Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Note

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

User: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I

Oppose any action against C.Suthorn for this. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

This one, however German language only. --A.Savin 00:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about wikidata? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 00:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Épine

User: Épine (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Matteo Milleri (Anyma).png after final warning for doing so.

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

Done. I warned the user – (s)he was not warned previously. Taivo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo: What's this? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Not done - Jmabel ! talk 02:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HingWahStreet

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

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
19:27, 20 March: their disruptive edits were warned by me User_talk:HingWahStreet#c-RoyZuo-20250320192700-Do_not_edit_other_users'_comments
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.
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)[reply]

Added #4 4.1 4.2 .

Block appears necessary.--RoyZuo (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can special:diff/1012189799 these ongoing nonsensical collapse of public discussions please be stopped already? RoyZuo (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you stop your accusement of your stand against other users, it will stop. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 12:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See #RoyZuo and COM:Village pump#Respect and non-disturbance for long-term prolific contributor. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 11:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Same as that of RoyZuo. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 12:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support, per my comment at the other thread [1]. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support an iban between HingWahStreet and both RoyZuo and Anon. HK Photog accounts would be best. Abzeronow (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what rationales your proposal has or how your proposal contributes to commons. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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).
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 .
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.)
Then these hostile users come along and make a big fuss.
Now your proposal: I'd be banned from editing, if these hostile users have edited something first.
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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I can take a break now. 😂 Having to deal with a hyperactive user is super stressful. RoyZuo (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A final summary from me:

Now everything returns to quietness (for 1 month). I hope these sections dont need my response again and can smoothly lapse into archives.
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?
But hostile users (plural!) that find every possible means to harass other users, should not be tolerated.
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.
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)[reply]

User:Sid Igor

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

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

User:Épine

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

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)[reply]

I've deleted the file. Bedivere (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Comment Posted here. Yann (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The file has been restored. Yann (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Comment Following [2], I warned Zemen to stop false accusations, and arguing against Épine. Yann (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Minderline10

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edujab7

User: Edujab7 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Copyvio uploading. 7 of 11 uploads found to be copyvios. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Edujab7 for the other 4.

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

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

User:Nmccleary84

Nmccleary84 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user 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)[reply]

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

User:Luke_atlas

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

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)[reply]

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

User:Jeff G.

Jeff G. (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Done DannyH19 blocked. Bedivere (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: Thanks! — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Alachuckthebuck: I guess we must be doing something right. :) — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someones gotta pick up the slack left by a MIA CU. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Gone Bedivere (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: Thanks again! — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User: Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas

Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Obligatory “Mexicans aren’t white even when they’re white you racist” excuse incoming. Dronebogus (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I share Dronebogus's concerns. Jerimee (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pretty sure that there ain't nothing wrong with these. Jerimee (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. GMG ^talk 15:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Istanbulrealestatebpa

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

Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:LIBERALAICO

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

Please block the user from editing the file File:Paula-Monica-Mitrache-in-arte-Haiducii.jpg, as they keep overwriting it with another image, that was uploaded separately. If possible, delete the bloated version history. Thank you.

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

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)[reply]

Hm... Working. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is delete because bigly hassle an option? Let me know if I can help. Jerimee (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khotine

User: Khotine (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Keeps posting oos drivel about Rwanda, despite multiple requests to stop and despite a warning.

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

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)[reply]

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

See [3]

Basically the same MO, useless images of Hong Kong at night. I am convinced. Krok6kola (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked and deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fake license / nor own works

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Alachuckthebuck:

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)
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 )
Files from "mizanonline.ir" which have previously deleted uploaded again
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

Jomeh mousqe ardabil.jpg is not own work or user]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:KamyyFallon

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

User:Blessingedi76

Blessingedi76 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user 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)[reply]

Sorry I stop it Blessingedi76 (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Hi , I have inderstood Blessingedi76 (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]