Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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 []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
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
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	123, 122, 121, 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	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	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

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~69
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~3
• No license since 9 July 2025: ~11
• No permission since 9 July 2025: ~37
• No source since 9 July 2025: ~3
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-07: ~70

Other:

• Duplicates: ~5,608
• Advertisements/spam: ~19
• Personal photos/selfies: ~20
• Other speedy deletions: ~26
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~23

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~3
• Interface admin: ~11
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~4
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• 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. {{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.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Teen jumping in a trampoline park in Winnipeg Manitoba.jpg

Can one of you please close ASAP Commons:Deletion requests/File:Teen jumping in a trampoline park in Winnipeg Manitoba.jpg? The uploader/nominator gets nervous and makes edits that may cause them a block. So please close this DR. --E4024 (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@E4024: I addressed all four of his DRs. Would you care to notify him of this section?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 18:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Why? Because I asked a DR to be closed? No reason to notify anybody. --E4024 (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done I deleted the file. Licenses are irrevocable but we can still be nice and grant uploader a deletion. I did because the file is replacable. --MGA73 (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Kiagus Muhammad Hanif Sirua

Although part of their trolling have been lost due to deleted files, still you can see a lot in their recent edits. I am not of the side to ask or give long blocks to anyone, but a simple admin warning (which they know that it can be followed by a block) would be more than enough. If not, just a day's rest maybe, he's still a kid. --E4024 (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@E4024: I notified the user of this section for you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

How nice of you. Thanks a lot! I hope now he leaves me in peace and trolls around you... :) --E4024 (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I closed couple of DR's of his uploads, nominated his latest upload for regular deletion and warned him not to upload more copyvios. If this does not help, then he should be blocked. Taivo (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course it did not help; these kids only understand certain ways. (IMHO of course.) --E4024 (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing restriction review

We seem to have reached a satisfactory agreement that renders the original issue moot. A1Cafel agrees to voluntarily abide by the original restrictions amended to a rate limit of 10, to expire 01 January. This will hopefully give them time to be more deliberate with their nominations, and address in good faith the issues that have been raised by the community. A1Cafel agrees that a violation of this restriction will result in a block until their expiration. A1Cafel should notify the community at AN when their restrictions expires in the case that the community wishes to review their contributions when they resume unrestricted. GMG^talk 11:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

King of Hearts applies the editing restriction on August 20 per this thread, which limits the maximum number of DR to 5 per day and disallows any forms of deletion. I have asked the review first on User talk:King of Hearts#Review on topic ban, but he seems to link the problems of this and misuse of COM:F2C, which I believe is inappropriate. Moreover, as w:Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Authority to ban said, unless the community reached a consensus, individual editors, including administrators, may not directly impose bans. Looking at the above discussion, it seems that there is no clear consensus on supporting the editing restriction after two weeks of discussion. I don't want to, but now I have to, bring it here for discussion. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Info This request attempts to apply an English Wikipedia policy to Commons. Commons does not run its block or topic ban processes this way, specifically Commons does not have a ban procedure in the way that the policy linked spells out. Recommend close this thread and reconsider the foundation being used for raising a request for action. --Fæ (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, but my question is what was the Commons policy that this ban was enacted under in the first place? Is there a consensus somewhere that I'm missing to enact these fairly intricately tailored restrictions? GMG^talk 12:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Also @A1Cafel: It does not appear that you notified KoH of this discussion. Please do so. GMG^talk 18:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree, the policy basis of odd warnings that appear to be bans needs discussion.

