Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Note

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

Farcazo

User: Farcazo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning for doing so. Vandalism after warning. CIR issue.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see neither vandalism nor copyvio uploading on current month. Taivo (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, he started writing to me on the user page that I was inferior to him and what I uploaded clearly has the Fake insignia and PD-simple, pd-textlogo Farcazo (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Farcazo: who wrote that you were "inferior to him"? Diff, please. - Jmabel ! talk 04:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a strange amount of interaction between the nominating party and the accused, if you look at Farcazo's discussion page, every single entry is Jeff G deleting their files. I've also noticed within the remaining deletion discussions, Jeff G's reason(s) for deletion is far-fetched, such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Abbas Shield Martyrdom Forces.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:P0kr8w5n.jpg, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Infobox Jaysh al-Ummah.jpg. To me, this constitutes a pattern of harassment if anything. Castroonthemoon (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dronebogus

Opened countless deletion requests on the same subject [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] (et caetera), making it difficult to properly assess the requests, even though the recent topic had no definitive conclusion. This way, it makes it difficult to conduct a thorough analysis of the images to be deleted. I have better things to do than open dozens of tabs in my browser and analyze Panteleev's excellent images. If there are those who enjoy browsing through images they themselves consider inappropriately pornographic, so be it. This unreasonable moralism is getting out of control. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not moralism, it's simply considering the COM:SCOPE policy and valid DRs. Dronebogus did nothing wrong there, except maybe it would have been better to just have one to three DRs instead of over 10. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is disruption. Dronebogus has been here long enough (and spends enough time on ANU!) to know two things:

DRs on the same issue should be bundled.
Exey Panteleev's work is treated 'exceptionally' on Commons. I make no comment on whether we should or shouldn't host them (that's a separate question) but clearly they have acquired some peculiar status here. So a string of separate, isolated DRs with nomination rationales that begin “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; are just some unconvincing pearl-clutching.

Especially from an editor who has uploaded considerable quantities of work that have as much of a 'pornographic' status as Panteleev's, and as much tenuous and oft-questioned connection to SCOPE.

If you want to delete the Panteleev collection, then go for it. But that would need a single DR, on that basis, it would need to be clear, and it would be an uphill struggle to delete them. There are some here who would support that. But this handful of individual DRs is not the way to go about it, and it's a waste of editor time to set that in motion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) not bundling my deletion requests was lazy and un-exemplary behavior on my part, but it’s not a crime. There are a hell of a lot if files and a non-trivial number of them are in use, making it a bit of a minefield. I take COM:INUSE very seriously and would rather go through and nominate them case by case and deal with the minor inconvenience it poses (sorry) than accidentally hit an in use file and actually violate policy. 2) There is no actual rule that says Panteleev's work is “exceptional”; I asked about it at VP and the overall response was more “no” than “yes”. I nominated a bunch of others (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology), Commons:Deletion requests/File:ChatGPT by Exey Panteleev.jpg) and multiple respectable users (including an admin) voted “delete”. w:wp:Stonewalling is not policy or even legitimate consensus, and arguing that my two or three illustrations of sex positions that have no other images available on Commons are the same as Panteleev's 100s of nearly identical photos of naked women, a subject we have a whole lot of on Commons, is just a weak ad hominem argument. Dronebogus (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you open these separate ones at all, given that it was only 10 minutes since you'd opened one on the whole cat? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because if I’m not mistaken doing a second bundle would just add another section beneath the last bundle nomination, which doesn’t seem any more helpful. Dronebogus (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: Why multiple bundles? Why not one bundle? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really know, just me being scatterbrained I guess. Dronebogus (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems disruptive though. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RodRabelo7: I’m sorry to have inconvenience you by not bundling these deletion nominations; I know how this can come across as vexatious. However I’m not going to stop nominating them because I think there are legitimate, policy based reasons, completely divorced from their explicit nature, to do so. It doesn’t take a huge amount of effort to copy-paste your rationale to each relevant DR. Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: But when you add it up, it does amount to a lot of work for each person who wants to comment to do that, compared to the one-time work of you making something like this (where they will probably all stand or fall together) a mass-deletion request.

