Taivo (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

User Gjhk1

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 21:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. Thank you for warning the user against copyvios! I warned him/her again against uploading penises. All uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. In my opinion that's currently enough. Taivo (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
They have continued All the Best -- Chuck Talk 06:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Farrehan Saboori

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

من ضد آذری نیستم چرا الکی میگی من دارم واقعیت رو میگم حتی مردمان ترکیه ترک تبار نیستند Farrehan Saboori (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
If I understand correctly from Google translate, the last post here indicates that the user believes that the people of Turkey are not of Turkish descent. But I leave it to someone who reads the relevant language(s) to sort out what exactly we are dealing with here. - Jmabel ! talk 23:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Pinging @Ebrahim, Mhhossein. - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
This is worth of one week block. Taivo (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Mhomadrsa mabubi 7

The user is keep adding a lot of personal photos despit warning. 0x0a (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

It appears to be alternative account of User Mhyarjan 7, who is adding these photos to w:fa:بحث_کاربر:Mhyarjan_7. 0x0a (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. Now blocked for a month. Taivo (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Asquyas

User has reverted the edits of multiple attempts to nominate their file for speedy deletion under F10. The original file is linked with a Wikipedia article that seems to also be used for self-promotion purposes. Full disclosure, I have not done anything in regards to this user prior to this incident, but this seems like the only way anything could be done. TansoShoshen (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. The file was nominated for speedy deletion as unused personal file. Now, when the file is used in en.wiki, this is not a valid reason. After the en.wiki article is deleted, you can try again. Also if you have proof, that the file is a copyvio, you can nominate it for deletion as well. Taivo (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Riad Salih

Riad Salih (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

The user keeps flagging Maghreb-related files concerning maps, flags and banners, either nominating them for deletion or tagging them as "unreliable", in what seems like a targetted campaign. Some files may or may not warant deletion, but reasoning with him and suggesting alternatives, such as renaming (which in some cases may be the reasonable approach), seem fruitless. An attempt to restore a file which is clearly a reconstruction of an existing flag was reverted by the user. I prefer to leave this to the Commons administrators to handle. Ideophagous (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this report is silly. I’ve already said what I had to say in here and here, and I’m no longer willing to continue the discussion with him unless needed. Sorry, I'm exhausted. Just look at the user who uploaded the file, and you'll immediately see that he consistently creates original works. (the banner is not used anywhere, fictional, out of scoope)
The user is currently doing this as a form of revenge; he lacks a basic understanding of reliable sourcing. He mixes everything— a banner with a flag, the Marinid dynasty with the Saadian dynasty, and the Moroccan flags found in 1912, none of which mention that they are Marinid (here is the PDF from the museum that keeps the flags; keywords to search (in case someone wanted to check) in the PDF: Marinids, Mérinides, Merinide).
To be honest, he isn’t qualified on these topics. His sources are mostly Wikimedia files or amateur blogs, which don’t hold much value when it comes to accuracy. He shows no attention to fact-checking or making any real effort. I told him to take his time and search thoroughly, but he is always in a rush. The first time he argumed about it my nominations, he said they were real, then he said they might be fictional, and now he’s suggesting we should rename them. It’s clear he’s rushing through everything.
If any admin wants expanded details, feel free to notify me, not only about this fictional banner but also about all my nominations, one by one. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Category:Commons pages with broken file links Category:Commons talk archives