Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

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

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~31
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~138
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-06: ~167

Other:

• Duplicates: ~0
• Advertisements/spam: ~5
• Personal photos/selfies: ~4
• Other speedy deletions: ~34
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~2
• Undeletion requests: ~14

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~2
• Interface admin: ~11
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~4
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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

---

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

---

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

Note

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

User:Altair Netraphim

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

• All uploads should be checked closely; (example File:Lorong Sanatorium Pakem.jpg, claimed as own work) fake EXIF ​​data has been addressed before, and User was blocked for a week. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 122#User:Altair Netraphim.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Sir/Madam,

First of all, I apologize. In the past few weeks, we have only just begun rechecking the uploaded images, as there are quite a lot of them. Many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, and some were uploaded by other colleagues on various platforms, including Facebook and cultural service (Dinas Kebudayaan). We are making efforts to establish partnerships with cultural heritage communities, relevant institutions, and agencies responsible for cultural heritage. However, the old images they provided have unfortunately lost their metadata. This is why I have only recently started reviewing each of the images that have been flagged on my talk page, one by one. Altair Netraphim (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim: Kindly review faster than you upload, so as to catch up.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay sir, thank you. I have revised some of the licenses. I have also requested expedited deletion for some of the images. I am alone in running this review process among our team. Altair Netraphim (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim „ Many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, and some were uploaded by other colleagues on various platforms, including Facebook and cultural services (Dinas Kebudayaan).“ What exactly is this supposed to imply? All I can detect in this previous example is incorrect EXIF ​​data for an image that was already on Facebook in 2021, including a caption "ARTABABZ", which was cut out. COM:PCP? זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 11:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention and response. Regarding the statement that many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, what I meant is that most of these files no longer retain complete EXIF information—either due to compression processes or because they were re-uploaded across various platforms, such as Facebook or websites managed by the Department of Culture. Some of these images were also not uploaded directly by me, but by fellow members of the cultural heritage community in Sleman as part of their collective documentation efforts.

As for the image with the caption "ARTABABZ" that was previously uploaded to Facebook in 2021, I understand that its EXIF data may be inaccurate or truncated. This aligns with my earlier explanation that many images no longer contain their original or complete metadata, likely because they have circulated across different platforms. Some of the images were provided to me by members of the cultural heritage community; we requested them legally and communicated directly with the contributors, who, to my knowledge, uploaded them themselves. If any of those images contain incorrect EXIF data, and this is considered problematic, please feel free to remove them. Altair Netraphim (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The image was heavily edited. An iPhone 11 Pro doesn't normally take images like this, nor do they produce pixelated ones like the two other images I discovered were copycat. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: There are further points to consider: COM:FR seems not to have been fully understood. You're specifically using it to renumber images. Why, for what reason? Renaming isn't intended for that purpose; it's not a Crit 2 error, an incorrect number is not meaningless if the rest of the filename is correct, nor is Crit 3, the number doesn't bother anyone, and especially Crit 4, is being misused. Remember: "Just because images share a category does not mean that they are part of a set." זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I understand that the iPhone 11 Pro generally produces high-quality images, and if there are photos that appear to have been heavily edited or show pixelation, it is most likely due to reprocessing, compression during upload, or format conversion by certain platforms. I also do not rule out the possibility that some circulating images originated from other sources or were edited by others before they reached me. If there are any images that are considered inappropriate or suspected to be copies, I am more than willing to review them and remove them if necessary.

Some of these images have already been submitted for removal and have been taken down, while for others, I am still in the process of tracing their sources—particularly from publicly accessible, copyright-free platforms managed by the Indonesian government. Kind regards. Altair Netraphim (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim, Your so-called copyright-free platforms. It's interesting how, when you visit these sites, you can always see copyright notices (example 1) (example 2). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:direktoribudaya.slemankab.go.id I have some issues with the claim that these are government sites, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand that copyright issues—particularly regarding sources from government websites—indeed require careful examination. When I referred to certain platforms as "copyright-free," what I meant was that some Indonesian government websites (such as the Dinas Kebudayaan Sleman), including those managed by local cultural agencies, often share materials intended for educational and public documentation purposes, even if they do not always explicitly state an open license on every page or file. I truly appreciate you pointing out relevant examples, including the deletion discussions on Wikimedia Commons. It was never my intention to mislead, and I am, of course, open to being corrected, including removing related content if it does not meet the appropriate requirements.

