Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 121

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

C.Suthorn

C.Suthorn (talk · contribs) -- straight after the 2 weeks block (imposed by Pi.1415926535 -- see archived report) expired, continues exactly with the same stuff -- see Category:Bundesglasfaser. Absolutely discussion-resistant--A.Savin 18:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

This looks unacceptable IMO. I also wonder whether the other recent activities by this user are much better. The user took photographs of a political protest of a very small number of persons. These can be found in Category:Nicht meine Regierung! Handmaidstaleriot. Wir fordern eine klare Abgrenzung und die Ablehnung jeder Zusammenarbeit mit der AfD. Intersektional feminisistischer Protest zwischen Kanzleramt und Reichstag 2025-04-04. At least the descriptions of these files look problematic. Each of the description fields consists of seven more or less different parts. These contain lots of keywords, even including some brand names, most of which have very little apparent connection to what can be seen on the photos. This looks like an attempt of search engine spamming misusing brand names and product names. In addition, these photos are categorized in Category:Videos of 2025 from Berlin, not just the single video fle File:Nicht meine Regierung! Handmaidstaleriot. Wir fordern eine klare Abgrenzung und die Ablehnung jeder Zusammenarbeit mit der AfD. Intersektional feminisistischer Protest zwischen Kanzleramt und Reichstag 2025-04-04 18.webm. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Perfectly appropriate to document a small but creative demonstration, but it's an awful lot of very similar photos, each with a wall of highly repetitive text. - Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: how do you believe this plethora of photos of a few fibre optic installations is in scope? What precisely is the supposed educational value of having more than a handful of such photos? I've seen you do some good work in the past, but this just seems to me to be totally counterproductive, to the point of being a detriment to the project. (Sie kann mir antworten auf Deutsch ob dass einfacher ist.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm curious, what are those cables actually? are they part of some project, or just stray cables neglected by their owners/maintainers? RoyZuo (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
These photos are about a dilapidated distributor box that provided the internet connection for an official German constitution anniversary - just once. The cables are light-wave cables. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: I went and renamed the bunch of images about the political demonstration under the rationale COM:FR#FR3 (there was a typo "feminisistischer <-> feministisch"), but also as the filenames were against the guideline against long names. Normally, I would expect the same rationale to hold true with the category name, but I do not know whether I'm right about this. Should the category be moved, too? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done User indefinitely blocked for continuing to upload OOS files right after getting unblocked, failure to get the point. They may get unblocked only with a compromise to stop the behavior that led to the block. Several files from the non-existent OOS category were deleted, too. --Bedivere (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Infolearner23

Infolearner23 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Repeatedly uploading copyrighted images --Chtrede (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
@Yann: File:Witbooi in 2025.jpg This is another one, just uploaded some minutes ago --Chtrede (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
And another one the user just uploaded again File:Official portrait, 2025.jpg --Chtrede (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
And one more File:Witbooi Offical Photo.jpg --Chtrede (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week, files already deleted. Yann (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Madhavgn007

Madhavgn007 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Keeps uploading out of scope images. Uploads have already been wiped twice and user has been notified about COM:SCOPE. They still keep uploading the same type of content. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Apply for a limited expiration date on my block on Commons

Good evening, dear Pi.1415926535 administrator,

I would like to apologize for the poor quality contributions I have made, as well as for my failure to comply with your warnings, which unfortunately led to the blocking of my account.

Despite this situation, I respectfully request clemency. I would like, if possible, for you to consider temporarily unblocking my account, or for the block to be limited in time, with a clearly defined expiration date.

I sincerely thank you for your attention to my request, and please accept, dear Pi.1415926535 administrator, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Here is the link that summarizes my blockage : Special:BlockList/Blessingedi76 Blessingedi76 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Your partial block will be lifted when you show that you understand the reasons for it and have taken steps to rectify the problem. Blocks are preventative, they are not intended to be punitive. Abzeronow (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Good evening dear administrator, noted. Blessingedi76 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
And also I would like to ask for your clemency so that you can show me another way that exists to make a demonstration on Commons. Blessingedi76 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
?? Trade (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
To me, they are just repeating their request for an unblock or the shortening of the their partial block. Since this partial block is not a punishment, there is no need for "clemency", the partial block will be lifted when the user has demonstrated that they have the ability to make productive edits. Abzeronow (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
I understand that my partial blocking is the result of poor-quality contributions that did not comply with Commons rules and standards, despite the warnings I received. I fully acknowledge my mistakes and realize the importance of contributing constructively, rigorously, and in compliance with the project's rules.
To address this, I took the time to reread the help pages and the essential guidelines for contributing to Commons, particularly those related to the quality of uploaded files, copyright, and file descriptions. I also committed to improving my education and asking questions before contributing if I have any doubts.
Thank you for your understanding and I remain at your disposal for any further information. Blessingedi76 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Please disclose your plans and ideas on how, if at all, you plan to participate in future Commons:ISA Tool/Challenges. As already disclosed, your usage with these programs on a likely mislead financial motivation (you forgot to mention foundation:PAID among the rule pages you read - you were likely expecting a financial gain stemming from Commons edits) is the root cause of your block. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I participated in this campaign with the aim, first, of contributing to Commons, and second, of winning an award. However, I did not go about it well. That is why I received numerous warnings and finally a block. In any case, I apologize profusely for my bad behavior and for not respecting the rules established for the campaign. Blessingedi76 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
@Grand-Duc: I don't think foundation:PAID applies to entering contest sponsored by organizations associated with the Foundation itself. It would never have occurred to me to do such a thing. Uploading with the tags related to the competition seems to implicitly indicate that you are competing for a possible financial reward. Did any of the participants make any further disclosure?
@Blessingedi76: I suggest you hang back for a month or two. You created quite a mess, which other people had to try to clean up. Let people cool down a little before you resume activity. Also, when you come back (but please, as I said, wait a month or two before dealing with that), please be clear what exactly you intend to work on that is unlikely to create similar problems. - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I know that PAID is most likely not intended for in-Wikiuniverse activities. I used it only as argument to illustrate that Blessingedi76 seemed to get sidetracked: in his unblocking request, he wrote about licensing and copyright, scope and file descriptions, saying that he understood the zoo of policies. But he never wrote about the issues at hand: spamming bad structured data. That's why I pointed out that, while he seemed to try to make a sweeping grasp at any imaginable policy, he missed something related to his suspected motivation. So, if he truly wants to show kind of a kowtow to get unblocked, then he should have taken stuff like PAID, as he did with other mainstays of our project, into consideration. On the other hand, the wording "You must disclose each and any employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." does presently not directly exclude in-universe activities, so, expecting a monetary reward offered in such a competition could warrant a disclosure... That should be the Foundation's job to clarify, though.
@Bedivere, about AI: instead of AI, I'd rather say the pattern of remarks is more likely stemming from the educational / professional background of the applicant (cf. his user page). I got the distinct feel of a try at mollifying (the people with blocking power), using psychological techniques. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Nah, it's pretty easy to generate remarks like that using ChatGPT. I think it's pretty obvious these are not their work. Bedivere (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
I've got a feeling these remarks are all AI-generated... Bedivere (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. I would expect to see actual productive edits in other namespaces / projects before I would consider unblocking from file namespace. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't think their responses are wholly generated by AI. For one sample response, Duplichecker's AI detector scored "Human Written Content - 99.8%, AI Written Content - 0.2%."
This doesn't mean that I agree to their disruptive structured data contributions, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Any clue why they keep talking like this? I can barely understand what's he's trying to convey because he's being so general and unspecific Trade (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Shubhamchitte1

