Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 125

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)

This is about Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 101#Grand Duc. You are still supposed to notify Grand-Duc, which has not been done. In addition, I see no reason for yet another complaint about the user at the present time. AFAIK there is no current quality image candidate by Phyrexian which received opposing votes by Grand-Duc because of the much less than optimal file names. So there is no wikihounding and this thread should be closed. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Notification was done, as it was said in that topic. So you want to wait for the repeating action for the 4-5th time? Nice, let's wait. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 10:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Kontributor 2K

Please do not edit war. I have protected the page for 1 week, and y'all can discuss at the file talk page or COM:VP. ANU isn't the right venue. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:38, 6 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.

---

Minor edit warring over a needful correction to File:vair plain.svg. Absolutely refuses to allow a note in the description that the file—which claims to represent the base form of a heraldic fur tincture—is inaccurate. Provides no reason whatsoever for removing the note and no defense of the image, just insisting that I talk to no one in particular first.

It's fine to have a discussion, particularly if there's some reason to maintain the inaccurate image or some extremely knowledgeable and active user on the subject, but nothing similar is being suggested, just reverts and wp:ownery insistence that I jump through hoops instead of helping our users.  — LlywelynII 13:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: in my opinion, you should have initiated the discussion on the file talk page instead of edit warring. There's a reason Template:Disputed coat of arms exists, which you could use. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 15:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The Disputed coat of arms template is also a bit excessive, the actual question that should occur first, would rather be: why so mainy vairy shileds use 5 rows instead or 4?

1 worst example: here, where quarter #2 is correct and #3 is not. Should the bells in #3 have been extended, inducing a visual inconsistency, just to be perfectly accurate? Does the current design justify a negative notice in front?

Is that file also incorrect? - for one can see the top of a fifth row.

Also, there are many more examples,

-- Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, about the ‘should not be used’ advice left in the file desciption , i'll add that currently, the file among vairy shield that should not be used is rather the one uploaded today, since its solid white background is not compatible with dark mode. -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

That's a formatting issue, not an accuracy one; depends on user preferences; and night-mode-compatibility is not a requirement of anything. You're certainly welcome to improve the image, though. — LlywelynII 16:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Aside from who was already helpfully discussing improving the project and who was edit warring without any constructive input (or rationale), tagging it with "disputed coat of arms" would somewhere between identical and harsher than what I was proposing in the first place. That said, sure, I'll use that instead and it should make the issue more visible to other involved editors. — LlywelynII 16:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Since the examples above don't seem clear enough, let's start by asking @Thom.lanaud: and @Jpgibert: why, according to them, so many vairy shield CoAs show a partial 5th row. -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Matrix: I get the general idea of discussion being needful but, to reflect what I was up against and why I came here in the first place, Kontributor 2K just reverted the addition of the template you mentioned, again without any meaningful discussion. Can someone else please talk him off of this actual edit warring and restore the template noting the dispute? — LlywelynII 17:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, LlywelynII, for opening a discussion -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

It's kind of you to say that. Any interest in restoring the template you just removed so that people can see the dispute and click through to the discussion? — LlywelynII 17:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kontributor 2K: Do you have examples of "so many vairy shield COAs" that actually have partial rows? What we have on Commons are tons of templates apparently misapplied by our editors, which is what the note on the base form image is about. Actual images of actual period COAs seem to show things with correctly fitted rows, which is pretty much what you'd expect from work for the nobility. — LlywelynII 17:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree on the substance, but the shape of the escutcheon is actually the problem, as you can see on the examples above, and the supplemental partial row is a solution not to distort the bells. Many examples can be found, the only accurate one seems to be the vair inescutcheon on this file.

Of course a note could be added on the vair-plain.svg template CoA, in the "description" field. -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Since there is still edit warring, I have protected the page. Please discuss there or at VP. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:37, 6 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.

User:剑客小鹿

Repeated uploading of copyvios Dronebogus (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user. Taivo (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

user:Hadi biglu

copyright violation by user and its

user:Hadi biglu uploading Instagram files on commons / He/She receive warnings but still process copyright violations. These three belong to this user. Please block them and delete all uploaded files

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ayaz_beyg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Altay_Ka%C5%9Fkay%C4%B1
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hadi_biglu

[1] [2] (see Edit Summary)

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo: Hi, Taivo; user:Ayaz beyg & user:Altay Kaşkayı are Sockpuppet accounts of Hadi biglu please block these too[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Heartcapturephoto1

• Heartcapturephoto1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

After releasing from a short block, this user uploaded dragonball's obvious copyvio images. Netora (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month Gbawden (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Abzeronow

(Non-admin closure: Okay, I'll not bring things I think break the UCoC here for reply/clarification, in order not to be blatantly misrepresented) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:05, 7 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.

---

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

(later edit: clarificarion: I'm not talking about the DR, just the comment DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC))

Abzeronow closed a DR, and in his close said "... they illustrate concepts with Unicode." (and also other stuff, but that's a whole separate conversation) Now, that's a very very strange thing to say, because it's just the unicode number and the corresponding symbol, just on a nude woman- to draw an analogy, they illustrate it to the same degree as a blank photo would illustrate air (it's present and one might even get to know that air is usually still and that it is colourless and homogenous, but it does not illustrate it to any meaninful degree).

So, assuming (moderate amount of) good faith, I decided to ask Abzeronow, because perhaps he did not mean it in the misogynistic "I would concentrate more on a concept if it involves women being used as an (sexual) object". The first time I [asked it], he did not answer; I [asked him] a second time, this time telling him that I would take him to ANU if he does not explain why he said it- and his response was the evergreen "it's a problem with your perception" reply given whenever someone gets accused of objectifying women. They also said they didn't answer the question because it sounded loaded to them, which is strange, because it's just a question of how naked women being objectified as boards makes a very bad illustration a good illustration. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to give an opinion here because this is not the area where I usually involve myself. Abzeronow doesn't seem to have overturned any consensus. DR closures don't happen on basis of how many votes support which thing but according to which argument holds in compliance with the principles of our project, and thus the discretion of the closing admin. Additionally, your comments such as "Great, be misogynistic" sound equally bad of what you are complaining about. The usual process should have been to re-DR, if the previous DR wasn't closed appropriately (per se), instead of feeding a feeling that the admin perhaps sounded misogynistic. Just a disclaimer, I am not taking any sides as I don't really want to go through a DR which is apparently NSFW and beyond. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 07:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not about the DR- it's about his comment. (And for the sake of replying to the full message, I did re-DR, TSC closed it.) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

 Request close and boomerang I'm too involved to close this discussion or issue a boomerang block on DoctorWhoFan91, but this is pretty blatant forum shopping. The conversation at COM:VPP isn't going her way, and DoctorWhoFan91 is trying to roll the dice and reitigate the close here.
For context, the Exey mess has been going on for years, and DoctorWhoFan91 has only recently jumped in, both feet first, responding to every comment (to the point where her participation is becoming counterproductive towards her aims) and seemingly taking the discussion incredibly personally, despite - as fast as I can tell - being completely uninvolved in it until last week. Even if there isn't a boomerang block here, I don't see the continuous, rapid escalation as ending any way but badly. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't straight ask for a boomerang, but I'd also advise to drop the stick. I understand their point and even agree that the images are objectifying, but wiki is not the place to right great wrongs. Nakonana (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the DR, I'm barely participating in that conversation (you can see my frequency there has dropped in the last day or two). This section is only and only about Abzeronow's misogynistic seeming comment, which he won't explain. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but Abzeronow was also criticized in the context of the whole Exey Panteleev discussion, so it's hard to assess this report without putting it in that context. Abzeronow might have chosen to focus on the Unicode display in his closing comment specifically to avoid having to explain his closure with anything that's got to do with Panteleev because the Panteleev stuff is still an ongoing discussion and thus should probably not be used as a closing rationale. Generally speaking, one should probably avoid any DRs or avoidable/delayable DRs and ANI reports related to the Panteleev discussion itself or the participants of said discussion as long as the Panteleev discussion is still ongoing, otherwise it could be seen as baiting, or stonewalling, or bludgening, or retaliation, or righting great wrongs, or forum shopping, or some other policy breaking. There are just too many ways in which such reports can currently appear in a bad light and thus can trigger a boomerang. I'd advise to step back from anything that concerns Panteleev and the people involved in said discussion for a bit, because the whole situation is indeed loaded. Nakonana (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

If you had actually read what was written here, you will see that I'm talking about his comment and not his DR close. This is not forum shopping, despite your attempts to show it as such- it's a wholly separate issue. 08:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

For context, I am not giving an F about the Exey thing here, I do care about the DR that much. I'm not asking that he come out and explain his misogynistic comment. (As to why I seem so involved, this keeps going on and on in a kinda sexist way from both sides- I'm trying to provide a female and feminist approach to it, which I feel like no one else is). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the situation. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

A perfectly normal comment by user A “seems” to be “misogynistic” to user D, and if user A won't offer any further explanation, user D opens a thread here? This is only a waste of everybody's time. Just close this nonsense thread. --Rosenzweig τ 08:48, 7 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.

Claudiupt

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

Resumed uploading copyrighted files without permission. Most recent case: File:Panou Salvamont Brezoi - Țurțudan.jpg (previous version deleted in June 2025: File:Panou Salvamont Brezoi - Țurțudan.png). Last warning posted by Yann on June 22. --Pafsanias (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pafsanias cu tot respectul cuvenit, vă rog să reanalizați fotografia și datele. Această imagine a fost realizată personal de mine cu telefonul mobil, lucru confirmat și de metadatele EXIF vizibile pe pagina fișierului. Fotografia a fost publicată inițial și pe o pagina de Facebook, unde am adăugat acum mențiunea expresă că este disponibilă sub licență liberă CC BY-SA 4.0 pentru utilizare pe Wikipedia și Wikimedia Commons. Am actualizat câmpul „Source” pentru a clarifica faptul că este own work. Nu există nicio încălcare de drepturi de autor. Vă mulțumesc pentru înțelegere și pentru timpul acordat verificării. ~~~~

@Pafsanias With all due respect, I kindly ask you to re-examine the photograph and the data. This image was personally taken by me with my mobile phone, as confirmed by the visible EXIF metadata on the file page. The photograph was initially published on a Facebook page, where I have now added an explicit statement that it is available under the free license CC BY-SA 4.0 for use on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I have updated the "Source" field to clarify that it is own work. There is no copyright violation.

Thank you for your understanding and for the time dedicated to verification. ~~~~ Claudiupt (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Claudiupt: The copyright doesn't refer to your photo, but to the picture reproduced by it (the panel with the warning signs) which is obviously not your work. --Pafsanias (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pafsanias Thank you for your comment. However, the panel in the picture is a functional information sign (Salvamont warning), not a creative artistic work. As such, it does not reach the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. Therefore, the only copyright relevant here is for the photo itself, which is my own work.

If you consider that a change is needed and you are sure about your statement, I will gladly make the adjustment, as you have the expertise that I may lack. My intention is only to contribute in good faith and to follow Commons policies. ~~~~ Claudiupt (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Claudiupt: I am sorry, but I have already explained you that an image doesn't have to be a masterpiece of art in order to be protected by copyright. This is clearly a creative work and we cannot reproduce it without the permission of its copyright's owner. If I am wrong, other participants in this discussion should correct me. Otherwise, you should stop uploading images according to your personal interpretation of our rules. --Pafsanias (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pafsanias Thank you for your comment. However, according to Commons guidelines, simple informational or warning signs generally do not reach the threshold of originality required for copyright protection (see COM:SIGNS).

