Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	124, 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	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	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

^{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: ~42
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• No license since 29 August 2025: ~12
• No permission since 29 August 2025: ~22
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-09: ~149

Other:

• Duplicates: ~5
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~0
• Other speedy deletions: ~98
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~1
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~7

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~20
• Interface admin: ~13
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~11
• 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.

Kayode Badmus

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

Recreates File:Motunrayo Gbadebo-Alogba.jpg a second time, this time as File:Gbadebo-Alogba.jpg. Was warned with {{Dont recreate}} after the first recreation. Jonteemil (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done deleted, blocked 3 days. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. After end of the block next copyvio was uploaded. One week block now. Taivo (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Irreconcilable anti-collaboration attitude from Krd

Let’s start with saying that I know Krd (talk · contribs) is an admin here, and everything else, but I implore you to not just side with your own and assess their behaviour impartially. However, this report concerns their refusal to meet basic collaboration expectations, which being an admin - someone with a level of accountability - makes it much worse.

A few days ago, Krd deleted the files titled in sequence from File:National Football Museum displays 1.jpg through File:National Football Museum displays 66.jpg (which, IIRC, I uploaded on behalf of a friend doing a VRT ticket), claiming they had no permission when they did. I’ve been assured every VRT email was replied to. When VRT stopped responding, my friend reasonably assumed everything was good to go.

But it seems Krd was dealing with the ticket, and sometimes decides they just don’t want to talk to people. When you have these privileged tools (VRT, file deletion) at your disposal, you must be trusted to use them in a consistent manner, and to be accountable for the actions undertaken with them.

Krd effectively leaving the ticket on read and then coming back a month later to delete the files is already abuse. Not leaving a talk message to either say they will be deleted, nor that they have after the fact, is also an inappropriate lack of communication. I believe those notifications are required, to give the opportunity to resolve issues or challenge deletion. Failing to leave such messages can only be one of two things: that Krd has, despite deleting all the time, forgotten this step and is too inconsistent to be trusted, or that Krd has knowingly decided to not be transparent in their actions in order to avoid scrutiny and cannot be trusted.

When I saw - only through Delinker notifications - that the files were deleted, I asked Krd to restore them. I chose a time they were active in VRT requests, hoping to expedite it. They ignored me, so I asked for a reply and gave two whole days. They still declined to acknowledge me, and continue to, despite attempts to engage them. This anti collaborative attitude is inappropriate.

Refusing to respond when discussion or action is needed is considered disruptive no matter who the editor is (preventing DR, etc). When it’s an admin, and about admin tools, it’s worse. Krd has a responsibility to be accountable and simply refuses for no reason. I see on their talk page that the section below mine is someone not even asking why their file was deleted, but for direction to French language support for the matter, and Krd has also just declined to acknowledge them. They seem to think being an admin allows them to do this ego tripping, instead of being aware it just gives them more exhaustive responsibilities.

This is not the conduct of an admin or a VRT user. I do not know if it’s chronic, but I know it needs to be put on record for future reference in case it becomes chronic.

The actionable response I am hoping for is Krd to restore the files (and any others they’ve decided to delete for fun), to be removed from VRT and file deletion as they clearly cannot be trusted, to promise to promptly at least acknowledge messages that need their discussion/action to move forward, and for other admins to hold them to this and potentially take further action if they continue to shirk their responsibilities. Kingsif (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

When there was an ongoing VRT process and you claim to know how the process works why are there no license templates on the file pages? GPSLeo (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

When the file author got their password back I let them deal with it, maybe deal with the abusive admin instead of ask silly questions about something that’s frankly irrelevant to their behaviour since 👍 Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, About the files status: you are supposed to provide a license when you upload files, but you didn't in this case. The files should be undeleted when the permission is approved, which includes that a license is provided by the copyright holder. Yann (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The permission was sent by the author a month ago, Krd decided they could just ignore it. That is the point of this report. Kingsif (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kingsif: On Ticket:2025072410000323, a VRT agent replied to your initial email on 7/24 about two and a half hours later, and then there was no subsequent action from you. Did you receive the reply from VRT? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The file author emailed - and look, I quizzed to make sure they replied before going to Krd - and they replied, with permission, and said everything seemed ok. Kingsif (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I've found that ticket, Ticket:2025072410004918, and merged it to the original. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, the author himself added the license to at least a few files, for example there, so at least "File:National Football Museum displays 4" may be ok, I suppose. Did he not add a license to the other files? Ping User:Hmickey. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Now that I have full context from the entire VRT conversation, I think the issue is more general, and we should review our VRT processes instead of accusing any individual agent of wrongdoing. Basically, should the role of VRT be to just collect a legally binding permission statement (including identity verification if necessary e.g. if previously published, else just COM:AGF), or should it make sure that the work is fully suitable for Commons (i.e. ensuring that the work will not be deleted for reasons other than lacking evidence of permission from the author of the final work such as COM:SCOPE or COM:DW)? I believe it should be the former. For example, even outside of VRT, potential COM:FOP violations cannot be speedied or tagged "no permission", but must undergo a full COM:DR per COM:CSD#F3. Therefore, I don't think VRT agents should reject permissions over DW concerns, since that would lead to VRT causing the acceleration of deletion in some cases. Instead, they should accept the permission as long as they are convinced it comes from the creator of the final work, and then they can open a DR if they believe it infringes on the copyright of intermediate works. These kinds of images should not be deleted without a discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Conversely, while VRT is interacting with a third party, I'd want them to see if they can sort out the DW issues. It's not much use to have a photographer's permission to upload something that is just going to be deleted anyway and, in most cases, who is going to know better than the photographer if we can get a license for the underlying copyrighted material? - Jmabel ! talk 03:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

In this case, the third party appears to be just a random Commons user who is having trouble uploading images, who I don't think has any special capability of getting source material released under a free license. It will come down to whether an COM:FOP and/or COM:DM can be made successfully for each image, which should be resolved at DR. In general, we can try to ask the third party to resolve DW issues, but if no solution is forthcoming after 30 days, we should just accept the permission and open a DR instead of blanket deleting everything without discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Files should be treated the same as if VRT was never involved. GMG^talk 12:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Correct. So at the end of 30 days, if the file could have been speedied or tagged "no permission" if not for VRT, or if there is a DR open for at least 7 days with a consensus that the file requires VRT to be kept, then it should be deleted. Otherwise, it should not be deleted, and someone can open a DR if desired. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. If that is the case, a concern with the suitability of the photos, then I think it does bring it right back around to the behaviour of Krd being untenable with their role. Perhaps not in the VRT decision, but in the refusal to engage in discussion. If you know me from en.Wikipedia, you know I strongly believe no user should ever think they are above talking to others. This is especially true when they could reply “it wasn’t a permission issue” and have a, what, 20 minute discussion on resolving it? Krd refusing to engage at every point in the process seemingly because they don’t think they owe accountability is anti-collaborative, arrogant, and wastes everybody else’s time because it necessitates extreme escalation to get anything done. I, like most users, don’t have the tools to look at VRT tickets or deleted file histories, so must rely upon people who do. If they can’t be trusted to do that, why do they have them?