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

New sockpuppets of globally locked User:Wave of Pandas

Same useless images of Hong Kong at night. Krok6kola (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
@Krok6kola: The older, currently recognised master account is actually User:Zestsees, on these, Wave of Pandas was a later sock of theirs. Belbury (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
@Belbury: That is fine. I got the Wave of Pandas account from Meta. All I want is that account (by whatever name) stopped. Krok6kola (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Conkerpox627

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Bedivere (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Lock on the way All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yukitanooki & theinstandmatrix

This user doesn't appear to be abiding by Commons:Licensing nor doesn't seem to be acknowledging warnings.

They have recently uploaded three obvious copyvios (File:Mobile Legends Bang Bang 2025 logo.png, File:抖音上中国对巴拉望岛的主权主张（郑和岛）.jpg, File:Baidu Map (Nine Dash Line by China).jpg), and when confronted with open deletion requests of their remaining uploads, also about copyright, removes the DR tags of it ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) in hopes of stopping its deletion out of process.

Even when reverted and warned about it ([8]), they removed the tags again ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) and blanked their talk page ([16]), indicating acknowledgement.

At the moment I recommend giving this user a final warning not to remove DR tags again nor upload more copyvios. If they still refuse to abide by warnings and continue their disruptive editing, they should be blocked. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It is stated that it is under the Apache License 2.0 and based on Android Open Source Project on Legal Notice. Yukitanooki (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

they just attempted to delete the complaint. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
and removed that comment. please stop removing comments. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 06:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
You kept deleting the file and vandalizing the page, but it is under the Apache License or AOSP. This is stated in the ColorOS screenshot, File:OPPO ColorOS 15 Screenshot.png.

Here is the license that Oppo provides on their website: https://www.oppo.com/my/store/contents/legal/open-source-software-notice/ The other Android screenshot is under the Apache License. You can refer to the website for more details.
Yukitanooki (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

You should be blocked for disruptive editing, as you kept denying that the screenshots are under the Apache License, which is clearly stated on their website. Yukitanooki (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I warned both users to stop edit warring.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jeff G., Yukitanooki is removing comments from this page. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 06:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
And also at least once removed this section. They are (barely) allowed to remove comments from their user talk page, but not to remove complaints against them here. I would support a short block to remind them (Yukitanooki) that was a pretty serious violation. - Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
 Info - Yukitanooki has been blocked for 3 months by The Squirrel Conspiracy for socking in DR discussion. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Socking in DRs is only a 3 month block? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 19:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Gatto bianco

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

User is requesting the deletion of multiple dozens of files that are obviously PD-simple / PD-textlogo with the copypasted rationale "copyright violation". Skyshifter (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days pending further investigation. Yann (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indef. as per [17]. Closing all DRs. Yann (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Yann: They are back as 2.194.241.191 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log • Abuse filter log).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked by Bedivere. Yann (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Cymatilus

Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Giuse07licata

✓ Done Blocked for a week, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Giuse07licata. Yann (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Vaca louca dedo

Eduardo Gottert (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for socking, all porn deleted. Yann (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Alfreld

0x0a (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, last file deleted. Yann (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Frypie

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

This user has uploaded hundreds, if not thousands of artwork reproductions with only {{PD-Art}}. I have requested them several times to fix the license of the files as PD-Art is not sufficient. Frypie refuses to do so, and continues to upload files with PD-Art only. May be someone could explain them again. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

FYI Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Slowking4. Yann (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Adamant1

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Put down the stick and walk away from the horse. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)


Can you please review the revert of my correct edit by User:Adamant1? Thanks. 186.175.52.183 23:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The IP is referring to me nominating File:Chondrodactylus Turneri.jpg for speedy deletion due to being a low quality image by a non-contributor, which they reverted. The IP is free to turn it into a normal deletion request per "if you disagree with this media file's speedy deletion, replace this tag with a regular deletion request." Reverting it and then reporting me to ANU clearly isn't the appropriate way to handle this though. An admin should really just block the IP for trolling and filling a false ANU complaint. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
As long as they block both of us I have no objection. How easy is it to accuse people of trolling here?! Is it a kind of enmity against IPs? 186.175.52.183 23:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
I've removed the speedy deletion tag, as the file is COM:INUSE. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
And in many places. I didn't want to refer to that not to embarrass the gentleman. 186.175.52.183 23:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. 186.175.52.183 23:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
In fact, Adamant1, the image is not specially bad when compared to the remainder of actual photographic stills in Category:Chondrodactylus turneri. Furthermore, according to the description, it's a depiction of a gravid female, so unique at this time in our collection. While I am indeed very ready to nominate technically and qualitatively bad pictures as being out of scope per COM:EDUSE, this image here is something that does not present itself for that. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. I thought it wasn't in use when I nominated it for deletion. It still doesn't justify the IP reverting me and then immediately reporting me to ANU though. All they had to do was revert it to a normal deletion request or leave a message on my talk page if they didn't want to do that. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
You know very well that "the IP did not revert and then report you". The IP reported you because you reverted a correct edit by an IP. What is your problem with IPs? 186.175.52.183 00:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
That's on you for reverting me without using a changeset comment. It just comes off like trolling. It's not against the rules to revert someone, otherwise you'd be blocked right now. I wouldn't have reverted if you have left a changeset comment saying why you made the edit though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
If you got your lesson I'm done here. 186.175.52.183 00:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Levingh