I don't think anything here rises to the level of requiring administrative action, but please in the future try to be more careful. It's really hard to re-combine things like this into a mass DR (I know, because I've done it; in my experience, the work averages a couple of minutes per nominated file, even if you are very efficient about it), so it's important to get it right in the first place. - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO not a problem requiring a ANUP listing. It looks to me that discussion has at least been leaning towards somewhere in the territory acknowledging that at least some of Panteleev's work is in scope, but there should be no prohibition on discussing if some individual files might be OOS. While there are some good arguments that multiple deletion requests should have been bundled, such is not absolutely required, and IMO having them separate may have advantages as well - one the ones I've looked at so far, I've been neutral on a few, voted keep on one, and delete on another. Easier to do so when they're listed individually. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I've voted in some of these discussions (the ones on pages that were already on my watchlist - I didn't see the rest), I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to close this as no action taken, but I agree with Infrogmation that this isn't an ANUP issue. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've blocked RodRabelo7 for three days for this comment, which they've repeated in at least one other DR as well. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bombing several user pages with dozens, upon dozens of deletion requests (just in my talkpage were 24), all with the same copypast argument by an experience user, specially when there is open an concurrent discussion (yes, yet again), by an experience user (and who had previously nominated many of this images fro deletion) in my opinion only has one motive, disperse, confuse, disrupt and short circuit and stonewall any proper debate (a new one after several ad nauseaum and to death debates in the last 13 years). And, instead of discussion in a single place, i had to copypast the same answer to dozens of deletion requests, probably more then 30 times. It is wasteful, a mockery (accidental or not it is irrelevant when speaking of an experienced user) to other users time, patience and attention. Tm (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the supporters of keeping these images are the ones stonewalling by acting like they can never be deleted for even legitimate reasons because a bunch of actual prudes nominated them 5 million times in the past. And no, their is no sinister motive behind my messy nomination style— I’m just stupid and lazy sometimes and I’m not sure how to fix it now. I’m genuinely sorry for the inconvenience. Dronebogus (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case you did not knew or do not remember, at least one, maybe more, was deleted do to the legitimate reason of copyright, do to being a derivative work of a copyrighted work (videogame if memory serves me right as i cannot find the link to that deletion).

So, to the contrary of what you say, the ones that are voting keep or tending, to are not stonewalling, or rehashing the same old tiresome 13 years old arguments that have been sistematically rejected. Adding that causing you causing the dispersion and fragmention the discussions into at least 30 different carbon copy texted and concurrent deletion requests, specially when there is an new open discussion in Village Pump, is comparable to use a cluster bomb, ergo, stonewalling be it on purpose or not, as it is desproportional and wasteful, even if the arguments for deletion were 100% optimal and proper.