As for the files, what are the forward steps? Kingsif (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• If we're collecting comments on VRT, then I have no idea what they do. As a non-member of VRT, I'm excluded from all knowledge of what they know about any particular piece of content. Yet I'm supposed to engage with something like a DR, and do it entirely blind? How is that supposed to work? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  VRT does necessarily depend on the good functioning of our vetting system and collaboration among/oversight by its volunteers. I've had instances in the past where people, at times quite well known people, have written in with things like copies of their government ID. That's just not the kind of process that can happen in the open in a semi-anonymous environment. GMG^talk 17:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

In any case, in the absence of a reply from the deleting admin, I have gone ahead and restored the images and approved the VRT ticket per my comments above. Anyone may start a DR if they believe that there are COM:DW concerns which are not adequately addressed by COM:FOP UK and/or COM:DM. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if I should have asked this question elsewhere- I was checking older DRs and I saw that Krd had nominated a ton of obvious textlogo files on April 30, so could someone ask them how they made a very obvious and clear mistake? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I would not call File:Logo-sindonews.png an "obvious textlogo" (over TOO in some countries, under in others) and all of these have false license claims (uploader claims to own a copyright and be offering cc-zero). Yes, most of these can be kept, but someone needs to go through and work out which. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say all, I said "a ton". I know they have the wrong license claim- doesn't make DR the correct avenue. Yes, someone needs to go through them- but the sheer number does kind of say that a procedural close or something like that would be better. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

A fake user created an account in the name of my friend

Years ago, my friend had a stalker who created fake accounts in her name on social media and shared obscene content. We just discovered he'd also created one on WikiCommons. I don't know what to do and I need your help. Can you remove this page?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%C4%B0pekguvensoy Zaykiezay (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

There are two pages with that content: User:İpekguvensoy and User talk:İpekguvensoy. I requested speedy deletion of the first and blanked the offending content on the second.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: please be more careful - you deleted the page with the default edit summary which shows the content. I have revdelled it for you. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Matrix: thanks, I absolutely didn't notice that. - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done user page deleted, offending state of talk page hidden in history, account blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 01

38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

伊藤文四郎

• 伊藤文四郎 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploads all copyvios yet again. The user's second block for uploading copyvios just expired. A longer block ought to be appropriate IMHO. Jonteemil (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Has anyone actually tried to talk to this person and ask where the images are from? They have other retained historical images from the early 20th century. GMG^talk 13:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I blocked the user for a month (third block) and mass deleted all their uploads. Taivo (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear Taivo, and Jonteenmil,

Please let me know how to upload the Photos.

1. Tow portraits of Bunshiro Ito were created for private use for over 70 years.

These photos were heritaged to his daugter.

2. Other 2 portrais were heriataged as well from Bunshiro Ito, which were taken his colleagues or project team

I was uploaded for creating Mr Bunshiro Ito's Wikipedia on behalf of his daughter.

I think these are no licenses required CC0.

My knowledge is limited for Wikipedia.

Please advise how select the option to be successful upload one by one,

Kind regards, Toshi Shioya 240F:107:49F4:1:A920:4AF8:3AA4:60FD 06:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Given that the actual 伊藤文四郎 supposedly passed away in 1966, I am sceptical of the claim of copyright for all these files. They are rather quite likely in the public domain.

As such the block is not helpful, given the linguistic difference and the consequent lack of communication. RoyZuo (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It would appear that you are editing from an IP address to evade a block. Please do not do that. If you continue, I will have to block the IP address as well. The only page you should be editing right now is your user talk page, mainly to request that the block be lifted. Much of the above would be relevant to such a request.

I will copy the above to your user talk page. Please continue any further discussion there, not here. - 16:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs)

M0200705

• M0200705 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploads File:Rajkanwar Singh Sandhu.jpg despite several warnings. Jonteemil (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Kayode Badmus

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

Reuploads File:Motunrayo Gbadebo-Alogba.jpg despite warnings and a block. Jonteemil (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. The mentioned photo is totally different than previous versions, but yesterday (s)he uploaded a copyvio from Facebook, which gives me reason to block him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Green Montanan's incivility and casting of aspersions

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

Personal attacks against me here and here, engaging in a edit war with the very same comments here and here (even though they were warned). It's obviously expected that users who want images be kept justify this on a copyright basis, not casting aspersions against the nominator. Should they have wanted to mean I was being partial, they should justify it properly, not with some cryptic message related to things that happened in another project, unrelated to this one. No evidence has been given of improper deletion requests in this project (and everything is heading towards the images in question, as well as dozens of others on the same subject, being deleted). For context, I was blocked for... huh, creating a redirect. Yacàwotçã (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not necessarily see those as personal attacks, and unless the original remarks are deemed to be personal attacks they are certainly permitted to restore their own comment that you deleted in a DR. Yes, there is an implication that you may be biased, but you do seem to have been blocked on another WMF project (en-wiki) for an inappropriate edit in a closely related area, so I don't see that implication as an "attack."

(Also, though, @Green Montanan: given that the nominator was RodRabelo7, not Yacàwotçã, I find your remarks somewhat cryptic. Are you saying that you believe these are both the same person?) - Jmabel ! talk 05:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Casting aspersions if you prefer, though I consider it basically the same of personal attacks. Anyway, virtually every image I've nominated has been deleted, so biased or not (I would say I'm not, honestly—I've even created this article and am of Jewish ancestry for instance), that should be irrelevant to the discussion. With no more credible arguments, the user resorts to intimidation and personal attacks. (And I am RodRabelo7.) Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Now being uncivil against me here: "that's what happens when you just throw shit and hope something sticks". Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Not uncivil. You actually admitted that the example you provided was unrelated. Green Montanan (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Except I didn't. And even if I did this doesn't give you a reason to call my arguments "shit". Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You provided two examples. You pretty much agreed that this example is unrelated because the rationale is based on 2D public artwork not covered by Freedom of Panorama in Israel which is unrelated to a rationale based on derivative work. Green Montanan (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

That's precisely why I wrote probably, which is different from definitely. First example wasn't probably and it's still valid. And of course still not a single reason to call me "shit". Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I take that to mean that you concur that this example is shit as it relates to the deletion request in question. Green Montanan (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

They didn't call you shit- they just said your arguments were bad using an idiom- please do not exaggerate other's behaviour, while also under-reporting your behaviour as just a "redirect". DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same user. They requested to be renamed. Green Montanan (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Participating in the same DR under two different names is very confusing, even if it may be entirely legitimate in this case.

Green Montanan: while I don't think your initial remarks crossed the line, I think you are now at least pushing it. When you are already in conflict with a user, using an expression like "throwing shit to see if it sticks" is clearly an effort to amp up the conflict, not resolve it. I'd strongly suggest you stay well away from anything further that can at all reasonably be seen as a personal attack on this user. If you continue in this vein then, yes, this becomes unacceptable behavior. - Jmabel ! talk 06:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

OK. My apologies. I did not think that criticizing the quality of the examples that the user provided, even when using salty language, could reasonably be interpreted as a personal attack. I think the user has all but admitted that the example that they provided was unrelated to the discussion. Green Montanan (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I provided two examples. One is, as I've said, virtually the same as that of the deletion request. You're for some reason ignoring it while focusing only in the second one, in which I used the word "probably" (!= "certainly"), as I wasn't sure because I couldn't find the image on Wayback Machine. Yacàwotçã (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The other example is not a whole lot better. In the other example, there is no dispute that the drawing resembles the photo.