0x0a (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Riverlife92

0x0a (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Files wiped, user blocked. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Sabil Khoer Al Munawar

0x0a (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

User:EdsonCordeirodeSouza

0x0a (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@0x0a: The name of this user seems reminiscent of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ricardinho da Souza Silva 7.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
seems to be different persons. See en:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of EdsonCordeirodeSouza and en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of EdsonCordeirodeSouza.
✓ Done Socking anyway. All files deleted. Ricardinho da Souza Silva has a huge sock farm. I wouldn't be surprised if they are all the same. I also blocked Ditongo ponto G (talk · contribs) and Erika Santana ponto G (talk · contribs). Yann (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jeff G. and Yann: Ricardinho da Souza Silva 7 socks can't be identified by name. The behavior of these accounts doesn't match RdSS7's M.O. at all. EdsonCordeirodeSouza is their own sockmaster with three confirmed socks, which have now been properly tagged accordingly. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Actuspin22

0x0a (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Colin

Colin's only contribution this calendar year is this pair of insult-laden remarks: [18], [19]. I'm one of the targets: he characterized one of my edits as "stupid".

I requested that he take back that insult, and have waited well over 24 hours without response; given the infrequency of his recent contributions, I have no way to know whether he saw my request, but since he remarks in one of his edits that he is responding to a ping, I would have to guess he saw my ping as well.

Given that it would be nearly meaningless to briefly block someone who is barely participating, I have no what (if anything) is an appropriate sanction here, but it does not seem to me that being an infrequent participant here should constitute a license to insult people when you do show up. - Jmabel ! talk 05:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Also: I realize that Colin has in the past been a very good contributor, and I am not disputing that. Again, that is not (or should not be) license to insult other users. - Jmabel ! talk 05:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: the way I read that discussion, you were the first supporter of a proposal insulting an uploader by calling them a troll. I imagine that is why you got mentioned in Colin's comment, not because of your technical prowess in using css-crop. Disclosure: I think that one of the "insult-laden remarks" by Colin linked above was extremely insightful. Commander Keane (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, I was not endorsing the categorization of the user in question. I was endorsing the remedy of adding a watermark if there have been repeated issues of someone making legal threats, so that it would take deliberate action for a reuser to remove the appropriate attribution. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
And, no, his characterization of "stupid" did not refer to that edit: "the above linked post has the idiocy of a watermark saying this attribution must be retained, and then immediately below, an example of using it on Wikipedia with the attribution cropped off. I thought that level of stupidity was restricted to US presidents". I absolutely do not feel it was "stupid" or "idiotic" of me to show the technical means of doing what JayCubby had said was possible, but did not know how to do. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I recall someone being sanctioned for calling something stupid. It's not ideal. But if it's something on the level of what my second grader might say if she gets frustrated, it's probably easier to have a little laugh about it and otherwise shrug it off. GMGtalk 16:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
    • In the course of his post, besides the word "stupid," Colin wrote, "Watermarking is a dumb ass solution… the above linked post has the idiocy of a watermark saying this attribution must be retained…" Are you really saying that is acceptable? - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Colin resorts to personal attacks when he can't convince someone else. I got some attacks some years back. Hopefully, he is not so much around these days. Yann (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

A hot headed bunch of people on the internet decide to repeatedly call another user, who goes by their full real name, and with abundant clear evidence that they are not, a "copyleft troll", and I'm the one taken to AN/I for insults? And the solution proposed, watermarking thousands of professional-class images that are widely used across many Wikimedia projects, is indeed dumb, stupid, ridiculous, and .. futile. Wikipedia will conclude Commons is no longer a safe repository for clearly free content and fork those images and remove the watermark. Alternatively, dozens of egotistical Commons photographers will wish they could get their credit in-text on Wikipedia and go around watermarking their own images. The magic "CSS image crop" code that removes the watermark doesn't work for the majority of use cases of Diliff's images, which are inside other templates or on other Wikimedia projects each with their own templates. I could go on. There are so many "haven't thought this one through" to this issue, but it seems no shortage of people to create vandal bots to ruin everything for the many people with enough brain cells to actually use Diliff's images according to the licence conditions.

The Wikipedia model of presenting licenced media to our readers is broken and misleads users into thinking they don't need to attribute or licence-tag images, unlike every single other website on the internet that uses CC licenced media and attributes in-text below the image. The proposal, of adding a credit-licence-warning watermark and then cropping it off, is even worse. As if it isn't bad enough WMF can't create a CC-licenced website fit for 2025 but its own users use crude templates to teach our viewers even worse practice.

I can't emphasise enough the outrage and possible newspaper headlines that would result if thousands of images on Wikipedia suddenly ended up with a credit line

"Photo by DAVID ILIFF. Licence https://creativecommons/org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/.
Keep this attribution intact to avoid legal action.

And a massive job then undertaken to remove the attribution (whether by fancy templates, or just forking all of Diliff's images on en.wp and reverting the vandalism) which is the very thing "keep this attribution intact to avoid legal action" warns against. I mean, if you think I've hurt your delicate feelings, feel free to ignore me and you can enjoy all of Twitter and the technical press doing worse.