@King of Hearts: for comment. --Fæ (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The linked thread has general support for a topic ban, including a ban on nominating images for deletion entirely (which was my original proposal). I softened my stance a bit to give them the opportunity to prove themselves by filing good DRs and not uploading problem images of their own (in a sense, a weaker version of a ban which has arguably achieved consensus already). While he has been mostly OK on the first point, he has had several issues with the second point (importing Flickr images which are duplicates or copyvios), demonstrating a lack of understanding of Commons policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that a concensus has been reached. After KoH has proposed the ban, only one user support it (which I doubt is a revengeful vote). When he propsed a weaker version of the ban, no users agree with the ban (perhaps Mdaniels5757 gives a weak support). Still, this can't say to have a clear concensus. Apart from that, KoH has never mentioned the second point for lifting/loosening the restriction on the previous thread and User talk:A1Cafel/Archive 5#Editing restrictions. " If I see a sustained period of good deletion nominations, then I will consider loosening or lifting the restrictions."As mentioned above, "he has been mostly OK on the first point", which means he also agrees that I fulfill the requirements on having a review on the editing restriction, there is no reason to decline it immediately. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

KoH never said that you have fulfilled the requirements and you have taken them out of context. I think don't think the restrictions should be reduced or removed, they should remain in place since you continue to the lack of competency (example uploading Public Mark images with meaningless file names https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20200921152801&type=upload&user=A1Cafel&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype= e.g. File:SR14798 (49894676013).jpg and again you're making moves without a summary of why it is being done!) . Bidgee (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

How can a set of Category:Press conferences during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Government of West Virginia‎ meaningless (out of scope)? You're a bit offtopic here. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice try in attempting to deflect and trying to state something I never said, the fact is what I said is that the file names are meaningless File:SR14798 (49894676013).jpg, File:SR14767 (49895498307).jpg, File:SWR8577 (49894678518).jpg). Bidgee (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"SR" or "SWR" is the initials of the author Steven Wayne Rotsch, an employee of the West Virginia Governor's Communications Office. I don't think it is meaningless. Also, this thread is nothing deal with Flickr, so please stop on commenting the uploads from Flickr. If you really want to do so, please open a new discussion. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

*face palm* the point I'm making is you should be making the file names of the Flickr uploads that you have uploaded more descriptive on Commons (which COM:FNC allows and this proposal was aiming for). when I see File:SR14798 (49894676013).jpg (as a file name) I have no idea who the person is, I have no clue as what it is about. You could've named the files for example "File:West Virginia Governor Jim Justice giving a COVID-19 update on May 14 SR14798 (49894676013).jpg", we wouldn't be discussing it.

It just seems like you upload for the sake of uploading when you had access to F2C with little or no regard. Sorry but your Flickr uploads do have everything to do with this discussion, you want the restrictions removed but you have demonstrated that you have zero interest in taking feedback/criticism (basically feels like Failure or refusal to "get the point"), which is showing that you lack competency. Bidgee (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Being slightly literal, there is no consensus for a "ban" of any kind. The discussion linked to is not a consensus. It reads as a long, meandering discussion, with various options and possible actions discussed. If in line with "work constructively" and "respect community consensus" a consensus is needed to justify sysop action, then it would be better to make a clear specific proposal that A1Cafel can understand, and get a consensus for that. Alternatively any user account can be blocked under COM:BP but that would be based on an escalation of warnings and a pattern of case history, but out of policy topic bans are, out of policy. Putting aside all other issues, A1Cafel's policy based complaint with regard to the "ban" is understandable. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) Maybe I'm missing something. I see two users who supported a total TBAN from deletion entirely. One user who said they hadn't considered it fully but was "inclined to support". One user who, after the fact, felt they should be rate limited and require at least one participant in deletion nominations.

Even if we concede that there is "a consensus" there (and maybe also whether it might have been more appropriate to have a third party enact that consensus) I'm not sure there is a policy justification for interpreting that as leave to craft a specially tailored en.wiki discretionary sanction appealable only to the person who enacted it. Of course, if the community wishes to empower administrators to have such leeway then it can. It may be in a user's best interest to voluntarily agree to more lenient tailored requirements to avoid more total restrictions. But I don't see how such a restriction unilaterally imposed by an administrator has any validity under policy, and even if it did, it would be an act of consensus, appealable to the community. GMG^talk 13:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"appeal-able to the community" is a nice thought, though in practice it feels unfair to the complainant to rely on the equivalent of a public "senate debate" as their only option for how to make an appeal against informal "tailored requirements".

