Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 127

Literaturemostly

Literaturemostly (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I will delete speedily almost all his/her uploads as copyvios, but the user has not edited for 4 months, so I will not currently block. Taivo (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations by Dylam X; also socking

• Dylam X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• WalkingPie7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Dylam X has uploaded dozens of copyright violations in their brief time on the project, drawing two blocks. This pattern has continued despite final warnings and has escalated into SVG laundering and image modification to prevent easier reverse image searches. An English Wikipedia sockpuppet investigation clearly established that WalkingPie7 is a sockpuppet of Dylam X (technically, WalkingPie7 is the earlier account, but it has remained largely dormant on both EnWiki and the Commons). I think we have long passed the point of no return here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Look, I'll try to have more insight in the future about Wikipedia's copyright policy. Mind you I'm not and was not purposely trying to cause any type of harm, Any copyright violation that had resulted of the images I uploaded was simply out of knowledge. Dylam X (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You repeatedly uploaded images that you found elsewhere on the internet as "own works" and outright lied repeatedly about having vectorized other images. You then modified copyrighted images, possibly to make it harder to identify your copyright violations. This has happened over 30 times despite numerous warnings and two blocks. You have clearly shown yourself unwilling to change, despite your repeated promises that you would. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Dylam, please consider this as a warning. Dylam has not uploaded copyvios after September and WalkingPie has not edited 1½ years. But if WalkingPie starts to edit again, then (s)he can be blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Taivo (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo: While they have yet to edit on the Commons with the account, WikiEnjoyerXYZ was blocked as a Dylam X sock on EnWikipedia. I think it goes without saying that your warning regarding socking also applies to that account, but I wanted to ensure it was on record here should any issues arise. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo: Blatant socking here by Remenkimi765. I recommend blocking all accounts, or at least all active account. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Please, before jumping to conclusions, I am not Dylam X. I am an Ecclesial Heraldry designer, and I just made this account here and on Wikipedia to upload the rest of my work. I totally get why I am suspected, but I just wanted to solve the recent dispute that Dylam X has been involved in due to uploading copyright and non-free image of the coat of arms. I just wanted to contribute. If you want me to refrain from editing this page and being out of this dispute I have no problem. Thank you. Remenkimi765 (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll request a checkuser here. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Now all three accounts are indefinitely blocked due to sockpuppetry. Taivo (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Gérald Garitan (talk · contribs)

I regret to inform you that this high-volume uploader has still not learned to correctly indicate the copyright status of the historical artwork that he photographs, but routinely tags everything as own-work and CC-licensed. Perusing his recent uploads and his talk page will readily reveal the problem. He's been blocked for it before, but he keeps uploading stuff by the hundreds and thousands. He's so prolific we have an entire category just for his problematic uploads. I've been trying to clean up Category:Items with disputed copyright information but I'll be perpetually working uphill if he is not restrained. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done indef-blocked Bedivere (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

It's a shame. If only he were a bit more conscientious and responsive to our community - some of the stuff he uploads really is valuable. I would be in favor of giving him another chance if he demonstrates understanding of the problem and a willingness to correct course. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Looking at his recent uploads, they are valuable, but something like File:Precis de chirurgie 1606354.jpg, a 1619 text, just isn't his "own work", and it shouldn't be that hard to apply the correct public domain tag. Looking at his recent comment after the block on his talk page, he seems to struggle with the Upload Wizard. Maybe we can help him... Gestumblindi (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere: I have reached out to him in French trying to precisely explain the issue. Perhaps you could modify the block to only block uploads and allow other edits? That will give him the opportunity to demonstrate his understanding by correcting some of his previous uploads. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Will do. Bedivere (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring by Taylor 49 (talk · contribs) asserting videos are 'screenshots'

Taylor 49 keeps edit warring at Category:Screenshots of logging in into MediaWiki (Special:Diff/1133835069diff) and File:Login.ogv (diff) despite that explanations for why videos are not screenshots, explanations why we should categorize files accurately also in this case, and feedback on my talk by one other user (User:Jmabel).

• It is a fact that videos are not screenshots. We should try to categorize files accurately.
  - This principle is important for example because the more often we make exceptions the less robust and consistent it is, eventually leading to people organizing all sorts of things inaccurately because it suits them better, because of conflicts of interest, or because they would like things to be certain ways despite that these things are false etc.
  A screenshot (also known as screen capture or screen grab) is an analog or digital image that shows the contents of a computer display. A screenshot is created by a (film) camera shooting the screen or the operating system or software running on the device powering the display. so screenshots are only images and not videos. Accuracy does matter. If we weaken accuracy where people can arbitrarily ignore it, categorizing here loses its purpose, meaning and usefulness. Videos of the screen or parts of it are a different concept and called [1] screencasts, video screen captures or screen recordings.
• Screencast videos and screenshots have different purposes / uses – a screenshot usually just shows how something looks like while screencast videos explain/show how things work or function or are being used or can be used etc. Screencast videos are often tutorials while screenshots usually just depict or illustrate a software.
• As explained to Taylor 49, a user coming to the category Category:Login screens or Category:Login for example who is looking for a video is unlikely to look into Category:Screenshots of logging in into MediaWiki because per title that category only contains screenshots. Same applies to other similar categories.

Prototyperspective (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Ияд и Фирас

• User: Ияд и Фирас (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Evasion of block, lock, or ban. Continued copyvio uploading like File:Imaginary flag of the Kingdom of Numidia.png after final warning for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Some copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Singhson67

Nothing this person has uploaded has proper sourcing. Some of them may be free due to age, but they are all just uploaded from various websites. Secretlondon (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Secretlondon: when you report someone at COM:AN/U, you are supposed to inform them on their user talk page. I will do that for you this time. - Jmabel ! talk 20:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Clearly a problem, though most of these files are probably PD. I've blocked them from uploading for two weeks, and hope they come to discuss this so that I do not need to impose a longer or broader block. - Jmabel ! talk 20:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

They have not uploaded since 2024 - I reported as I think everything they have uploaded needs looking at. Secretlondon (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Ooof. I missed that (though you also might have mentioned that). Then the block will probably have no effect.

Not particularly a user conduct/admin issue then, it's an issue about the files. - Jmabel ! talk 02:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've set up , which should now contain all of these files. Not sure what more I can do. - Jmabel ! talk 02:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Ingvarooo

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

Continued copyvio uploading since the last block. 0x0a (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him for 3 months (second block). Taivo (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Fotos fälschlicherweise gemeldet!!

er/sie hat 2 meiner fotos gemeldet obwohl ICH selbst die fotos gemacht habe. Nadinesophia7 (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

der turelio Nadinesophia7 (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nadinesophia7: Welche Fotos? Gemeldet wo? - Jmabel ! talk 20:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: the user seems to have misunderstood the meaning of free licensing and uploaded some game screenshots. Their communication patterns were like social network chatting, too. I engaged in communicating on their talk page. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

At least 2 files are already deleted, some more strange files under DR. Special:Contributions/Nadinesophia7 No contributions outside of commons so far. -- Taylor 49 (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I've got the feeling that the user is a German female teenager who's behaving like being on some social network. Dunno if we can expect useful contributions, but there's nothing harmful visible. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Camilasdandelions

Camilasdandelions (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - continues to upload copyright violations despite multiple warnings - removed the warnings from their talk page and continued the behaviour - Jcb (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done gave a final warning, spelled out what they need to do differently. If there are further problems, I will certainly block. They've been working in a difficult area, but that does not excuse making more mistakes than not, and ignoring what more experienced people tell them. - Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

JC55impala6Fo3;DruNkC4icK3n-fre3hoLés

Special:Contributions/JC55impala6Fo3;DruNkC4icK3n-fre3hoLés shows that every edit that this user has made has been completely off-topic and pointless. I don't know what's going on with the user name, either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done blocked as spam account. GPSLeo (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hanawhorenaughty

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

Inappropriate username Dronebogus (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef., all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Puritta

Still removing DRs from files (1, 2) without expressing their opinion on the DR in question after previously being warned on their talk page not to engage in this behavior. TansoShoshen (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@TansoShoshen: you seem not to have notified the user of this discussion on their talk page; I will do that for you this time. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, I forgot to save changes, will not happen again. TansoShoshen (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I  Support administrative action. The original infraction was Special:Diff/561151299, with my warning at Special:Diff/569508461.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Smyxhmcj

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

Four of the photos uploaded by this user have been found to be images from the internet, some of which have been cropped to remove watermarks. This suggests the user was intentionally uploading copyrighted photos. The other uploaded files have not yet been fully verified, but given their poor resolution and size, they are also likely to be infringing on copyright.--MspreilsCN (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@MspreilsCN: you seem not to have notified the user of this discussion on their talk page; I w ill do that for you this time. - Jmabel ! talk 04:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

They are a student taking a course taught by User:Hanyangprofessor2, aka User:Piotrus, who needs to know about this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek Thanks, I'll issue a warning to the student; feel free to block them. I tell my students about copyright but for many it's "one ear in, one ear out", sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

They're not your only student who's doing this. See this difference. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Smyxhmcj Please explain what happened here? Stealing pictures from the Internet is not allowed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out.

This was my mistake. I used an image from the Internet without fully understanding the copyright requirements. As I have already returned to China, I am currently unable to access Wikipedia to remove the image myself. I will be more careful in the future and will only use images with proper licenses.

Sorry for the trouble caused. ~2025-42845-39 (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

You were able to post here. Do you lack the permission to delete images from Wikimedia Commons (not Wikipedia) as an IP user? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: that last comment makes no sense to me. Only an administrator can delete images from Wikimedia Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know that, though I guess that makes sense because once you've licensed a photo, you can't unilaterally delete it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Smyxhmcj: I hope you understand what is going on here. Are any of the photos you uploaded that are actually your own work? If so, which? Please reply here; if I don't hear from you in the next 36 hours, I will have to delete them all on the basis that we can't trust your claims of "own work." - Jmabel ! talk 05:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Piotrus: if this happens somewhat routinely with your students, could you please adopt some process that checks their work for copyvios, rather than have the burden of checking your students' work fall on the Commons community in general? Either some sort of peer review process, or you doing some checking yourself, or having this sort of thing affect their grade, or something? Or do you already have enough of a process in place that it is surprising that this slipped through? - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining.

To clarify, none of the photos I uploaded are my own work. I mistakenly used images from the Internet and marked them as "own work" due to my lack of understanding of the licensing rules.

I understand now, and I am fine with these images being deleted. I will not upload any images in the future unless they are genuinely my own work and properly licensed.