The "users" the "administrators" should be concerned about are the ones proposing mass vandalisation. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

In short, the opposite of an apology.
I'm not calling for any sanctions, but I hope everyone will understand why I will not lift a finger on behalf of this user in the future. - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I think you would be more effective in winning allies if you spit less venom. So at some level, isn't that worth prioritizing cooperation if your primary goal is what you say? Is the satisfaction of vitriol really worth forfeiting the thing you're arguing for? GMGtalk 17:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Colin doesn’t really edit Commons anymore and his recent edits on Enwiki, which has far lower behavioral standards, show a consistent cross-wiki pattern of long-winded hostility mixed with disrespect for other users’ intelligence (or perceived lack thereof). I don’t support sanctioning someone who seems feed off negative attention, especially over something this petty, but if he brings enwiki-style toxicity to Commons again I would fully support an indef. Dronebogus (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Sahnounzak 2025

Sahnounzak 2025 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

From the content and the description, this is apparently a schoolboy or schoolgirl. The intent is probably good, but some copyright violations, and mostly poor quality images without any context, useful title, categories, or description. I blocked them for a week for uploading files. May be some teaching could get them to contribute usefully. There also may be a language issue. Yann (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I suspect there are still some copyvios in his uploads. Arabic users passing by please tell them to use {{Copyvio}} to tag images that are not his. 0x0a (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Request to delete an account that made automatically

Hello, my name is Hisyam Athaya, and I am a staff member at Wikimedia Indonesia. In October 2024, I uploaded a file on behalf of Wikimedia Indonesia on the WMID Wikimedia site. It appears that the image has since been reused on several wiki pages, uploaded automatically to Commons, and an account using my name was automatically created.

I would like to request the deletion of that account, as it is not mine. I can provide proof via the original file showing the image was first uploaded by me on the WMID site. Additionally, I would like to request that the file upload history be revised to correctly reflect attribution to our official work account.

The existence of this account is causing an issue, as the user talk page is indexed by Google, and my name now appears in search results linked to an account I do not control. Thank you for your assistance.

Thank you Hisyam Athaya (WMID) (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

See meta:SUL, any account on any Wikimedia project works anywhere. The automatic creation happens when you first visit a Wikimedia site while logged in your account. So, there is no need, and actually also no way, to delete that account. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
You may add __NOINDEX__to your talk page. --0x0a (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
RESOLVED, I add __NOINDEX__. Thanks. Hisyam Athaya (WMID) (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

User:MeharabAyon4

The user continued to upload copyvios after the last block. 0x0a (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef., 3rd block, not even one useful edit. Yann (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Emilia delmonte

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 14:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for Oversight Review: Admin dismissal of privacy violation + retaliatory deletion request (File:Victoria princewill 2022 1.jpg)

Hello, I am the subject of the image at File:Victoria princewill 2022 1.jpg, which was uploaded to Commons without my consent or any valid licensing permission from the copyright holder.

The image is a screenshot from a British Library YouTube video of a literary event. Although the video is marked CC-BY-3.0, Commons policy explicitly requires consent for identifiable images where personality rights are implicated (see COM:IDENT and COM:PERSONAL).

I have:

Flagged the file for deletion under Commons policies governing personality rights and identifiable individuals.

Provided evidence that the event organiser (HISTFEST) could not even share a short clip of the footage — confirming the video is not redistributable.

Explicitly objected as the subject, citing reputational harm and lack of consent.

In response:

The administrator User:Jeff G.:

    • Overrode my speedy deletion attempt.
    • Accused me of vandalism for removing misleading licensing metadata.
    • Dismissed clearly articulated personality rights concerns.
    • Attempted to unilaterally close the deletion discussion without consensus.
    • Ignored the fact that I am the subject, and that Commons policy protects people in my position.

Most worryingly, after I raised these concerns, File:Victoria Princewill London 2021.png — another image I had uploaded — was flagged for deletion with tenuous justification. That photo was:

Taken by photographer Posola Karunwi

Uploaded by me with full consent

Not disputed by the photographer

And was only targeted after I objected to the first file

The deletion rationale includes personal insinuations (e.g. "this might be a selfie") and irrelevant comparisons to the disputed file. This appears to be retaliatory flagging.

The user responsible for this second nomination was User:999real — who had already participated in the deletion discussion for the first image and, as documented here, was aware of the privacy objection. The sequence of events strongly suggests retaliatory coordination, especially in light of the closely timed actions by Jeff G. and 999real.

I respectfully request

Independent review of both files for compliance with COM:IDENT and COM:PERSONAL.

Oversight of Jeff G.’s handling of this issue, including procedural bias, intimidation via false vandalism claims, and apparent retaliatory behaviour.

Immediate deletion or redaction of File:Victoria princewill 2022 1.jpg under privacy and consent policies, including removal from page history if necessary.

I'm happy to verify my identity privately if required. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

For transparency: I have also submitted a formal request to Wikimedia’s legal and oversight teams regarding this matter. This includes a request for removal under personality rights and redaction from history. I am happy to provide verification privately if needed.

— User:DauntPhotoUploader2021 — Preceding undated comment was added at 19:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The OP neglected to inform me of this complaint and to sign their work. 999real and I both monitor COM:FILTERT, comment on DRs, and comment on user pages on a regular basis. We have had no off-wiki coordination in this matter. Anyone is welcome to review my conduct in this matter, including my vandalism complaints (the latest one was meant to include the full URL of Special:Diff/1020966791 in parameter 2 of {{Test3}}, but the User Messages Gadget did not include that). I had intended to bring the OP here for vandalism if they vandalized past the third warning, but they chose to post here first. Please beware en:WP:BOOMERANG.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Jeff G. is not an administrator and he did not remove the speedy deletion template, I did that because I think the reasons are not valid and there was already a deletion discussion under way. He also did not try to close the deletion discussion, no one did that.
I said "This might not be a selfie" which is relevant because the image was uploaded as "Own work" which should only be done by the photographer.
You have stated "I have also confirmed that the event organiser (HISTFEST) was not permitted to redistribute footage", which means someone was filming. I think everyone has a hard time to believe that the British Library stole this footage and/or did not tell the participants they would be recording.
Based on the behavior of the user I think they are not Victoria Princewill but someone trying to defame her.  REAL 💬 ⬆   00:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I have closed the DR as keep. I suggest to the user who wants it deleted to contact COM:VRT so the matter of Princewell's image can dealt with privately. Abzeronow (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Seconding that last remark. Issues that require proving identity should almost always be dealt with by the Volunteer Response Team, who are entrusted to handle confidential correspondence. Trying to sort them out by way of who an account-holder claims to be will get us nowhere. - Jmabel ! talk 01:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I preemptively semi-protected the file for a year. Taivo (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Stefan Leys

Stefan Leys (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - reupload of copyvio after warning, while making false own work claim - Jcb (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. You warned Stefan "Do not remove copyvio nominations from your own uploads" and Stefan obeyed that. Now Yann warned Stefan not to upload copyvios and Stefan has stopped. Taivo (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Iwfirani1i666 and socks

using muitiple accounts to reupload a selfie. 0x0a (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Socks blocked, main account warned, copyvio deleted. Yann (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Laaiiidaa

0x0a (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Theotropolis

Continues to upload copyighted logos from series and game shows. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

No uploads in 362 days, so no action needed at this time. Looks like files have been tagged for permission. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Edge Interactive Publishing Inc.