A very similar precedent is File:Romania – bear warning.jpg, which was accepted as own work. My panel is of the same utilitarian nature: functional text and standard symbols, not a creative artistic work.

Of course, if other participants or administrators think differently, I am open to correction. My intention is only to contribute in good faith and to respect Commons policies. --~~~~ Claudiupt (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Claudiupt: if it didn't have the pictures on it, the sign might be below the threshold to be copyrighted, but with the pictures there is no question it is over.

 Not done I don't see any reason for a sanction at this point. This was an honest mistake about a pretty subtle point about copyright. That said, Claudiupt, I would suggest that unless and until you understand these issues better, stay away from content that is even close to the line. I'm going to assume good faith that you uploaded File:Panou Salvamont Brezoi - Țurțudan.jpg, which I will also delete, before you noticed this discussion, but it is the last time I will assume good faith from you on anything of the sort. - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel @Pafsanias Thank you for the clarification. I truly did not know that public warning signs for tourists could fall under copyright. Please delete the file. I apologize for my mistake and I will be more careful in the future. I appreciate the guidance from experienced users and will take it into account so that Wikipedia can remain a collaborative project. With respect. ~~~~ Claudiupt (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel Thank you for your clarification. I would like to re-upload the file correctly. I have already spoken with Salvamont Brezoi, and they will send their permission directly to VRT. Once this is done, should I provide the ticket number here, or what is the proper next step? Please note that I have no bad intentions whatsoever. In the past, I already received two permissions and tickets, but the photos were deleted and never restored, so I am trying to understand how to handle this properly. This was never about bad faith, only about poor handling on my part, and I sincerely want to fix things, not to make them worse. In this case, I genuinely thought “author” referred to myself as the photographer, not to the underlying content. With respect Claudiupt (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Claudiupt: Please don't upload a third version of the same file. All deletes on Commons are "soft" deletes, easily reversed.

Does their email clearly reference the name (on Commons) of the file to be undeleted? If not, are you cc'd on the email?

Also, separately what files received permissions and were not restored? - Jmabel ! talk 21:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Claudiupt: According to Commons:Volunteer Response Team, each ticket must be reviewed by a volunteer. If there is sufficient evidence of a valid permission, the volunteer will also act to restore any file(s) which may have been deleted before the permission could be verified, so there is no need to request undeletion. However, this can be a lengthy process. Inquiries about the current status of an VRTS ticket can be made at the VRT Noticeboard. --Pafsanias (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel @Pafsanias Ticket#2025062710006092: Probleme de matematica - gimnaziu si liceu.jpg and Grupuri finite Nicolae Pavelescu.jpg . Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 at 03:58:02 PM GMT+3.

The permission email was sent in Romanian and has already received a VRT ticket number. However, the files have not yet been restored. I acknowledge that some mistakes were made on my part in handling earlier uploads. I regret the extra work this has caused and want to assure you there was never any intention to defraud. My goal is only to fix those mistakes and make sure the files are properly licensed, so that time can be used for contributions rather than disputes. I would also like to take the opportunity to apologize publicly for the inconveniences caused by my inappropriate behavior towards Pafsanias. These apologies are not meant as a request for leniency, but rather as a sign of respect for the equal application of the rules and for the community spirit we all share. I am grateful for the patience shown, for the fairness with which the rules are applied, and with all due respect for the time you have had to spend addressing these issues.

Thank you for your understanding and for your assistance in resolving these matters. Claudiupt (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Convenience links File:Probleme de matematica - gimnaziu si liceu.jpg and File:Grupuri finite Nicolae Pavelescu.jpg. @Claudiupt: Neither of those pages ever got marked as having a permission pending. If you look at COM:VRT, after the 5-step process under "Email message template for release of rights to a file" is an instruction to use Template:PP. You didn't do that; likely the files would have been left in place during the VRT process if you had, but no one looking at those file pages had any way to know VRT was involved.

Nu ar trebui să fie o surpriză că durează ceva timp până când cineva procesează e-mailuri scrise în limba română. Cred ca sunt singurul administrator care cunoaște limba cât de cât, și nu sunt pe VRT. Deși este încă mult timp. As Pafsanias wrote above, you can ask for current status at the VRT Noticeboard, and it's certainly been long enough to make that a reasonable request. Most likely (from past experience) someone sent the initial permission, VRT sent a follow-up question, and they ignored it. But honestly I have no idea who they go to who has the clearance to see the VRT correspondence and reads and writes Romanian, so it could just be absurdly slow. - Jmabel ! talk 22:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel Thank you so much for the clear and detailed explanation. It really helps me understand the situation better. Language can be a barrier for me as well in fully grasping some of these issues, especially since my background is more technical than legal. I truly appreciate your patience and guidance. Claudiupt (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel Following the repeated mistakes attributed to me, I am hesitant to approach you with the request to restore the file you deleted – File:Panou Salvamont Brezoi - Țurțudan.jpg. For this file, I have obtained permission from Salvamont Brezoi, who sent an email to VRT, and I received Ticket#2025090810008638. If you consider that my request goes against the project’s policies, please feel free to ignore this message and accept my apologies. Thank you for your time and please accept my respectful regards. Claudiupt (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Panou Salvamont Brezoi - Țurțudan.jpg. Please link files, even deleted files when discussing them.

It was deleted as a duplicate of a deleted file (File:Panou Salvamont Brezoi - Țurțudan.png, deleted by User:Krd, just a different file format. I can't access the VRT queue, so I don't know the status of the ticket, but I certainly am not going to effectively overrule the VRT member responsible for the initial deletion. You can either take this up with Krd directly, or (probably better) at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. But it is very unlikely it will be considered appropriate to have both a PNG and a JPEG of the same file. If the permissions are cleared, then one or the other should be undeleted. - Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel Thank you for your reply and for the pertinent solutions. I have always appreciated the help offered by experienced users who understood that the status of administrator on Wikipedia also means responsibility. I admit that, as a beginner, I have made quite a few mistakes, but I wish to correct them and to continue as a fair contributor, especially since my errors were never made in bad faith. I believe that the role of administrators is not only to enforce the rules, but also to explain them clearly, to guide, and to provide concrete examples, so that contributors do not feel rejected or marginalized. In this way, the community remains an open, friendly, and consistent space.

With great respect! Claudiupt (talk) 19:15, 9 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)

@Pi.1415926535: I believe the user is now block evading as Daodang1131 - see attempting to speedy delete the categories Huynhthiminhngoc99 was messing with: [3], [4]. - The Bushranger (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. - The Bushranger (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Toruhoney copyvios

• Toruhoney (talk · contribs)

Repeated uploads of copyright violations, using misleading licenses or authorship info, possibly to dodge suspicion. No course correction despite numerous deletions. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior from Teuku2012

• Teuku2012 (talk · contribs)
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trade#Are_you_serious?

--Trade (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize for calling you an idiot. A little temper just got to me for a while. Teuku2012 (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination--Trade (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

thanks Teuku2012 (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

legal threats

Out of the blue and in addition to personally derogatory statements, Suono164 (talk · contribs) has threatened me to "report You to the Italian Police & judicial authorities" and "you will regret it because there will be no place you can hide from the Italian police I will send you"(see: his post on my talkpage). I had no previous contact with this account, except that I had deleted 2 of his uploads (back-cover of a 1993-book and front-cover of a 1993-book) for copyvio-suspicion (derivative), about which they had been notified (User talk:Suono164). It seems that these 2 deletions, which happened in December 2024 (!), triggered this attack. As I am (sort of) involved and don't want to block them by myself, I ask for appropriate measures per Commons:NPLT. --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done I blocked them. If they really want to make a legal complaint they have to contact the WMF. GPSLeo (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Esa Redžović

Esa Redžović (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded the copyvio image File:Izet Nanić.png for a third time now, despite it being deleted as a copyvio two seperate times (today and yesterday). The only thing thats different this time around is that the now-uploaded version is of a much higher resolution. The image exists in multiple places on the web without a free license, including here (5 Aug 2024) and here (17 Jul 2017) Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment One more warning. Yann (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Wb76127

Wb76127 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Re-created derivatives as own works (e.g., File:VB-1981-Last newspaper article.jpg) for the third time after deletions, warnings not to do that and multiple other warnings including the last one. Quick1984 (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done blocked for a month. If they continue after returning, then a much longer block is in order. - Jmabel ! talk 06:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

IP 174.196.98.14 bulk delete requesting US election maps - Another TylerKutschbach sock?

• 174.196.98.14 (talk · contribs)
• TylerKutschbach (talk · contribs)   /   Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/TylerKutschbach

A remarkable overlap between the set of files they're seeking to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Stale, so this will need to be handled based on behavioral evidence. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Also 174.200.71.119 (talk · contribs)

At the very least, there needs to be a look at DRs from 6 September onwards and then mass-bundling of them. Probably with a bulk oppose on the same grounds as every other time. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I've closed the DRs and blocked the IP based on behavioral evidence. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

And they're back...

• 2600:1009:B07E:DEAC:2051:2BF6:E79:773C (talk · contribs)

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @The Squirrel Conspiracy for completeness.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Killing of Iryna Zarutska (cropped).webm

There is some complaints about SPA's voting in this DR. Could any admins please weigh in here? --Trade (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I warned a few users, and I am watching this now. Yann (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlackVulcanX&diff=prev&oldid=1084210668

?? I am thoroughly confused how this is related to the deletion request at all?? Trade (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I warned users who only or nearly only edited this DR. Yann (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I will go ahead and semiprotect the page. Bedivere (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Involved block review - DoctorWhoFan91

DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I just blocked DoctorWhoFan91 for two weeks for "escalating pattern of disruption across several discussions related to Exey Panteleev, personal attacks, and disrupting a DR to make a point". I was already considering blocking them for their close of the Abzeronow thread above, but glibly taunting people they disagreed with in previous discussions at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logitech F710 (Exey Panteleev).jpg was the final straw, as it indicated to me that, beyond a reasonable doubt, DoctorWhoFan91 was seeking out venues to reinstigate previous conflicts.

Since I closed some of the original DRs at the center of the latest round of Exey Panteleev debate, in a way that DoctorWhoFan91 has vociferously opposed, I am immediately placing this block up for review by other admins. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think an involved block was appropriate, but you were right to block DHF91. They were derailing the discussion while feigning innocence when their true intentions were pointed out. People need to vote honestly, regardless of whether they think they’ll “win”. It’s not impossible she changed her mind in good faith but I highly doubt it given she is the most vociferous opponent of these images on Commons. I would have reported her anyway and if I was an admin I would have blocked her. Dronebogus (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I’d also like to point out that her behavior isn’t limited to this exact topic area— see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipe-tan Minna no Kisekae 2 Halloween lingerie.png, where her arguments against keeping a (really pretty innocuous) “sexy” image devolved into misandristic stereotyping and ad hominem attacks. There’s also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rayven (model), which has similar vibes of unprovoked sexism against men and arbitrary censorship justified using a vague complaint of “we already have this”. Dronebogus (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Good block, although another admin should have issued it. Regardless, good block. Bedivere (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I tried my luck around but couldn't help. I have changed this to a full block for one month, talk-page and email disabled. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 17:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I think with the discussion at meta and subsequent block there DWF should just be indeffed on Commons. It’s obvious cross-wiki forum shopping that doubles (and triples) down on the “everyone I disagree with is a misogynist” stance she’s taken. Dronebogus (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. They definitely haven't been collaborative. Bedivere (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

for the sake of transparency, I have converted the block into an indefinite one. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 15:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Bloomagiliw

I think Bloomagiliw has understood the problem and there is no gain to be bity towards this contributor. Thanks Agent 007 (talk) 17:11, 15 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.