Regarding the "Perpustakaan Digital Budaya Indonesia" platform, to the best of my knowledge, it is managed by IACI (Indonesian Archipelago Cultural Initiatives), with support and funding from the Kementerian Kebudayaan dan Pendidikan Indonesia (Indonesian Ministry of Culture and Education). Contributors who wish to submit cultural materials to the platform must undergo editorial review, and submissions are not published automatically.

Again, it is not my intention to mislead, and I fully support the removal of any content that does not comply with the necessary guidelines. Kind regards. Altair Netraphim (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim: So you admit to sharing your login details to allow other people to upload here? How does that work, exactly?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Have the same question. Phương Linh (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim, we would like to get a answer. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 13:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

User is now @Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening: . Answer still missing. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone, my apologies for the delayed response. Our team has been in the process of finalizing documentation for this activity, preparing for the upcoming workshop, and drafting the report on Meta-Wiki over the past few weeks.

Thank you for the question. I have never shared my personal login credentials with anyone, either on the Sleman Department of Culture platform or the Indonesian Digital Library. Contributors on those platforms submit their materials independently. Meanwhile, our team ensures that all contributors have agreed to share their images freely and openly in accordance with Wikimedia Commons policies. Therefore, all uploads, file renaming, and removal of duplicate or low-quality documentation images in this activity were carried out based on mutual agreement and clear communication within the team.

Once again, I apologize for the delay, as we are currently in the middle of preparing the workshop and final report. If there are any further questions, I kindly ask for your patience in case my response takes a bit longer.

Thank you. Kind regards.

Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Unnecessary file renames, continuing

After User talk:AnRo0002#Renaming 3 (and several earlier discussions on their talk page) and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/05#Unnecessary file renames, User:A.Savin blocked User:AnRo0002 for "after warnings: several file moves against COM:FNC despite requests not to do so". This was their second such block for the same cause.

The issue persists, for example recently in:

File renamed: File:Mountain Avens (Dryas octopetala) - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg → File:Dryas octopetala - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg

Please can we have the necessary action taken to stop this once and for all? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I think renaming images from geograph.org.uk does not affect users but if you prefer I don't rename files from this source agauin (@A.Savin, whats your opinion?) anro (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The source is immaterial. You also recently renamed:

• File renamed: File:20120901Filz-Klette Hockenheim2.jpg → File:20120901Arctium tomentosum2.jpg
• File renamed: File:Lamium album, Utterslev Mose, København, Denmark (26565586370).jpg → File:Lamium album (26565586370).jpg

Both of which discarded information; neither of which were from Geograph. There are ample other bad moves in your recent history. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20120901Arctium tomentosum2.jpg is a file created by anro. So I don't think that there is any kind of problem here. I am not entirely sure about File:Lamium album, Utterslev Mose, København, Denmark (26565586370).jpg, but is Søborg a part of København or is it not? So may be these are not the very best examples for excessive renaming. However, what is the reason for renaming File:Mountain Avens (Dryas octopetala) - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg, which is a perfectly valid name IMO? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

As I said "There are ample other bad moves". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

May be, e.g. just recently File:Atlas roslin pl Bluszczyk kurdybanek 3621 7088.jpg -> File:Glechoma hederacea Atlas roslin pl Bluszczyk kurdybanek 3621 7088.jpg and a number of similar images. I don't speak Polish, but "Bluszczyk kurdybanek" is the Polish version of Glechoma hederacea, see pl:Bluszczyk kurdybanek. Commons:File renaming is an official guideline. It says that criterion 3 does not "cover moving a file from its common usage name to its scientific or technical name" and that "if possible, language and schema should be preserved". Therefore, I cannot see any valid reason for such a move that discards the common (Polish) name for the scientific name, even though anro's name might be understandable for a larger number of people than the Polish name. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, the Polish name is still there, of course. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• I don't want to intervene 3rd time in this case, but I  Support further escalating block for AnRo0002, as the renames are definitely unnecessary and not covered by our policies. --A.Savin 15:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  There are also potential grounds for deadminship on misuse of advanced tools, and removal of filemover right.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

   Support both de-adminship and removal of filemover rights. Looking at their recent edits they rename a lot of files against policy on a daily basis (filtering by the "new redirect" tag, they have renamed files more than 500 times this month alone). This has likely been going on for a very long time. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't like piling on but this sort of thing is particularly out of line from an admin. It is very rare that a file that has a meaningful filename that is correctly spelled and not actively misleading should be renamed, especially for a file that has been around for a long time. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with Jmabel's comment. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Broadly agree with the above. I can see zero necessity for these renames, and there's no credible case being made for one. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

AnRo0002 deadmin discussion

AnRo0002 (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes)

Given that some above agree with me and no one does not, I think we should have this discussion.