Sorry again for the trouble caused. ~2025-43034-31 (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I will delete these all then. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I will add a clarification to the syllabus that uploading copyvios will reduce the grade, good idea. Other than that, while I of course check for copyvios myself, please note that in Wikimedia community we all share the burden of both checking the works of new contributors, and recruiting them. Realistically, some do one more than the others. The organizers of wikithons, including teachers, tend to do more of the recruiting, for obvious reasons. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to check the uploads of the students if we dont even know which user accounts are a part of the course in the first place Trade (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done uploads all deleted, no other action at this time. @Piotrus: please give some thought to a process that will make this sort of problem less likely in the future. If the checking needs to come from the broader community, perhaps there ought to be a maintenance category applied to the user pages of the people whose work should be checked. - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I like that idea (of a category) a lot. All my students are registered in the educational dashboard system (See https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/users/Piotrus ; for the sample picture uploads from my recent course, see https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Hanyang_University/Understanding_Small_and_Big_Data_with_Wikis_(2025)/uploads ). While the students are told to upload only free images / ones they took themselves (see https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/User:Hanyangprofessor2/Student_assignments as well as my media module at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hanyangprofessor2/Instructions/6), some will inevitably ignore that requirement. I don't know if the % of bad uploads for students is higher than for an average new contributor (I've never seen any stats related to this), but we can certainly try to categorize educational uploads to get more data clarity. This would likely need to be done throgh reaching WikiEd which runs the dashboard (I've long supported the idea of flagging all student accounts and contributions somehow, but that doesn't seem to be a priority for the devs...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:04, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Probably sockpuppetry

• Ironman33231 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• AmyAA234 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

These two accounts are likely the same person. Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Jonteemil (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, we have no idea what are you talking about. Can you please publish the wiki page - Andrea Komljenovic - Scientist? AmyAA234 (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@AmyAA234 This is Wikimedia Commons, where there are no "wiki 'pages'". 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Who is "we"? And why did you upload those photos claiming that they are your own work when user Ironman3323 is the actual copyright holder per their statement here: [2]? Are you aware that you are committing a copyright violation if you are not Ironman3323 yet falsely claim that you are the one who took those photos? Nakonana (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

These two people are not same person, not sure what you are talking about, please put back these images. AmyAA234 (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@AmyAA234 The report has been made in good faith, to allow those with the particular rights to examine this matter and reach a conclusion. Please be patient. There either is a case to answer or there is not. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not the same account, not the same e-mail and not the same person. I need these images to put back in Wikimedia Commons. AmyAA234 (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

For what purpose do you need the selfies of you on this platform? GPSLeo (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo Please see w:en:Draft:Andrea Komljenovic, which at present does not show notability, and is unlikely to proceed beyond Draft in its present form. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done I blocked AmyAA234 for socking, and deleted all files. Yann (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Elcobbola and the long-term abuse blocking problem

Hey, don't get me wrong. But every time whenever a user's account was created, Elcobbola decides to quickly block them for "long-term abuse" and revert the stuff they got from them and treat other users like they are nothing! I don't know what to do now at this point from them forward! ~2025-43267-12 (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

After taking a look at Special:Log/Elcobbola, the issue apparently doesn't lie with Elcobbola, but with the users blocked who most likely misunderstood the purpose of Commons (COM:SCOPE) and how to behave here (en:Wikipedia:Competence is required). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I checked and most of the recent accounts Elcobbola blocked for "long-term abuse" were flagged by the abuse filter for possibly being "LTA 257". Interestingly, this temporary account is also flagged by the abuse filter for possibly being "LTA 257". So, I think it is likely this temporary account is related to the accounts that were recently blocked. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Bro, Elcobbola is a threat! I didn't edit anything wrong. I was just trying to edit articles, duh. ~2025-43267-12 (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

We don't have articles, they are out of scope.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

But I'm trying to edit the pages. (That counts as editing articles) ~2025-43267-12 (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-43267-12: That's funny, both you[3] and Jackrabbituj[4], the last user Elcobbola blocked, have the same meaningless edit to Commons talk:Abuse filter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done I blocked ~2025-43267-12. Yann (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

user:Jmhb8006

Not here to contribute constructively; porno user Dronebogus (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not blocked: No uploads since NOPENIS warning. All files deleted though. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

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

Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Also both accounts uploads out of scope files. The sock reuploads deleted files by the master. Jonteemil (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

And then there's this effort to write a Wikipedia article about himself. Yes, this seems to be self-promotion. I don't think I'll do anything about the older account Uashim mia, but I'll delete the photos and block Mawlana Uashim mia as a sockpuppet. - Jmabel ! talk 07:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done - Jmabel ! talk 07:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

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

Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Also uploads clear copyvios and sock reuploads deleted copyvios uploaded by master. Jonteemil (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Sockpuppet is blocked indefinitely, master is warned. All uploads of both users are deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo You must've forgotten to block the sock. Jonteemil (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

OK This is not the first time, when I say, that somebody is blocked, and it isn't :-( Taivo (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

778866f66~~1

• User: 778866f66~~1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:IKCOLOGO2025.png after final warning for doing so. The user is also uncommunicative and malformed a DR.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:27, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. No bad uploads after April. No malformed DR-s after April. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening

• Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening (talk • contribs • Luxo • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) (formerly User:Nefrit Lazurit, User:Tayuya Karin, User:Fandy Aprianto Rohman, User:Altair Netraphim)

For continuing to steal photos since the last block.

And controlled a sock puppet(or meat puppet) Inkravtania (talk · contribs) to recreate deleted file. 0x0a (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

More evidence of copyvios has surfaced on their user talk page since the above report.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

... and the hits keep coming.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Previously on User:Altair Netraphim

• Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_123#h-User:Altair_Netraphim-20250606080300
• Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_122#h-User:Altair_Netraphim-20250513165100

0x0a (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@0x0a: please bring the socking to COM:CHECK. --Lymantria (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

This might not be helpful because they may argue that they use shared computers or networks to edit like before. 0x0a (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@0x0a: Evidently, they want to see your evidence.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

---

My apologies, I don't really understand what is happening here, and I hesitate to make blocks when I'm confused.

• User:Nefrit Lazurit: on 26 April 2023, Neriah redirected this user's talk page to User talk:Altair Netraphim; on 19 June 2025, Revibot changed the redirect to point to User talk:Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening. (As is common, there never was a User page.) There is no indication that any account Nefrit Lazurit existed, but it may have had a global name change. This edit by Rachmat04 shows account name Altair Netraphim being changed to Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening. So I believe Nefrit Lazurit and Altair Netraphim are just earlier names for account Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening; neither of the former is an existing account.
• User:Tayuya Karin is also a redirect to Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening WTAF? an even earlier name change, so this is just another earlier name for exactly the same account.
• And similarly for Fandy Aprianto Rohman.

@0x0a: couldn't you just have said these were former names of this much-moved account? Usually when people say "Aka" in this context they mean sockpuppet aliases, and it becomes relevant to check if they were active in the same period, who might have had a block, etc. No wonder this has sat for 10 days with no admin taking action. We are not mind-readers. - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry for causing confusion. Mentioning the user's former names is to create an index in the Special:Search, in case the user make a clean start by changing their name. All in all, thank you for your reminder. I will update the headline. --0x0a (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Inkravtania hasn't edited since 9 October 2025 nor Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening since 12 November 2025 (and, yes, I checked deleted contributions as well), so @Jeff G.: what are the "hits" that keep on coming? Just more evidence of bad uploads in the past by an account that hasn't edited in 6 weeks? If so (or if not), you could have been a lot more specific.

That said, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_123#h-User:Altair_Netraphim-20250606080300 (which I remember finding confusing at the timeg) combined with what has followed certainly shows bad faith. I'm going to block Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening for 6 months, though I will admit that I fear they will just come back under a different name and wreak as much havoc. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I meant Special:Diff/1131571444/1137911522.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done, and informed that any continuation of this upon their return will result in a permanent block. - Jmabel ! talk 22:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Please ban "User:FuzzyBot"

and unsuperprotect pages such as Template:YouTube CC-BY/i18n/en. The bot Special:Contributions/FuzzyBot is not doing its work, causing false complaints about template editors such as at Template_talk:YouTube_CC-BY#Change_text_to_reflect_dating_to_before_the_license_change:

> The requested change was not implemented. I do not know why you are saying "done."

When I try to edit the page myself I get either:

> The source language of this group is English. Please select another language to translate into.

or

> This page is an automatically generated mirror of the page Template:YouTube CC-BY/i18n and cannot be updated manually.

• Special:ListUsers/translationadmin
• Commons:Translators'_noticeboard#Pages_not_marked_for_translation

How long is one supposed to wait until an edit is approved? An ordinary user has to wait several months until a template editor looks into the issue, and after the template editor has acted, does it have to take several more months? The system makes it essentially impossible to edit templates, because a change can never be tested. Also the idea of having an "/en" subpage that is just a perfect copy is strange and wasteful at least. The translation system should be dropped, unless someone is able and willing to fix it. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I don’t agree on unprotecting widely used templates. Bidgee (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

They are protected to the level template editor, and this is not questioned here. Unfortunately, template editors still cannot edit them (and possibly not even sysops can ...). Taylor 49 (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

That is because it is mirroring Template:YouTube CC-BY/i18n. Bidgee (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you have realized it but FuzzyBot will only "do its work" after a translation admin (TA) has marked the changes at the source page. So, I don't see why FuzzyBot should be banned as it was just doing what it was designed to do. Also, the translation backlog (like many backlogs in Commons) are quite long, so if you are unable to wait for a long time, you should request it at Commons:Translators' noticeboard (which I see you have already done), and hopefully a TA will mark the changes. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I've temporarily granted myself Translation Admin rights and marked Taylor's changes for translation. Abzeronow (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Someone need to fix this wording because right now it makes it seem like Youtube does not let you use the Creative Commons license at all anymore and it has no information at all about the cutoff date or the new template that should be used for videos after July 2025

It should be the same like {{YouTube CC-BY 4.0}} but with "before August" instead of "after July" and contain the note "For videos uploaded after July 2025 use {{YouTube CC-BY 4.0}}"  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   19:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@999real: I've taken five minutes trying to understand, and cannot work out: fix what wording, where? Please either be more specific or ping someone who presumably knows what is going on. - Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry it is Template:YouTube CC-BY/i18n  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   23:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@999real: And you want what wording changed to what wording? Please, lay it out, don't make me take a bunch of time to try to guess exactly what edit you have in mind. - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Here I have copied it with the changes User:999real/YT  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   01:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

edit proposal -- I am indifferent to that ... probably better wording, but link to archived source removed. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Template:YouTube CC-BY and section resolved ... obviously I am not happy with the trans system installed at this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor 49 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