---

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

This user is engaged in adding copyright violation by adding images including personal photos like File:Gel Alonte and daughter Gela.jpg and others from social media sites like Facebook and Instagram and adding {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} tags in licensing section to avoid deletion. Please remove the images as they are in large numbers. The user should be restricted for misusing the platform. Agent 007 (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, please just delete that one. However, are the other ones not valid?

They are all from Filipino public officials' or government offices' public and verified pages. Nobody else saw a problem with them, so please just discuss this with me rather than threatening to restrict me. For example, photos from similar pages were uploaded by other editors and have been up for months: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xyriel_Manabat_at_the_2024_Singkamas_Festival.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kyline_Alcantara_2025.jpg

I understand that that particular one may be a copyright violation (in which case feel free to remove it), but most of the ones I've uploaded shouldn't be. Be fair and reasonable. Talk to me properly about this, because this issue has not been flagged before.

Edit: It's not just me or Loibird90. Take a look at these, for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mika_Salamanca.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brent_Manalo.jpg

It's evident that a lot of Filipino editors have interpreted the text on the PhilippinesGov license to mean that as long as it has been verifiably posted by a public official, it is under Public Domain. If that's not what Wikimedia means with the license text, you guys have got to make it clearer (the license only applies to photos from government sites or whatever) rather than singling out a few users and branding us as a "problem." Because this issue will only persist and it's not limited to me or LoiBird90.

Bloomagiliw (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

In {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} at the end it clearly states → However, in some instances, the use of this work in the Philippines or elsewhere may be regulated by this law or other laws.. Lets wait for others for a 2nd opinion. Agent 007 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Reviewing admin(s), kindly look into Loibird90 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) as they also doing the same. Agent 007 (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

This site's process is quite frustrating, considering that most of us would gladly talk to Wikimedia patrollers. I have to ask, why wait until we need to be "looked into" and threatened with restriction before you say anything? Bini's group page and solo member pages, for instance, have all been updated with these photos from government officials, which have been uploaded not just by myself but by other editors. You waited until now? None of you raised this concern on my talk page before?

I am a reasonable person and a trustworthy editor. In just a year of being on Wikipedia, I've singlehandedly written multiple articles that have been granted GA status. I've coordinated with multiple photographers to successfully obtain the "This work is free" golden ticket on their work. If I had been told that these PhilippinesGov licenses, which appeared to be valid on every other page, apparently isn't valid in my uploads, I would have stopped. Like anyone, I'm spending hours of my time to improve this online encyclopedia for free. I wish y'all had better methods that didn't leave enthusiastic, hard-working editors who have a history of providing genuinely valuable information to the site feeling like crap. Bloomagiliw (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Here 'look into' refers to go through their contributions. It is to be noted that both the editors have problems with copyright violations evident from past deletions of their contributions and talk-page notices. Its upto admin(s) and the community to decide what should be done and I have only reported as what is per policy of Commons. Its a different project and rules differ quite a bit when comes to sister projects like English Wikipedia. Thank you. Agent 007 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

All of those past problems with copyright violations were resolved. I even emailed the Wikimedia Foundation regarding Commons issues. I would have appreciated having been told sooner about this especially because as you can see with Brent Manalo's and Mika Salamanca's Wikimedia files, it's not just me or LoiBird90 who was made to believe by the license text that grabbing photos from Philippine government employees'/offices' Facebook/Instagram pages is okay. This issue will only continue to persist even if I or LoiBird90 get restricted or banned on Commons. Bloomagiliw (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Lets wait for others to reply. Thank you. Agent 007 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination Agent 007 (talk) 17:18, 15 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.

User:Nigar1972

Nigar1972 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Recent mass copyvio upload after multiple warnings including the last one. There has not been a single useful contribution for the entire six months on Commons. Quick1984 (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Given the big number of copyvios, I decided to block the user for a month. Taivo (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I also mass deleted all uploads. Not a single acceptable upload. Taivo (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Um3wawy64m4

Not sure exactly what this is? Uploading spam AI-generated images? JustarandomamericanALT (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Clearly NOTHERE. Files wiped, account blocked. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Ltbdl

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

I am already involved in the ongoing deletion request for File:Killing of Iryna Zarutska (cropped).webm, so I request assistance from another administrator to redact a direct personal attack in the discussion.

The most recent !vote by Ltbdl ends with the sentence: "examine all keep voters for psychopathic tendencies".

This sentence is a personal attack on other participants and targets their mental health and motives. That language is a clear violation of Commons:Harassment and the UCoC ("Harassment includes insults: This includes name calling [...] and any attacks based on personal characteristics"). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

i've redacted it. happy? ltbdl (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I sent a strong warning. I don't mind if someone blocks this user. Yann (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Adamant1

I would like to bring attention to interactions involving Adamant1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in their user's talk page and in a CfD discussion.

On the talk page, the the following problematic comments were made to another user:

• Described another editor's explanation as a "long winded rant" and "mini-essay", stating: "it shouldn't be that hard to make a point in one or two paragraphs. Or at least put them on new lines instead of just using a wall of text that no one is going to waste the time reading." (diff)

• Referred to the CfD as "Absolutely worthless time suck but hey, whatever. That's on you" (diff)

In the CfD discussion, I referenced the Commons:Civility policy (diff). In response, Adamant1 characterized this as derailing the conversation (diff). After I commented on assuming good faith (diff), Adamant1 described the input as "pointless tone policing" (diff). When I noted that policies should not be dismissed (diff), Adamant1 stated that I was acting in bad faith and being uncivil (diff).

--Nebula84912 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Lmao. I don't have the time or energy to comment on this right now, but anyone can read our back and forth in the CfD to see that Nebula84912 was the one who instigated things and then did literally everything their accusing me of both here and in the CfD. I'd suggest a boomerang but it's not even worth that much. There really should be consequences for people reporting clearly spurious ANU reports though. I can't really blame Nebula84912 for reporting me for responding to their drama farming when there's probably not going to be any consequences what-so-ever for filing the report. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done I'm as tired of dealing with Adamant1 as anyone, but in no universe are those comments blockable. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't request for a block. Am I in the wrong place? If this is not the correct place where I should discuss disputes related civility? I tried to solve the dispute on civility before but it seems to led to nowhere. Nebula84912 (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I want to second TSC here, and advise Nebula84912 that while I'm not boomeranging this, this is well below the threshold for asking for administrative action. Also, really, "wall of text" was pretty apt. I tend to be on the verbose side, but I doubt I've ever written a paragraph that long on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the text in question wasn't too long. However, phrases like "a wall of text that no one is going to waste the time reading" are dismissive of the effort another person has put in. Such comments are not respectful and do not comply with the spirit or letter of Commons:Civility.

A more constructive and respectful approach would be to say something like, "To improve readability, could you please break this into paragraphs or put the items on new lines?" I don't believe there is any need to be so abrasive to a fellow editor, as it is counterproductive to resolving the issue constructively.

We should also remember that editors come from diverse backgrounds. There was a time when my own English was not very good, and it took me significant effort to write properly. Different editors have different levels of proficiency in English, and that should never discourage them from participating in the project. Our feedback should aim to encourage and include, not to alienate. Nebula84912 (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Jmabel: about "this is well below the threshold for asking for administrative action", given that Commons:Civility is an official policy on Commons and is reinforced by the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct, administrators should act to enforce these standards. I may not know the precise action required here, but it is evident that some administrative intervention is needed. Nebula84912 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I opened this case because I tried to resolve the dispute by discussing it first, but I was unsuccessful in communicating the importance of the Commons:Civility policy.

My original report stands on the evidence provided in the diffs. The comments in question, dismissing another editor's work as a "rant", a "lecture", and a community process as a "worthless time suck" are, in my view, contrary to the Commons:Civility policy. Dismissive and uncollaborative language hinders constructive discussion. My goal in filing this report was not to "farm drama" but to resolve the dispute on the importance of civil and collaborative discourse.

Clarification: the "long winded rant" comment was said the the CfD. (diff) Nebula84912 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nebula84912: I wouldn't say the CfD process in general is a waste of time, but at least IMO it is for something like a simple category rename. There's certainly no requirement that someone do a CfD before renaming a category like Asclepias was insinuating on my talk page. In fact, I've probably renamed a couple of hundred thousand categories at this point and litterally no one has ever cared. So its essentially a non-issue. Ergo, a waste of time to discuss. I'm of course allowed to have personal opinions about what I think is worth spending my own time doing and what isn't. I wouldn't have had a problem with Asclepias opening a CfD if they wanted to but I personally don't think it needed one. That's my prerogative. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand that there is disagreement, which is perfectly acceptable. However, the current wording seems to imply that the other editor is wasting people's time simply for stating their view. It's important that our discussion remains constructive. Civility is politeness in behavior, and Commons:Civility is an official policy of Commons. Nebula84912 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

User:越前太郎

• 越前太郎 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

After receiving copyvio warning, this user didn't stop uploading copyvio photos. See user's log. Netora (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. All contributions are already deleted. I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Block evading user

Blocked user Huynhthiminhngoc99, who has previously socked, has returned as User:SOAP Bot is not good, Thcsphuninh2006 is best - redoing the same edits. @Pi.1415926535: who blocked them before. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done blocked. GPSLeo (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Removal of speedy tag and sockpuppetry

WhereDeadSing (talk · contribs) has uploaded the image here, first listing it as their own work. Later they changed this to being an image by Lionel Hahn for Getty Images and added a creative commons license. This appears indeed to be sourced from Getty Images which means it's licensed and not free to use. So I tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio.

Nosghxbrd17 (talk · contribs) then came in to remove the speedy tag, without contesting it in any meaningful way.

From both their editing patterns, I believe them to be the same person running both accounts. I don't believe they are Lionel Hahn who is the author of the image. Also, I have not yet checked the other image uploads from these accounts.

SudoX7 (talk · contribs) is a third account which I believe to be used by the same person based on their editing patterns here and on enwiki and simple wiki.

I'm not here often so I'm not really well-versed in Commons policy. If I made some mistakes in this report, please let me know. Thanks! Atlan (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I want to clarify that I am WhereDeadSing. I am not connected to the other usernames mentioned.

I am new here and uploaded the Getty Images file by mistake. I now understand it cannot be used. Sorry for the confusion. WhereDeadSing (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

These three users are Confirmed to be the same. Blocking and tagging. --Lymantria (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Atlan; When it concerns suspicion of abuse of sockpuppets, next time it is better to turn to Commons:Requests for checkuser. --Lymantria (talk) 15:41, 18 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)

It seems that's not exactly a workable solution here. Drbogdan appears to have assumed every image from JPL is free to use. For example, this image has rights beyond just JPL; also assigned to the Max Planck Institute, UCLA, and the German Aerospace Center. This image has a rights situation beyond the standard JPL release, and this is just a vanity image of his own publication history in an unreadable format. There's dozens of space images removed for copyvio reasons linked on Drbogdan's talk page; I think there's going to need to be a manual review of the uploads. Wikibreaksock (talk) 10:20, 7 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)

• Drbogdan should be indeffed. He was banned on enwiki for a reason and that reason is clearly applicable to Commons as well. --Dronebogus (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Unfortunately I agree with Dronebogus here. This pattern is an exact duplication of the behaviours that got him CBANned on en.Wikipedia, and if he hadn’t just explained to me in response that he has neither the time nor the interest in cleaning up his messes, which right now number in the thousands, I wouldn’t have even brought it here. As it is I think this is the same mix of extremely poor editing, an unwillingness to reflect, a willingness to engage in personal attacks (which, to be clear, is what the above contextless screed about drama boards was), and most importantly a willingness to treat commons as a personal web host for dozens of now-removed personal images (link) and his personal “biography” (link) it’s pretty clear these issues will be intractable, or else some lessons would have percolated to commons from his en.wp CBAN.