Edge Interactive Publishing Inc. (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

It seems to me that this user is uploading poor quality porn. NSFW: File:ERA110 Erika Kole nude R 4 030.jpg and File:GMNT-NLN07-02 Noname Jane nude2 RfuillUnused violet solo 057.jpg do not have a license, and seems to be upscaled. Do we need these files? Yann (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Yann: Half a dozen are in use. Some have tickets.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but other pictures are of better quality. Yann (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
This sounds like a problem for DR, rather than ANU. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
OK, done. Yann (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
@Yann, are you planning on tagging all the files they uploaded? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 15:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Only these 2 so far. Yann (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
All of their files are the same. I'll VFC the rest if you want. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Finally, most users think that these are useful, so I closed the DRs. Yann (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Bembety

continued to upload a large number of copyrighted photos from social media despite his promise to stop doing so. 0x0a (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Osamaosamaosamaosama

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done by Dyolf77. Jianhui67 T★C 19:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jianhui67 and Dyolf77: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Alikhan 1987

✓ Done. Blocked for a month. Taivo (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

J-Majestik

J-Majestik (talk · contribs): not sure what to make of this, but the user who I blocked earlier for incivility is now complaining (on his user talk page) about my conduct in way I honestly don't entirely understand, so I leave it to some other admin to decide what to do with this. - Jmabel ! talk 00:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Abuse of TPA merits revocation of TPA and lengthening of the block.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. I reblocked the user without talkpage access and wrote a short message him/her. Taivo (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Георгий Долгопский

Георгий Долгопский (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information). Recent blatant copyright violations after 4 long-term blocks. Quick1984 (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Ff909

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ministerial Roundtable- 21st Century Global Investment Policy Making - 44639130225 (cropped).jpg. This user should be warned to stop wasting everyone's time with invalid deletion requests that a COM:INUSE photo of a Chinese official they don't like for P.R. reasons should be deleted. I will post a link to this discussion on their user talk page now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reminder. I think you are right about whether the pictures should be deleted. But I do not represent any official organization or work for the government. Your accusation has no basis or logic. Ff909 (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
So I think this problem is resolved, but everyone should note that I made no such accusation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Possibly attempted upskirts

There is an user here whose photo i believe to be an failed attempt at taking upskirts photos

Any suggestions as to how i should proceed? Trade (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not know if this is worth bothering emergencywikimedia.org with so i have not emailed them for now Trade (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism

The users "User:Looui67" and "User:Dooxcc22" are doing vandalism in 1, 2 and 3 (and there are more in their "Contributions" page), for example. Since I don't know how to use Wikimedia much, except for uploading images, I don't know how to send notifications or warnings to their talk page. Please, undo those "edits". Thank you!--Agent010 (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I reverted vandalism, blocked both vandals and semi-protected the file indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. Also I created a request for checkuser, who confirmed sockpuppetry and found one more sock. All blocked and reverted. Taivo (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

User:اليان الغالي

اليان الغالي (talk · contribs) wants to promote an obsuce singer for which a picture was deleted. You can see their actions here [20] and here [21]. Would it be possible remind him about the rules of Commons and to protect the page Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elian ghali .jpg, please? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done User page deleted, user warned. This may be sufficient for now. Yann (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

JLStevenNgao

I don’t know if this is report worthy but JLStevenNgao keeps bothering with some really creepy messages. Also, he also vandalized the FIFA Nations/Canada-Mexico-United States 2026 despite the fact that the next matches is in June. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: when you report a user on this page, you are required to let them know on their user talk page. I will now do so for you. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: I am not familiar enough with the World Cup to even begin to judge who is right or wrong about any of those edits. In general, 'vandalism" means not just being wrong, but deliberately adding wrong information, removing accurate and appropriate information, and/or persisting after being corrected. If you want to bring such an accusation, you should provide diffs and a clear indication of what is wrong with the edits in question.
@JLStevenNgao: your edits on {{u|SpinnerLaserzthe2nd}]'s talk page are at best awkward, and arguably creepy. Certainly another such edit would be a reason for a block.
If another admin thinks this has already reached the level for a block against JLStevenNgao, I won't object. - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
I am yes familiar enough with the World Cup JLStevenNgao (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
@JLStevenNgao: That wasn't in question. What was in question was whether the changes you made are appropriate, and the way you posted on SpinnerLaserzthe2nd's user talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
I see an image of an kitten. Am i missing something vital here? Trade (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
First, JL had vandalized the page because in his words “Okay Wait The Philippines As Th First The 2026 FIFA World Cup NOWǃǃ”. This is not the only time that he does this (1, 2, 3). The qualification process is still ongoing.
Second, he gave me a brainstar with any no real reason (just give a description of a TV staff from Switzerland).
Third, he gives me a kitten that said “so cute!!” in relation to the vandalism I had reverted. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: There are two largely separate issues here (vandalism accusation & possibly inappropriate talk page message). Let me focus for a moment on the first: I still don't understand why the addition of the Chinese flag there would be vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 18:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
I guess it had to do with cuju as the earliest form of soccer (according to FIFA). *shrugs* But that is not part of the problem. The focus is the two separate issues (namely placing the Philippine flag under qualified even though the Philippines is eliminated and the inappropriate talk page message). I do hope we get real answers from JL. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Might have wanted to start out with the context. The complaint just looks silly otherwise Trade (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
I think this is the relevant thread: User_talk:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd#A_kitten_for_you! Jerimee (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Anak Sago

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. 2 weeks block. Taivo (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