KoH as a care taking point, there is no onus on yourself to be the one that needs to stay on top of this. --Fæ (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

That's kindof just a function of how consensus works, since there is no specific policy here regarding TBANs, enacting a TBAN is simply a matter of generic consensus. We could reach a generic consensus for pretty much anything not constrained by technical limitations or limits set by the Foundation. That consensus can only be undone by another consensus. In the case of a generic consensus for a specific TBAN, it is not the administrator who "does the banning", it is the community. GMG^talk 14:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I never said that it was appealable only to me; this page is always open to appeals. Just treat it like a normal block, i.e. another admin is allowed to unblock without need for a formal consensus, but should not do so unless they are convinced that the original block was either clearly in error or no longer needed. Here, maybe a short, informal consensus is advisable before lifting the restriction, because the block was enacted with the same.

Anyways, enough of procedure. What do you think about the substance of the restriction? After reviewing the various AN/U threads on him and his recent problems since the restriction, do you believe that A1Cafel has the required competence to nominate images for deletion? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The "substance" appears buried in long discussions. If there's value in giving opinions, it would be better based on an easy to understand list of critical evidence, a proposition for a specific well scoped TBAN, and a route for how it could be appealed considering there's no such thing as a life-long TBAN.

To be honest there's a lot of merit in removing whatever 'restriction' you have already placed, making the TBAN proposal in a separate discussion, based on a summary of evidence, and letting another sysop take responsibility for acting on any result. --Fæ (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would suggest a compromise. @A1Cafel: agrees to these terms for the next three months, as a voluntary restriction, after which they are expired with no need for an appeal. If they violate this good faith agreement, then they agree that they may be blocked for the remainder of the duration. The alternative seems to be a topic ban from deletion all together, which I'm fairly confident they would find more objectionable. GMG^talk 01:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @GreenMeansGo: The idea seems good, but three months is a fairly long time. May I suggest either
  1. Shorten the restriction time to two months, with maximum 5 DR per day, or
  2. Maintain the three months restriction time, raised the maximum number of DR to 10. Would it still be fine? --A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I am OK with raising the restriction to 10 until the end of 2020. After that, whether to lift the DR rate cap entirely will depend on the quality of the DRs you file. Also, I am uncomfortable with you immediately starting to use speedy deletion processes after lifting the rate cap; I would like to see a sustained period of you filing large amounts of DRs without issues first. Again, part of the problem is that you would overwhelm the system and images would slip through the cracks and get mistakenly deleted as a result, so a gradual approach is best. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems like there is some agreement here. Limited 10 until 1 January. If violated, a block until 1 January. Can we compromise on the lifting? No appeal, but A1Cafel is required to notify the community at AN that their restriction is lifted, so that others may review their work once it resumes. GMG^talk 12:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: OK I will take it. Thanks a lot for your decision. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@A1Cafel: To be clear, this isn't "my decision" and has nothing to do with my role as an administrator, nor do I have the authority as an administrator to impose these restrictions. This is a voluntary agreement on your part, in order to provide an opportunity to address concerns that the community has raised, without the need for a formal topic ban. GMG^talk 15:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Is this agreeable enough that we can move forward with it, without having future procedural discussions about the validity of the voluntary restriction? GMG^talk 15:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure. To summarize: 1) Limit of 10 images per day at DR and no nominating of images for deletion outside of DR, until 23:59, December 31, 2020 (UTC). 2) No formal restrictions afterwards, but any clearly incorrect speedy tagging ({{Speedydelete}}, {{Nld}}, {{Nsd}}, {{Npd}}, etc.) may be grounds for a block without further warning. Therefore I recommend you continue using the DR process instead of speedy for all but the most uncontroversial of cases. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• @A1Cafel: Before I close this...because I think I'm still fairly an uninvolved third-party moderator at this point, are we all fine with this resolution? GMG^talk 20:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @GreenMeansGo: Agree. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category troll/sockpuppet