User talk:SUN JIAYI's and User talk:LIUYIKANG

Same with User talk:Smyxhmcj, too many photos are from the internet. I saw these photos at https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Hanyang_University/Understanding_Small_and_Big_Data_with_Wikis_(2025)/uploads , and it looks like many of them are also from the internet. MspreilsCN (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

 Doing… I will review all files from these users. 0x0a (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done I deleted all files with Screenshot in the metadata, and warned both users. Yann (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Personal attacks by GreggreenX77

Perhaps an admin can take a look at GreggreenX77? Their last two posts (1 and 2) at the Commons Help Desk were clear personal attacks directed at another user that violate COM:NPA. The intial post was also not really related to Commmons per se, but that could be perhaps understood as a simple misunderstanding of Commons and what it's for. The two subsequent posts, however, go beyond the pale and indicate NOTHERE type of behavior. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Indef'd after user directly insulted 2 other users on Commons:Help desk; obviously not here to contribute. --Túrelio (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: You should have notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as per the above. Pings are not enough, and "no ping" is definitely unacceptable.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: You should've checked GreggreenX77's user talk page's history before posting because I did notify them, but they blanked their user talk page. I've got no problem with people pointing out any errors I make, but people jumping to conclusions without checking the facts is definitely unacceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I see that now, but what I saw then was that you used {{No ping}} in Special:Diff/1138466960. Why?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The best time to ask why someone did something is typically before you imply/accuse them of doing something wrong. The same user was making the same personal attacks on English Wikipedia, and they had already been blocked there (the user talk page access was subsequently removed); so, they seemed to be clearly NOTHERE. I decided not to ping them because I knew I was going to add a notifcation template to their user talk page, which I did within a few minutes of my first post here. The {{no ping}} template was just an easy way to link to their user account without double "notifying" them. I normally use Template:Userlinks for such a thing but occasionally will use "no ping" if I don't see the need for the extra links. Your apparent desire to be quick to judge me without fully understanding what really happened is more of a reflection on you than me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. However, it might have been helpful if you had explained this beforehand. Admins on Commons don't know the ins and outs of personal attacks, it's not always as clear cut as this one has been. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

There was nothing to explain beforehand. I notified the user in question as is required, and they removed the notification. The Commons administrator who blocked the user obviously had no issue the way things played out. Jeff G., who I've interacted with before without any issues, isn't a Commons administrator but, for some reason, just decided to assume the worst about me this time around. Moreover, when it was pointed out they were wrong in their assumption, instead of just saying "my bad" and moving on, they decided to double down and switch the discussion to the use of a "no ping" template that had nothing to do with anything at all. Any admin who looked at the two diffs I included in my OP would've almost certainly had no problem understanding the ins and outs of this particular case. Many admins might've even blocked the user without warning or notification given the brazeness of the personal attacks if they had stumbled upon them without anyone reporting them. I notified the user in question and they subsequently blanked their user talk page, which means they were aware of this discussion. That's the end of the story, and there's nothing more than really needs to be said. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC); post copyedited for some minor changes. -- 09:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I do agree you were blameless :-) It's rather unfortunately how this has turned out. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, I did not additionally notify the user after blocking, because I had already noticed that he had removed the previous notification. --Túrelio (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I'm sorry, I didn't see the notification and blanking at first glance.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Generally: Should we have a filter blocking such talk page blanking? I think we should. GPSLeo (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Yes.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

How could a filter distinguish this from legitimate archiving? Or just removing notices that come down to "your template was broken" after you fix it? - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

It is about entire blanking, the page should ever have a link to the archive. GPSLeo (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

A page's page history is, in and of itself, an archive so to speak; so, anyone can check a page's history to see what, if anything, has been posted on it before. I don't know what Commons' policy is when it comes to blanking user page talk pages, but English Wikipedia's policy pretty much allows users to do what they please when it comes to user talk pages with respect to archiving/blanking. Users can remove any posts, warnings or other notifications if they want to do so; the only things they're not allowed to remove are declined unblock requests and certain types of deletion templates. On English Wikipedia, it's assumed that if you remove something from your user talk page, you read it and understood it; in other words, you can't try to play dumb later on if whatever was posted is brought up again. Prior to a user talk page being created, any links to it are red, and those links turn to blue after it has been created; so, even if a previously created user talk page is blanked, the links to it still remain blue, and the links will only go back to red if the page itself is deleted. That's the tell I look for when it comes to user talk pages; if I see a blue link to an empty talk page, then I kind of can assume something has been posted there before. The page was blanked, but there's record of what was posted on in its history. This is one way I am able to avoid adding redundant welcome templates, warnings, or notifications to what I believe is a new user's user talk page. The link color thing also seems to work the same here on Commons, at least that's been my expereince so far. You might argue that there was no link to GreggreenX77's user talk page in my OP here at ANU; so, there was no link color to check. However, the blue "Discussion" link at the top of the GreggreenX77 user's page is blue, and this indicates the same thing that a blue "talk" link in a user's signature would indicate: the user's user talk page exists (i.e., has already been created and posted on). -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Red links to user pages of existing users do not exist on Commons as every new user gets a bot notification. Yes, page histories exist, but old versions can not be found through the search. That makes checking if the user got warnings in the past unnecessary complicated. GPSLeo (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: I assume in that last, by "user pages" you mean "user talk pages". - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not know that was the case with red links here on Commons; thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure, though, I agree with your assessment that searching for old warnings in the page history of a user talk page is unnecessary complicated. Can't you just clink on "History" and the top of the user talk page and see every edit that was made to the page? You can look for any recent blanking of the page and then check the edit right before that to see what was removed. If a page has been blanked more than once, you could do the same each time. A bit tedius perhaps but not unnecessarily complicated, at least not in my opinion. Unless you're advocating that all users be required to archive their user talk page, there's always going to be some effort needed when searching for old posts made to the page. Moreover, even if user's were required to archive their user talk pages, there are different ways to do so and some users just archive manually as they see fit. Regardless, it seems like this is something that needs to be further discussed at COM:VPP, isn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

• NEW POWER YOUTH CLUB KALUTHAVALAI (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• KALUTHAVALA INEW POWER YOUTH CLUB (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Block evasion from blocks on other wikis. Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Jonteemil (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: Can you explain what you mean by "Block evasion from blocks on other wikis"? How can an edit on Commons be evading a block on another wiki? (I'll block the latter account as a sock of the former because of the re-upload, but I don't understand whether anything here is a reason to block the former account, and if so for how long.) - Jmabel ! talk 01:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I mean, the master was blocked on two other wikis so I would assume that the sock was created to evade those two blocks. But the sock's edits here I guess don't evade any blocks since the master wasn't blocked here, so you are not wrong. Jonteemil (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Btw, you now blocked the master, not the sock. You also tagged the master as a sock of themself. I could have boldly fixed the second one but I can't change any blocks so therefore commenting here. Jonteemil (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll fix this between master and sock. - Jmabel ! talk 08:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Another Namest 2003 sock

• Zaragoza, La Ciudad De Las Dos Catedrales (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Category:Sockpuppets of Namest 2003

Seems quite blatant given the username. Further evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files below:

Jonteemil (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Already done Already globally locked. Yann (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Wiki 777000

• Wiki 777000 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

continued uploading non-free content and blindly marking them with CC licenses. 0x0a (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 6 months (3rd block). Yann (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Akshourya

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

User kept uploading non-free logos, disregarding the final warning. 0x0a (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

My bad, my notifications weren't working, I will not do this again. I sincerely apologize for my actions. Akshourya (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

User:1926Bubi57

1926Bubi57 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Recent false 'own work' uploads after multiple warnings, including the last one. Romano1981 (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Deletion dispute:File:Egyptian Labor Law No. 14 of 2025.pdf

Hello,

I am reporting a misunderstanding regarding the copyright status of File:Egyptian Labor Law No. 14 of 2025.pdf. The file is being nominated for deletion due to a lack of "permission," but under Article 141 of the Egyptian Intellectual Property Law No. 82 of 2002, all official government documents are in the Public Domain.

The law explicitly states in Article 141:

In addition, protection shall not cover the following:

(1) Official documents, whatever their source or target language, such as laws, regulations, resolutions and decisions, international conventions, court decisions, award of arbitrators

and decisions of administrative committees having judicial competence.

Supporting References:

• WIPO Lex: https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/1301
• On-Wiki Copy of the Law (Page 53): File:Egyptian Intellectual Property_Law 82 of 2002.pdf

I have already added the correct license tag {{PD-Egypt-official}} to the file description. I request an administrator to review this evidence and close the deletion request as it fully complies with Commons policies.

Best regards, --مصطفى حماده (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Already done VRT has marked the appropriate permission as received. - Jmabel ! talk 21:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry (2)

• Attia.hakim (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Hakim Attia (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Kimo1981 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Block evasion. Evidence is the username similarities on the first two accounts and the rest from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Jonteemil (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Added one sock above.Jonteemil (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Two socks blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Geravelez

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

Reuploads a copyvio after final warning ({{End of copyvios}}). Jonteemil (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

 Comment The File:OcelotesU.jpg is approximately at the threshold of originality ... maybe a bit above. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Already blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Eroina David Moreno

• User: Eroina David Moreno (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: COM:NOTHERE.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done No edits since December 4, and before then, since April. Revisit if they return and have further problematic behavior. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

WeatherWriter

"Well, you are just dumb then. Lol. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)". I've resisted the temptation to take action myself so someone please may do something they consider appropriate in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedivere (talk • contribs) 04:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for the comment. I made it while being hot headed and worked up over a premature deletion currently under discussion at undeletion requests. Note, I was not alerted for this report and only discovered it after a comment was made by Bedivere on the undeletion discussion regarding reporting me. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with the apology. --Bedivere (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

MaxxyFoxx

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

Continues to upload COM:NETCOPYVIOs after having one prior block for it. Jonteemil (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked 3 months, copyvios deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

NOTHOST/sockpuppetry

• Taran Chowdhury (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Pion smmln (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Morsalin 1212 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Mehedihasan2026 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Alfinjaman2026 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

All uploading out of scope files related to a Taran Chowdhury which likely is the individual behind all accounts. See also w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pion smmln/Archive and below from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Jonteemil (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done} see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pion smmln. --Lymantria (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Dragoljub "Drage" Nikodinoski in the army.jpg Repeated deletion nominations and targeting by user Jingiby

BEGIN moved from COM:AN - Jmabel ! talk 20:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The user Jingiby[5] has repeatedly targeted multiple files I uploaded since 2023, including this one. Specific actions include:

Nominating several files for deletion, despite all being properly licensed and compliant with Commons policies.

Making threats to report me to administrators in relation to these uploads.

Making repeated edits on Macedonia-related pages that appear disruptive and have caused concern among other editors.