User:2004user

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hooman Mallahzadeh

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G. Dear I asked a question about it at Commons:Village pump#Satellite maps of GoogleMap and OpenStreetMaps. So I want you to be kind until I get my answer. Thank you. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Me myself will remove all 4 images form GoogleMap if the answer is yes. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
@Hooman Mallahzadeh: I answered there at 15:14 before reading the above. I am kind until you violate any of our laws, policies, or procedures.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jeff G. ✓ Done I myself added Speedydelete template to all four images from GoogleMaps. Thanks for your answer. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
@Hooman Mallahzadeh: Thanks, but what about all the other files you uploaded that were deleted for copyright reasons, or have not yet been checked for copyright violations? You have 236 uploads.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jeff G. I took all of them by my mobile phone camera. Is there any problem by this image?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D8%B9%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%81%E2%80%8C%D8%A2%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AF_1.jpg
For others like some sculptures, before upload, I asked from museum manager that they are free, and I'm really sure that they have no copyright. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
@Hooman Mallahzadeh: Per COM:FOP Iran, "There is no usable FoP provision in the copyright law of Iran", and the garden complex was built in 1863, so your photo of that fountain with the garden building should not be a problem, as the copyright for the architecture of the garden building expired long ago (50 years after the death of the architect (possibly Mirza Ali Mohammad Khan Qavam al-Molk II)). Much of what I just posted was based on Google Translation of fa:باغ عفیف‌آباد, the Persian version of article en:Afif-Abad Garden.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
@Hooman Mallahzadeh: There is a difference between "free" to take photos of for personal use, say, and "free enough for Commons" per COM:L. Also, Andy Mabbett found four more questionable files.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me the user is reasonably competent, well-intentioned, and learning. I don't see an administrative issue here, but it won't surprise me if they continue to need some guidance. - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Ok,  I withdraw my nomination, but I think a mentor who understands Persian and COM:IRAN would be helpful. I don't qualify based on language.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
@Ebrahim, Mhhossein, and Satdeep Gill: would one of you either be willing to mentor or able to recommend someone who can?
@Hooman Mallahzadeh: I'm trying to find you someone appropriate you can readily go to with questions. - Jmabel ! talk 05:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel I really try to consult them from now on. Specially, I'm familiar and friend with user Ebrahim. Thanks for your advice. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel Thank you for the ping. I not an expert in Farsi yet. Since, the user mentioned knowing user:Ebrahim, I am glad they have at-least one contact. But @Hooman Mallahzadeh feel free to reach out to me anytime. Farsi kam-kam midonam. - Satdeep Gill (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Problems with User:마이산

User has problems with copyright, see User_talk:마이산. And threatens other users ("위키미디어 새끼들은 절대 하지 마라. 없애버릴 거다./Don't do it you Wikimedia assholes, I'll get rid of you.") . --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Several edits by this user should be reverted as they consist entirely of vandalism. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
@PantheraLeo1359531, indefinitely blocked. ✓ Done. Kadı Message 19:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

User:ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 &

ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This editor has repeatedly uploaded the same copyrighted content that has been previously deleted despite being warned to stop. A second warning would be pointless as their behaviour here, and on the English Wikipedia show that warnings have been ignored and content that has been deleted or removed is simply recreated or added back with no discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done All uploads deleted; blocked for 1 month. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Gereja Yesus Sejati Salatiga.jpg license

"© Avelin Mulyati, Licensed with CC BY-SA 4.0" Is this file licensing consistent with Commons rules? Wieralee (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, CC-BY-SA 4.0 is a valid license on commons. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 15:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
And, in fact you must own a copyright to grant a CC license. - Jmabel ! talk 23:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Minky Avelin/Disclaimer has nofacebook features.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jeff G., nofacebook? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 19:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
@Alachuckthebuck: See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nofacebook and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2020/09#Is Template:Nofacebook valid?, 3+ years before your time here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
See also Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates. User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer was discussed at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 115#User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer, but not actioned.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Altair Netraphim swept under the rug my notification of this section in this edit, rather than commenting here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Despite not commenting, they do actually seem to have removed their "no Facebook" template from all of their files in response to that, late on the 23 April. Their template is no longer in use on any files.
They've also edited Minky Avelin's files to remove the similar User:Minky Avelin/Disclaimer template. This isn't very clear, but (from the fact that they seem to be crediting each other as co-creators of photos) I guess the two users know each other and are helping each other out. Belbury (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
I tried a couple more times to get some clarity on that at this pump thread and this licensing thread late last year, but those discussions also went stale. I've yet to see a clear consensus on whether, when such a user fails to engage, we should delete their "no Facebook" images, step in and remove the templates, or leave them all in place because technically the user has {{Multi-license}}d their uploads, making their demand unenforcable (in a way that neither they nor most Commons visitors will realise). Belbury (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

User:UrLocalGarvin reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

This user has been uploading fake Estrella TV logos onto Commons and then putting them on Wikipedia using weird formatting. I have marked their uploads for speedy deletion. This is clearly a w:WP:NOTHERE situation. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done? The user is warned. You can nominate inappropriate uploads for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Dilovan kovli

Keeps uploading internet copyvio after final warning. 0x0a (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Kichkin

Kichkin (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) recent copyvio after the last warning: File:Троллейбус в Ашхабаде.jpg. Quick1984 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Other files need checking. Yann (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
@Yann: It seems to be that except for three photos taken by the Olympus [model VR325,VR320,D725] camera, all other ones are from the web. Quick1984 (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
@Quick1984: You can create a mass deletion request with Help:VFC. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Trotskists

Trotskists (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Today 4 cases of blatant copyvio [22] after multiple warnings, including the last one. Quick1984 (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Florenciac