•  Support as proposer.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Support I don't think it's worthy of an administrator to ignore requests for highly controversial file renaming without comment and to ignore requests not to disrupt my file naming structure. On the contrary, the renaming continues unabated, and when I look at his discussion page, I'm not the only one with this experience. --Lukas Beck (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Support removal of both filemover and admin rights. Rules should apply equally to everyone, but admins are nonetheless held to a higher standard to match their role and the responsibility it entails. This would not be acceptable for anyone to do, much less an administrator. Continuing the same disruptive behaviour after two blocks shows a clear unwillingness or inability to exercise good judgment, which should be disqualifying for someone in an admin position. --ReneeWrites (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  I will stop renaming files imediately except of agreements with authors anro (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Stehst du selber scheinbar nicht zu deiner Meinung und kannst deine eigenen Aktionen nicht angemessen erklären bzw. verteidigen, so bist du erst recht nicht als Admin in diesem Projekt geeignet. --A.Savin 22:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  mittlerweile erkläre ich jedwede verschiebung oder löschung, und ich lasse bis auf meine eigenen Bilder fast alles von verschiebungen unangetastet anro (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose I assume that anro actually stopped all attempts to impose a name scheme on plant images by renaming them disrespecting the guideline. As long as this remains so, I don't see any urgent reason to remove his admin and filemover rights. On the other hand, creation of lots of lengthy and extremely specific "by year" categories like Category:Plantaginaceae in the United States in July 2012 or Category:Digitalis in the Northern Hemisphere in July 2005 is detrimental to finding images in the category system. I know that this kind of categories has led to quite a number of complaints over the years. But this activity does not involve any misuse of advanced tools. I also do not know whether anro needs admin tools for his work, even though he is a very highly active user. Anyway, I appreciate his friendliness and his enthusiasm working on Commons and uploading huge amounts of photos. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  my by month by year categories are dissolving overpopulated categories like Veronica in the Northern Hemisphere in April (meanwhile less than 200 images) and, @Robert Flogaus-Faust see Apiales in Hesse in July 2015, to reduce the category Apiales in Hesse in July anro (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  That may be so and I suppose that we discussed this already. The worst case may be if a cluttered species category like Category:Veronica persica is split into small pieces like Category:Veronica persica in the Northern Hemisphere in April. This category did not contain many files, but you divided it even further into currently 16 by-year categories, nine of which contain just two files or less. I really wonder who would go to so much effort to look at all these categories. This just means hiding photos very well in a completely exaggerated and hardly usable category system that may have a single advantage, i.e. an improved ability for the photographer to easily find their images of a species taken on a specific date, neatly united in a category. Of course, this could also be done with personal (hidden) categories. I personally prefer an offline list of my uploaded photos sorted by date for this purpose. By the way, I use this kind of extremely complex categories if they exist and I might have created even a few if similar by-year categoriess existed before. However, I won't create any additional ones. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

   I handle that the same way Lukas Beck (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  @L. Beck: My uploaded files should all be in personal (hidden) Category:Files uploaded by User:Jeff G. and the cats below it.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  I have already created such categories, but unfortunately I am not keeping up with them. But I like that idea. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Please see also this discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AnRo0002#Category:Pinus_in_Germany_by_state --Lukas Beck (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  Even after being addressed on his discussion page, he continues to delete categories in an established category system without any discussions. And unfortunately, he approaches the issue with indifference. I can only repeat myself, but I expect a lot more from an administrator. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  Category:Pinus sylvestris in Germany by state exists and also Category:Faboideae in Germany by state. Obviously, placing photographs directly in these categories would not make any sense. May be it is just too late or too hot, but I don't understand the issue. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

UmirovaDilshoda

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

Keeps uploding unfree files after last warning, {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked her for a week and will delete speedily some copyvios. Squirrel already nominated a lot for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao

• User: Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning and block for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I don't understand why tou tagged this file, there is nothing which could have a copyright here. File:Marker to Old Blue Bird Seminary, Simpson College.jpg is also probably OK. Either old enough, or no copyright notice. Yann (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

For File:George Washington Carver marker, Simpson College (2).jpg and File:George Washington Carver marker, Simpson College (1).jpg, there should be a regular DR instead of a speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I've long had some problems with Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I've seen them sometimes celebrated for copying lots of images for Flickr, but it seems to me the user wants maximum possible credit for anything they do with zero possible responsibility. They've admitted they pay no attention to what they uploaded after its uploaded. I've often found myself cleaning up messes made by the user years later. Their actions that have affected me personally most significantly is their insistence on prioritizing their role in copying files from Flickr to Commons above the role of the photographer and Flickr uploader, which resulted in Tulane University taking down their archive of free licensed photos, the University considering Wikimedia a disreputable institution, and a Tulane historian and photographer I formerly enjoyed an occasional cordial professional relationship with ending it and chewing me out at length when she found out I was connected with Wikimedia (I was at first puzzled by this, then figured out she perhaps thought I might be Ser Amantio di Nicolao or at least condoned their actions). I really don't think it appropriate for a long-term regular to continue to refuse to take any responsibility and just assume that all problems they cause will be magically taken care of by the collective while they go do something else. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  I fully agree. SAdN is one of the small number of users who creates a disproportionate amount of cleanup work for other editors by mass uploading from Flickr with no curation either before or after. Over 1,000 of the files he's uploaded in the past year have been deleted - almost entirely duplicates and copyvios from Flickr that would have been avoided with the least bit of care. Every single one of those took up admin time. Just in the last few days, I see mass uploads with broken licenses, dozens of duplicates, and improper categorization.

  Five years ago, I blocked SAdN from the File namespace for these reasons. He agreed to follow basic rules for mass uploading (listed here) as a condition of unblock. Clearly he has failed to do so. Unless there is a compelling case otherwise, I will reinstate the block (as a block from uploading rather than the namespace) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Pi.1415926535: What files, exactly, have I uploaded in the past year that have been deleted? Every deletion notice I've received in the past year - that I'm aware of - has been regarding an upload that was several years old, at best. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Correction, the 1,000+ figure was for the last 13 months; the count for the last 12 months is a bit below 1,000. The vast majority are like File:Contrails 3May 2025 (33) - 54563438664.jpg and were deleted (and mostly redirected) as duplicates. That's a perfect example of your refusal to do basic curation - you uploaded a set of 33 files, many of them near-identical, without useful categories, descriptions, or filenames. And you didn't even notice that you uploaded the whole set twice. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Their actions that have affected me personally most significantly is their insistence on prioritizing their role in copying files from Flickr to Commons above the role of the photographer and Flickr uploader, which resulted in Tulane University taking down their archive of free licensed photos, the University considering Wikimedia a disreputable institution, and a Tulane historian and photographer I formerly enjoyed an occasional cordial professional relationship with ending it and chewing me out at length when she found out I was connected with Wikimedia (I was at first puzzled by this, then figured out she perhaps thought I might be Ser Amantio di Nicolao or at least condoned their actions)." Could the rest of Commons get some context? None of this makes much sense otherwise @Infrogmation: --Trade (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Eg, bulk copying images from Tulane's Flickr and stamping each in the "source" field as "Uploaded by AlbertHerring" (User:AlbertHerring being a previous name of user now better known as User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao). Photographer was very upset - furious in fact - that it looked to her that "AlbertHerring" was being credited instead of her, when she photographed, selected, and uploaded her work to the internet under a license that was supposed to require attribution. She had a University online archive of more than 10 years of free licensed photos deleted from the internet soon thereafter. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• I can't believe 3 May 2025, 11:02:58 occurred prior to January 1, 1930. Everything i know about time is a lie--Trade (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Trade: Could we get some context from you about the above post?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Trade: What is the context for the dates you mention? Is this addressed to me? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  When you start your comment with "this user's copyvio is so bad my friends started to hate

  Seriously though shouldn't there be a filter for when PD-US is applied photos taken with a 2018 digital camera. Trade (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  • @Trade: No. I often photograph old photos and even content from books, magazines, etc. with my camera (which is not precisely from 2018, but the principle is the same). Whether an image is PD has little to do with the last technology in the chain by which it arrives in Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