I have difficulty accepting your excuse "I wasn't sure because I couldn't find the image on Wayback Machine." You didn't have to see the images. Just read the deletion requests (the same way I did).

So since you are continuing to complain, I stand by my original statement: you are throwing shit around. Green Montanan (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

And I stand by my warning earlier in this conversation. You (Green Montanan) just repeated exactly the behavior I said was unacceptable. I am blocking you for 24 hours, which in my view is mild here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• It is no more a 'personal attack' to link public logs across our sister projects than it would be to quote a real example of a blockable PA. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• It is kind of strange to accuse someone of incivility (especially for an idiom and some evidence of your aggressive behaviour) when one one was blocked for cross-wiki harrasment involving socks about another user, don't you think, Yacawotca? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Sexual messages on my discussion page

Escribo aquí porque en un mismo día he recibido en mi página de discusión varios mensajes con propuestas sexuales e imágenes no apropiadas para el diálogo bajo el UCC. He visto que @Achim55 borró algunos de los mensajes dejados por el usuario en mi Discusión, pero preferiría que ni constaran en mi historial. Si este no es el espacio para este pedido, ruego se me informe qué causes debo seguir. Muchas gracias Florenciac (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done: Hidden. --Achim55 (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

thanks! Florenciac (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Dronebogus and Yacàwotçã

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

Yacàwotçã was blocked on 16 June 2025 for two months after an ANU discussion for their interactions with another user Dronebogus. Yacàwotçã proceeded to harass said user using ips and socks on other wiki projects. Given this very unacceptable behaviour (their conduct also has issues in other places, but I am only gonna comment on the harrasing- other users might expand on the other stuff if they want), I think they need to be blocked for atleast 6 months. (I would have said 3, but it's very clear that they didn't learn anything from being blocked for just 2 months). Given their reply, let's try leniency instead then, with an iban only. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Answered here: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Indef_blocking_of_Dronebogus + "I also hope that this discussion, if it is to take place, will be confined to a single page. I do not receive pings, but from what I have seen, there are at least three pages involving it, to be conservative." Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Technically the other two pages deal with drone's block, and if the block was correct. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: Thanks for bringing up this user. They got a final warning about uploading copyvios from Gabwp in this edit 18:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC) and then uploaded copyvios File:Himi 20190302173633 (48315512356).jpg 04:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC) and File:13.05.2025 - Foto oficial dos Chefes de Delegação (54516044144).jpg 10:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC, 39% copyvio). It turns out that this warning I sent was for good measure (I didn't find out about the 2022 warning until shortly before 20:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC); note that it is buried in unlinked User talk:Yacàwotçã/Archive/1).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Bringing up events from 2022, when I barely edited Commons and didn't know how it worked, is a dishonest tactic. I'd expect more. Added to that is the fact that Gabwp is a sockpuppet of Biel8729 (DarwIn may confirm), who is considered a long-term abuser on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia with more than a hundred (!) confirmed sockpuppets. And treating files with issues of derivative work or freedom of panorama as copyright violations would result in half of the Flickr importers on this project being blocked, and even more good-faith users. Many of these files were uploaded years ago. As an example, even today someone nominated a file for deletion that was uploaded by Fæ, who hasn't edited in four years. Yacàwotçã (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yacàwotçã: I am open and honest about my user talk page archives, whereas you seem not to be. For the record, I sent that warning 06:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Copying from somewhere, for the record:

 Comment: For context, as far as I remember, I had never interacted with the account Dronebogus in this project. There may have been one or two minor interactions, but nothing beyond that—as with a complete stranger. Then one day I woke up to dozens of deletion requests for files I had uploaded, which came across as harassment. (And this was not limited to me; it also happened to Tm.) In fact, the user himself admitted that he had acted improperly, although he did not withdraw the nominations. I should also mention that, contrary to what is stated on his talk page, I have no fondness for Exey Panteleev (though encyclopedically notable) and actually find his photographs rather dull; what I do object to is censorship, and I find the Streisand effect interesting. That, as far as I can recall, is what motivated me to start uploading his images in the first place—as a way to counter what I see as the unreasonable puritanism of a few individuals who occasionally open deletion requests for his work.

As for what happened in another project, I don't personally think it is relevant here, but if it is brought up, then everything should be mentioned for the sake of fairness. Dronebogus WAS RECENTLY BLOCKED on the English-language Wikipedia for harassment, specifically for following another editor's contributions. He did the same to me, repeatedly making changes to articles I had just edited (for instance, HERE after my edit HERE, and HERE after my edit HERE. This even happens here on Commons, such as when he favorited several images I had uploaded while he was in a feud with me (THIS ONE, THIS ONE, THIS ONE, THIS ONE, THIS ONE, and many others; ONE OF THEM apparently was favorited after my renaming, when he already had an interaction ban with me). If what happens in other projects is raised here, then fairness requires acknowledging that this account has engaged in harassing behavior that has already been sanctioned and that seems to be at the root of this entire feud we are now witnessing—which, by the way, only exists because of the dozens of deletion requests; as a side note, I recently found out that Dronebogus IS BANNED (not just blocked) from AfDs on the English-language Wikipedia, which to me seems to connect the dots here in this project. I should mention that, with the exception of one very particular issue on my home wiki, I had never been blocked anywhere at any time. Everything began when the account Dronebogus decided to persist in a behavior that had already been sanctioned in another project years ago, and which still occasionally resurfaces (that's precisely why I, by chance, happened to discover it).

Returning to myself and my conduct—for which I offer my apologies here—it has already been sanctioned. I have been, and still am, contributing productively here for years, quietly, without seeking conflict with anyone. I can count on one hand the disputes I have ever had, all of which were fortunately resolved. I repeat that I deeply regret the reasons that led to my past blocks here, and if I could, I would approach those issues differently. I have not interacted with Dronebogus since I returned, with no need for interaction bans—even though the informal interaction ban seemed to be only one way (I personally do not agree with permanent blocks, but that was the condition the account accepted in order to be released from a block of just one week). I have no intention of resuming any interaction with that account, as their presence does not appeal to me, provided they leave me in peace.

Regarding what happened on the English-language Wikipedia, it should first be emphasized that what one account claimed here is untrue. At no point did I create an account to harass Dronebogus. That is simply false; this is my only account and will remain so until the day I voluntarily stop editing. What happened is that, in the middle of a renaming process, I was logged out and could not log back in for a while, and I personally have no problem editing as an IP, which I do both on my computer and on my phones. I can even point to a recent edit I made on Wikipedia as an IP. As for the single comment made there, which led to a block for sockpuppetry (although I repeat that the "sock" was an IP), I think the fact that I am not a native English speaker played a part; more recently, a fellow Wikipedian privately pointed out to me that the adjective "hideous" is somewhat offensive and should be avoided at all costs. For this, I apologize, although this is something specific to Wikipedia and should ideally be addressed there.