In the time this thread has been active he’s posted more images using the incorrect rights template (diff diff) and continues to fully reproduce non-free descriptions (JPL's permissive policy is specifically about images, the full text recreated as descriptions is an ongoing copyvio issue which he's repeating after being made aware of it). He later fixed the rights part, but I do not understand why he is still making messes on commons given this active filing and what is certainly a backlog of hundreds of images with incorrectly labelled rights. It isn't acceptable to leave a file up for hours with the wrong rights tag, and either editors will need to babysit him or Dronebogus has the right idea. Wikibreaksock (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

New info - I don't know if any admin is intent on looking at this, but Drbogdan is apparently content to ignore the issues raised here. He is still uploading non-free images as public domain (diff), then changing the rights afterwards to JPL (diff) despite the rights in this image also being assigned to MSSS. MSSS's image use policy makes it clear this image is not free for the purposes of Commons (link).

Drbogdan is functionally, though unintentionally, a long-term vandal. He's uploaded thousands of images, hundreds of which are not cut-and-dry non-free images. This is going to continue being a timesink for editors in the way it was at enwiki. A decade plus of people asking him to fix bad editing didn't work there and being made aware of the issues appears to have had zero impact here. He continues to make messes while pretending the old ones don't exist. Wikibreaksock (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I  Support blocking.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

At a certain point, if we assume good faith, the only explanation left is incompetence.

I don't want to rush this, because there is no emergency, but unless someone (including Drbogdan himself}} can come up with a plan in the next day or two as to how Drbogdan can contribute without continuing to add copyright violations to Commons, I think an indef-block is the only solution. - Jmabel ! talk 20:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Reply - Thanks for your comments - based on my experiences over the years, wiki-culture seems to have improved in some ways since earlier times - I've encountered many, many good-faith collaborators along the way - unfortunately, a few detractors as well - seems to come with the territory - nonetheless - 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 - as before, 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 - thanks to all those who commented (esp constructively) over the years - and to all those who provided me the opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia - Wikipedia is a truly great project for the very best of reasons in my opinion - at the very least, a worthy beginning step to the responsible literature - in any case - no problem whatsoever - back to regular stuff - plenty on our plate these days - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Done User indefinitely blocked per discussion. --Bedivere (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Jake Park

• User: Jake Park (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user is engaging in LTA and abusing power on Spanish Wikipedia. He abuses librarian tools and, above all, blocks users for too long. 2.139.169.60 09:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not the right place to complain about a user's behavior on eswiki who is bureaucrat and checkuser. --Achim55 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

User:TE(æ)A,ea. not taking no as an answer over the last 48 hours

TE(æ)A,ea. (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Recently, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Epstein Files Phase 1, Part C – Contact Book Redacted.pdf, @User:TE(æ)A,ea. refused to take no as an answer to the deletion request, which was not opened by this user. Very short timeline (all within the last 48 hours) of disruptive behavior, which also easily explains it:

1. DR begins from Based5290 (not involved in this report — Mentioning only for timestamp for the start of this DR).
2. DR closed as Keep by Administrator @Bedivere.
3. TE(æ)A,ea. reverts closer with the edit summary, “Reverting absurd closure”. !VOTEs Delete in same edit.
4. Administrator Bedivere recloses DR, noting TE(æ)A,ea. did an “invalid revert of my closure”.
5. Administrator Bedivere warns TE(æ)A,ea. about not reverting closures.
6. TE(æ)A,ea. begins a new DR (3rd one on same file within 48 hours). They also add the edit summary threatening to take this to AN if the DR was closed for a third time.
7. Bedivere does not reclose the 3rd DR, but rather comments that TE(æ)A,ea. is wrong.
8. TE(æ)A,ea. adds a comment with the edit summary “Adding response to inappropriate administrator comment”.

I think it is clear TE(æ)A,ea. has disruptive and battleground behavior, is willing to ignore administrators, essentially taking a attempting to right a great wrong-attitude. They also believe anyone calling them wrong is an “inappropriate” comment. WeatherWriter (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

...why are the Epstein files listed as a work created by the US government? What is the implication here? Trade (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

...The redactions are done by the US Government? Are you implying Epstein redacted the lists himself? That's something for the file's talk page, not here since this is a report for disruptive behavior. WeatherWriter (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it might be part of the reason why the user got frustrated so i can see the relevance

My suggestion would be to simply wait to see if this is a recurring pattern or just an one-time event Trade (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I doubt that observation. The user's deletion reasoning was that it was copyrighted and that it was out of scope. Nothing regarding US gov license was mentioned or discussed by the user. WeatherWriter (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

MBC3 Fan 2022

• User: MBC3 Fan 2022 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Mushaf Thematic Division (Page 50).jpg, File:Qur'ān Thematic Division (Page 42).jpg, and File:Eriko Tamura (Eroka Shizo) Version II.jpg after block for doing so. Potential CIR issue about being unable to put together an unblock request.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months. All files need review. Yann (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Yann.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review and Restoration of Removed Contributions by User:The Squirrel Conspiracy

Hello Administrators,

I am requesting assistance regarding several of my contributions that have been removed from Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons, including files uploaded with proper VRT permissions.

User User:The Squirrel Conspiracy appears to have deleted multiple contributions that I had added, including:

- Wikipedia article "Onix Renewable" and related pages that I had created or contributed to. - Files on Wikimedia Commons uploaded with VRT permission emails and tagged with {subst:PP}.

Unfortunately, I no longer have all the URLs for the removed content, as they were deleted, but some of the affected links include:

- Wikidata item: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q136168210 - Commons files:

 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RojgaarResult.in_Logo.png
 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Divyesh_Savaliya_receiving_an_award_from_Gujarat_Chief_Minister_Bhupendra_Patel_at_GPBS_2025_Expo.jpg
 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Divyesh_Savaliya

- Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onix_Renewable

All removed contributions and files were compliant with Wikimedia copyright and content policies. The removed Commons files were uploaded legally with VRT permission emails sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

I kindly request that administrators review these actions and, where appropriate, restore the deleted content. I can provide additional verification or documentation if needed.

Thank you for your assistance. @Odder:

OnixWikiEditor (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@OnixWikiEditor: You must stop at once using Wikimedia Commons as a place for advertising services. Please read COM:ADVERT. Yann (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I've indef-blocked this problematic user. Bedivere (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Dipongkorofficial

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

Repeatedly using this platform for advertisement/self-promotion purpose only. Agent 007 (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef., was warned before. Yann (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Personal attack from Rachuri Bhanu Prakash Datta (talk · contribs)

User:Rachuri Bhanu Prakash Datta is personally attacking me, see my talk page. I don't take it seriously, but this user should be blocked. Also this user re-uploaded deleted files. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

 indef'd for direct threat against other user, which is inacceptable. --Túrelio (talk) 12:16, 22 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 block 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)

@Henrydat: The user continues with ownership issues over the user talk page assigned to communicate with them, and edit warring to create incomplete DRs like this and that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

It happened again. Instead of addressing the issue on their talk page, they question the person who raised the issue. Henrydat (talk) 18:20, 22 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)

I see rename requests of that user quite often. While I dont mind doing renames in general, the number of rename request from him give the impression he is rather careless with initial uploads. Also, the majority of requests I would classify as only minor improvements.

Another issue is that he often uploads the same image with only slight differences (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3). --Isderion (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This user is still a problem. Yesterday I turned down a requested move that would have changed perfect English grammar into a mess. His requests are primarily changing the word at to in. When filemovers turn down a request he just requests the move again hoping someone else will do it. Geoffroi 19:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• This discussion has now gone on well over two weeks. I see the user in question has not seen fit to speak for themself (Pinging @Worvandae to give them another explicit invitation to respond). If we don't hear from them in 48 hours, I think some admin needs to make a decision based on what we have so far, and either take some action or explicitly say "not done." - Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Most of this user's rename requests are unnecessary and some basically ammount to vandalism. Having requests turned down and then just repeating the request is a problem. His new rename request rationale is that the new name, with a very minor change, is "exactlier". This guy is disruptive and a net-negative for Commons, and needs to be blocked. Geoffroi 17:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
• Disruptive rename request repeated: See the history on File:Caught in a downpour on Tú Mỡ Street 14-08-2025 E1.jpg. This is vandalism. I'm thinking of just blanket declining all his requests if no admin will deal with this troll. Geoffroi 17:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. Yann (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Yann!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

IP vandal User:193.207.178.219

See here and repeated invalid rename requests. Geoffroi 23:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked multiple IP-s and protected some files. Taivo (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Now the user has been blocked again at 79.40.236.98 because of speedy requests for category redirects without special characters at Category:Sanjiro Sawaguchi and Category:Tatsujiro Sato.

Would it be possible to protect these two redirects for all non-autopatrollers? Then bots can move automatically all files that get into the redirects to the target categories with those special characters for Japanese language, also the ones that are protected for non-autopatrollers. Without the redirects, this is not possible for the bots, and files would stay in the red, deleted categories. Also, most people don’t have Japanese keyboards and can’t type those characters. Therefore, they better shouldn’t be deleted. —176.1.2.134 06:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Done, after another 2 speedy requests for those redirects, they are protected now. The user has some complete different ranges. This time it was IP 95.233.236.196. —176.1.2.134 09:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

IP socks of globally locked LTA Category:Sockpuppets of GMatteotti. They use to switch their IPs once a minute if necessary. --Achim55 (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Lhoussine AIT TAYFST

• User: Lhoussine AIT TAYFST (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:ⴰⵎⵏⴰⵢ ⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖ ⵜⴰⵙⵏⴰ ⵜⴰⵎⴳⴳⴰⵔⵓⵜ.jpg after three blocks for doing so. Not addressing concerns on user talk page like bad DR creation.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. As Yann said giving previous block: next time it will be indefinite. It is now. Taivo (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Adamant1

After reviewing this lengthy discussion, and taking into consideration that there is community consensus to indefinitely block Adamant1, I have applied such block on the following grounds (extracted from this discussion): 1) there is a pattern of disruptive behavior, with the user having a history of conflicts, incivility, noted by multiple editors; 2) the discussion is replete with examples of Adamant using improper language, insults and personal attacks (for example, "cry bully", "absolute pandering ass cry bully bull", acussations of others being "dishonest", "axe grinding", etc.); 3) despite requests and warnings from several users, including admins, Adamant has refused to drop the stick, in other words, to disengage from this and other conflicts, choosing to escalate disputes, for example, with this counter-proposal to block Josve; 4) the very clear community consensus for an indefinite block, reflecting a widespread view that Adamant1's continued editing is detrimental to the project.

I apply this block with much regret, as I think Adamant is a knowledgeable contributor, but certainly this does not excuse their persistent toxic behavior that drives away other volunteers, consuming community time and patience with repetitive disputes.