• 26Dipankar (talk • contribs • block log • filter log)

Very likely sockpuppet of Kalita Dipankar (talk • contribs • block log • filter log), who was mentioned in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 85#Category troll. The user is engaged in the same activity, putting an image in a bunch of unrelated categories to game search engines (diff of my edit removing said categories). Ytoyoda (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked 26Dipankar indefinitely as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Uploaders of File:Matías_Oviedo.jpg

Three differents users with similar usernames uploaded are reuploading a file with the same name and are confirmed to be the same file.--QTHCCAN (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked and tagged 2 of them indefinitely as sockpuppets. Taivo (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeated improper removal and addition of templates to File:Leeminhobynewscn.jpg

In spite of by repeated requests not to, Dominicoz, Newscnauthor and Newscn have repeatedly improperly removed {{Copyvio}}, {{No permission}} and {{Delete}} notices from File:Leeminhobynewscn.jpg, and have repeatedly improperly added {{PermissionOTRS}} and {{LicenseReview}} notices to the file. These three user accounts appear to be related: Dominicoz has stated that he or she is 'a reporter working at www.news.cn'. This has become disruptive. Dominicoz has stated an intention to raise a complaint against me.[1]

Disputed edits to File:Leeminhobynewscn.jpg

• 14:45, 22 September 2020 Dominicoz removed {{Copyvio}}
• 09:46, 25 September 2020 Newscnauthor removed {{No permission since}} and added {{LicenseReview}}
• 08:39, 26 September 2020 Dominicoz removed {{Delete}}
• 09:45, 29 September 2020 Dominicoz removed {{Delete}}
• 07:15, 30 September 2020 Newscn removed {{Delete}} and added {{PermissionOTRS}}
• 05:10, 1 October 2020 Dominicoz removed {{Delete}}
• 05:15, 1 October 2020 Dominicoz added {{PermissionOTRS}}
• 06:18, 2 October 2020 Dominicoz removed {{Delete}} and added {{PermissionOTRS}}

All these edits except for the last have been reverted by myself and by other editors. Please also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leeminhobynewscn.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. The deletion request has been open whole week and I closed it. The problem is in only one file, which is now deleted, so I do not block anybody. If the OTRS-permission is ever accepted, then the photo can be restored. Taivo (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Doug Coldwell and license laundering

I really don't really want to open this against such a prolific and good content creator over on enwiki. But after checking privately with User:CptViraj to make sure I'm not crazy, there is what appears to both of us to be a long-term history of license laundering by this user. I became aware of this user's Commons activity after I reviewed a now-w:WP:GA of theirs, w:Typographer (typewriter). I noticed that two images in that article, File:W A Burt typographer.jpg and File:W A Burt typographer top view.jpg, were clearly not own work photos as they are marked but are instead scans from an unknown book. Furthermore, I saw that File:Typographer replica 1893.jpg is cited to an in-copyright book and falsely marked public domain due to age when there's no reason I can see to think that this is from a photograph taken in 1893. I also saw that File:Burt demo.jpg has a false citation, to a non-existent Britannica year (1921) and no volume provided, only a dubious page number. I am very concerned that this user is polluting Commons with images he knows not to be public domain. His talk page is full of deletion notices. On enwiki, he immediately removed the images I pointed out without requesting deletion of them there, which makes me more suspicious. I really hope I'm wrong about Doug, but I'm getting more and more certain that I'm not and request admin attention as well as an explanation from Doug. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I've checked the mentioned files and it looks license laundering to me but I'm not an expert in PD area so I would like to see PD expert users' input. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

There are four images listed here.