I am open to questions, and I hope they will be based on reality rather than distortions aimed at pushing a particular point of view. I also hope that this discussion, if it is to take place, will be confined to a single page. I do not receive pings, but from what I have seen, there are at least three pages involving it, to be conservative. By the way, could someone point me to the policy regarding interaction bans on Commons?

At home, I will look for the countless diffs to prove that what I am saying is true.

Best regards,

Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment user is bringing up evidence about the other user, when they know they have performed similar actions themself, just like how they both do it anytime either of them is brought up- just makes a 2 way iban more needed. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

That's why I stated "more (edits) to come". Haven't finished the comment yet, but the herd effect is strong here so I had to start something. I have a real life too to handle, you see. Yacàwotçã (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

How is any of this relevant (and this " I have a real life too to handle, you see." is passive aggressive)- I said there is no need for "evidence" given that Drone has also always shown similar evidence every time- I didn't say "oh, your evidence isn't complete". DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The user thinks being restricted for their actions is comparable to being marked as a persecuted and genocided group. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposal for IBAN

Clear consensus for IBAN to happen, which would be enforced if Yacàwotçã returns. (involved close). —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Given the clear two-way problems, I propose a formal two-way IBAN between Yacàwotçã (aka RR7) and Dronebogus. This can be appealed after 6 months by either party. The current one-way IBAN imposed on Dronebogus seems unfair. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Considering that I blocked Rob for a personal attack on Drone a few months ago, I'm surprised that it wasn't already a two-way IBAN. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

My bad, as the unblock condition (a de facto IBAN) was placed only on Dronebogus and should have applied to both. Bedivere (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support per me at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Indef blocking of Dronebogus (permalink). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support Two-way IBAN seems sensible here. Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support this seems clear. - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support Gosh, this madness needs to stop. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 08:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment @Mdaniels5757, Abzeronow, Jmabel, Aafi, Bedivere, Matrix, and The Squirrel Conspiracy: : As I asked elsewhere, what exactly is the policy being enforced here? Does Commons have an interaction ban policy? Are we applying ipsis litteris the policy from the English-language Wikipedia, with every particularity of that project?

In any case, regardless of what this policy may be, I must repeat that I do not see the need to enforce rigid bureaucracy when there is already consensus that Dronebogus and I should stop interacting with each other. I don't see the need for a yellow badge as if I were a second-class user. Therefore I believe that simply acknowledging this should suffice to resolve the feud, with any violation being reported to the Administrators' noticeboard and sanctioned accordingly—I imagine with a definite, indefinite block. This can be voluntary, and it has been here in my case since I was unblocked, which is not the situation with the account currently under review. Yacàwotçã (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yacàwotçã: having an official IBAN prevents any confusion and any "but it wasn't official excuses". IBANs have happened on Commons before, see Commons:Editing restrictions. Whilst there is no official policy, it is advisable to use common sense. An IBAN isn't a yellow badge but a necessary measure to prevent disruption. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 09:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Matrix: OK, but could we then make it something not indefinite, or at least shorten the time for appeal? I mean, an interaction ban of one or two years, or three months to appeal an indefinite IB. I suppose the other account would agree with it. Yacàwotçã (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yacàwotçã: no, given the scale of the problem. I'm sure there are ways to contribute constructively to Commons without involving Dronebogus. Also indefinite is not infinite. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yacàwotçã there is indeed a need "to enforce rigid bureaucracy" given your (and even Drone's) behaviour- as Matrix says, it prevents excuses and other issues. And if you have such an issue with such "rigid bureaucracy", why report Drone was violating it?

Compare yourself to a genocided group again, just because people think the solution should be formal, and I'll report you , and collect so much evidence that the resulting block would surely be infinite. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Couldn't grasp anything. Yacàwotçã (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

First para was what Matrix said basically. Second para is to not compare yourself to a murdered people just bcs people are asking both of you to be reprimanded for your actions (and me saying/"threatening" that if you do so again, I'll go search your edits, and find enough evidence that it would be clear that you should be blocked). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing to do with "murdered people"; Jews aren't inherently "murdered", but historically oppressed—check the article. Anyway that was an analogy, a matter of interpretation. And please avoid threatening other users, as you've just confessed to do regardless of quotations marks, if you want to be treated with respect. My interaction with you stops here. Regards, Yacàwotçã (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yacàwotçã: please do not compare yourself to Jews again, or there will be a boomerang thread initiated. Thank you, —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Matrix, that was for God's sake an analogy. Change yellow badge with livestock branding—that's what a meant. If there's something with my English, then I'll start to answer in Portuguese. Yacàwotçã (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yacàwotçã: No worries, just don't make that specific analogy again. You are welcome to answer in Portuguese if you want as Commons is a multilingual project. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

And just to be clear, don't make any analogies to any group of people being persecuted, especially to the point of genocide. Perhaps stick to animal analogies only. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The "yellow flag" is from a period where jews were murdered en masse. Yes, an analogy, where you're being treated "so wrongfully" (btw, which just makes something even you want into a formal thing) that the only way to make a correct analogy is to say you're like a persecuted group at a time when they were being murdered. I said threaten with quotation marks, because it's not a threat in the way that Commons says is bad, and I wanted to make that clear- I'm not gonna stalk you or anything, but I would use my free time to finding evidence and not hold myself back from repeating it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support, obviously; however the appeal should require a mutual agreement between parties; it should not be one-way appealable. --Dronebogus (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: the point of making it one-way appealable is in the case it needs to be converted to a one-way IBAN, if one party is behaving worse than the other. If one party submits an appeal and the other party doesn't want the IBAN to be lifted under normal circumstances, then the appeal will be denied anyway. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Either way a new discussion would take place Bedivere (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

That’s like saying one party can break a ceasefire agreement if the other country is behaving worse. There will be no converting it to a 1-way IBAN; that’s what resulted in this whole mess. Dronebogus (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus calm down- I'm sure they meant if one party was trying to be provocative- probably no one here thinks that you two would not end up having tensions again even with an iban- it would probably be on another Exey related DR or something related.