Adamant may request an unblock after six months by demonstrating a sustained understanding of these behavioral issues and a concrete plan for avoiding them in the future. Their user rights will also be removed, and they may reapply when unblocked.

I am not taking action against Pigsonthewing and Josve05a. As for the first one, a strong warning is issued in light of the recent events. Future similar conduct will certainly result in sanctions. The counter-proposal to block Josve05a is dismissed entirely as their procedure was correct. --Bedivere (talk) 00:45, 29 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.

---

Can somebody please stop User:Adamant1 from reverting my edits to my own talk page?

I have repeatedly removed posts in which he is abusive (accusing me of "playing dumb", for example); sometimes with additional abuse on the edit summaries, only to find him restoring them within seconds - at least six seven times in the last few minutes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify. I renamed File:Mabbett and Edge auction postal card Skiddaw Bank, Keswick etc - 1894 - obverse.jpg from "postcard" to "postal card" since it's an image of a postal card, not a postcard. Pigsonthewing reverted it and then removed the message I left him about it on his talk page. He repeatedly reverted me when I changed it back, removed subsequent comments about it, and all while claiming I was abusing him just because I said it didn't matter what the file was called and the whole thing seemed like nitpicking. Saying something "seems like nitpicking" isn't abusive and it's not an excuse to repeatedly remove or revert good faithed attempts to discuss the issue. It's extremely rude and un-collaborative to repeatedly revert someone while going off about how "I told you not to be abusive" over and over again. I don't see what the issue is here or why Andy has an issue with the file being renamed to begin with. It certainly doesn't warrant the way he acted.

Really, he should just be topic banned from re-naming his own uploads if he's this incapable of dealing with people when they rename his own files. It's just a super ridiculous, petty way to act over something this meaningless. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The text in the image says "post card", not "postal card", though, and given that, it would probably fall under COM:FRNOT: As a matter of principle it's best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist. Nakonana (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• I've warned both users to stop COM:Edit warring. However, this is not the first time Adamant1 has been warned about edit warring - even been blocked at least once for the same behavior. As it says on en:WP:Edit war: Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Where exactly did I claim that? I don't think I said anything about it either way, but I was told by an administrator a while ago that the number of reverts doesn't really matter to edit waring and that people at least shouldn't remove good faithed comments from their talk page. The reverts to the file are a different matter, but Andy was clearly being over confrontational and aggressive by repeatedly reverting me when I tried to discuss it on his talk page. What other way to deal with it would there have been at that point if Andy was just going to throw a tantrum about it? You know as well as I do that I'm topic banned from ANU. So it's not like I could report him. So what other options are there to deal with someone throwing a fit and repeatedly refusing to engage in a good faithed effort to resolve something? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I was addressing both of you and anticipating the likely argument. The point is that both you and Pigsonthewing engaged in repeated reverts, and that is edit warring. Right now both of you seem more focused on explaining why you were correct, or why it doesn’t count as edit warring, instead of recognizing that the back-and-forth itself is the problem. Please stop reverting and use proper dispute resolution instead.

If you are topic banned from AN/U, the correct way forward is to use other venues: discuss calmly on the other user's talk page, start a discussion on the file's talk page, or use the appropriate file move template and let another editor handle the move request. What is not acceptable is to try to force your preferred outcome through repeated reverts. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

"throwing a fit" QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

discuss calmly on the other user's talk page @Josve05a: No really? I did that and he repeatedly removed the comments. I'm not sure what your talking about with the "appropriate file move template" or whatever. Is there a way to request a file move without actually doing one? I'm more then willing to do it that way next time, but I didn't know it was an option. All I see in the tools drop down menu is "move and replace" though.

@Nakonana: Normally I wouldn't have a problem with that but as I said on Andy's talk page, technically they were called "correspondence cards" at the time and postcards were called "private mailing cards." But essentially everyone just calls the former postal cards and the later postcards for the sake of brevity. It would be totally unworkable on here to call postcards put out in the two years where they were called "private mailing cards" that. The same goes for calling postal cards "post card" just because that is printed on the top. Know one calls them that. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Know one calls them that. The post card itself calls itself post card. That is likely already grounds enough for COM:FRNOT. If you normally wouldn't have a problem with that then just leave it be because the file already had a valid name and your change would fall under FRNOT and because there's objection to the rename, so that's three reasons to not rename. If you want a third party to make the decision then use {{Rename}} and include all relevant links to all discussions regarding the rename in the renaming rationale in the designated place in the rename template. Nakonana (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Then please restore the file to its original, valid, name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you asking me? (because it looks like you are replying to me) Nakonana (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: I'm aware. But again, that's not what they were called at the time and no one calls them that now. If the card said "duck" we wouldn't rename it to "duck." That's not what the guideline says or how it normally works with file names. Your just Wikilaywer. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

If you would normally not have a problem with it then why are you being so insistent? Even if the file name would use the German word Postkarte or the Russian word открытка this would still fall under FRNOT. Your rename was more on the cosmetic side, and if there's objection to such a file move then we tend to honor the uploader's file naming scheme (especially since there's an objective reason to name the file "postcard" with the text on the card). That it is an outdated way to refer to them doesn't really matter because it's the correct term for the time in question. If you'd start to rename files that contain the name "Kiev" into "Kyiv" you'd likely also get in trouble even if "Kiev" is considered outdated, because we don't rename files to make them have slightly better looking names.

But anyway, the correct way for you to proceed from here is to either drop the stick (because you normally don't have a problem with it anyway, as you said) or to leave the decision to a third party via {{Rename}} while pointing to all relevant discussions that have been held on the matter. Nakonana (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

If you would normally not have a problem with it then why are you being so insistent? Because there's thousands of images and categories on here already for "postal cards." Including ones for postal cards printing during that time period that say "post card" on the top of it. Be my guest and do a proposal to rename those thousands of files and categories to "post card" but you can't just name one image whatever you want against the clear consensus that their called "postal cards." That's not how it works. If someone uploaded a photograph of a mountain and named it "pencil drawing of a cat" we wouldn't just let them. This is the problem with allowing people who have no experience or editing history in an area dictate things.

That it is an outdated way to refer to them doesn't really matter Yeah sure, I agree. Which is why I never said it's "outdated." What I said is that know one has ever called them "post cards" even if it's printed at the top. I'm sure you get the difference between something being outdated versus never being used at all to begin with.

The correct way for you to proceed from here No, the correct way for you and/or Andy to proceed here is to propose changing all the thousand of images and categories that currently use "postal card" to "post card" if you think that's what they should be called. I think Andy needs to drop the stick baring that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

And stalking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I voted in that because saw the DR message on your talk page. That's not "edit stalking" and people do it to me all the time. Nice try though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

This much move-warring is an abuse of file-mover rights, even if the cause be right. This shouldn't have had happened at the first time. Why stand there carrying the damned ball for five+ times. @Pigsonthewing, the warning stands equally for you as @Josve05a pointed out above. You are equally at error here. :) _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 15:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I may be at error, but I am not "equally at error", because did not repeatedly post abuse at anther editors talk page, then repeatedly revert the removal of that abuse by the editor whose talk page it was. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I've certainly had people say much worse then that I was being nitpicky and was dismissed for supposedly being defensive when I took issue with it. So I don't really see what the issue is here. I fully support you being blocked for repeatedly removing my comments, edit waring, and intentionally filing a false ANU complaint when your the one who wasn't willing to discuss things if that's how you want to be about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

"clearly being over confrontational and aggressive by repeatedly reverting me when I tried to discuss it on his talk page." No: I removed one edit which said I was "pointlessly nitpicking and controlling" and "you can't handle someone renaming a file you uploaded. Which is just stupid"; and another which said "your [SIC] playing dumb". As noted in my OP, both of these removals were repeatedly reverted, restoring the abusive comments, sometimes with additional abuse in the edit summaries.

In between, when Adamant1 made a less abusive post, I attempted to discuss the a matter with them, only for the abuse to resume. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

No, you repeatedly removed every comment I made. Including ones that didn't contain the things your citing. Again, there's nothing abusive about that and even if was that doesn't justify removing every single comment! I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I'm certainly pretty sick and tired of how low the bar on here is for what people are to allowed to file ANU reports over. So I fully sport you being blocked over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment It looks like Nakonana renamed the file back to "postcard" for some reason even though it's not the established term for similar images. Can someone, preferably an administrator, change the name back to "post card" per similar images and categories are named until it's at least discussed and we've decided either way? Otherwise I think both of them should be blocked. Nakonana for making a baseless move against the clear established naming practices and Andy for filing this. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  I fail to see why this is a hill you're so keen to die on. I'm not convinced that the uploader's original name is sufficiently incorrect to justify renaming. It certainly isn't sufficiently incorrect to justify an edit war. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The Squirrel Conspiracy I already explained it a bunch of times but "post card" isn't a used term for postal card, here or anywhere else. F2 of the guideline clearly says that files can be renamed "to change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image particularly displays." So I really don't see how me renaming the file is was an issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes I restored the original name because the burden is on you to provide a convincing renaming rationale. The burden is not on Andy since he is not the one who is requesting a rename. By moving the file back to its original name you can now use the template {{Rename}} to start a renaming request and to convince an uninvolved third party to have the file moved to your suggested name.[13] I have also opened a topic about it on the file talk page.[14] Nakonana (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Repeated renames under "harmonisation" are not justified unless files form a coherent set (COM:FR#4), and Commons policy is to leave generally valid names in place even if a slightly better one exists (COM:FRNOT). As Commons:File renaming states, "A user repeatedly renaming files under invalid reasons can be stripped of the filemover privilege. Warning: certain cases of wheel-warring—such as reversal of a preceding renaming which had a valid reason—may result in removal of the filemover privilege even for one infraction." Your actions and comments above show that you do not appear to understand or apply the file renaming criteria, which is required in order to hold the right, and the repeated cosmetic renames therefore fall under this standard. Because of this, I have revoked Adamant1's filemover permission. If you believe a rename is warranted, please use {{Rename}}. You are free to re-apply for the right later, but restoration would require a clear community consensus. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: 99% of the images and categories for postal cards on here are called "postal card." "Post card" isn't used anywhere, with file names, categories, or anywhere else. Let alone is it established. Commons:File renaming says a "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image particularly displays." So I really don't see what the issue was or why my file moving rights should be revoked when I was literally just following the guideline. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The criterion "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image particularly displays" does not apply here because the original filename "postcard" is already descriptive of the content and not ambiguous or meaningless. According to the examples on COM:FR, renaming is intended for cases like "DSC1342.jpg," "Smartphone.jpg," or other generic names that fail to convey what the image actually depicts. Your insistence that this guideline justified changing "postcard" to "postal card", as reflected in your own comment above, directly illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the COM:FR criteria. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it's not descriptive. "Postcards" always refer to privately printed cards with stamps on them. Whereas "postal cards" refer to pre-stamped, government issued cards. So in no way is ""postcard" is descriptive and yes it is ambiguous in meaning. I'm telling you that's not what they are called, how they are named, or categorized on here or anywhere else. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

No, not being 100% correct does not make a term ambiguous or meaningless. While postcard may not perfectly match the historical terminology, it still conveys the content of the image clearly. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Look, I have thousands of these things in my bedroom closet and 99% of my edits on here revolve around postal cards and postcards. The issue isn't that it's not 100% correct, it's that they are completely different things. "Postcards" and "postal cards" are printing, published, collected, talked about, written about, Etc. Etc. differently. Period. Calling both of them "postcards" is 100% ambiguous and not descriptive of postal cards. And again, I say that as someone who actually has years of experience and thousands dollars worth of both. Postal cards are considered stationery, postcards aren't. Postcards are printed privately by companies, postal cards are printed by the government. Postal cards are pre-stamped, postcards aren't. Etc. Etc. You just don't know what your talking about.