Evidence:

File deletion nomination: [6]

Related file deletion discussion: [7]

Edits to Macedonia-related page: [8]

This behavior demonstrates a pattern of targeting both my uploads and Macedonia-related content, rather than raising valid, file-specific policy concerns. Most affected files have been publicly visible since 2023 and meet Commons licensing requirements.

I respectfully request administrator oversight to prevent further disruption and to ensure that deletion processes and content discussions remain policy-based and constructive. Dime Dimeski (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

END moved from COM:AN - Jmabel ! talk 20:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jingiby: - Jmabel ! talk 20:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Convenience links for what is referred to above with blind URLs:

• File:Dragoljub "Drage" Nikodinoski in the army.jpg
• File:Dragoljub Nikodinoski in the army.jpg
• Revision history for File:Macedonian Y-Haplogroups.png

Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone and Happy New Year. I would like to object to the above accusations as completely groundless. On the contrary, I believe that the editor called User:Dime Dimeski is in violation. He repeatedly removed the template I have added, on which it is explicitly written not to be removed until the case is reviewed by an administrator. Otherwise, the genetic scheme in question still has no reliable academic source, and is based only on forums, private sites and the like. As for the 2 photos of the person called Dragoljub, the dates there were changed, but despite this it is still not clear who this person is and why he needs to appear on Wikimedia Commons. In addition, I suspect that User:Dime Dimeski uses a sock with which they edit only one and the same photos. I am talking about the editor called User:ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΑΣ. Jingiby (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Dragoljub Nikodinoski is the son of WW2-partisan Category:Dimitrija Dime Nikodinoski according to Macedonian wiki. Note: I created that category after noticing that there are a number of files related to him. It looks like he received some kind of award for his participation in WW2 and was mentioned by name (at the minimum) in at least one book on the 1st Macedonian-Kosovo Proletarian Brigade, so that I'd say that Dimitrija is probably in project scope. As for the son Dragoljub, I also created a category for the sake of keeping all files in one place. While less notable than the father I'd still say the images are worth keeping for depicting things like 1970s military uniforms, school diplomas from North Macedonia, etc. The images have educational value even if the depicted guy doesn't. Nakonana (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

As for the two users being socks, I don't know. ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΑΣ has been active on mkwiki since December 2024. Dime Dimeski has been active on mkwiki since July 2023. From a quick look they both have edited the article on Dimitrija Dime Nikodinoski (partially on the same day a few hours apart, with one of them adding content and the other one removing content). Dime Dimeski has a much stronger focus on Dimitrija Dime Nikodinoski (only one other article edited) than ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΑΣ who has edited several other articles on mkwiki. If they are socks, then they don't appear to be using the accounts in an abusive manner (e.g. they don't seem to try to sway discussions in their favor by using the accounts to vote twice, or anything like that). They could be just two Macedonian editors who are both interested in Dimitrija Dime Nikodinoski. Nakonana (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

W26

• W26 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues to upload copyvios despite two prior blocks. Jonteemil (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: you don't seem to have notified the user of this discussion; I will do that. - Jmabel ! talk 01:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done 6-month block (third offense). - Jmabel ! talk 00:18, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Esperantoemilio

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

After receiving the final copyvio warning, this user didn't stop uploading same unfree portrait; File:Princehisahito2508.jpg, File:Princehisahito2025.jpg, File:Princehisahitoofjapan.jpg and File:Princehisahito19yrs.jpg . Netora (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

• 日本守 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Suspicious sock. This user uploads the same copyvio photo without license information. Netora (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

• Yumi48 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

New sock continues uploading same copyvio portrait. File:８月１７日、東京・元赤坂の赤坂東邸で.jpg Netora (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I opened Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Esperantoemilio due to the sock allegations. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Indef-blocked Yumi48. - Jmabel ! talk 21:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: do you have any reason not to give Esperantoemilio a longer, or indef, block? Seems to me like this block evasion merits it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel, CU evidence linking Esperantoemilio to the other two accounts was inconclusive, so any block/reblock would need to be based on behavioral evidence/copyvio issues only. In light of this user uploading copyright violations for 7 years with ample warnings but no edits to their talk page, I'm inclined to indef due to lack of communication. If they want an unblock, they need to start communicating. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 04:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: One week block is usual for first block for copyright violations. Now if this user is abusing multiple accounts, that is a valid reason for an indefinite block. Yann (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Flagmasterhere

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

I can't believe that this is a new account. Any opinions? Yann (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Likely flag LTA sock. Definitely not here to contribute constructively. Should be blocked ASAP. Geoffroi 19:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Possibly a sock of User:Jurisdrew. Geoffroi 19:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

His upload of File:Flag of Cocos (Keeling) Islands.svg has "to avenge the old version" in the descripton. There are two deleted redirects in the log that an admin may want to check out to see what accounts edited the file that was previously there. Geoffroi 19:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Here's what this account is "avenging": Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.svg. This may be a reupload of the file deleted by Abzeronow. Geoffroi 20:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done OK, blocked. Yann (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Yann or any other admin, I would say there is enough material on TP to revoke talk page access. The first time he called Yann evil should've been the end of it. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done I thought I already did that. Yann (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Nekkidjohann (talk · contribs)

Exhibitionist, not here to edit constructively Dronebogus (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted the last remaining upload. Block is currently not needed. Taivo (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Tkysoftware

Tkysoftware (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - keeps uploading copyvio files despite warnings - Jcb (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Ziv. Yann (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Rafaelfito

Rafaelfito (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Dear all, I would like to draw your attention to the user Rafaelfito: since spring 2025, this user has been uploading photos to Commons that are clearly protected by copyright. Sometimes the user claims that the photos are his own work, which has always turned out to be false. I think it is time for an administrative intervention, as this user's actions are tying up resources that would be better used elsewhere.

Kindest regards, Msb (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Already done blocked 1 week by Yann. - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yoophoria

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

Uploading copyright materials after final warning. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 week. --Lymantria (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted all uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Systematic copyright violation

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

Copyright violations: repeated uploading of inappropriately licensed media. Chronus (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chronus: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above. Pings are not enough. I also sent them a final warning.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Seeing the large among of copyright violations, blocked for a week, almost all files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Contest the indefblock of User:Gaty3000

• Gaty3000 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Artur2077 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

The user was indef-blocked immediately after had receiving their first formal warning {{File copyright status}}. This is too harsh obviously and only led them to create an new account User:Artur2077 (see Special:Diff/1139192686) to made a clean start. @Bedivere, Gaty3000, and Artur2077. -- 0x0a (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I would reduce the block length, but creating a new account just after getting blocked is not OK. Yann (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind shortening the block but sincerely the new account is making things worse. Bedivere (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Artur2077 What do you make of this? Aren't you going to speak up for yourself? 0x0a (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

All right, still no response from the blocked party. I agree to Yann's opinion. 0x0a (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@0x0a, just to make things a bit clear, clean start isn't available for users under active sanctions. A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account. Even if that indef was "harsh", they should've contested the block. Making a new account is block evasion, which makes things worse (rightly said by Bedivere). Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta That said, some new users may not be aware of our blocking policy And our block message box doesn't explicitly state that creating a new account during the block period is not allowed, which might lead them into an endless cycle of block and block evasion. I found it necessary to clearly state this rule in the block message box. 0x0a (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@0x0a, great suggestion. I have started a discussion. I think we can maybe do it. Please see Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Adding a thing in block notices. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Quicker than me. Thank you. 0x0a (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Did Commons add a policy for clean starts? GMG^talk 14:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Not yet. We just borrowed this concept from En wp. 0x0a (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

We all know that Commons:Sockpuppetry is a soft redirect to Meta:Sock puppetry which lists WP:SOCK in see also section. And tbh, only enwiki describes this topic the way it should be. That said, I am in no way am saying that means we should import enwiki policy here but if we want people to stop doing that, we better develop that page locally. And I quoted it only bcoz it was linked above. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

plz see User talk:Yann, Gaty3000 was unblocked by Yann as a result of which Artur2077 was blocked for blocked evasion. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Today2026-33995

Today2026-33995 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

One more sock of Gondolabúrguer uploading the same copyvios as own work. This is a crosswiki LTA. A mass deletion can be due. Ixocactus (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Now the user is globally locked, but I did not delete anything. Taivo (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done no remaining uploads by this user. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Threeholedwonder

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

This user uploads bunch of images with questionable copyright status. Not just that, this user re-uploaded the same photo (of Jodi Arias holding a "Survivor" shirt in a court), which was previously deleted as "copyvio". Fortunately, the re-attempted was thwarted when the same photo was deleted again. Then this user removes the "speedy deletion" tags and then tries to remove the DR tags numerous times. I can provide diffs if necessary. George Ho (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This user is actively targeting my uploads when they are by no means violating any current copyright protection. He went from targeting my images cause they offended him to now constantly nominating deletions. My images are of public use and most news site use them freely. Please help me from this harassment. Threeholedwonder (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC) (Originally a separate thread (diff). George Ho (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)); fixed, 12:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Please read COM:AOHA before making accusations against me (again). All right? George Ho (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Take for example the website you uploaded several pics from, artbyjodiarias.com. It says, clearly: "Copyright © 2026 Art By Jodi Arias | All Rights Reserved."

Case closed. That you can see a pic online does not mean you can put it on Commons. Take the time to read and understand Commons:Uploading works by a third party, and until you do, don't upload anything else. If you keep doing that, an admin will block you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The reporter user is indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia (oldid link). Hope this user isn't blocked here. George Ho (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

User @George_Ho is actively targeting my uploads when they are by no means violating any current copyright protection. He went from targeting my images cause they offended him to now constantly nominating deletions. My images are of public use and most news site use them freely. Please help me from this harassment.

Update: Now he even tries to edit my own report against him by putting it as part of his report. I want my own separate report. Threeholedwonder (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

(Someone else should be merged merge this report with my report about this user. Please feel free to remove this small-font note if merged. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)); edited, 12:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, hell. Merging the section to a report on you... George Ho (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Boomerang block to Threeholedwonder for 2 weeks. Most files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Yann I don't think the last one is worth keeping either:[9]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, gone. Yann (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive sockpuppet accounts

• KhanGoal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• KhanGoal1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Sucker1001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Please block all these accounts, as they are all confirmed sockpuppets already reported and blocked on the English Wikipedia for edit-warring, unsourced original research, and socking; see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Original Histories.

In addition to mindless edit-warring at some files with unsourced information that they've been trying to add en masse to Wikipedia projects (like this one and this one), they even go as far to edit or delete other people's discussion comments that they don't like ([10]). Meanwhile, one account has also been blanking the categories on some files en masse and without explanation ([11], [12], [13]) while another has been tagging them with frivolous "inaccurate" tags (e.g. [14], [15], [16]), as well as blanking at least one file description completely ([17]).