Also, even per your analogy, one can in fact get the UN involved if the other is trying to circumvent any agreements with the other. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment someone should make the iban terms clear when this discussion closes to prevent any issues later on. Also  Support on the iban proposal, but I'm not sure I'm allowed to vote given that I'm not an admin. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

You are allowed to !vote, admins aren't special they just have extra tools. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 12:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I know admins aren't special, but this is an admin's noticeboard, and some admins on some wikis are territorial, so I just wanted to be sure. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The terms should be 1) unambiguous hostility results in an indef; 2) directly talking to or about the opposing party outside of a noticeboard discussion involving both parties, posting on their talk page outside of automated messages, or abusing the “thank” feature vexatiously, gets 6 months; 3) anything else that might be construed as interaction gets a warning. The last one is lenient because I think it’s too easy to accidentally cross paths making unrelated edits and there’s too much ambiguity around intent and what constitutes “interaction” beyond the obviously outlined cases. Dronebogus (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe Commons has the same policy as the English wikipedia- . It's much more clearer and less ambiguous then what you just suggested. Of course, someone more knowledgeable should confirm. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

If Interaction bans are a thing on Commons, but there is no specific local policy, perhaps it should be a good idea to write one for future cases. Cambalachero (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Very true, Commons does use en.wp rules as it's own way too much- it really needs to be more independent, and have it's own rules on it's own project. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Moved this side-issue to Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Interaction bans Cambalachero (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Matrix Given recent events, seems like this proposal would end up being irrelevant- but I still think we should go ahead with the 2 way iban, given that Yacàwotçã might decide to return one day. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The block could never stop this discussion and its outcome, if that is what Rod was seeking Bedivere (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

---

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

Insulting and bullying language and edit warring

De-escalated per Jmabel. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

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

---

• Adamant1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Adamant1 has repeatedly used insulting and bullying language during disputes and has engaged in edit warring. This behavior began when Adamant1 removed links from various pages and categories pointing to the category "LGBT pride in small towns" without any prior discussion or communication, causing the category's deletion. This category has been in existence for several years prior. I notified Adamant1 on their Talk page, the category was restored under the new name "LGBTQ pride in cities & towns under 30,000," with relinks to relevant pages and categories.

During ongoing efforts to resolve questions about the appropriateness of this category, Adamant1 persisted with insulting and bullying tones, even after being asked to stop. While discussion was still active and no consensus had been reached, Adamant1 once again removing the category "LGBTQ pride in cities & towns under 30,000," disregarding the unresolved status. This led to further edit warring, accompanied by insulting and bullying responses. Despite receiving two warnings that their conduct could result in a block, Adamant1 continued this behavior, showing an unwillingness to engage in dialogue for consensus and instead attempting to impose their own agenda or vendetta.
During this time, Adamant1 continues to make accusations against me. Assistance in mediating would be appreciated. Myotus (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

A couple of things.

1. I had up-merged a category which Myotus reverted and left this rather rude comment on my talk page about.

2. I then started the CfD which they linked to. Where they continued with the rude, lecturing and refused to discuss things aside from grandstanding about LBGBTQ issues.

3. I then created a Wikidata item for Category:Bemidji Pride, and added a category to it for organizations. Which they repeatedly removed, accused me of committing vandalism for adding, and threatened to have me blocked if I put the category back. They act like I'm the one showing an unwillingness to engage in dialogue for consensus when I started the CfD, messaged them about it on their talk page, Etc. Etc. While all they did was repeatedly lecture and revert me while threatening to have me blocked if I added a category for organizations to Category:Bemidji Pride when it's a #%^% category for an organization! They clearly have competency issues, don't know how this works, and apparently can't be bothered to figure it out or follow basic guidelines. Let alone act in a civil manor.

I fully sport them being blocked for the condescending bullying behavior, threats, and repeatedly removing a valid category for organizations from Category:Bemidji Pride. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a couple of quotes from Myotus to back that up. "You are vandalizing the category for a vendetta. Pursuing this course of action may get you blocked." "Stop deleting a categories when there is a discussion going on about them. Further action may result in your account getting blocked." Etc. Etc. The user is just a bully who can't be bothered to understand and follow the guidelines or interact with other users in a civil way. Pure and simple. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

On the accusations of me reverting their addition of "LGBT organizations in Minnesota" that would be true. I was reverting their removal of "LGBTQ pride in cities & towns" and "Events in Bemidji, Minnesota" I later mistook "LGBT organizations in Minnesota" "Events in Bemidji, Minnesota" in my reverting. That error was on me and I will own it. I was the one that did eventually stop the edit war, not Adamant1 because its futility. Honestly I am tired and exhausted dealing with someone that appears to be gaslighting me at every turn. Myotus (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Myotus and Adamant1: I would suggest that you both drop the stick and try to work through the CfD to a mutually acceptable resolution (though frankly I'll accept an admin-imposed resolution that may leave someone unhappy).

Both of you: please be a little less quick to assume bad faith no the part of the other.

Adamant1: if you don't like a category that is created by another reasonably active user, starting to remove things from the category is definitely not step 1.

Also, addressing one possib€le confusion here: in smaller LGBTQ communities, it is not unusual to have an "pride" organization whose activity centers enormously around the planning and execution of an annual event, to the point where it is not readily possible to separate out the organization and the event. - Jmabel ! talk 02:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I looked into it when I created the Wikidata item and they do other things besides the annual event. Its certainly not at all unsual to have a category for an organization that holds an annual event when they do other stuff as well. Also, I didn't just remove the cateogry. I added it to the categories for the actual events since the parent category for LGBTQ pride specifically has to do with festivals. Again, there's nothing unusal about that and it would have been OVERCAT to keep the category as a parent to both the one for the organization and events. I said as much to Myotus BTW. They still reverted me and threw a fit about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Jmabel I will take it back to the CfD to see if it can be worked through.Myotus (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

---

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

Socking for copyright violations

It seems Chancellorchry2 is a sock of Chancellorchry. This could be interpreted as a good-faith lack of access to the original account, but Chancellorchry2 is repeating Chancellorchry's uploading of copyright violations pertaining to the Syro-Malabar Church. A checkuser is probably overboard here. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually, this is almost certainly part of the Sleevachan sockdrawer. A reupload of File:Tharayil.jpg (deleted in 2023 by Yann) seems to confirm this, and further copyright violations in the Syro-Malabar space across the Commons and English Wikipedia are behaviorally aligned. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Both accounts blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Jeff G.'s harassment/ intimidation

User claimed that I have vandalized Commons when I just removed over-categorization, since Exey Panteleev-related category already has Nudity and sexuality-related category. Also Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, which he has also just recently done by bringing up events from three to two years ago. User seems to be trying to push me to the limit in the middle of another issue in order to ban me for some personal reason. Yacàwotçã (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment From what I have observed, Yacàwotçã is being accurate here- Jeff G. is in fact being very aggressive with Yacàwotçã , first for what are relatively low number of accidental copyvios for such a prolific uploader, and now this. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Why do you not explain your action to Jeff before reporting him here? Meta categories are less strict with category guidelines. GPSLeo (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

He did try to with the copyvios, but jeff wasn't listening, so I believe this was anger at the subsequent template. Also, seems like he has left/ is leaving- given his recent edit. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yacàwotçã did not explain on their user talk page or mine that they were removing over-categorization, just stated in their Edit Summaries for their edits to many DR subpages that they were removing a cat which looked to me to be relevant (Category:Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests/deleted). These subpages were, and are, [n]udity and sexuality-related deletion requests for files that were deleted, and were among the battlegrounds between that user and Dronebogus. While processing my watchlist from top to bottom, I warned the user after I found the first one and then added to the warning twice before I had to go offline, intending to continue adding if I found more instances, only to find upon my return that they had reported me and been indeffed. Note: they reverted my whole warning section with three diffs in Special:Diff/1080055015 (a misuse of rollback); COM:OVERCAT does not apply here, as the abovementioned category is hidden (and therefore in the maintenance tree) and has no direct relationship with Category:Exey Panteleev-related deletion discussions/deleted, which is not hidden (and therefore appears to be in the topical tree); and the creation of this section is another instance of the user's documented attack methodology.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I think there is no chance of a sanction against Jeff G. here, especially since Yacàwotçã has basically slammed the door on his way out.