File:W A Burt typographer.jpg and File:W A Burt typographer top view.jpg, were clearly not own work photos as they are marked - They are not marked as own work. They are imported from Flickr, marked as such, and went through review. Are you saying Doug is operating that Flickr account? Sure, it's unlikely that the person who operates that account actually created these images, but given the visible age of these images it's not surprising that someone just went with it. At worst careless, at best not a problem at all.

File:Typographer replica 1893.jpg is cited to an in-copyright book and falsely marked public domain due to age - no. it is accurately cited to an out of copyright magazine. a cursory google shows it was published in 1922 and indeed has images related to Burt on page 192 (though the archive.org version does not include images).

File:Burt demo.jpg has a false citation, to a non-existent Britannica year (1921) and no volume provided, only a dubious page number - the page number is not dubious, as it corresponds to this subject's coverage in 1911, but I don't see this image. Regardless, Getty has included it among their public domain cash grabs here, citing a creation date of 1829.

At the end of the day, the only really relevant question is how old those first two are and where they came from originally. I don't see this as a user problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Thanks for review, appreciated. Regarding the Flickr images, I meant "own work of clbinelli (the Flickr user)". Basically I think Doug should be more careful to double check Flickr licenses are real. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Largely Forgotten

• User: Largely Forgotten (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: The user wrote that I was "ignorant" and that I "delete public domain pictures" and "played executioner" and had been "killing [their] photos of public domain artwork" and I "delete pictures that are in the public domain" and "owe [them] an apology", that their "pictures were already deleted", that "THESE WORKS OF ART ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN" and "were public domain from the first day they were created" and "they were removed" in this edit (all dead wrong). The user then wrote about their files that "They were already gone" in this other edit. All of that was wrong. The user then removed my name, but not any insult or false claim. The user refuses to sign their posts. I am sorry if I offended the user by starting Commons:Deletion requests/File:Las Animas Post Office, mural.jpg, but I will not apologize for defending this project from files it is unwilling to host as a matter of policy.

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Just adding my 2c here - I helped this user on IRC (they ended up in the enwiki help channel after having a bunch of problems with Wiki Loves Monuments uploads). My impression that they're a good-faith and positive contributor who a) isn't really familiar with some basic wiki editing concepts and b) is frustrated because of the errors they encountered and feeling lost. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

+1. I tried to encourage her because she's disappointed and downhearted. Most of the uploaded images of historic places are highly valuable and notable. So I suggest no further action here at ANU. --Achim (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, gee. I've been reported for being "mean" to Jeff G. Oh no! In some forum I never heard of in my two days here, and don't know how to use. Now what do I do? I just wanted to upload pictures. But Jeff G. wants everybody to know that he thinks I'm not nice enough. This complaining user has already reduced me to tears more than once. Downright mean. You may think I'm a problem, Jeff G. But the only problem now is that you are going to miss out on thousands of relevant, quality photographs. I'm already on my way out the door, deleting everything I possibly can on the way. You win, Jeff G. You are a wonderful, perfect saint. I am not worthy in any way. I understand that I am one person, inexperienced and vulnerable, and you will be able to make my life miserable if I stay. And so, I am leaving. Problem solved for me, too, because I won't have to put up with your domineering disdain any more. Hopefully, I will not be pestered by any more notices about my inadequacies and deficiencies and unworthiness. I am not even slightly interested in what Jeff G. thinks is wrong with me. Not ever again. Not another word, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largely Forgotten (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 Too late, she's gone. What a pity! --Achim (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RENATO20303

Can an administrator contact this new user in order to talk about the rules in Commons. He/she input mostly out of scope pictures (his cat, a woman painting a wall, etc...) or uploading satellite pictures from copyrighted websites that I had to flag for deletion.

Pierre cb (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Warned about scope and I nominated the files for deletion Gbawden (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Anybody else smell a spammer?