Long-term user (and apparently professor) who is suddenly making a bunch of generic anti-porn nominations with boilerplate rationales. I looked at her edit history going back through 2021 and this seems unprecedented so either she’s just suddenly gotten offended by this type of material or her account has been hacked. Either way it’s weird and disruptive. Dronebogus (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus Hello!
Thank you for keeping an eye on my user account. I am participating in an activity on Women's Health and we were looking at different pictures related to vulva and vagina in the working group. We came across a lot of repeated pictures, and they exceeded what is educational information about sexuality... it was more like pornographic type material. I was reading what I found about deletion requests and I understood that this was the procedure ( Commons:Deletion policy) . If this is not the correct procedure, where can I get information? Thank you very much. Florenciac (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
I’m not an admin, just wanted to chime in here. Although others may disagree with your nominations, you are correct that it is the usual procedure if you have doubts on whether an image should be kept here and require a discussion with other contributors for it.
However, just an advice for @Florenciac, before you nominate an image for deletion, you should also check if an image had been previously nominated for deletion (it should show on its talk page), and see if the reason of why they were kept addresses your doubts. If you have a similar reasoning as the previous nominations and you still have doubts, it is better to discuss this on Commons:Village Pump first.
Also @Dronebogus, I think this could be first resolved in the DRs, or even their user talk page. I don’t think there is a need to bring this to AN/U, since it does not appear to be an admin problem. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
@Tvpuppy @Infrogmation Thank you for your explanation. Before I clicked on the ‘Nominate for deletion’ link I had visited the discussion pages of the files in question and they were all in red, nothing about previous nominations appeared. At the same time, I didn't understand that I was supposed to make an argument, but to choose the reason for my deletion request. I take note and learn from this, thank you. I take this opportunity to ask where I can see that these images have already been proposed for deletion and rejected? Because at least for me, on my computer, the discussion pages still show up in red, for example, this one File:Human_vulva_urinating.gif ... Thank you very much for your time, Florenciac (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
@Florenciac Thank you for your understanding. As demonstrated in the discussion below, nudity images are a quite contentious topic in Commons, so it is better to provide a more detailed argument for their deletion. And yes, you are correct the images File:Female genital and nipple clamps.jpg, File:Human vulva urinating.gif hadn’t been nominated for deletion before, so their discussion pages are empty. I was referring to the other images you nominated, File talk:Coca-Cola bottle and vulva 20080406.jpg and File talk:Vulva during orgasm.gif, where there are links to the previous deletion requests in their discussion pages. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
@Tvpuppy: Reading this whole discussion, it is clear to me that this is a controversial and attention-grabbing topic. Thank you for your time and detailed explanation. Florenciac (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
What you consider “pornography” other people might consider educational, even if that purpose is to illustrate the concept of pornography. Very low quality, obviously redundant material can be deleted; one of the only high quality files we have illustrating the process of a female orgasm is clearly neither of those things. A file illustrating how female urination works is not un-educational; you could argue it was unusably poor quality if you could point to a superior example. The other two might not illustrate what you’re looking for but could illustrate erotic photography or nipple clamps. Dronebogus (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
@Florenciac It looks like pornographic material because it is pornographic material. There is a lot of it here. Some people seem to use Commons as their own private repository of pornographic or erotic images. It is a well-known issue. Good luck. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Whereas other people, seem to feel that their minority view (among the participants in this project) that pornography is inherently out of scope should become policy, and disparage other users as pornographers.
For what it's worth: (1) there is a guideline that Commons is not censored. (2) Conversely, we are well aware of the problem of potentially becoming overwhelmed by images only of pornographic interest. We definitely impose a higher quality standard in this area than in any other (see COM:Nudity, which is policy). Basically, newly uploaded files of this sort will often be deleted as redundant, whereas (for example) equally redundant photographs of the Eiffel Tower will not. In general, though, if a file of this sort has been around a year or more, it probably will not be deleted as redundant. That is because there is a need to provide some predictablity for reusers, whether because they "deep-linked" to the image itself or in terms of them having the file page as documentation that the license they used is valid. - Jmabel ! talk
@Jmabel You seem to want to have an argument with me about things that I haven't said. You do not know my views nor have I ever disparaged anyone as a pornographer. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
@Counterfeit Purses: you wrote, "Some people seem to use Commons as their own private repository of pornographic or erotic images." If that wasn't an accusation against other (unnamed) Commons editors, who did you have in mind? Presumably anything here is uploaded by a contributor. - Jmabel ! talk 22:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel It's not an accusation, it's an observation and I stand by it. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has made this observation. Am I anti-porn if I don't think it's appropriate to have private collections of pornographic or erotic images on a public and collaborative project like this? If your office asks you not to put up nude pictures of your wife does that make them prudes? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
@Counterfeit Purses: This isn’t “your office”. It’s a multimedia library. While it’s not appropriate to abuse its free status to upload large numbers of mediocre personal images, it’s also not appropriate to look up “vulva” and get offended because you see images of vulvas. Dronebogus (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Also it’s kind of hypocritical to attack other users for posting porn when your only upload is literally porn. Dronebogus (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
@Dronebogus It would be nice if you and Jmabel would stop trying to put words in my mouth. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Making what is possibly the only logical inference from another person’s statement is not “putting words in [their] mouth” just because you didn’t quote them verbatim. “Some people seem to use Commons as their own private repository of pornographic or erotic images” followed by “It is a well-known issue. Good luck.” is not a neutral observation; it’s a negative insinuation about users who post porn (which includes you) as well as the entire concept of pornography on Commons. Dronebogus (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
@Florenciac: Healthy women have vulvas and vaginas. What is wrong with documenting them?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment It looks to me that many of Florenciac's deletion listings were ill considered, but apparently well intended. I'm not sure this needed a prompt COM:AN/U as opposed to discussion on the user's talk page first, but that's been done. Florenciac, please note that in addition to above linked Commons is not censored, that human anatomy and human sexuality are within project scope. When nominating images for deletion, I also suggest that you check 1)Was the image nominated for deletion before and kept? If so, perhaps make sure you have a different or better argument why it should be deleted before renominating. 2)Is the image in use in any Wikimedia project? If so, that's generally an indication that the project where it is in use considers it useful, ergo in scope for Commons. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Even with the definite knowledge that looking into this would mean looking at NSFW material, I was not prepared for File:Vulva during orgasm.gif. I wish I could un-see that. Yes, the rationale for keeping it is probably solid, but I cannot for a moment blame someone who may not have known how to look up the history of prior DRs for thinking it should be deleted.
I can see why User:Florenciac would have seen these as meriting deletion but, again, "Commons is not censored." Florenciac, if you want to work on policy changes, you might want to propose ideas for how we might make it less likely that someone would accidentally stumble over these when it isn't what they are looking for, but nominating individual files for deletion on the basis of "It's porn, and I don't like it," especially if they've already been kept after prior DRs, is not OK. As long as you don't keep doing that now that you've been told, unless some other administrator strongly disagrees, I don't think there is an administrative matter here and we should close this discussion as "not done." - Jmabel ! talk 23:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
I don’t really understand the logic of clicking on a file called ”Vulva during orgasm.gif” and being shocked by a gif of a vulva during orgasm. This is really a “dead dove, do not eat” situation, and I’m sorry you’re disgusted by female anatomy. Dronebogus (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: nothing in the name of that file suggests four split screens in super-closeup showing what appears to be the same video slightly out of sync (I didn't look long enough to know for sure) and an enormous insertable (I didn't look long enough to know its nature). This might be literally the most extreme nonviolent pornographic image I have ever seen, though it's not like I've conducted a comprehensive search. It is extreme enough in how it is presented that in my view the only topic it could usefully illustrate is pornography itself, and even there it would be an example of an extreme of genital focus.
The decision was (more than once) made to keep it and, no, "Ick" is not an argument for deletion, but that doesn't mean it isn't shocking, even given its title. It is not a normal, representative example of the subject indicated by its title. - Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
I don’t know what you think is a “normal representative example” of a female orgasm, but I don’t know how you would represent it without an extreme closeup to adequately capture the genital contractions. Dronebogus (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Florenciac As they say, the more the better, although in this case it might make me look like a pervert. It's curious that you nominate for deletion images of "pornographic", repeated vulvas, while hundreds of nearly identical photographs of the same subject, Michelangelo's Pietà for example, are left untouched. Is it a moral issue, or is it simply your field of interest to pore over images of vulvas in search of the perfect one? RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