They'll probably make more sock accounts later (or already have), but blocking these would be a good start and make the next ones easier to report. R Prazeres (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

All blocked. @R Prazeres but I can't really handle much of reverting etc at this moment. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much. No worries about the reverts, I'll clean up what I can later when I have a moment. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey there. For next time this user returns, perhaps you may wanna consider COM:Requests for checkuser. George Ho (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Will do indeed, thanks for pointing me to it. R Prazeres (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Talkingtomfan2221

Talkingtomfan2221 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Repeat vandal and sockpuppet of prior banned users. NorthTension (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@NorthTension, plz notify the user on their talk page in future. I've done it this time for you. Also consider using {{Template:User5}}. I've added it above, it helps a lot. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 15:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

My bad on the latter, on the former do I still need to even if they're just a repeat soammer? NorthTension (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Well that's just a procedure. As for the report, you haven't provided any links or an explanation which can help an uninvolved person know the case. No diffs or who the sock master is. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 15:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done blocked together with some other Jurisdrew / Nv7801 socks. --Lymantria (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I mass deleted all his/her uploads as copyvios or hoaxes. Taivo (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Ияд и Фирас

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

I just noticed File:Logo der Deutschen Konservativen Partei.svg in the article infobox - a fake insignia which this user tied to the wikidata item so it was displayed in multiple wikis. I checked their uploads briefly and they seem to fall under the same MO - uploading chatgpt-generated "insignia" with misleading names. I honestly don't have much hope in any attempts to tackle the spread of fictional insignia to wikiprojects, but this activity is clearly disruptive, and it must be prevented. Qbli2mHd (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. User is blocked for half of year and I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on election maps

~2026-18659-0 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Recently, User:Sam11333 and other editors have done some nice work on organizing maps of United States presidential election results, but this anonymous user has been busy undoing their efforts. Based on their editing patterns, I think this is yet another sockpuppet of User:TylerKutschbach. Could you please stop their disruptive editing? Thanks! - Eureka Lott 17:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this, I've begun to undo the damage they have done. Sam11333 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

aaand they're back at it from a new account, ~2026-26559-0 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. This is getting tiresome. - Eureka Lott 04:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Blocked this new TA. Given the large number of files, this might be a good case for an edit filter. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift action in blocking this latest sock and in undoing the damage caused. Sam11333 (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Just spotted another edit this morning, which looks like a WP:DUCK to me. What might the edit filter look like? - Eureka Lott 15:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

~2026-27295-4 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, is the latest one. Sam11333 (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Браннкос

Браннкос (talk · contribs) continues to upload copyrighted images after final warning. --Smooth O (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. User is blocked for 2 weeks and all his/her contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

user:Ivan05041

All files uploaded by this user are AI-generated/AI-enhanced, often with obvious copyrgiht violations (see their talk page). There's currently a discussion on ruwiki about files uploaded by them, where they insist that everything is OK.

I think mass deletion (and perhaps a block) is required. Sapphaline (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

 Comment This user was already reported at COM:ANB#Ivan05041. Yann (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not true, the discussion is about an already deleted file that is a real photo, just with improved quality through artificial intelligence. ALL THE FILES I'M CURRENTLY UPLOADING ARE REAL PHOTOS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AFFECTED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Ivan05041 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ivan05041: When are you planning to clean up the old ones?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Why delete the old ones when I only processed 3 existing photos using artificial intelligence to improve their quality, and they have already been deleted? Ivan05041 (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ivan05041: "Currently" means after what date? File:Никодим Иванович Полянский.png is from only three days ago. - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I PROCESSED only 3 photos that existed in reality using artificial intelligence to improve their quality. And all 3 photos were already deleted. Ivan05041 (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ivan05041, please look at Special:ListFiles/Ivan05041 - these are much more than three files and they are not (yet) deleted at all. Emha (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Попробуйте перестать обманывать людей, делать смехотворные снисходительные заявления и наконец сосредоточиться, чтобы постараться понять: например, относительно File:Никодим Иванович Полянский.png: украв фото отсюда и проведя с ним некие манипуляции, вы не стали тем самым его автором и грубо нарушаете правило COM:L/ru. Удивительно, что вас до сих пор не заблокировали при явном отсутствии даже намёков на понимание того, что всё, что вы делаете, прямо противоречит задачам Википедии и Викисклада. Komarof (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Taivo: your warning definitely has no effect. --Komarof (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, some files deleted. Previous warnings had no effect. Yann (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Manvith111

• Manvith111 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

User kept uploading a non-free film poster, disregarding the final warning. 0x0a (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months. Several copyvios, user uploaded files after being warned --Emha (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Jerimee

I've asked Jerimee (talk · contribs) on their Talk page concerning line art again, this time because a whole range of items were added to Category:Line art despite not having any lines anywhere in the art. See for example the op-art imahe at right that was miscategorized with this edit as "line art".

I asked the user about this because there have been previous conversations about similar miscategorization with other users.

I received a response saying that "art resists categorization" and that the only criteria being used are: (1) repurposability of the image and (2) suitability of the image for conversion to SVG. Neither of these criteria have anything to do with whether or not the image is line art.

This is far from the only image miscategorized by the user. Thousands of images have been moved into the category at this point without regard to whether or not they are line art, making the category useless to to the community. At a minimum, the user should be chastised and the edits reversed, but this will take a monumental effort to accomplish. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hawthorne at Wall, Lichfield

I share these concerns, having raised the issue a year ago, at User talk:Jerimee#Line art and, giving the above image (Hawthorne at Wall, Lichfield; relevant diff) as an example, Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/01#Line art.

As I noted in the latter: The header of Category:Line art says "Line art is any image that consists of distinct straight and curved lines placed against a (usually plain) background, without gradations in shade (darkness) or hue (color) to represent two-dimensional or three-dimensional objects."

There is also related discussion at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/11#Category:Line art without P180, where Jerimee's less-than-helpful response to concerns was "perhaps you could point me to some past issues you have successfully resolved?"

I said to them in that discussion: "You don't appear to be taking this seriously.
If you don't stop voluntarily, until consensus is demonstrated, the next step will be to ask for administrative action to prevent you from continuing until it is."

@ReneeWrites and Jmabel: who were involved in the earlier discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It bothered me that this user was unable to properly define the term "line art", and only answered after being pressed on it. Their answer was not satisfactory (no, it's not "art with distinct lines", and even if that's the definition they're going with, their application is much broader still), they then ignored the consensus to cease this activity. In my last comment in the discussion linked by Andy, I had pointed them to a different area they could apply metadata with less ambiguity (an area they had been active in as well), which they didn't respond to.

I don't understand why they continue to make these specific types of edits despite self-admittedly not really knowing what lineart even is, and after being told repeatedly, by numerous people at this point, that this is not helpful behaviour. ReneeWrites (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

If the intent is "monochrome images that could readily be converted to SVG," a template or maintenance category to that effect would be a lot better practice. - Jmabel ! talk 17:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. I did create a maintenance category to help process some of these. As you may recall, Renee, Andy, and Petey complained about "category bloat" or some such thing. Every 8 months or so, the three of them coordinate one of these angry demands; I'm not exactly sure how to respond at this point. I have no other in[ter]actions with this trio of editors.

The intent is to structure the data on commons. That is useful for a variety of purposes, especially search retrieval. All the best. Jerimee (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I did create a maintenance category to help process some of these.

The maintenance category you made was for lineart with missing subject statements, not "monochrome images to be converted to SVG". If that was your intent, you can tag the image with {{Convert to SVG}} and have it automatically be put in a pre-existing maintenance category.

As you may recall, Renee, Andy, and Petey complained about "category bloat" or some such thing. Every 8 months or so, the three of them coordinate one of these angry demands; I'm not exactly sure how to respond at this point.

I think I've been very reasonable in the previous discussion, but if I said that you found unreasonable or that you didn't understand, we can hopefully properly address that here. I also don't remember ever "coordinating" with Petey and Andy on this topic, as far as I know I only took part in one Village Pump discussion Andy linked, but perhaps you could point to another instance of me having done that? ReneeWrites (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

This would be the third time yall (Renee, Petey, Andy) have raised a concern about my use of line art categories, so fair point. You are right; my statement every 8 months or so is hyperbole. This is only the third time.

I'm not sure what else I can say that I haven't already said in the two previous discussions. We have a difference of opinion in the categorization of art. What do you recommend? Jerimee (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to cease all activity having to do with "line art". In the the last comment I made in the previous Village Pump discussion I suggested other areas of metadata to work on that are not as ambiguous.

This would be the third time yall (Renee, Petey, Andy)...

I don't remember ever "coordinating" with Petey and Andy on this topic, as far as I know I only took part in one Village Pump discussion Andy linked, but perhaps you could point to another instance of me having done that? ReneeWrites (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I have never coordinated anything with ReneeWrites, and the only discussion about the matter I recall ever having with EncycloPetey, outside of those linked above, is User talk:Pigsonthewing#Line art, again, which is hardly "coordinating" and certainly not "every eight months or so".

You offer no evidence to support "Renee, Andy, and Petey complained about 'category bloat' or some such thing"; what we actually said is in the November discussion, linked above, and is nothing like that.

Once again, your response to valid concerns is to attack and deflect. And once again, you offer no cogent justification for your specific and disputed actions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Since you previously weighed in on these topics, I wanted to make you aware that the behavior under discussion is continuing, even though the thread hasn't reached a conclusion yet. Would you be able to take another look at this and help bring the discussion to a close? It would bring clarity for all people involved. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: I really wasn't planning to comment further, but here goes, and I'm going to make no effort to be diplomatic. Jerimee's edits along these lines appear to net out to useless or slightly worse than useless. He is pretty clearly editing against consensus. It's not an important enough matter to do serious harm to Commons, but if I saw the same approach applied to something I thought was genuinely important, I'd block without hesitation. I certainly am OK with anyone who reverts some or all of these edits, but I can't be bothered to care enough to do it myself. - Jmabel ! talk 22:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

User:RaiymbekZh

RaiymbekZh (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Recent copyvios after 2 blocks. Komarof (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

my works doesn't Protect by copyright ©️ by law of KZ:

".. ҚҰҚЫҚТАР ТУРАЛЫ ЖӘНЕ АВТОРЛЫҚ ҚҰҚЫҚ ТУРАЛЫ №7 ҚХА ЖАРЛЫҒЫ, 17.10.2017:

Авторлық құқықпен қорғалмайтын:

• Жақында (1 апта өткен соң) қайтыс болған адамдардың танымы, яғни:

Актёрлер;

Спортшылар;

Әкімдер;

Жазушылар;

Бишілер;

Әншлер;

және т.б. өнер-заң тексерһайдан адамдары.." RaiymbekZh (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months. Several copyvios deleted. This user uploaded files from Yandex and Instagram after being warned and blocked. Yann (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. RaiymbekZh requested unblock with reason "unfair block". After investigation I declined the request. Taivo (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

User:KhameneiIsADeadman

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

Obvious vandal account with an inappropriate username. Consistently making vandalism edits, uploads, and deletion requests. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment removed by admin KhameneiIsADeadman (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Indef is needed. I've closed some DRs. I think maybe there is a need to delete the DR pages bcoz of the material there is on them. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 02:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

 Support an indef block. Edits like on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Niek Sebens in China.jpg or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Imam Khamenei met with the head and top officials of the Judiciary (28).jpg are straightforward vandalism. Could an admin nuke all the reported user's contribs? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and upload deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I've closed all the DRs and reverted (nearly) all of the edits. The only thing left to do is removing revision history, if any left. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done I've hidden everything that is at all egregious. - Jmabel ! talk 21:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Bennylin

• User: Bennylin (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Jokowi-2005.png after final warning for doing so. Personal attack in Special:Diff/997485432.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Enough apparently legitimate uploads that I'm not blocking him for a copyvio like that (but have no problem if anyone else does).