    We have plenty of good .webp and PDF files but we still block them from new users anyways for obvious reasons Trade (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's just a comment on the license of Contrails 3May 2025 (33).jpg Trade (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Courtesy link: File:Contrails 3May 2025 (33).jpg. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Trade: Files on Flickr which the Flickr users tag as "Public domain", when copied to Commons with Upload Wizard default here as "{{PD-US}}". If you didn't know that's what was going on, you might have asked rather than making obscure statements about chronology. Many Wikimedians who regularly copy files from Flickr are aware of this and take care of that when uploading - of course not Ser Amantio di Nicolao, as they apparently don't take even minimal care about what they copy here (beyond making sure they have bragging rights to say they uploaded LOTS AND LOTS). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  I find it a bit silly for others to bring up a specific file and complain about it being "obscure" when others comment on it. Quite frankly the whole issue with Upload Wizard comes off as a ridiculous self-created issue so i do not fault him entirely Trade (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

With no objection in 48 hours, I have indefinitely blocked Ser Amantio di Nicolao from uploading files. Mass upload tools are very powerful, but misuse of them can be extremely disruptive. Failure to be responsible with such tools is a breach of community trust. Given the scale of the improperly curated uploads, and the broken promises after the previous unblock, I would expect Ser Amantio di Nicolao to do basic curation of a substantial fraction of his past uploads before an unblock. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Isn't there a way to block him from using mass upload tools only? That seems to be his primary issue Trade (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action @Pi.1415926535. Bedivere (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

+1   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Probably a technical block from mass uploads is not possible, however kind of a topic ban on uploads of not own work might well be imposed. This would be a better solution rather than ultimate upload block, as I don't see any point in preventing this guy from uploading his own photographs. --A.Savin 10:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Tomdu45

Tomdu45 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user has been a cross-wiki self-promotion-only account, & although blocked on fr:wiki and warned here several times by messages or F10s, continues to upload out-of-scope files, still disrupting fr:wiki too (diff.). -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted his/her last upload and blocked him/her for 2 weeks. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Bdblakley29

• Bdblakley29 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Was tagged with {{End of copyvios}} in August last year and has since amassed more than 30 copyvio notices. All non-pending taggings have ended with file files being deleted. I think the user's uploads must be thoroughly gone through. Jonteemil (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. for uploading more files. All files need review. Yann (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

R995692

• R995692 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Was tagged with {{End of copyvios}} today 04:10 and has since uploaded 5 files, all of which seem to be blatant copyvios. Jonteemil (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by DMacks. Yann (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Kansas (1925–1927).svg

HoosierMan1816 and I are currently locked in an edit war over the above file. HoosierMan maintains that the sentence I added about the current flag of Kansas is "irrelevant", and he also objects to the inclusion of this source, which contains the bill defining the 1925 flag. I'd be grateful if a third party could intervene. Zacwill (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@HoosierMan1816: While I agree that your original source should be cited, I don't see any reason for the removals.

For the date, have you considered {{Date context}}? E.g. "valid from 1925 till 1927", possibly combined with "SVG created 2025"? - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not actually clear that the flag (which is technically a banner) became obsolete when the modern flag was adopted in 1927. The removed source, published in 1938, lists both, one being the "state flag" and the other being the "state banner". The filedesc reflected this before it was rewritten by HoosierMan. Zacwill (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The banner is very much obsolete. Only one copy of the banner is known to have been created, and the current flag was intentionally adopted to replace the banner. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

This "Manual of Patriotic Instruction", published by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction in 1944, also makes mention of the banner, with no implication that it was obsolete. Zacwill (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Zacwill, I did not fully understand your argument at first. I would like to list out both of our arguments as I have an idea on how to reasonably solve this debate.

‎

Correct me if I am wrong or missing something. You believe that the banner is still official for the following reasons:

- The Kansas government has not amended the law adopting the banner, nor have they explicitly said that the banner is no longer official.

- The banner is mentioned in a 1938 source and a 1944 source.

‎‎

I believe that the banner is no longer official for the following reasons:

- After being rejected for display in Washington, D.C., the Kansas government proceeded to create legislation to adopt the current state flag.

- Only one state banner was ever created.

- After adoption of the state flag, the banner has never been used since.