In general: if people make non-obvious edits without a clear edit summary, they should not be surprised if someone does not understand the rationale of their edit. - Jmabel ! talk 04:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Anikmolla786

n.b., this user has been blocked indefinitely at English Wikipedia for edit warring.

Anikmolla786 removed a delete tag on an image before the deletion nomination was closed. This image is a clear copyright violation. I have since nominated the file for speedy deletion. Please consider extending the indefinite block to Commons as well. Dwo (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Update: This user has now removed another delete tag on a second image. [1] Dwo (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Update: It happened again. [2] Dwo (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dwo: in the future, if you report a user on this page, follow the instructions at the top of the page about notifying them.

 Done Strong warning sent. If this recurs after the warning, they will be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Just to clarify, I did notify the user. [3] The user reverted the notice on their own talk page. Dwo (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dwo: Sorry, I guess give the nature of the problem I should have looked for that. Anyway, if they remove a {{Delete}} tag again, come here, cite this if it's been archived, and I will block. - Jmabel ! talk 03:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

NiseEdits

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

Uploads File:APF FC Logo.png and licenses it with {{Self}} which is obviously incorrect. Has three prior blocks for uploading copyvios. Jonteemil (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: do you plan to notify them that you have opened this discussion? - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above. Pings are not enough.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G. @Jmabel Do I really need to notify a user that has violated copyright policy about 100 times and has three prior blocks for uploading copyvios and the moment their third block has expired the first thing the user does is to upload a new copyvio and licensing it with {{Self}}? That just seems excessive according to me. I have reported a bunch of users if you scroll above and look in the archive of this thread and have only notified them when it isn't a clear-cut case. All these blatant violations of policy that I have reported after a prior block or a {{End of copyvios}} tag on their user talk page I haven't made a seperate notification when I've reported them here, I think it's excessive. If you disagree, I'll gladly open a proposal to change policy according to above at COM:VPP. Jonteemil (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: Yes, you really do. Admins should not have to pick through what cases are and are not egregious and obvious enough to waive the notification requirement. There is nothing difficult about notifying someone. - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel The user had uploaded a copyvio, gotten a deletion notification on their user talk page and despite that uploaded a new copyvio, gotten a new deletion notice and also a {{File copyright status}} tag, yet despite this uploaded yet another copyvio, gotten a yet another deletion notice and a {{End of copyvios}} and despite these 5(!) notices you think it is appropriate that they get a sixth notification that I have reported them here? Frankly that seems totally redundant according to me. If you as an admin saw this user, you would just block them right? You wouldn't first notify them that you were blocking them and then add a new notification when you've done it, right? I think my judgement when it comes to what cases needs notifications and not is totally reasonable. But if you still disagree then I guess I'll have to go to COM:VPP. Jonteemil (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done indef-blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Timmy96

• Timmy96 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Following the recently concluded Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Timmy96, an administrator confirmed that User:Timmy96 was using VietnamJ25 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) as an undisclosed Commons sockpuppet account to make well over 10,000 edits while at the same time using master Timmy96. VietnamJ25 has now been blocked.

This is case of longterm undisclosed sockpuppetry, with both accounts editing similar subject areas (footballers and festival photography), often concurrently, and after a community ban from English Wikipedia.

In addition, the user has made countless thousands of edits while logged out using IP addresses, often editing the same files or categories within moments of editing from the accounts, indicating deliberate and coordinated efforts to avoid scrutiny. This pattern of behavior extends over a prolonged period and appears intentional.

The scale of undisclosed sockpuppetry, spanning many many thousands of edits, raises concerns about abuse of multiple accounts and transparency with the Commons community. Especially since they were banned from English Wikipedia because "[they] demonstrated [themself] incapable of writing about footballers appropriately". This is concerning because most of their edits on Commons are adding information to files and categories about footballers. They are also apparently still ban evading on English Wikipedia: en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_169#A_sockpuppet_has_done_grievous_harm_to_hundreds_of_articles. They appear to have a chronic difficulty with English and continue bad edits despite being informed, which I first learned at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/09/Category:People at South by Southwest. I am also concerned by the level of COM:OVERCAT in their creations of festival categories using IPs, moving every image of a person at a festival into their own subcategory even when their is no need for diffusion.

I believe Commons needs to further examine and consider the extensive, ongoing abuse and evasion this user has consciously engaged in to fulfill their passion of editing depictions of footballers across Wiki, even after making extensive acknowledgements commitments to cease such behavior. Οἶδα (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Normally a block on en-wiki has no bearing on someone's standing on Commons.

Socking as such is not a reason for a block of the "master" account, although it is often indicative of a larger problem.

The links above are nearly all pertinent to en-wiki, not Commons. The one Commons case Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/09/Category:People at South by Southwest) is about a non-native speaker not understanding when to use the definite article in English and when not to; if socking has any relevance to that case I don't quickly see it in the discussion (it is mentioned, but not with any obvious relevance).

I'm not saying this user should not be blocked, but someone needs to present some evidence of bad conduct or egregious incompetence on Commons.

Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but as someone normally uninvolved in these investigations, I am honestly overwhelmed by the extent of their IP sockpuppetry. It is difficult to quantify and break down into a simple list, especially when much of it is a type of soft disruption and is tendentious in that it serves to fulfill a specific overwrought project they have decided upon that I do not believe serves users on Commons. A project that they have stated outright is simply a workaround to their 3X block on Wikipedia. For example, they messaged Stepro at User_talk:Stepro#Categories_Manchester_City_and_PSG_Players informing them of their project to "identify all 1210 photos in this category", to which Stepro responded: Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. In my opinion, the person categories are intended to help you find useful photos of a particular person. But when these categories are filled with hundreds or even over a thousand photos where you can barely recognize the categorized people, it's not helpful, it's the opposite. I see absolutely no point in categorizing all of these photos with miniature people. You might be able to use these countless photos to illustrate a particular game (if at all), but they are completely worthless for illustrating the people in question.. Does this use of categories fit Commons standards? Is this of value to readers? Compare Category:Lee Kang-in in 2025 and Category:Duje Ćaleta-Car in 2017. Or all of the circular file renamings they requested to fit their perfect order such as Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_100#Asking_for_the_second_time_request_from_Timmy96.