Strong warning sent about the inappropriate edit summary. - Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Zuck28

• User: Zuck28 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Trilochan Shastri.jpg after final warning for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There must be some confusion, I didn’t upload copyvio images, most probably I cropped some existing image on Commons, and the original image is possible copyright violation. Zuck28 (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Zuck28: That file which you uploaded had no permission for 8+ days. How can you explain that?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't upload, maybe I just used the crop tool and used an existing file on Commons. I can't see the image now, so I am not sure. Zuck28 (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Duly noted. Any reviewing Admin should be able to independently evaluate our statements, possibly revealing your alleged licensing and the tagging.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Trilochan Shastri.jpg was indeed a CropTool edit on a file that falsely claimed a license. Ideally, someone would have gone, "That license doesn't make sense for this image," but failure to notice that doesn't call for any sanction, unless it was a much-repeated pattern. Original was uploaded by Lost in Sagar, and at the time had been on Commons over a year. - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Zuck28: Also, where is a license for File:Mohammad al Salhi.webp which is free enough for Commons? The one you presented restricted commercial use. You are responsible for your uploads.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

These issues are from the past and a long time ago, but I can promise that it will never gonna happen again in future. Thank you for notifying. We are here to contribute and learn through the process. Zuck28 (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Zuck28: I wouldn't call four months "a long time ago."

I'm not taking any action at this time, and will hope you are correct that this will not happen in the future. I presume that you now understand that you cannot "make up" a license for work where you don't own the copyright, as you appear to have done for File:Mohammad al Salhi.webp. If you plan to upload more third-party materials and haven't yet read COM:THIRD, I recommend you at least skim it to see if there are issues you haven't yet thought about. - Jmabel ! talk 21:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. I will definitely keep these instructions in my mind and will be more careful about these issues. Zuck28 (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. The situation is explained. No action is needed. Taivo (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Swapnil1101

Swapnil1101 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

• Falsely adding license reviewed tags. Revision #714467286, Revision #1097640972, Revision #1097961952, Revision #1097961819
• Falsely claiming own work when it clearly isn't.

File:Chinese Passport (HKSAR).svg

File:Chinese passport.svg

File:Indian 1 Rupee 2020 Reverse.jpg

File:Indian 1 Rupee 2020 Front.jpg

There are more.

• Recreating deletions.

User talk:Swapnil1101#CRPF Logo

The talk page is full of deletion notices. The user hasn't stopped creating military flags/insignia/logo on his computer and uploading them as if it is him who holds rights over it even after such DR. (Incase, someone isn't aware of what's wrong with Indian military symbols, plz see this DR.) I've only given links that I could see without much digging. There may be more. Ping to @Mdaniels5757 (DR), @Yann (false licence review) and @Abzeronow (recently involved). Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. False license review with someone else's name is a no-no. Yann (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Ccwwgd

• User: Ccwwgd (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Effectively called my advice "bullshit" and us "idiots" in Special:Diff/1149297231.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

RomeoSingh2010

• RomeoSingh2010 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues to upload clear copyvios even after last warning. Talk page full of deletion notices. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked for a month. Lets see if they get the message Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Gbawden, there is a need to delete other uploads as well. I don't think they are his own work. Even if they are, still COM:OOS. If you want I can nominate, or maybe you can carry it out without nom. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Johnj1995

• User: Johnj1995 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Made another invalid deletion request here after after notification of block warnings for that and a block.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

In response to this report, I will no longer make any edits to invalid deletion requests. Thank you. Johnj1995 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Johnj1995: Thank you. Also Special:Diff/1150419563.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Kumander Sator

Kumander Sator (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is uploading many out-of-scope, AI-generated, promotional files. JJP_Master (she/they) 04:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed for spam; uploads nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Wikiuser829

• Wikiuser829 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Persistent copyright infringement issues, even deliberately removing the author's watermark; I suggest all photos claiming to be their own work should be carefully reviewed. 0x0a (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Deepak4444444

• Deepak4444444 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Despite warning by @Yann, the user continues to upload promotional images, adding false license reviews and source. Also, the images are digitally modified. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed for spam; uploads nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: New user Prabhuarumugam1985 (talk · contribs) appears to be re-uploading Deepak4444444's deleted files. Can you have a look? Marbletan (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Marbletan, blocked, tagged, and files deleted. The master: Ragul1223. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 17:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Kontributor_2K and User:Jmabel – repeated disruptive editing, misrepresentation of licensing, and false deletion nomination of File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Bosnian_royal_family.png

Both User:Kontributor_2K and User:Jmabel have shown a clear pattern of disruptive editing and attempted misrepresentation of licensing and content scope on Commons, particularly regarding this file and the related deletion discussion.

Over the past several days, the users have repeatedly:

• Undone categorization edits with no technical justification
• Manipulated discussion layout to hide replies or alter context
• Reverted key source field wording without prior discussion
• Repeatedly pushed unfounded claims about licensing or ownership
• Avoided substantive discussion, replacing it with superficial edits
• Attempted to influence the deletion process through misleading arguments
• Coordinated interventions that misrepresent the file’s status

Specific examples include:

• Radiant Crowns category repeatedly removed and re-added (see file history)
• Source field reversions without discussion: here
• Discussion manipulation diffs:

 * diff1
 * diff2

• Repeatedly supported deletion claims without verifying licensing sources
• Invented or misrepresented sourcing information without discussion or uploader consent
• Added misleading templates and comments implying the file was a hoax or mislicensed
• Reverted constructive edits to categories and source fields, sometimes in coordination
• Attempted to falsify, dismiss, or overwrite community consensus by re-adding deletion rationale after prior discussion
• Removed file-related entries on other Wikimedia projects as “hoax” (as acknowledged in the deletion discussion), which was later cited in support of a hoax claim, while the licensing and sourcing issues on Commons remained unresolved — Preceding unsigned comment added by InOrIsTr (talk • contribs) 06:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This pattern demonstrates coordinated disruptive behavior by both users, aimed at misrepresenting the file's status and forcing deletion. Commons policy (e.g., COM:EDUSE, COM:HOUND) explicitly discourages repeated unwanted interventions, especially when they aim to mislead or mischaracterize content or licensing.

I have attempted to engage constructively with both editors, but the behavior persists. InOrIsTr (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe my edits on that DR speak for themselves. I don't have a strong opinion on whether the file should be deleted or kept (though I am certain that the current name is problematic). I've been trying to keep things on track in a contentions DR. Pretty funny being attacked for trying to be a neutral facilitator.

If InOrIsTr thinks my edits there and my sole edit on the file page itself are a problem, I would say the user either they don't understand the nature of this site, have an axe to grind, or both. I would ask people to consider a boomerang here. I have nothing further to say; I will not be editing further on this AN/U thread unless I am directly addressed with a question. - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Although Jmabel only made a single edit to the file page itself, that edit involved modifying the licensing/source information (diff), which is the core issue under discussion. The concern is not the quantity of edits, but the impact of the licensing change combined with coordination in the deletion discussion. Other high-impact reversions and discussion manipulations were performed by Kontributor_2K. This demonstrates that the reported concern focuses on pattern of coordinated disruptive actions and critical licensing misrepresentation, not minor or neutral edits. InOrIsTr (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Both of the "discussion manipulation diffs" seem appropriate. The comments that were moved were inserted in the middle of someone else's comments in a way that could break the intended flow of that someone else and did obscure (at best) the attribution of the first part of those comments by breaking the signature connection to them. DMacks (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The main concern remains the pattern of coordinated disruptive edits and misrepresentation of licensing:

• User:Jmabel made a single high-impact edit to the licensing/source field, which directly affects content use and deletion rationale.
• User:Kontributor_2K repeatedly reverted categorization and source fields, and manipulated discussion layout to influence deletion.

While minor issues of comment flow are noted, the policy concern under COM:EDUSE and COM:HOUND focuses on repeated interventions that misrepresent content or licensing. InOrIsTr (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Boomerang OP definition of vexatious report. Single purpose account with w:wp:CIR issues forum-shopping because they aren’t winning a deletion debate. I’m not sure if they should be temp blocked or warned because they’re new or indefinitely blocked because they’re refusing to get the point and have no productive edits. Dronebogus (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

For the record: this is not a single-purpose account but a global account, with Commons activity beginning last year. The report is based on specific diffs and documented licensing changes, not on disagreement with a deletion outcome or any form of “forum shopping”. I will not engage with ad hominem characterizations. InOrIsTr (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I have indeffed OP as NOTHERE. Given the cross-wiki hoaxing and the behavioral issues, I don't think a short block would be sufficient. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

MamiBurak

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

Continues to upload out of scope files after warning by Yann three days ago. Jonteemil (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done 3-month block. All uploads are already deleted.