- According to the Kansas state law, the banner is "to be used on every and all occasions, when the state is officially and publicly represented". Despite this law, the banner is never used.

Both are reasonable arguments. I believe the best course of action is to contact the Kansas government to ask if the banner is still official or not. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not actually have an objection to the source. You used that source to justify the inclusion of information about the current flag which led me to remove the source out of spite. I am sorry. I have now brought back the source. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zacwill: Do you think the two of you may be able to move this forward from here on the file talk page, rather than further involving administrators? If so, I recommend copy-pasting the substantive materials above to that page and going from there. - Jmabel ! talk 01:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, we can try. Zacwill (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Because the new file is substantially different to the originally uploaded, I've reverted to the previous version and urge uploader to upload it under a different name instead of replacing it. Bedivere (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere That was completely unnecessary. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Not a very helpful move, since we're now back to the original problem of the file name being inaccurate. Zacwill (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Then ask for it to be renamed. If you want to replace a file with a totally different design, you should always do it under another filename Bedivere (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Sangjinhwa

• User: Sangjinhwa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued oos uploading as highlighted in Special:Diff/1038429881/1048727630 after three blocks for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The linked files were uploaded in January 2024, before any of the three blocks happened. The user just came off a 6-month block that ended in May, only to mark themselves as retired. It doesn't look like any action is needed here, unless there are other now-deleted files in question that I'm not seeing? ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There are no deleted contributions following 2 Nov 24. GMG^talk 15:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Only one edit after last block. Taivo (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Oganesson007

• User: Oganesson007 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Persistent personal attacks and uncivil behavior

Today, I saw a blatant personal attack by the user mentioned above ("a pathetic, unsuccessful attempt by a random user"). Although that comment is not about me, I feel extremely disappointed because this user has been also involved in ad hominem attacks against me (implying numerous times that I "censor" the content on Wikimedia Commons or claiming that I am something like a government agent, just because I nominated some of their uploads that had copyright problems), I had asked them to refrain from making such comments in the future in a friendly message. However, they continued to do so, explicitly labeling me as such. Now I regret not having reported those incidents, because that may have stopped this behavior. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't win a "citizen of the year" award, but I don't think it is a sufficient reason for a block.

By the way @HeminKurdistan, when you bring a complaint about someone on this page, you are required to notify them on their user talk page, and you do not seem to have done so. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Xxiissmm

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

Re-uploading copyrighted materials again after blocked for 1 week which has expired. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 16:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Aladdin Meier (Politic-Legal Secretary)

Aladdin Meier (Politic-Legal Secretary) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Spamming invalid DRs--Trade (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Looked at three of their DRs and all comments on those supported deletion, so @Trade if there is a problem here you are going to have to be a lot more specific. - Jmabel ! talk 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

User:高崎岳野

• 高崎岳野 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Persistently uploading the same copyvio screenshot from Youtube while many speedy deletions and warning. See his log. Netora (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Final warning sent. Yann (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately our warnings were ignored. File:Que-14316926564.png Netora (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Sarim Wani

• User: Sarim Wani (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning for doing so and block.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Block was for intimidation/harassment. Final warning and one file deleted. Yann (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment

I am relatively new to copyright laws and was unaware of certain YouTube copyright rules, which led to the removal of two images due to the same error. I acknowledge the mistake and will ensure it does not happen again. Regarding the last image involving the J&K Bank logo, the situation remains somewhat unclear. Although many consider J&K Bank to fall under the RTI Act, it does not appear on the official online RTI portal. While it is a public government entity, as noted in J&K Bank Ltd. v. Central Information Commission, 2019, its applicability under RTI law is still debated. For peace of mind, I have filed an offline RTI request through a third-party service provider. Sarim Wani (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

RTI and copyright laws are different. I don't think that falling under the RTI Act automatically leads the content to be under GODL. Yann (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Yann: You already final warned in this edit 17:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I suspect User:Liamniar, User:Loreroll and User:Thomsongazelle are all the same person. The first two have posted copyrighted photos of coyotes (one since deleted) and labeled them "African coyotes" (which don't exist). Thomsongazelle and Loreroll were both involved in the creation of a now deleted Indonesian wiki article on this invented species, and the timestamps of their edits on this page are very close together. Mariomassone (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Confirmed Blocked and tagged. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)