Again, this is the issue with letting people who have zero experience in the area what-so-ever dictate and control things. Now I have to deal with my file mover right being removed just because you don't know the difference between a postal card and a postcard and can't be bothered to listen to what I'm telling you. 100% F2 applies in this situation, but who gives a crap. I should lose the right anyway because you can't be bothered to do a little research or read what I'm telling you. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but the revocation is not a judgment on whether "postcard" or "postal card" is more accurate. The issue is the application of the file renaming criteria under COM:FR and COM:FRNOT. Per COM:FRNOT, files with generally valid names should be left as is to avoid unnecessary disputes. The F2 criterion applies to names that are meaningless or ambiguous (e.g., "DSC1342.jpg"), which does not apply here. The repeated back-and-forth moves, without using established processes like the {{Rename}} template, escalated into edit warring and wheel-warring. Policy warns that repeated reversions of a rename, even for a single infraction, can result in revocation of filemover rights. This is separate from the merits of the name itself. I am also not happy with how Pigsonthewing acted, so I leave it to other administrators to decide how to proceed. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I told you "post card" is ambiguous because it doesn't describe postal cards and has overlap with actual postcards. I feel like your intentionally ignoring the explanation though. Regardless, lets say I grant you that you honestly think it's not ambiguous. Cool. I honestly do as someone who mainly works in and has years of experience in the area. So really don't see how it justifies removing my renaming rights since it's honestly not a misunderstanding of the guideline. I actually think it applies based on my experience and the facts. How exactly does you disagreeing with me about if it's ambiguous as someone who has no experience in the area justify the right being removed when I cited the guideline, said how I think it applies, and have an honest disagreement with you about it (again, as someone who actually works in the area compared to you not having experience in it what-so-ever)? It's clearly not an abuse of the right just to disagree where the line is. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the term "ambiguous," but there are clear examples on COM:FR of what constitutes a meaningless or ambiguous filename. These include:

• Absolutely no information at all.
• Composed entirely of random letters, numbers, or generic words like "Flickr", "original", or "crop", which do not describe the subject of the image.
• Only information is the photographer or rights holder.
• Only information is the date.
• Only information is the location (broad), where the location is too general to identify the subject.
• Generic category rather than a specific item, such as "smartphone", "queen", or "bird".
• Acronyms or initials that do not directly identify the subject.
• Names that are coherent but do not describe the file.
• Filenames that are normally acceptable but inappropriate for the specific content.

The filename "postcard" does not fall into any of these categories. It conveys meaningful information about the image and is already generally descriptive of the content.

F3 of COM:FR covers obvious errors in filenames, such as misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, or misidentified objects. However, the page explicitly states that "This criterion does not cover moving a file from its common usage name to its scientific or technical name." By analogy, changing "postcard" to "postal card" is a shift from a generally accepted common name to a more technical or historical term, which is not covered by F3.

Renaming in this case is therefore not supported under F2 or F3, as the original name is descriptive and generally valid. The issue is not a disagreement over terminology, but whether the renaming criteria were correctly applied. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

he filename "postcard" does not fall into any of these categories. It conveys meaningful information about the image and is already generally descriptive of the content. No it doesn't because it's not an image of a postcard. It's an image of a "postal card." I'm tired of saying it, but they are different. I really don't see how "names that are coherent but do not describe the file" would apply given that it's not an image of a postcard though. Otherwise it just seems like your sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to what I'm telling you about it. Literally no one calls them postcards and they weren't called that at the time, we don't name images of them postcards, we don't categorize them as postcards, but it's a postcard and calling it one is descriptive and valid. Yeah, OK. Right. Right. Makes sense. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

You are very tenacious. Watching the image I read "POST CARD" is it not? --Lymantria (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes it says "post card", but so what? Category:Postal cards and Category:Postcards are separate category systems on here and me, as well as other members of Wikiproject Postcards, have been spending the last couple of years better organizing images of both. It wasn't even my thing to begin with either BTW. Regardless, I don't really think it would be useful or serve anything to say screw it and dump all the postal cards in with postcards. That's on me for following the exiting system though. Clearly it's more important to not hurt Pigsonthewing's feelings by renaming the file. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Once again, I really don't see why you're so dead-set on dying on this hill. You get dragged to this noticeboard at least once a month - and while some of them are spurious - the commonality between the ones that aren't is that you are incapable of dropping the stick. You burn lots of time and goodwill fighting round after round even after it's clear that the issue isn't going to get resolved the way you want, and if you spent your time on just about anything other than fighting, you'd wind up here a lot less often, and people would be more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you do show up here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm mostly still here because the right was removed. I'm fine dropping the ANU report on my end and touching grass for a while until the administrator board discussion is worked out though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy. Calling oneself "Adamant" does not require one to make every possible disagreement of nuance with well intended other users into an epic life-or-death battle. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

And now this, on my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

{{Totally cry bully. Screw this project anyway. I didn't even know the right could be removed for edit waring, didn't even warning about it, but who cares? Take the thing away but don't remove it from Pigsonthewing even though he's equally at fault here. Absolute pandering ass, cry bully bull #$%$#. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Given either of those comments, surely the only question left is how long your block ought to be? Even ignoring any issues of edit-warring or file moves, this behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I struck the comment out since I agree it was probably in bad taste. To bad you weren't willing to do the same when I took issue with this comment about how I was doing "make-work playing at adminship." I do love how your always fine jumping on any random ANU complaint to try to get me blocked but can't be bothered to keep your own bad attitude in check in the meantime though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• Striking the comment out after my complaint of it hardly changes anything! That's just a hollow pretence of an apology, knowing that you're going to have some penalty imposed otherwise.

This thread is about your behaviour, not anyone else's opinions of your behaviour elsewhere. You are a nasty, vindictive person and should not be editing here. You had a reasonable dispute with PotW over a matter that is obscure and subtle, one where you could have explained what the issue was, and how it makes a difference in the world of philately (even if I still don't think it passes FRNOT). But you didn't, because you never do and you always have your unshakeable faith that your opinion is absolutely correct and that all other editors are merely here for you to abuse. So instead you go straight to edit-warring and really excessive abuse of PotW and then any other editor who doesn't take your position. If you can't stop behaving like that, you shouldn't be here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

You could have explained what the issue was, and how it makes a difference in the world of philately @Andy Dingley: You mean like this whole thing on his talk page where I did literally that? It's not my problem that he repeatedly remove the discussion. It's you don't know that or that I didn't go "straight to edit waring" since I've said I discussed it and he just removed the comments multiple times now. That's the problem with people like you. You seen the screen name and make assumptions without bothering to read the actual discussion or research the issue before commenting because you don't care about the actual issue. Your just in it to be petty and axe grind. You can't be bothered to write a single comment that's not insulting or based on what actually happened if your life depends on it for some reason but I'm the nasty, abusive, vindictive one. Sure Andy. It's hilarious how I blocked for harassment just for calling you an opportunist (even though you clearly are one) but then it's totally fine for you to write super insulting messages like that one. You really can't make this crap up. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

"I didn't go 'straight to edit waring' "—Yes, you did. You only posted on my talk page after you renamed the file for the second time. And while edit warring you even said "I just renamed the image again. So I guess this is a non-issue". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: My understanding of edit waring (and what I've been told by administrators before) is that two edits doesn't usually qualify. Especially if they are done in conjunction with leaving a message about it on the person's talk page. Otherwise people could never revert anyone who reverts them. Since it's technically two edits. You'd have to agree that's not how things work on here. I'm carious though, what exactly did you do to resolve the issue on your end though? Did you message me about it? No. Did you respond to my messages? No. Did you stop reverting me and start a conversation about it on the files talk page? No. So literally nothing huh? Go figure. But I'm apparently the devil incarnate if I revert you twice and leave a message on your talk page explaining it. Weird how that works. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

"You'd have to agree that's not how things work on here."—I would not.

I have already explained, elsewhere on this page and with diffs, that when I did try to engage with you to explain why I do not agree with your edits, I was met with (further) abuse.

You continue to use falsehoods to try to spin what happened in your favour. It won't wash. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, your not any more honest then Andy Dingley. We'll have to just agree to disagree. I appreciate that you couldn't cite anything you did on your end to try and resolve the problem though. And no I wouldn't call reportedly removing the discussion while crying "abuse!!" over and over engaging or explaining why you don't agree with the edits. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

"you couldn't cite anything you did on your end to try and resolve the problem"—"I have already explained, elsewhere on this page and with diffs, that when I did try to engage with you to explain why I do not agree with your edits" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Cool you wrote one or two extremely short comments that didn't address the problem or deal with it and then repeatedly deleted the conversation when I tried to reply. Wow, you did the absolute basics to justify reporting me to ANU instead of putting any actual effort or discussion into it. Good for you. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: could you please explain what difference you see between "postcard" and "postal card"? I tried to check that with the Oxford English dictionary, and the entry "postal card" is apparently declared a synonym of "postcard". Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I've explained it add nauseum in other comments both here and other places. So it's not really something I feel like resaying. Read my past comments. Honestly, I don't really care either way myself but they have been categorized, named, and treated differently on here for years. So I'm just following the exiting system. I didn't know that would lead to be treated like the literal devil though. My bad. Really, F the exiting system that's been in existence for years because the of Oxford English dictionary. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

If it's already been explained in detail, perhaps a courtesy link to that would be helpful to anyone who hadn't been following such earlier discussion, thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy quote from this comment: Postal cards are considered stationery, postcards aren't. Postcards are printed privately by companies, postal cards are printed by the government. Postal cards are pre-stamped, postcards aren't.