In a new or inexperient user, opening the quantity of dr´s that you opened, with same carbon copy text, would be rightly excusable do to inexperience. In your case,, a experienced user, as yourself with alost 33500 edits and almost 5 years of edits and that "has been here long enough and spends enough time on ANU!", it is not. Tm (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took great care to make original, policy based arguments and specifically avoided arguments that consistently failed in the past, namely COM:NUDE/COM:PORN related arguments. You are the one rehashing arguments by leaning entirely on precedent and appeals to external authority (namely, a bunch of awards and media coverage). Dronebogus (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent is more then 40 dr´s closed as kept and several discussions, including in Village Pump, most of them closed based in policy based arguments, namely Commons:Scope. And the mention to media coverage and art awards is also used to counteract the claims that this photographer and project are not notable, ergo that they are in scope. Tm (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the prior DRs started off with a very bad if not flawed deletion rationale and the most common argument has been links to prior deletion discussions and statements like "No valid deletion rationale". Notability of a photographer or series does not imply all files that belong to the series of the photographer or were taken by the photographer are within scope. Commons:Scope clearly shows how these files are not within scope. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We work by policy, not precedent. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is so hard to understand, the precedent is that this files are in Commons:Scope as this was already discussed several times, in categories for discussions, Village Pump and Administrators' noticeboards, besides the several dr´s closed as "images in scope", that is worked per policy. Tm (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So are you implying that you can have a different decision for the same type of file? That doesn't seem like a good idea at all. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there can be different decisions for the same "type" of file. Moreover, what you consider the same type others may not consider the same or exactly the same type. Lastly, you didn't explain anything. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tm has been aggressively bludgeoning basically every single nomination at Category:Exey Panteleev-related deletion discussions/pending with extremely long (as in thousands of bytes), hostile comments that are mostly just unreadable padding like paragraphs of uncollapsed links. It is uncivil and makes following the discussion needlessly difficult for other users. Rodrabelo was already blocked (not that they showed any remorse for their actions) but I think Tm may potentially need a W:WP:BOOMERANG if they keep this up. Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus should not have opened so many identical DRs. All of these photos should be kept per guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the statement "Commons is not censored" is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside Commons' defined scope, as set out above […] such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules of Commons' scope. Maybe you could stop making so many assumptions and read 1. what people actually say and 2. the policies that you link to. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: Fine, I add the arguments of RodRabelo7 and Tm. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which are also bad. Tm just waved a bunch of links in everyone’s faces and Rodrabelo just insulted me. Dronebogus (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RodRabelo7’s first edit since getting unblocked is loaded with personal attacks, self-aggrandizing, and the following message— If this comment is once again deemed a personal attack by the same person, then grant me patience. I no longer wish to do anything restricted here, but I do ask not to be banned, as I still have plans to pursue in other Wikimedia projects, and I need access here to do so. In fact, I also require a clean record to access The Wikipedia Library. Making a personal attack, then saying “please don’t ban me for personal attacks because I’m too valuable”, is a textbook example of someone thinking they’re above the rules. I don’t want to lose a valuable contributor, but I also won’t tolerate abuse just because someone has a lot of good uploads. Dronebogus (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any personal attack. If you do, I sincerely apologize. And I did not ask not to be banned because "I am valuable", but because blocks are meant to be educational, not punitive – and you should know that. If I am no longer going to contribute actively here – and I definitely will not – then it makes no sense to be blocked or even banned, because that would be purely punitive; it is like gouging out the eyes of a blind man or breaking the spine of a cripple. And if you intend to turn this into a boomerang, then please notify me on my talk page, as I have disabled all notifications and cleared my watchlist. I happened to take a look at your contributions, but generally I have bigger fish to fry. If I touched a sore spot of yours, I am really sorry and hope it heals soon. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In a project where puritans on a senseless moral crusade band together in a cabal to censor what they dislike, I can only step away." That's remarkably personal. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what should really be under discussion is the clearly (and admitted) disruptive behavior of the account that opened these deletion requests. Is calling things by their name a personal attack? Well, perhaps the administrator most engaged in deleting these images will interpret my comment as a personal attack on the account most engaged in deleting these images. An account, by the way, that exists in this project solely to undermine it, not to help build it – an average of just one file uploaded every two weeks, fewer than 50 in the past two years. In what dimension is that not a personal attack? If you had just peacefully walked away from the project, I would have no further beef with you, but instead you had to have “the last word”. “Semi-retirement” is not an excuse to say nasty things about other users, especially fresh out of a block for that exact reason. Dronebogus (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here appears to be the numerous requests for deletion, so I think it would be fine if it was bundled up into one request. I have had a look at a few of the decisions to keep, and they seem... flimsy. There is a real argument that none of these images are educationally useful and will likely never be used to illustrate corresponding computing articles.