I don't consider it likely that they will be any better behaved on return, but I figure nothing here was quite malicious enough to make the first block an indef-block. - Jmabel ! talk 20:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Bodyoaken

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

Hi, I think that Bodyoaken is a sock of Slowking4. Similar formatting, no real answer to requests, and mainly dumbing a huge number of paintings from Sotheby's and Christie's (cf. Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Slowking4). I would like a second opinion before blocking. I got no answer from the check-user contributors I asked. Yann (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Bodyoaken is Likely a new sock of Slowking4, together with 5 other accounts, based on CU info. Blocked and tagged. --Lymantria (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lymantria: I blocked Xsblackheart, a new account created today doing exactly the same thing. Could you check please? Yann (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. --Lymantria (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Got "pywikibot.exceptions.APIError: abusefilter-disallowed: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed"

Hi, uploading my photos to Wikimedia Commons through the Pywikibot wrapper and got

pywikibot.exceptions.APIError: abusefilter-disallowed: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: 0 copyvios [abusefilter: {'id': '162', 'description': '0 copyvios', 'actions': ['disallow']};

filekey: 1cdxm08zchxo.omxryt.46252.webp;
sessionkey: 1cdxm08zchxo.omxryt.46252.webp;
servedby: mw-api-ext.codfw.main-b68dfc86c-nf4hv;

The photo is for the Category:Calligraphy of the Ottoman Empire that I made in Turkey - I believe it is in public domain. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Vitaly Zdanevich: I'm guessing it is just a false positive; if you convert it to a JPEG and upload that, it should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 19:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

But I want to upload webp, to save the storage of Wikimedia Foundation and to reduce the traffic for users, see

https://marcrphoto.wordpress.com/2025/01/06/webp-vs-jpg-which-format-is-killing-your-sites-load-speed-and-space/

and

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/webp_study quote We observed that the average WebP file size is 25%-34% smaller compared to JPEG file size at equivalent SSIM index

while avif is still unavailable though browsers already supports it Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Vitaly Zdanevich: If you want to upload webp, how come you uploaded a PNG? (There is no way you could have triggered that filter with any other MIME type.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think I tried to upload png? In my original message I have `filekey: 1cdxm08zchxo.omxryt.46252.webp` Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I checked this image with `file` command on Linux and got

RIFF (little-endian) data, Web/P image, EXIF metadata, ICC profile, 3023+1x4031+1

Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Vitaly Zdanevich: I'm not an expert on the filtering system, but part of the test in Abuse Filter 162 is file_mime == "image/png". All the tests are ANDed, so there is no way around that test. I don't know how that would have applied to a file that does not contain a PNG, but as I'm sure you know WEBP is a bit of a "baggy monster" and might have a PNG within it. If there is possibly some tech problem here, that would probably be a question for COM:Village pump/Technical.

Keep in mind: we have enough storage that, on our end, for anything other than lengthy videos and the like, file size barely matters. Also, whatever you upload, almost all users are actually downloading thumbnails (usually well under 30,000 pixels altogether per downloaded file), not the original file, so the stored file size and format do not really matter a lot for efficiency of downloads. - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

But still webp uploading should work :( Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

RichardBi0129

• User: RichardBi0129 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued incomplete DR creation like Special:Diff/1151726404 after final warning for doing so. Not responding to concerns on user talk page.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Jeff G.: that diff seems to link to nothing. Maybe something already deleted? - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, I deleted that. CIR may be used, but there is no real malicious behaviour. Yann (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: How about Special:Permalink/1151726416, filling three different tracking categories?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Warning sent: Special:Diff/1152054769. I think that is what is best to do at this time. If they continue to make badly constructed DR nominations after that, then something more will be in order. - Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks. Time will tell.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Here we go: Special:Permalink/1152427202.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess the charitable interpretation here is serious CIR, combined with bulletproof bullheadedness. I'll skip the less charitable interpretations. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Adelaideuser

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

This is not my home wiki, I'm not very familiar with your rules, please be kind.

Adelaideuser has uploaded a lot of images of various bishops saying they are Own Work and releasing them as CC0. All of which can easily be found online and come from various newspaper sites and licensing agencies. I've been nominating them for deletion, but see that they did this back in the middle of last year too, having a couple of dozen deleted then. They now have a new trick: uploading a challenged image into ChatGPT and asking it to produce a barely different derivative work, then uploading that and claiming that, since it is the work of an AI, it is ineligible for copyright protection.

I posit that this is a deliberate misreading of US copyright law and is gaming Commons' rules. With those two strikes (repeat behaviour and now the ChatGPT ruse) I request administrative attention. • a frantic turtle 🐢 16:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Most files deleted, and the rest is Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Adelaideuser. Final warning sent. Next time block. Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @A Frantic Turtle.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Shark2272

• Shark2272 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User continues modifying licenses on various flags, emblems, coats of arms: diff., diff., diff., etc., or even the author field (diff.), although this has already been discussed on admins' board about the Flag of the state of Maine license.
Furthermore, it's likely that Ice743 and Shark2272 are one and same person, since both acted in the same way, and both came to my talk page to discuss about the said Flag of the state of Maine: Ice743 (nov. 2025), Shark2272 (dec. 2025).
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Shark2272 is Confirmed to Ice743, as is America63. I blocked both for abusing multiple accounts (block evasion). --Lymantria (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Mifiin

Mifiin (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
Continues to upload copyvios even after previous deletions and warning. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

 Comment There seems to be a different conclusion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dignitaries on the dias watching Republic day parade 2023.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mifiin. Yann (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Yup, I withdrew from this DR bcoz I had nominated 100s of files which included both, uploads by depts and people. But the conclusion mentioned in this DR is based on GPSLeo's summary at Revision #963085895 in that DR. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the precision. Mifiin was already blocked for Intimidation/harassment by me, and certainly not cooperative after the block. And as they were already warned for copyright violations on 11 November 2024, a block is in order. Yann (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

FTR, I've added the conclusion in that very DR at Revision #1153811387 to avoid future confusion. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta Please could you give an example of the problematic uploads? This does seem a bit like wikihounding- you nominate files for deletion then withdraw it and now bring the user here? Gbawden (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gbawden, that nomination and withdrawal happened more than a year ago. This report is for continuation of what was termed as not acceptable in that very DR. As for the recent problematic uploads, you can refer to his/her talk page. It is full of deletion notices. And the recent deleted files, uploaded in Dec 2025 follow the same reason earlier files were deleted. For example, File:INSV Kaundinya Coir Stich visible.jpg, File:INSV Kaundinya Sea Voyage.jpg, File:INSV Kaundinya Motif.jpg. As for my withdrawal, it was based upon the advice I was given in the DR itself. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I will leave it up to another admin as to whether this deserves a block. I would however like to see a response from Mifiin Gbawden (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

User Manh2107 mass uploading files, falsely claiming as own work

Manh2107 (talk · contributions · Statistics) has been mass uploading files (nearly 180 so far) and falsely claiming them as their own work. They appear to be Russian district and municipal emblems and coats of arms. This may put them in the public domain under Russian copyright law, but one archive I found ([18]) suggests that some of these may be copyrighted. I left a couple messages on their talk page but I haven't gotten any response. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Totally outside my expertise, and I don't speak Russian, but it has been over 15 hours and nothing has been done. Could someone more qualified than I please take this on? - Jmabel ! talk 20:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

From a second look, from their profile, they may actually be Vietnamese. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The user still has not responded. I used Google translate to leave simple messages in Russian and Vietnamese. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

And they are still at it. Any reason nothing has been done? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Bedivere deleting files en masse without valid speedy deletion tag solely to punish LTA

Bedivere has been speedily deleting a huge number of film logos, which were frequently COM:INUSE and do not qualify for copyright protection per COM:TOO, under the invalid rationale W:WP:DENY. This is apparently all because some particularly disruptive LTA on Spanish Wikipedia uploaded these. (See User talk:Bedivere#Why are you purging tons and tons of simple-geometry logos with the rationale “DENY”?) Deleting innocuous files without discussion in an attempt to punish/un-person the uploader is unacceptable and has disrupted numerous wikis using these files. I don’t know what prompted this but it’s a serious overreach of administrative authority. Dronebogus (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

DENY is actually a EN-WP essay, so at least a step below guidelines and policies. But we have the guideline COM:Vandalism, where the first sentence reads "Vandalism" refers to actions taken with the deliberate intention of harming the site rather than improving it[...]. The log of one of the deleted files is evidence that the uploader is actually globally locked, not only blocked (a noticeable difference per m:Global locks vs m:Global blocks), so the evaluation as that uploader being a harmful individual is quite evident. So, seeing their contributions as "harming the site" is not far-fetched. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

People can always reupload some or all of the deleted files if they genuinely need them. In most cases, these files are free and can be safely kept. However, retaining them simply because they appear innocuous or are freely licensed completely misses the point of the deletion.

Deletion, while a last resort, is the most decisive measure available: it serves to deny the troll who uploaded the files any form of recognition or reward. Prolonging this discussion only plays into the hands of this problematic user turning us into their laughing stock.

The globally locked LTA has repeatedly used multiple accounts to evade blocks here and elsewhere. Keeping their uploads solely on the grounds that they are freely licensed only reinforces and encourages this behavior. The issue is not the intrinsic value of the files themselves, but the principle of not rewarding block evasion or disruptive conduct.

Retaining these uploads legitimize their actions and validate the idea that Commons can be exploited as a tool for disruption (we should not be allowing that, even if the deletion reason logged is vague or seems like it). Anyone who legitimately needs these logos is free to reupload them, provided they are indeed freely licensed, but they should not be restored.

If we continue to debate the merits of every individual file uploaded by this user, we are granting them exactly the attention they seek. I strongly encourage those who require these specific logos for legitimate purposes to reupload them independently and move on. Bedivere (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bedivere: given that the uploader is not the rights-holder, couldn't we just suppress their account name in the file history and edit history? Or does that somehow not meet the goal? - Jmabel ! talk 04:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Deleting the files en masse is also giving them negative attention. I didn’t even know this troll existed until you did this. Now you’re broadcasting their existence and disruption to the entire Wikimedia ecosystem while creating an even bigger mess in the process and shifting the responsibility of cleaning it up onto everyone else. The best way to deny recognition is to ignore them when they aren’t directly engaged in trolling. The second best way would have been reuploading and replacing everything yourself. Dronebogus (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Dronebogus in this message, we've been dealing with this situation for three years without any improvement, while the LTA exploits every weakness in the bureaucracy. We can clearly see this here: only one user has stopped everything, and now he perceives it as "negative". I wonder if we should also invite the LTA into the conversation and suddenly everyone agrees to a deal. If the LTA is already been banned globally, why do we have to keep the door open? The LTA should resolve his problem at the Meta level first, and then we can discuss the issue about his uploads. I'm honestly disappointed; I don't know why I'm even fighting against these block evasions here. Taichi (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

That’s a very long non-explanation of why deleting tons of in-use, non-problematic files and thereby drawing attention to the LTA is in any way reminding the situation. Dronebogus (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

While I dislike deletion of all images from Marrovi and Jorse García (the main accounts) solely for these reasons, I also don't support the evasion blocks they've made and will likely make again and must to consider that they brought it on themselves. I contacted them personally to see how I can help with their situation without further ruining anything and what they can do while blocked, but if they don't respond and refuse help, there's nothing I can do. Reviewing every image from all accounts created by the same user (at least the main ones) would take considerably more time and be tedious than deleting them all, even though it would negatively impact other projects and their legitimate uses (like this one and this other one). We would have to check every image they uploaded to see if it could be restored. If someone is willing to do that, perfect. I've saved certain images (and all their information) from here on the Wayback Machine before they were deleted (like this one, whose current source doesn't exist, but there's a snapshot from 2020, since I believe the images should be visible, but not used unless appropriate), but I don't want to invest my time saving everything uploaded by users who have been blocked on new accounts, especially if they don't let themselves be helped. Lenis Felipe (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