If it's a distinction that is commonly unknown and often leads to misunderstandings and Adamant1 doesn't want to waste too much time repeatedly explaining it, he could consider saving a brief explanation of the difference on his userpage and then link to it whenever the question comes up. This way he wouldn't need to waste time and people would still get an explanation. Nakonana (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I did explain it on Andy's talk page several times but he just removed the comments and claimed I was being abusive. So...It wouldn't have helped in this case anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

This is untrue, as this diff shows. I continued the discussion, and only removed it from my talk page after being told "It's not on me that your [SIC] playing dumb just to get your way." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Anyone can look through your talk page history to see that you repeatedly removed the whole discussion instead of just removing the one or two comments that you thought were abusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like anyone is really arguing that adamant was wrong on the central issue regarding the filename. To Grand-Duc et al., it's right there in en:postcard and en:postal card. Sources e.g. the USPS, which says at the top Stamped cards, called postal cards prior to 1999, refer to mailing cards issued by the Postal Service with postage stamps imprinted on them. Postcards refer to privately printed and sold cards that require a stamp for mailing. Yes, the words look similar, but so do different species of the same genus, yet we don't consider moving to the correct species a small change.
We do manage an educational resource here, so there's certainly no benefit in moving it back to the less precise name (even if it's just a small amount imprecise vs. very imprecise). But let's say Andy wasn't aware of the difference, assuming the terms are similar enough. Here's how it should've gone: (a) adamant moves it, (b) andy contests the move, (c) discussion somewhere, which can always escalate as needed. Instead, both edit warred. Trout for both on that, but I don't see singling out Adamant for misuse of filemover.
Where things took a turn was edit warring with someone on their own user page, which is always a bad idea and is going to cast everything else in a different light because it's such an egregious thing to do. Adamant, deserved or not you have a reputation for not letting things go. Here's where things stand now: because of this reputation and because of the edit warring with Andy on his own user page (and, as I write this, the diff linked by Andy above), you've effectively -- socially, if nothing else -- forfeit the original argument. Continuing to argue is probably just going to dig deeper and eventually get you indeffed. I disagree with removing the filemover right over this, support a trout for both over the initial edit war, and suggest letting other people sort out the postcard/postal card business for the time being. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Rhododendrites - thank you for the clear simple explanation of the terms. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I get it as I'm fortunately acquainted with a philatelist (in German, it'll be Postcard = "Postkarte" and postal card = a kind of "de:Ganzsache" I think. But weirdly, the latter interwiki goes to en:Postal stationery). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

"It doesn't seem like anyone is really arguing that adamant was wrong on the central issue regarding the filename." Yes it does. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: That's certainly a fair comment. I removed a couple of messages from my talk page a few years and was roundly attacked for it. If I'm remembering correctly, even by an administrator and from what I remember was told not to remove comments from my talk page again. So it seems to be an issue. That said, I guess it's on Andy if he wants to be that way. I know some things on here only apply to some people in certain situations but not other people in other ones. I was basing the reverts on previously being called out for removing comments from talk page though. I don't care either way but it's not my issue if one administrator and/or user has a particular problem with something but then others don't. The endlessly shifting standards based on who's participating in the discussion at the time really doesn't help things. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Late getting here, replying mainly to a couple of the last few remarks:

• I think Rhododendrites has it exactly right. (BTW, I'm a former philatelist, still have a decent collection but haven't added to it in decades.) Which is also to say that on the fact of the distinction in terms, Adamant is correct, though not so on how he handled this. There was no emergency here: the name was wrong, but not hideously wrong, this did not need to be handled by what amounted to fighting. Conversely, I really cannot make sense of Andy's current position on the naming itself. Andy, are you disagreeing with Adamant1, Rhododendrites, and (now) me on the distinction between "postcard" and "postal card" or are you saying there is something else at issue here?
• @Grand-Duc I suspect the reason Ganszache is mapped to Postal stationery is to include things like what the British call aerogrammes and Americans usually call airletters. I believe those also fall under Ganszache. But I believe there are also some non-postal Ganszachen; it's one of those things where the words in the two languages don't line up neatly.

- Jmabel ! talk 01:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems needed clarify that the central issue is not which term, "postcard" or "postal card," is more technically correct. Under COM:FR, the question is whether the original filename is sufficiently misleading or ambiguous to justify a rename. Furthermore, the repeated uncivil tone in some of comments on talk pages and edit summaries has not yet been addressed. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File talk:Mabbett and Edge auction postcard, Skiddaw Bank, Keswick etc - 1894 - obverse.jpg. You have three people saying that there's a difference and it's one that matters. Two of us are collectors. I have 7 years and thousands of dollars on my side. Yet on your side, there's Pigsonthewing. Someone who's only experience in the area is uploading a single file and who's arguing the three of us are wrong because of the title of an eBay listing. Honest question, which one out of the two of us is being more unreasonable and uncollaborative here? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Put differently, a filename can be technically imperfect without being ambiguous. The guidelines define ambiguous as a name that prevents a reasonable reader from understanding what the image depicts without additional context, and they make this distinction explicit with examples to prevent unnecessary renames based on minor technical differences rather than actual confusion or misidentification. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I really don't get the hang up about it your end since I've explained it pretty thoroughly but it's not a "minor technical difference." You repeating that it is doesn't make it one. It's the difference between a car and a truck or van. All three are vehicles but it would be super weird and disingenuous to say it's a small difference that doesn't matter in file names. Know one would argue a photograph of a car should be named "bus" just because both have engines and a steering wheel. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Someone who's only experience in the area is uploading a single file. A blatant falsehood. How much longer is this going to be allowed to continue? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Adamant1 is featured on various noticeboards on a regular basis, recently also at UCoC enforcement, has been previously blocked, and may be this is about time for a long-term or indefinite-duration block. If the user can not learn how to work collaboratively, they should not be welcome here.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I might be thinking about a different user, but didn't you and a couple of other Russian users on Wikivoyage recently discuss me in a rather insulting way and imply I should be indefed over the whole thing with categories for Russian monuments? And now look, your advocating for exactly that. Go figure. Really bringing out the best of Commons here. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure. You are right, everybody else is wrong. I am not Russian btw. Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Good to know you admit it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• If you've recently been discussed by a whole different group as someone maybe justifying an indef block, then do you think that makes the case here weaker for an indef block? Because I'm pretty sure most of us would see it as making it a stronger case. This isn't some one-off event because it happens to have been on your favourite subject, it's a pervasive feature of all your editing here, and all your interactions with every different group of editors. Wherein the common factor is you. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: No because it's not a project I contribute to and I've never interacted with Ymblanter or anyone else involved in the discussion in my life. It's not my issue that random users of other projects that I don't talk to or have anything to do with are obsessed with me for some reason. Really, they have spent way more time complaining about Pigsonthewing then me. So it's not really the argument you think it is. Ignorance is bliss though or it's at least low effort fodder for you to continue the axe grinding. That said, I fully support Pigsonthewing being blocked because a bunch of people on another project have a massive issue with him if you really want to go there. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I am sure I interacted with you on Commons before, and I am sure the interaction was unpleasant for me, but I do not remember what it was, and I am not going to look for the diffs now. Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember interacting with you on here but it's possible we exchanged a couple of messages years ago. Who knows. It's a side thing to (and has nothing to do with) the comments on Wikivoyage by you and other users about me though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

What I said on the Wikivoyage is exactly what I say here: That you are on the edge of being indefblocked. This is just a statement of a fact. If the community fails to indefblock you, UCoC enfporcement will do. Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

You think I really care at this point? Trust me, the project needs me more then I need it. There's way to many problems on here that will never be dealt with because your to busy with petty in fighting and to captured by Kremlin shills and other paid actors to make the site actually usable and worth contributing to. So I could really care less at this point. I made my mark and have mostly accomplished what I wanted to. That's all I really care about. Sucks for you guys that its essentially 1930s Germany on here though. But I'm happy to wash my hands of it if that's the outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: What's the usual threshold for something like this to pass and how many votes does it need? I assume there would need to be more of both then with a normal block given the seriousness of the action. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Administrators usually assess the weight of arguments and overall consensus rather than requiring a numerical threshold. In clear-cut cases, any admin can review the diffs and comments provided above and act immediately, effectively bypassing the formal "vote" if they feel it suffices, so it is hard to set a fixed threshold. The principle is that stronger agreement is expected for more serious actions, but exact numbers are flexible. What matters is whether the community discussion shows broad support for the proposed remedy. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: Cool. Thanks for the information. Just an FYI, but I do appreciate the advice you gave me and had planned on finishing reading the rest of the guideline whenever I had the time. I'm actually kind of glad you did the proposal because the U4C case has been stressing me out quit a lot and hopefully this can settle it whatever ends up happening. I'll just be happy for it to be over whatever the outcome. So whatever. Just as long as it's done fairly, based on the guidelines, and results in whatever is best for the community. That's all I care about. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposed administrative actions

In order to avoid this matter being discussed endlessly without resolution, I am starting these two votes here so that the community can decide on the appropriate administrative actions. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to vote on any of this; a vote is unnecessary and this is not a democracy. Admins are given the tools and discretion to use them for a reason.

Not only has the egregious matter which I raised at the beginning of this section not been dealt with, but the abusive behaviour continued—on my talk page and here, targetting me and others—after I opened this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Adamant1 (vote and discussion)

Given Adamant1’s repeated instances of uncivil conduct toward other contributors, and considering that at least one of their prior blocks was only for short-term edit warring, an indefinite block is warranted. As Adamant1 themselves suggested, previous sanction does not appear to have had a corrective effect, since the pattern of incivility has continued despite warnings, in violation of the Universal Code of Conduct as well as basic collegial courtesy. An indefinite block would serve to prevent further disruption and uphold a collaborative editing environment. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Vote and discussion

•  Support as proposer. This vote concerns their repeated incivility and edit warring. The removal of the file mover user right (which was later restored per discussion on COM:AN) was not intended as a punitive measure, but reflected my belief that the user was not competent to hold that right. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Not for the edit-warring here specifically, but for their long-running approach to all other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support in view of my comments above. As someone said, Adamant1 seems to be in conflict with every single administrator, and therefore nobody would take action against them. Now it the call of the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support there were many final warnings in the past. Now there is the point where another final warning does not make sense. GPSLeo (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Not to blame you or anything, but you think the U4C case that you filed really help desculate things or maybe it just came off as needlessly antagonistic and just upset me to the point of making it that much harder to get along with people on here? There never seems to be any reflection your guys side about how the way you treat me doesn't solve anything and just makes the situation worse. Seriously, how do you expect me to get along with you guys when your endelss doing crap like that and won't just drop the stick or leave me the hell alone about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Support per nom.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support The nonsensical counter proposal below makes this finally convincing; there sadly appears to be no understanding why the behaviour is problematic. --Krd 19:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Krd: Do me a favor and read through the discussion on the Administrator board about this. I said there that the edit waring was wrong. But it was dealt with by receiving a warning and me saying I wouldn't do it again. The counter proposal below this is in response to Josve05a not accepting the consensus in the original discussion that a warning was an adequate way to deal with it. It has nothing to do with me not accepting responsibility for my side of it. Again, I already did that on the administrator board and it was dealt with there. He only opened this because of his unwillingness to accept that the removal of the file moving privilege was reverted, which is what the counter proposal is for. Not because I don't think I did anything wrong here. But this is essentially forum shopping because he didn't get the result he wanted since the issue was already dealt with in the other administrator board. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Support per nom. --Lymantria (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support per nom. Yann (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing (vote and discussion)

In the case of Pigsonthewing, the main concern is edit warring. While this conduct does not reflect a broader pattern of incivility comparable to Adamant1, the repeated reversions still disrupt normal editorial processes. A temporary block may be an appropriate proportional response, intended to reinforce the need for dispute resolution through discussion rather than edit warring. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Vote and discussion

•  Oppose The user has not been sufficiently warned, and there is no prior history of such behavior. Nevertheless, I am starting this vote to ensure a fair process. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose as for Adamant1. The major issue here isn't about edit-warring of this specific case. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't think Pigsonthewing deserves to be sanctioned anymore then I do. At the end of the day this a pretty minor issue that's only escalating because Josve05a is upset that his removal of the file moving right was reverted. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
• I do not think a block is needed. But there should be a clear warning not to engage in such edit wars again. GPSLeo (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose per above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Neutral An immediate block for edit warring (for both users) would have been the right thing to do. Days later, it does not make much sense anymore. On the other hand, the very experienced Andy should have known that what he was doing is unacceptable and it seems he deliberately crossed the line. --Lymantria (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Counter proposal

I'm proposing Josve05a be temporary blocked for removing my file moving privileges for reasons that were clearly invalid. Then failing to drop it and get the point when me and several users explained the difference to him between postcards and postal cards. The proposal for an indef block above this is just a continuation and escalation of that. He's just being retaliatorily because the removal of the file moving right was reverted.