These IP edits include changes to file and category structures, not minor edits. Also, I wasn't saying Wikipedia's decisions should have a bearing on their standing on Commons. I was suggesting that the ruling was reflective of their inability to appropriately edit information pertaining to footballers, and that has been supplanted upon the many tens, probably hundreds, of thousands of football image files they have edited on Commons. They have already been shown to incorrectly identify random footballers as being people that they are not Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/09/28#File:Dede-luiz.jpg. How many other incorrect identifications are there? This is concerning considering identifying footballers is one of the primary edits they have made. And most edits are to relatively obscure footballers. Some of the IPs have received blocks but many many remain, such as 85.115.53.202, 109.156.11.200, 5.150.98.77, to name just a very few. I am concerned by that door having been left open. Their editing style leaves no question. The scale, coordination, and obvious intent to deceive Wikimedia projects by hiding behind different identities must warrant some form of action, at the very least to address ongoing IP abuse, to prevent further disruption through socking. Maybe Yamla or JBW have more information to offer about this user's pattern of deception. There is something like 14,000 edits in the range of 2A00:23C8:8984:9901 IP socks alone. I cannot go through all this nor do I want to. Sorry. Οἶδα (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Οἶδα: There's a lot there, but it isn't very focused. My apologies, but we seem to be somewhat at cross-purposes here. I can see that you are unhappy about their edits, but I can also see they have uploaded quite a few good photos, so I would not want to block them without a lot of clarity.

I don't need to know everything they may have done, but for example without something much more specific it is hard to go through a list of sockpuppets to try to work out what unspecified issues they do or do not have in common with this account. If you can show they have been socking to evade being held responsible for something for which they have already been admonished, or to create an appearance of being two different people supporting each other's view, that would be the most straightforward. Similarly, pointing at a couple of presumably honest mistakes and saying "there have been a lot of others" isn't something easy for me to act on. I agree that we should not name every ant-sized person in a photo (only if they are quite legible or their presence there is very significant, e.g. that the person jumping in the air is a particular player who just scored a goal), but I see no discussion of it on their talk page as an issue, am I missing something?

Is there some admin who has already engaged at all with them who we can ping on this? That would be much easier than me trying to familiarize myself with an editor whose work I don't recall ever seeing before. If not, is there some small number of specific things that are problematic enough that you can make a case for a block that won't take an hour or so of investigation? Jmabel ! talk 06:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not just not knowing the use of definite article- he continued doing it even after he was requested not to, and explained why not to. Also, if he doesn't know English, he shouldn't be editing in English- any non-problematic person would know not to make mass grammar changes for a language they are not familiar with . DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

VICBot2

• VICBot2 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) is tagging images as valued several times, see [4] and other cases, I sent messages to the operator but never reply me and the issue continue, if a consensus is reach I can block the bot --Ezarateesteban 16:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The operator is GeneralNotability. @Ezarate, you do not seem to have notified them of this discussion; I will do so. - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but the user isn't editing since Apr 2025 --Ezarateesteban 18:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I reported this several times on several places, including GeneralNotability's talk page. Like Ezarate said, the bot owner has not edited for 4 months. Yann (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

None of which was stated in the initial report here. I'm not certain about the other admins, but I'm not clairvoyant.

@Yann: sounds like you are familiar with the case, care to take it on? - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I don't understand why the bot got wild, and I can't do anything about it. After I reported it several times to several places, and got no answer, I concluded that I was the only one to care about it. So I just removed the duplicate templates on my talk page and on the file page. Now it seems I am not the only one annoyed. Yann (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

VICBot2 is a bot, not a user. I reported the issue on AN on 8 and 10 August, VPT on 15 August, and on GeneralNotability's talk page on 8 and 10 August. After I blocked the file page, the bot stopped spamming my talk page with the same template again and again. Yann (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

If it's misbehaving, can't we just block it? - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

It still processes new VI. Yann (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the problem is the bot failed to remove images from Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list after the bot has promoted them. This means the bot keeps promoting and adding templates to them.

I have manually removed the promoted candidates from the list (and removed any duplicate templates), so at least in theory the bot will not tag these images again. However, it is likely the problem will reappear for the future images if the bot continues to malfunction. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, for Yann’s case, the image was included in Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list for discussion, so I have corrected its status from “promoted” to “discussed” in Commons:Valued image candidates/Day-midnightlace.jpg, so in theory the bot should not tag the image again. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Now that I have a thought about it, I think this might be a possible reason for its malfunction

1. The incorrect status mentioned above led the bot to keep tagging the image page and Yann’s talk page for the past month.
2. Yann protected the file page to block the bot from tagging it
3. The bot couldn’t tag the image since the page is protected, so when it got to that image, it got stuck
4. However, I noticed the bot works its task in batches, this means it first add the template to all the promoted images, then notify the users of each promoted image, then finally remove the promoted images from the list
5. Since the bot got stuck from adding template to that specific image, it failed to perform all subsequent tasks of notifying users and remove images from the list
6. The bot then begins its next run, re-adding the templates to the images since it failed to removed them from the list during the previous run, and once again stuck at that image, and repeats.

Tvpuppy (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems my theory above was correct, the bot now appears to be operating normally for its most recent run. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I unprotected File:DorisDay-midnightlace.jpg, so we will see if the issue appears again. Yann (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Worvandae

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

I would like to report an account suspected of blocked evasion here. I accidentally got this [5], [6] so they can be Musée Annam, Tarchivum, Unserefahne, they are all the same and assume Chu An instead of Chu Van An. Another case is [7], [8] nón tơi instead of nón lá.

Examples from other project [9].

Information about them can be found Category:Sockpuppets of Đăng Đàn Cung. Henrydat (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

They made non-consensual edits like the examples above. They wrote Chiến-kiện Hà-nội 1946 instead of Trận Hà Nội 1946 (this is the old way of writing mixed with Chinese). They got mad when I rollbacked/undid the LTA IP range edits [10] is locked by EPIC year by year. I think the WMF community has reached a consensus on blocking their global edits, they were blocked on every project viwikipedia, enwikipedia, commons with different sock masters. They passed the test on wikidata for some reason so I guided them as newbies but they do not follow instructions but harass and attack individuals [11]. I think they intentionally harass Mxn (CU of viwikipedia) with such edits. I retired from wikidata still worried about their edits here.

User:Jeff G. Do you have any comments about this user, they deleted talk page two times, refuse to use HotCat and Cat-a-lot so edits without edit summaries? Henrydat (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Henrydat I agree that the user is problematic. Ajraddatz locked Đăng Đàn Cung and Martin Urbanec globally banned them, perhaps those Stewards have an opinion.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am asking someone. Henrydat (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Greenknight dv, @Băng Tỏa Do you have any comments here based on your work at enwikipedia and viwikipedia [12]? Henrydat (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

From my encounter with Worvandae, I think he is most likely Musée Annam. In any case, I am convinced he is another sockpuppet of a long-term abuser. He is familiar with technical wiki procedures yet pretends to be innocent while slandering other users. Whether due to his broken English or his irrationality, I find his arguments nonsensical. These are my observations. Greenknight dv (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Huynhthiminhngoc99

Huynhthiminhngoc99 has been making some...odd edits today. Including mass removals of image descriptions and categories, another, another, along with creations of odd combined categories: Category:WNBC and WCBS-TV logos, Category:1996-1997 in Las Vegas that both inappropriately combine category targets but also duplicate existing ones (Category:1996 in Las Vegas etc.) and in some cases having old, appropriate, inappropriately-emptied categories speedy deleted as empty (Category:WCBS-TV logos, which I've recreated). I'm not sure what they're doing here but I believe it needs to stop. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:CIR and User:Drbogdan

Drbogdan was CBANned from en Wikipedia for, among other things:

Here we have a science expert mass-adding content based on low-quality popular science churnalism to our science articles, expecting that other editors will review it and determine whether to improve or remove it

Recently I noticed that Drbogdan was adding images with inappropriate copyright tags, listing images from JPL as Public Domain (despite the NASA public domain tag containing a link to the JPL rights situation). When notified of this, Drbogdan slapped a second copyright tag on one image, then essentially said I was free to deal with it but that he didn't have time to.