If these images had more time to get input, I suspect that there might have been a more definitive decision, but they seem to have been closed pretty quickly so consequently the issues around suitability has never really been addressed. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Барвенковский

Барвенковский (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user renamed his user and user talk pages [16] making his archives inaccessible from this newly created page. User account "Alex@nder" is not registered. Please revert. Romano1981 (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --A.Savin 21:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8bhakt

User: 8bhakt (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after block for doing so.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

MBH 09:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Childish vandalism, so I did not give indefinite block. Thanks for reverting edits! Taivo (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:So categorical

So categorical (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Removes problem tags from files they uploaded, even after warning not to do that: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. The user is well aware of Commons:Currency#Important points policy, but refuses to comply with it [23] and uploads images from external copyrighted websites indicating "own adaptation" as the source. Quick1984 (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Quick1984: Thanks for the notice. Blocked for a week. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fractor4

Fractor4 ( local | logs | global ) keeps on removing a deletion request ([24], [25]) from one of their uploads despite an earlier warning that was subsequently removed from the talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All uploads are deleted; I deleted the userpage as well. As the user expressed wish to vanish, I currently do not block him, but if he does not vanish, then he must be blocked. Taivo (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Fractor4 did not do it with cunning intent in mind. He didn’t understand the scope of Commons and taught it was a way of expressing his edit skills. I think he should be blocked for few weeks with proper explanation on why he was blocked. Thanks WikiCommoneer (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, now we have with WikiCommoneer (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) a new sockpuppet of User:Fractor4 who uploaded a new version of File:ProfCanny.jpg and kept on the good old habit of removing deletion notices. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pls recheck and redo your findings @AFBorchert.. check the history. No one’s cutting a cake or giving you applause for your good work. WikiCommoneer (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AFBorchert: Please accept a slice of cake and a round of applause for all you do to protect Commons from the likes of that user. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like it’s real.. WikiCommoneer (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked WikiCommoneer indefinitely as sockpuppet and applauded to AFBorchert. Taivo (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AFBorchert I reported both accounts to SRG for a global lock. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 09:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wanganbryan

Wanganbryan (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) All of their uploads are copyvios (there's more than 10 copyvio speedy delete notices on their talk page). S5A-0043 🚎 13:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Final warning given Gbawden (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Savydeal

@S0091: further to this request on my talk page, I confirm my licence review here is fake. I suggest this user should be indefinitely blocked. — Racconish ^💬 08:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: such kind a forgery cannot be tolerated. And it was not the first time, see [26], [27] and [28]. --Túrelio (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Savydeal (talk · contribs) seems not to be the only one. Shreyash1554 (talk · contribs) faked a record of our colleague @Yann here: [29], though 6 weeks later the image was later validated by VRT[30]. --Túrelio (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a lot of files with fake license review and blocked 2 sockpuppets indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all! S0091 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091 I reported both accounts to SRG for a global lock. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 09:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done I blocked Shreyash1554 for faking license review. This is absolutely not OK. Yann (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:TVKMember

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

This user is uploading copyright-violated materials to Wiki Commons as his own work again. Please do something about it. IDB.S (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly reject the claim that I am "uploading copyright-violated materials and claiming them as my own work."

The files I uploaded—specifically related to TVK (Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam)—are not random internet images but publicly distributed assets issued by the party itself. As an active and verified member of TVK, I have access to these materials and uploaded them in good faith, with the understanding that they are intended for free public use, including in educational and informational platforms like Wikimedia Commons.

Please engage constructively and allow for clarification, instead of making public accusations without first seeking understanding.