None of them needed to be deleted. The whole point of the mass deletion seems punitive, or at least like a scorched-earth attempt to stop their disruption. Dronebogus (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

No one has responded to my question above beginning, "given that the uploader is not the rights-holder…" - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Comment There was a community discussion years ago regarding this topic, in which the ultimatium was that deleting files because they are an LTA is not a valid reason for deletion. Unless there are other concerns besides that, these files should be restored. 1989 (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• No. Many admins, including I, delete files by LTA with DENY. These files can be reuploaded by users in good standing. Yann (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  So you are aware and even voted in this discussion and proceed to do them anyway? That’s not a good sign. Your views do not overrule community consensus. 1989 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yann, I’ve told you this before but you frequently act more like the nanny of Commons than a neutral enforcer of rules and consensus, particularly in regard to deletion. While obviously you’re not the only admin with this issue (see the rest of this discussion) that doesn’t justify your doing it. Dronebogus (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• You don't have to deal what repeated LTAs. The best way to deter some of them is “block and nuke”. Otherwise, they just create an account, upload some files, get blocked, and they start again with a new account. Yann (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  In this case, it wasn’t just "block and nuke". The account that did most of the uploads was blocked in October 2024, then way later, the same blocking admin out of nowhere deletes all the files that account uploaded with the reason being one word and linked to an essay on Wikipedia, not established policy on Commons. You or them have yet to explain why deleting hundreds of COM:INUSE files was a great idea, especially with the solution by the both of you is for folks who aren’t administrators to pick up the pieces. This is unacceptable, and I can see why the community voted against this. 1989 (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  I think maybe a few admins need to be banned from deletion decisions from now on. Dronebogus (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This kind of questioning "Is block/ban evasion/sockpuppetry on..." has a significant flaw: it gives the misleading impression that the issue is whether having an account blocked (or banned), or sock puppetry should lead to the deletion of all uploaded content. However, it actually intends to ask whether alternative accounts used to circumvent a block (or ban) should have all their uploaded content deleted. At a glance, many who hold the opposing view likely mistake the question for the first interpretation. 0x0a (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@0x0a: this seems to be a distinction without a difference. What would be a case where one of these would apply, and the other would not? (Clearly we don't automatically delete all uploads previously uploaded by an account that has now been blocked, if that is the intended distinction; in what other case would this be a difference?) - Jmabel ! talk 07:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel See the first comment there? One might mistake it for: "Is being blocked, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry on its own a valid reason to delete media or reject a request for undeletion?" Folks opposed deleting all (previous) uploads by user's only account, or their master account. While Yann was referring to content created by user through sock puppet accounts after their master account had been blocked or banned. The timing of when a file was created is crucial. 0x0a (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC) (@Jmabel updated 05:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC))

@0x0a: if by "the first comment there" you mean Dronebogus's original post, no, I cannot imagine how it could be read that way. If you meant something else, could you please indicate what particular comment you are talking about (a diff, or "such-and-such's post at such-and such time", assuming you mean something in the present discussion)? - Jmabel ! talk 19:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@0x0a: now that you've clarified your reference, I see. But still, I think there is very little chance that the bulk of the "oppose" votes shared this misconception. - Jmabel ! talk 23:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

 Comment To clarify my opinion: I am repeating here what I said elsewhere in a typical case. I would not delete files if there are only one or two socks. But when we have a LTA with a huge farm, and there is a clear intend to circumvent Commons rules by socking, DENY is the best solution. Yann (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Bedivere undeletes and restores (when practical) valid uses of mass-deleted logo images

Per the community discussion that established a broad consensus that the actions Bedivere has taken are unacceptable, Bedivere should reverse all deletions of files from the user/sock they targeted that were not based on the merits of the files themselves. Bedivere should also restore any uses of the files that were automatically removed after the deletion if there are no subsequent conflicting edits. An alternative solution, if Bedivere refuses to revert their deletions, is that they upload replacements themself. I think this is a reasonable solution because Bedivere is essentially expecting the community to laboriously repair the collateral damage from a decision that goes against established community consensus and speedy deletion policy. Not only should that decision be reversed as patently wrong, it should fall on Bedivere to clean up a mess they made. Dronebogus (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Support The outcome of the proposal made was clear that blanket LTA deletions are not allowed, and if that were to happen, an admin could not refuse to restore the files. Since my comment, the admin in question has not responded. They either restore them or resign. 1989 (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Funny how you essentially were inactive since September (bar a few edits on October) only to come and support this literal witch hunt. No prejudice in restoring the files if the community thinks it should be so (I don't agree with such an outcome) but it wasn't that I did not want to respond you. I have to attend IRL things that are far more important than editing and freely collaborating here. Having said that, I am yet to know from you, and Dronebogus, how are we going to dissuade PITA LTAs from uploading files using other accounts, letting them stay, and when deleted, having them restored just because they were free. If the materials weren't theirs in the first place, someone else could and should upload another version. This whole discussion seems to me rather bizarre, but whatever the outcome, I'll abide by it. Bedivere (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  I’ve come to remind you on what the community agreed upon in a RfC, and you have yet to abide by that. If you see that as a "witch hunt", then administration may not be for you, because you will be criticized by the actions you take, whether you agree with them or not. 1989 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not against being criticized. It's not the first time it's happened here and elsewhere. I disagree with your interpretation of facts. But then again, I will abide by the community decision about what to do with these particular files uploaded by a LTA. Bedivere (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not against being criticized yet you attempt to discredit criticism of you by calling it a witch hunt (imo anyone who uses this term automatically loses the debate a la godwin) and making ad hominem attacks against 1989, a user with 300,000+ edits who’s been active since 2014 (which is far more and far longer than you), for not being active enough recently to criticize you(?) when your excuse for not responding is that you were too busy IRL to edit? That’s a very strange train of logic. Dronebogus (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Not to mention they were editing elsewhere during this discussion, but OK, they were "too busy". BTW Bedivere, I’ve linked to the community decision regarding actions like yours multiple times, waiting for you to abide any time now or at least some recognition. For some reason, you can’t even do that. 1989 (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  The idea that a single edit on the same day demonstrates avoidance of this discussion strikes me as a weak argument. Selective activity is not evidence of bad faith. What remains unanswered by you and by Dronebogus is my central question: how do we meaningfully deter LTAs from repeatedly uploading files through alternate accounts, letting them persist, and then restoring them after deletion simply because they are technically free? Bedivere (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  You are creating a false dichotomy of your solution vs. doing nothing. Your inability to come up with a less destructive method of deterrence and unwillingness to at least clean up the damage makes me question whether you are capable of performing your administrative duties adequately. Dronebogus (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not promoting "my solution" (which was already executed). I am asking for your input on another solution that could effectively do the same thing: dissuade LTAs. You haven't responded yet. Bedivere (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  A) there’s no point in proposing it now when your solution has been implemented for better or worse. B) My solution to your “solution” is you reupload and replace all the files and uses of files like you and your fellow admins keep suggesting we, the plebs, do. If you’re going to use extreme measures you should at least be willing to fix the inevitable collateral damage from those measures and not put the responsibility on everyone else. Dronebogus (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  You still won't respond. How does your solution dissuade effectively LTAs? Bedivere (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t have a solution because it’s not my job. But I don’t have to be an admin to see your solution is bad. Dronebogus (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  OK, then you’re effectively admitting that you're criticizing without offering any solution to the problem. No alternative approach at all, just criticism (which is valid, but certainly an alternative would help). That's fine, but it confirms there's no constructive proposal on the table, only disagreement. Bedivere (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Like I said, it’s not my job to deal with LTAs or figure out solutions. But you don’t need to be a plumber to see a toilet isn’t properly fixed, and I shouldn’t have to propose a solution as a prerequisite for the plumber fixing it properly. Dronebogus (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Fair enough. So the problem is obvious, the fix is someone else's job, and any attempt to address it is wrong by default. Noted. Bedivere (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  I have told you how you should address it with this very proposal, but you keep diverting attention away from it with your “if you cannot propose a solution to stop LTAs you must acquit” Chewbacca defense. Dronebogus (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  And despite my reiterative comments, you have still failed to understand my sole inquiry: how is that going to dissuade this and other LTAs from doing all over the same things? Bedivere (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Oppose as per Bedivere above. Yann (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing to be done here. --A.Savin 19:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
•  Oppose Any user in good standing can reupload these images themselves. We don't need to reward LTAs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Why don’t you do it then instead of forcing us plebeians to pick up the pieces left by Bedivere’s indiscriminate scorched-earth campaign? Dronebogus (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  If you claim something to be a "scorched-earth campaign", couldn't you try to see such LTA upload actions as salting Commons' fields, poisoning image wells or spraying Agent Orange or tear gas onto crowds of benevolent contributors, to keep the military metaphors? The deletion would then be something like en:Operation Pacer IVY. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  No. Because the files were harming no-one and were actually helping Wikimedia as a whole by being used legitimately on many wikis. Bedivere is the one spraying “agent orange” in a clumsy attempt to flush out the vandals, harming uninvolved bystanders in the process, and then refusing to clean it up. Dronebogus (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Bogdanov-62

• User: Bogdanov-62 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Khvorostin Gavriil Kirillovich.jpg after final warning for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Errors are possible in my productive work. They are being corrected. We apologize. Bogdanov-62 (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Almost a year has passed since last problematic upload. Taivo (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Caroline Lösche

Caroline Lösche (talk · contribs) has once again uploaded a photo by a professional photographer from Erfurt (according to metadata, Michael Reichel / ari) to Commons and presented it as her own work. The first upload was locally to deWP, the second upload here, and the third upload today here. Stepro (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Warned, file deleted. Yann (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Phenombasketball

• User: Phenombasketball (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: COM:NLT re Special:Diff/1155248199.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't really see that as a problematic legal threat. They are not threatening any user with a lawsuit. They are saying that they believe a photo here violates privacy rights, and presumably they will go through WMF's channels for reporting such a violation. This is no more problematic than if a Commons user were to pursue a DMCA takedown for a work of theirs on Commons that they haven't licensed.

(Their incompetence at filing a DR is another matter, and at some point similar actions could become CIR issues.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel Fine, CIR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Randomguy12236 - just another basic vandal

Randomguy12236 (talk · contribs), block please. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Next time, please use Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism for such cases instead. GPSLeo (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)