Notification (diff)

Response (diff)

Edit to image rights (diff)

I looked through the complete history of the uploads Drbogdan has made. In addition to an extensive history of images removed as either not free or promotional spam (diff), it appears of the 2365 images he's uploaded which haven't been removed, 1833, or 77.51% of his total contributions to Commons, are incorrectly tagged as public domain despite coming from JPL. He has also routinely reproduced entire blocks of text from JPL in the image descriptions, which I'm simply uncertain about the rights situation around. Considering his "remedy" was to mess up the rights templates on one image than insist he doesn't have time, I'm going to have to quote the closer from the ANI filing:

"A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up."

Full disclosure that I am the filer of the en wp ani. Wikibreaksock (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

It took me a few minutes to fix all the templates with VisualFileChange  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   12:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, not sure where that leaves the image descriptions. Older copies of JPL's use policy specifically note that it may require use permissions.

JPL authored documents are sponsored by NASA under Contract NAS7-1407. All documents available from this server may be protected under the U.S. and Foreign Copyright Laws. Permission to reproduce may be required.

Wikibreaksock (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Reply - Huntster, Randy Kryn and Viriditas (and others) - Seems my recent post on my related discussion page ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drbogdan#JPL_images_and_copyright ) may be relevant here as well =>

Thanks for your recent comments - my edits on all wikis were always made in good faith - and based on the best information and procedures I had at the time - regardless of comments and outcomes presented by some others for some reason - my contributions (over 18yrs/98k global edits/306 articles/2.5k uploaded images/11k watchlist) depended on my interest, time and circumstances - which may be different these days for one reason or another (mostly real-world) - regardless - thank you for your comments - and understanding - Stay Safe and Healthy - Drbogdan (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Drbogdan, please familiarize yourself with the policies around canvassing. Those editors aren't party to this issue, they're just historically editors who like you. That's not appropriate in this context. Nobody here has made any accusations that you've engaged in bad faith, just that there are issues with copyvio content and rights tags. I've fixed your noping tag. Wikibreaksock (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

No - not canvassing - just seeking other opinions about all this from other editors - nonetheless - seems some related earlier posted comments may be relevant here as well I would think:

Comment re ANI NOM (re: User:Warrenmck) about Wiki-Editor Randy Kryn (20250421):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#Randy_Kryn,_WP:CIR,_WP:STONEWALL_and_WP:HOUND

What is going on is that an editor whose most edited page is ANI and who constantly gets into disputes/arguments is once again dragging someone to ANI to cause more drama. I have to ask what has Warrenmck contributed to this encyclopedia besides drama and conflict? 206.83.103.251 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

. You mean the IP may be right, that most of your edits are ANI? Jeez, hopefully this nonsense will end that. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Seeking the opinion of a select pool of editors who have historically come to your defence when they're unrelated and uninvolved with the current dispute is textbook canvassing. I fail to see how this isn't the textbook definition of an aspersion. This is a baseless accusation relating to an old incident report that has no bearing here and the quoted section appears to be quoted only in the context of a personal attack. Feel free to strike it. As with the ANI ad en.wp, you've elected to nothing of substance here. You've added thousands of images with rights issues, many of which cannot be simply addressed en masse as above. Do you have any plans to address that? Because this report isn't about nothing, and you're refusing to do anything other than flail at me with personal attacks or try to involve a group of friends. Wikibreaksock (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Wikibreaksock Welcome to commons, I'm assuming you are Warren. Commons doesn't have any dramaboards like ANI, and we like to keep it that way. please stay civil. This is a valid report, and I don't think canvassing those users will help anyone's case. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - Yes - *entirely* agree - no problem whatsoever - as to substance re image descriptions and related - my understanding, mostly from User:Huntster, an administrator on Commons, was that the image descriptions and related as currently presented were *entirely* ok - and may still be *entirely* ok afaik - Drbogdan (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I have no intention of causing drama, though I think attempting to ping a whole bunch of friends was exactly that. That was a baseless aspersion there and it is again here, which is why I asked it to be struck. I’ve been quite active on Commons. :) Wikibreaksock (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

KingEdinburgh: multiple issues with their uploads

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

This user seems interested in mostly uploading official portrait photos of US military personnel (officers, or sometimes even civilian personnel). However, there have been multiple issues:

• On their talk page, the user is informed to correctly categorize the images so they can be found. Yet, one of their latest uploads File:Charleen_D._Laughlin_(3).jpg has a category, but that category itself Category:Charleen D. Laughlin has no category.
• Some of the uploads have wrong dates or other information. Let us take this example: File:Brig Gen Duane W. Deal.jpg. Their information claims the picture was taken in 2020. Compare this to the information of his official biography [13], where it is stated he has been retired since 1 September 2005. So this picture can not have been taken after 2005. I've put my observations as a factual accuracy warning in the picture.
• And more and more red flags: File:Brig Gen Edward N. Giddings.jpg with claimed photo date of 15 December 2006, when this general was already long retired [14] (1 November 1988 to be precise).

If it was only one or 2 issues, I could live with that. No doubt there will be more (even considering COM:AGF). From my perspective, it seems this user still lacks some core knowledge or competences to meaningfully contribute to Commons.
I know that this board is not the place (I will post it at the relevant board), but for example withdrawing their autopatrol rights (how did they get these in the first place??) would already send a good signal. With the kind of mistakes I see, this user should never have gotten them in the first place. Btrs (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, I noticed from their talk page that some of these problems has been occurring since 2024. Many issues raised by @Ooligan at their talk page last year is still, to this day, unresolved. I think individually, these are minor issues that any users could have made, and normally shouldn’t require admin intervention. However, the scale of these issues (for example, see [15] for them creating uncategorised categories), and the fact that they appear to ignore the requests at their talk page and continue this behaviour, makes me feel they are not here to collaborate with other users. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I definitely see what you mean about "uncategorized categories." Creating a category page with only {{Wikidata Infobox}} (and no Wikidata item!) is considerably worse than leaving it as a "red link," because it hides the problem without solving it.

I would hope to reach some sort of understanding here, where they will spend some time systematically fixing the problems they have created, but that is going to require them to engage here. Failing that then, yes, these are bad enough problems that a block would be possible. - Jmabel ! talk 23:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

repost: Grand Duc

For bureaucratic reasons (written in the not ideal place used not ideal word) it was left unanswered, therefore, I am taking the bureaucratic action of transferring the question here.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=prev&diff=1081594809 Анастасия Львова^ru/en 08:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)