I'm sniffing Special:Contributions/Kojype. Claims own work for all uploads yet links to spammy sounding web sites. The exifs though are consistent if very minimal (only 1 field). --Palosirkka (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed; Kojype (talk · contribs) indef-blocked now. They uploaded randomly selected images of other authors, but put their spam-target into source- and author-entry. --Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you Túrelio! --Palosirkka (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

IP 124.105.196.16 & 119.93.56.157

Please take a look at the activities of user 124.105.196.16 and 119.93.56.157, especially on File:Blessed_Carlo_Acutis.jpg. Series of reverts without any clarification. --WTM (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the 2 images for 1 month. --Túrelio (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind a second look?

I spotted two user editing at roughly the same time and uploaded images - not obvious copyvios - with the same "author". If someone would like to take a look here and here I think it might be useful - possible it is just me! TIA --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hm... I do not see a problem here. A similar behaviour could always be the result of some class assignment that involves uploads to Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

At least the file File:Keto Chocolate Chip Cookies.jpg exists multiple places on facebook already. TommyG (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

GuidryJames

GuidryJames (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Disruptive DRs. Either a test account or a sock, either way nothing good. --Fæ (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I was about to flag this user too. I think this is probably a test acount since that beginner mistake. However, this is definetely a form of trolling.--QTHCCAN (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Achim warned the user and closed both DR's. Taivo (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hanooz

The user Hanooz finished the process for clarification the permissions and make deletion requests with objections to deletion. It seems for him are questions for permission of uploads photographs of identifiable people the same how speedy deletions. Look here: [2], [3] and [4] Adelfrank (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I know my English is very bad. - Some people here are german speaking? Der Mitarbeiter Hanooz hat die Anfragen zur Berechtigung von Veröffentlichung Bilder lebender Personen beendet und statt dessn Löschanträge eröffnat, in denen er als Begründung angibt, dass er keinen Grund für eine Löschung sieht. Scheinbar verwechselt er Fragen nach der Erlaubnis zum Hochladen von Fotos von Personen mit Identität mit Schnelllöschanträgen, oder wie anders ist da zu deuten? Adelfrank (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

beziehst du dich dabei z.B. auf File:مرتضی دلشب۱.jpg? Hier sehe ich aber auch unmittelbar keinen Grund für eine no-permission-Markierung. Falls du dabei auf Persönlichkeitsrechte abzieltest, dafür ist das no-permission-tag nicht gedacht. Das verwenden wir rein Urheberrechts-bezogen. In diesem Fall ist ein regulärer LA (DR) der korrekte Prozess, auch weil er eine Diskussion erlaubt. (Hanooz ist Admin. Admins sind zwar nicht unfehlbar, wissen aber normalerweise was sie tun.) --Túrelio (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

achso, verstehe [5] da gibt es keinen Grund für no-permissions-Markierung bei own work und die Bermerkung This file does not qualify for speedy-deletion and a regular deletion request will be started als Umwandlung der permission-Frage in einen deletion request mit der Bemerkung it has metadata. I see no valid reason for deletion ist korrekt. - Verstehe admins müssen sich gegenseitig beistehen. Dein Kommentar zu Persönlichkeitsrechten und das eine permission-Nachfrage nur bei Urheberrechtsverstossannahmen gestattet sei, nehme ich ur Kenntnis. Wieder ein Beispiel wie das Copyright durch admins umgangen wird. Na macht mal weiter, am besten alle permissions-Nachfragen verbieten. Was solls macht euren Dreck alleine. mir reicht's. Adelfrank (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Offenkundig willst du nicht verstehen, schade. Dann ist es besser zu gehen, statt andere anzupampen, die sich Zeit für deine Frage hier gekommen hatten. --Túrelio (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Mrcl lxmna

• User: Mrcl lxmna (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Making disruptive Philippines FOP DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:GMA Network, Inc. again after block for doing so. Please see the history at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 88#Mrcl lxmna.