Best regards,

TVKMember TVKMember (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TVKMember: Please have an authorized party member send permission as described at VRT. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked by Jim for socking. Yann (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Коблан диас

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

Creates disruptive nominations. — Tarkoff / 16:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done DRs closed, user warned. Yann (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riad Salih

User: Riad Salih (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Mosquée de Terny Beni Hdiel (Tlemcen).jpg after final warning for doing so.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G. @Yann is this a serious report ? Riad Salih (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, utter nonsense. --A.Savin 22:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: On what basis did you revert our replies? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is same copy&pasted discussion on Riad Salih's page already. --A.Savin 09:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin Why is this nonsense? The uploader has uploaded numerous copyvios which were deleted mainly for missing permission.
@Jeff G. Have they been warned? This user is an active contributor with loads of Featured Pictures Gbawden (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion in question is months ago and blocks are not punitive. --A.Savin 09:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbawden: Yes, they were final warned in Special:Diff/737525430. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin The most recent was 18 May - see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Riad_Salih - I am not sure where you get months ago from Gbawden (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked on the two links on this complaint (those come after "Reasons for reporting..."), the one is from 3 Jan 2025 the other is from 3 March 2023. Please gentlemen, this thread is CLOSED. Nothing to be done here, in other words EOD. Thanks --A.Savin 11:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t the first time, he did the same thing back in March, when he left a false warning on my talk page, and after an explanation, he admitted he was mistaken and that I had nothing to do with the issue he had raised, and the message got deleted from my talk page after his own permission : Sure, go ahead. My previous title "Reminder" was considered by some not to be strong enough. You may even vanish this section with my blessing if you want.

Regarding the file he's mentioning File:Mosquée de Terny Beni Hdiel (Tlemcen).jpg it is my own work. I nominated it for deletion myself because it was a poor-quality shot, and I have since uploaded a better version. (I can reupload the old version with its EXIF data to prove it’s my original work and not a copyright violation.)

As for the warning from @Yann that he is referring to, it dates from March 2023. I only became active on Commons in January 2023, and at the beginning, I may have misunderstood or misused some license tags, which is normal. However, it's now May 2025 and since then, I haven’t received a single warning or been involved in any conflicts. On the contrary, I’ve contributed many quality images, including featured pictures, and I’m consistently active in improving guidelines (last one). I even recently redesigned Commons:Featured media, and just recently won 2 prize in Wiki Loves Monuments in Algeria.

I regularly nominate my own files for deletion (exemple) when I have better-quality replacements or when they are part of design tests for Wikipedia projects.

I hope he can understand that he acted a bit hastily and made unfounded claims, so we can move forward. Misunderstandings happen, no hard feelings. Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin What about File:Abdellah-Laroui.jpg and others deleted due to no permission? I am not happy that you appear to be glossing over this users behaviour.
@Riad Salih Can you explain why you uploaded this file and others which were later deleted? Gbawden (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a complaint is based only on two obsolete diffs, then that's a nonsensical complaint and there is no obligation for the processing admin to dig in further archives or edits.

Your claim that I was "glossing over" someone's behaviour is a clear "assuming bad faith", totally unacceptable behaviour and unbecoming of an admin.

And please stop pinging me in every comment, I am watching this page. --A.Savin 12:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--A.Savin 12:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that my report was "utter nonsense" is a clear "assuming bad faith", totally unacceptable behaviour and unbecoming of an admin. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish your posts not to be called nonsense, just don't post nonsense, simple as is. --A.Savin 13:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Between 10 and 18 May thirteen files uploaded by this user were deleted for no permission. The processing admin must look into user behaviour when its posted here. Riad Salih was brought here for copyvio - their behaviour needs to be addressed. Gbawden (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbawden File:Abdellah-Laroui.jpg is not my file. I regularly patrol files uploaded from North Africa, and this one was uploaded by a user who clearly does not appear to be the author. I have added a No permission tag, I found a freely licensed picture, File:Abdallah Laroui, 2005.jpg. I have added it to Wikipedia articles and reported the suspicious image.

As for the 13 files you’re referring to, they are either files (not my files) I tagged for lacking permission or my own files that I personally nominated for deletion. I have no idea why they are all being associated with my deletion log. I'm more than willing to respond to each and every image listed, I have absolutely no problem with that. Basically, I'm not stupid enough to risk my account by making copyright violations. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:GRAYSSSSSS

GRAYSSSSSS (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) recent copyvios after final warning. Quick1984 (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]