User:X-trem0680

X-trem0680 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Despite a a message (in french) on 19 April that what can be found on the Internet is rarely free, this user has downloaded new pictures, identifying f them as "own work" which is false. As the main wiki of this user is the french wikipedia, perhaps a French-speaking admin will be more convincing than me.

[In French for X-trem0680 / en français, pour X-trem0680 : Malgré un premier rappel le 19 avril que ce qui se trouve sur Internet est rarement libre, cette personne continue ses téléchargements en les identifiant tous comme "travail personnel" alors que c'est faux. Comme son wiki principal est WP en français, peut-être qu'un admin parlant français sera plus convaincant que moi.]

Thanks. Habertix (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC).

 Comment I added a "last warning". If this user doesn't answer, I suggest a block from uploading only. This could allow them to fix the license of the files which might be OK. Yann (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done I blocked this account from uploading files. Yann (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Anatha Rahadi Rahmat

Keeps uploading internet copyvios despite the final warning. 0x0a (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Svva.aviation

y otros logos que el publicó por ejemplo:

Necesito que algun administrador advierte al usuario que dejen de publicar logos complejos. AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: Puedes advertirle tú mismo y explicarle el problema. No necesitas un administrador para ello. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel:Ya le advertí al usuario usando este {{End of copyvios}}. AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
@AbchyZa22: Pero la plantilla no explica nada sobre la umbral de originalidad. Se el usario aún no está familiarizado con ello, no le ayudará en nada a comprenderlo. Nuestra intención debe ser explicar y ayudar, no castigar y amenazar. - Jmabel ! talk 20:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Wikkyshor

Wikkyshor (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) please stop the user, who is nominating for a speedy deletion dozens of files and categories, despite being warned not to do that, because at most it's a matter of regular deletion. Quick1984 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I removed some speedy deletion tags. Models may be an issue, but real planes and other items should be OK. Yann (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

GyroidGalaxian

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Danisclaud

This user appears to be unwilling to participate in the community's collaboration. They uploaded all external images as "Own work" via cross-wiki tool to enrich their Wikipedia articles; and then these images (most of which are probably public domain works) get deleted after few days due to missing essential information; and then continued to upload, get deleted; get blocked to start the cycle all over again. They have received nearly fifty deletion notices on the talk page. Even though they were asked to provide essential information for those images by multiple editors, they never responded. From the above behavior, it is clear that they are not here to contribute, and I believe that the patience of our participants has been exhausted.-- 0x0a (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a year (3rd block). Yann (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Sarvagyana guru

Already reasons for clearing those templates are given in your Talk page. You may refer the same and I once again suggest that you be more careful and discerning in splashing Talk pages of other Users with unreasonable templates and messages. Rampant misuse of these messages and templates will cause these templates to lose their significance and importance. Hope everything is clarified. I also suggest that you personally remove all those messages and templates from my Talk page. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
 Not done. I do not see copyvios after final warning. But I see 2 very well sourced collages and that's good. Taivo (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

User:jaybirdsrainbow

Exhibitionist account, not here to do anything constructive Dronebogus (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned again, all files deleted. Let's see if the message gets through. Yann (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Hi-s24

Through copyvio warning and a month blocking, this user didn't stop uploading copyvio portraits and logos. See also his log. Netora (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

ː Comment - some of those logos look TOO simple to be copyrighted Gbawden (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Shinagawabooster

This user continued to upload more suspected internet images after receiving a final warning and multiple file deletion notices. 0x0a (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

ː✓ Done Blocked for a month Gbawden (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

MOHAMMED KASSAR

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

They claims that poster is their own work. I Already asked for permission(s) to use. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. This is their last chance so lets hope they get the message Gbawden (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Fabio ferroviere

continued to copyright violations despite being warned. 0x0a (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

ː✓ Done Blocked for a month Gbawden (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Agustín Hurtado

Agustín Hurtado (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. It appears to be another sock puppet from Summerry2024 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log). --Ovruni (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
In Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Summerry2024 it has been established that it is possible or probable that Agustin Hurtado is a Summerry2024 blocking evasion. --Ovruni (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Nagar1020

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Yann: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

MBC3 Fan 2022

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for week. EugeneZelenko (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Sailor Puck

Sailor Puck (talk · contribs) doesn't seem to understand the various licenses they are assigning to uploaded files. Lots of copyvios. JayCubby (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked from uploading new files, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sailor Puck. Yann (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Paras Brahmani 123

Uploading a plenty of selfies, using commons as personal web host. 0x0a (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Files deleted. User warned. GMGtalk 12:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

HolaChau150

HolaChau150 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) two re-creations of the same copyvio upload after speedy deletions. Quick1984 (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know it was necessary to mark that the image was a YouTube screenshot.
I'm so sorry with this mistake.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6MqpK91bEA
Author: Vatican News
If uploading the screenshot is still not allowed, I will not try again. HolaChau150 (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
it isn't, if you reupload, you will get blocked. Bedivere (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
See COM:YT. Quick1984 (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_121&oldid=1032164489"