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 05:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

These people always rwsort to ad hominem attacks agaibst me despite the fact that there is really no freedom of panorama in the phils. Read the sections on RA8293 on limitations of copyright - sec 184 - and you wont see anything that permits free commercial use of copyrighted works and their reproductions. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Multichill as blocking Admin.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 05:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I may want to repeat the ff. Points:

From RA8293 - CHAPTER II. ORIGINAL WORKS - 172.1 Literary and artistic works... "(g) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography or other works of art; models or designs for works of art;"

- CHAPTER VIII. - LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT -SEC. "184. Limitations on Copyright. - 184.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright: (d) The reproduction and communication to the public of literary, scientific or artistic works as part of reports of current events by means of photography, cinematography or broadcasting to the extent necessary for the purpose; (Sec. 12, P.D. No. 49) AND (e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public, sound recording or film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and of the name of the author, if appearing in the work, are mentioned AND (h) The use made of a work by or under the direction or control of the Government, by the National Library or by educational, scientific or professional institutions where such use is in the public interest and is compatible with fair use"

There's an added note at 184.2. Which says "The provisions of this section shall be interpreted in such a way as to allow the work to be used in a manner which does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the right holder's legitimate interests." No indication that commercial and unrestricted uses of copies of artistic works including buildings, sculptures and murals are considered not copyright violations.

Wikipedia commons doesnt welcome content and media that are licensed to be fair use and / or to be noncommercial. These deletion requests are compliant to concerns aired to me on social media by various anon Facebook and Twitter users about copyrighted derived works hosted here. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

So any links to the posts that you claim that exist? Also an Admin isn't going to care about the text that you have clearly copy and pasted. Bidgee (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It might be time to put a hard limit on DR creations, the fact that the user is creating a bigger backlog with all the DR they have been creating. Just today alone, 19 DR have been created and 72 for the month of October so far! Bidgee (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

For a new user, 91.8% of the edits have been done using VisualFileChange. Clearly you're an experienced editor who is using an alternate account for a single purpose and not disclosing which is your main account. Bidgee (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 Comment this troll essentially made a duplicate DR at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Plaza Rajah Sulayman. There is an active DR to the same files, but this troll filed DRs to the same images. I'd wish I had an ability to remove those replicated deletion tags on the images (dunno if that's AWB), but right now I have to remove those manually. To admins, please stop this troll now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Slashing out one input from mine. Verbcatcher told me that it's better to raise objection at the particular DR. I raised my objection at the 2nd section, made by this troll or vandal or who they are. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

AngelinaZastavkina

Requesting a block of AngelinaZastavkina (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for repeatedly uploading of the same copyrighted file/s despite numerous warnings on the user's talk page. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 2 weeks. Sealle (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Marjdabi

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

The user is making disruptive edits to a map file [6] (as well as some personal attacks in the edit summaries), ignoring that there is a debate [7] on Wikipedia including the original author of the file regarding some recent changes. I let him know of the debate in both the edit summary of my revert and on his talk page: [8]. A user with the same name (and style) has been indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I've indef'd Marjdabi for the personal attack. Please take also care that we do not want to see edit wars on these maps at Commons. Disputes are best resolved by uploading alternative versions under different filenames. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Abusive IP

194.56.199.163 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log • Abuse filter log) and this message. There's a thread also relating to this at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive IP/account. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 Blocked for three days. Should they continue their attacks, please report. Thank you. Ahmad^talk 17:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

LordLiberty

• User: LordLiberty (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: More disruption after block in the form of hate in this edit, see also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 88#User:LordLiberty. Pinging @AFBorchert as blocking Admin.

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Indef'd because of the personal attack – LordLiberty is apparently not here to contribute constructively and collegially. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I've now removed talk page access as the harassment was continued on the talk page. There is a {{Unblock}} request open on that page with no rationale. Would some admin colleague please close that? --AFBorchert (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)