I'll also note that I had absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with Josve05a until we got into a disagreement on the Village Pump a few months ago about AI artwork. He's subsequently been involved in essentially every minor issue I've gotten into. As well as trying to stir up drama and get me sanctioned on Meta for no reason. Josve05a says the proposal for an indef is to stop the ANU complaint from going on endlessly. He and the other couple of people who are unwilling to drop it are the ones continuing it. His proposal does nothing but causes more drama and it would have died out otherwise. There's clearly some harassment and abuse of the role to intimidate me because of the original disagreement going on here.

(vote and discussion)

•  Support as proposer. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ridiculous proposal, just illustrating my comments above about Adamant1's nature and why they can't edit here. It is entirely unreasonable to treat every enforcement against them as a particularly personal slight, requiring the admin to be defrocked for their hubris. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

You say that but then his justification for removing the file mover right was that I didn't read the last section of the guideline about how Stwards can move files on multiple projects. So it certainly seems personal to me. Either that he's just completely incompetent. Take your pick. He should be blocked to avoid it from happening again regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose. We don't ban here, the sanction for improper use of administrative tools is removal of those tools, not blockage, and this seems like petty revenge.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Sorry, I meant block. Not that I expect you to support it anyway, but I at least wanted you to know what I actually meant. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose. Wheel-warring should not happen. My only strong, disagreement with what he did was the asymmetry, because if it was about wheel-warring, clearly both sides were equally guilty, but that is certainly not a blocking matter. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: What's the appropriate way to deal with Josve05a not accepting the consensus on the Administrator board that a warning was fine and forum shopping to try and get a different result then? Because I don't think doing the de-admin process would go anywhere or is justified. But if a normal user did the same thing it would be procedurally closed on it's face and they would be warned or blocked. So what are my options here? Just give him a free pass to repeatedly take the thing to different forums until he gets result he wants because he's an admin even though he was already reverted and told to drop it once already?

This is super unfair to me and people who participated in the original discussion who said a warning was enough if nothing else. If anyone should accept the consensus and drop it when asked to an administrator should. So what other options are there to deal with it besides a block? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Josve05a dislikes the consensus but is abiding by it. I'm not sure what here you think constitutes forum-shopping, but I've certainly had a few times that I had a strong enough disagreement with an outcome that I started a discussion elsewhere (I believe always linking the original discussion, but I can't swear I never failed to do that). If I lose on the second try, I abide by the consensus, and I expect the same of Josve05a. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose It is said that attack is the best defence, but not in this case. No block for such action as Josve05a did. --Lymantria (talk) 20:17, 28 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.

Copyright violation

Please deleted below uploads. None of them are uploader own work.

Special:Contributions/Mehrabpr. [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not sufficient to assert "None of them are uploader own work"; please provide evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Please create a regular bulk deletion request, so that everyone can discuss it. Taivo (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences: Your signature seems needlessly complicated. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mehrabpr. Yann (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Andreasc2000 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Andreasc2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Please block this user: Uploaded multiple copyrighted files in the past few days (which have since been deleted). May try to upload more copyvios. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Yann warned Andreasc. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Arn0 dugge

• Arn0 dugge (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - reupload of copyvio logo after warning - Jcb (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Not done Warned them for the re-upload. A block is not necessary at the moment IMO Gbawden (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Gbawden: I think you posted the wrong standard warning to their talk page, your warning doesn't seem to make sense for what this user did. Jcb (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• @Jcb Doh. Thanks Gbawden (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Grevasion

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

User exclusively uploads pornographic copyvios Dronebogus (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as VOA, NOT HERE. Yann (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Newqoreyaaalogag

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

Newqoreyaaalogag has been adding a lot of categories about the size of women's breasts; I came across this because of this edit on one of my photos. I can't specifically say these are wrong, but I do think they are inappropriate and, in particular, inappropriately objectifying. We do not do similar categories on the size of people's hands, biceps, heads, etc.; this seems only to happen to portions of the anatomy that are heavily eroticized. (For the record, I'm not happy with the prior category there either, Category:Female human breast size, added some years ago by Albedo, but I didn't notice it at the time.)

This is not necessarily entirely an issue about this particular user, and I'm not necessarily asking for a block; I could have taken this to a different venue, but this user seems to be "on a roll" with this, including a lot of category creation, and I think this needs to stop. - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I reverted a couple of edits, and added a warning to their talk page. Yann (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The entire category tree is most likely rather useless because

• a) categorization is based on wild guessing,
• b) a whole lot of people (including women!) have no idea how cup sizes are determined so that the wild guesses will likely be extremely inaccurate,
• c) there are no globally standardized cup sizes so that a cup E in the UK is called cup DDD in the US (see [15]),
• d) the category is misnamed in that it claims to be about "breast size" when in fact it is about "bra cup size" (of an unknown country),
• e) the category makes random medical diagnosis (like gigantomastia) on living, identifiable individuals (and is misnaming the medical condition to top it off: Breast hypertrophy).

And that's without even getting into the whole objectification issue. Nakonana (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I apologize if it seemed objectifying, but size ctegories were actually already present. I merely tried to expand upon the previous categories of that nature. But seeing the above reasoning I understand and am concurring with the rationales presented. Thanks for the feedback and enlightening me on its controversial / sensitive nature. Newqoreyaaalogag (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I have self-reverted all my edits, so this issue is resolved now. Newqoreyaaalogag (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Bidgee copyright trolling

This user has demanded payment through Pixsy, for photographs that they've have free licensed on this site. They demand we pay $3000. This user needs to be stopped! Gto2567 (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended content

And you and cohorts need to be stopped doing license infringements. If you didn't pay attention to en:Creative Commons license or other en:FOSS terms for whatever reasons, then it's on you. Pay your learning fee, feel free to (try to) negotiate a reduction, but trying to put the blame elsewhere will not work. Thank you. Grand-Duc (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC) // EDIT 2025-09-24 GD Lest the following comment seem an excessive reaction, it should be noted that at the time it was written the now-edited remark above included the phrases, "If you're too dumb or inattentive to pay attention" and "shut up your aggressive tone." - Jmabel ! talk 02:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC) wow, how rude!! You must be there friend to defend such disgraceful behaviour over a minor error they gave no notice to fix. We had a apprentice who made a minor mistake. Bidgee clearly uses this as a business model and must be dealt with. Gto2567 (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC) It's still up to the supervisor of a trainee to check for errors. You fail at it, you pay for it. Furthermore, you're claiming that a rights holder has to get stopped, but you're not offering any more details about the case whatsoever: no link to the Bidgee image, no company name, no statement where and how it was used... FYI, omitting the creator's name or wrongly crediting "Wikipedia" instead is not a "minor mistake", but a serious violation. A minor one would be to state the license wrong like saying "Creative Commons", but not specifically which version, for instance. True "minor" violations aren't fined with 3000$, that looks more like a kind of complete copyfraud (meaning: no reference to the actual creator and claiming "all rights reserved" on the publication). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC) @Grand-Duc This is definitely not a proper tone to respond. I suggest you to retract your statements and/or rewrite them properly. Bedivere (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC) Seconding Bedivere here. @Grand-Duc: You're not an admin, but you are an experienced enough user that you should know not to take that tone with people who come to a board like this. - Jmabel ! talk 04:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC) I don't think Bidgee is doing this as a business. I'm not quite sure I understand or even like that he's charging for images (if this is, indeed, what he is doing) but he may be within his rights. I probably gave a very negative viewpoint of Bidgee below as we've had run-ins, so I feel I must correct the record. Bidgee is (was?) an excellent contributor to all aspects of the Wikimedia movement, and I would not in any way support punitive actions against him. He is the last person I know of who would want to harm any Wikimedia project. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC) I notified Bidgee --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC) Which are the images involved here? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC) And on which page/site where there image(s) used? Was there any good-faith attempt to attribute or follow the free license? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC) It wouldn't be a page on a Wikimedia project, as our technology links back to the image page and that is long-established as being adequate to meet any CC-by requirements. If the image was uploaded with an incorrect licence, that's a different problem and would be on the uploader, rather than the user. It would be a trickier legal case to then hold a user liable for events dependent on the actions of a 3rd party uploader. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC) (I'm asking which website/page Gto2567 used the image on, not which wiki-article it was used on. As to find out if the usage was commercial in nature or not.) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC) after how I was treated, I will not disclose our site or business. How can you allow such threats such as this money grab over a minor mistake Gto2567 (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC) Note: Since we have not identified the photo in question or the usage in question, and as I do not think Bidgee discloses their real name here, I have removed a link to an external document which includes a real name. Still happy to review/comment per what I said below, but I understand if the repellent welcome you received dashed any hope of support here. — Rhododendrites talk |  00:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Bidgee has been very open about who he is on Wikipedia, and has disclosed his name in the past as part of the WMF Australia chapter. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Did not know. You're welcome to undo my removal. — Rhododendrites talk |  00:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC) There is no need to do this. It's just not much of a secret is all. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC) So, we can't even verify if the image in question is even hosted here on Commons nor how it was used by you? Not sure what you want us to do here, unless you're able to show cause for administrative action, as User:Rhododendrites explained below. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC) So you want to protect a grifting leech who is violating the copyleft trolling policy? 1.129.111.134 00:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC) That is jumping to conclusions. There is absolutely no clear indication in any of the above that Bidgee has in any way violated the copyleft trolling policy, let along anything to justify characterizing them as a "grifting leech". - Jmabel ! talk 04:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC)  Comment, perhaps this issue is related to these two discussion here User talk:Bidgee#Your pictures on the website www.hellomondo.com and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/08#Concern about CC-licensed uploads used for repeated legal claims. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC) If it is (and I understand that it may not be), then this is not even anywhere near copyright trolling. If someone publishes copyrighted images and refuses to acknowledge the source, there cannot be a much more blatant sort of copyright violation. - Jmabel ! talk 04:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC) First, can some admin take a look at Grand-Duc's replies above and determine if they should be responding to requests here? Second, Gto2567 we need proper context to comment. Link the photo and your usage of it. What steps have you taken to try to resolve this issue, if any? Like any image hosting site, we cannot control how copyright owners enforce licenses. What we have control over is what we choose to host. So we cannot intervene with Pixsy, but if (and that's a big if) it is abusive (see Commons:Copyleft trolling), then we can choose not to host such photos moving forward. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC) What is going on with that guy? He has been passive-aggresively taking his bat and ball and gone home, now he's decided to charge for photos? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Your the best Chris! He hated that you better at category and photos than him! Hope he get banned for life. 49.186.196.63 00:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Whoa! I'm not advocating for this, and nor do I think that my photos were any better than his. Bidgee's photos are vastly superior to the ones I take, and Bidgee has many good ideas about categorisation. I don't think I want to encourage or even suggest he be banned. Bidgee is an excellent Commons contributor. I just don't like some of the way he does things, but I am not in any way anti-Bidgee. You can dislike aspects of a person but still see they are, by and large, excellent contributors. I'm sure he feels the same about me. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Wait, you can charge money to people to post images here? why the eff have i been doing this for free?? :/ need a better agent... Stemoc 02:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC) @Stomac: an awful lot of your recent posts here have been at least very close to trolling. Unless you are actively trying to get blocked, I suggest you knock it off. - Jmabel ! talk 04:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Most of the above is a bunch of vituperation in various directions, and warnings from and to various people to knock off the vituperation. There is no substantive accusation against Bidgee, just an accusation that he threatened to sue the owner of some unspecified website for making unspecified use of an unspecified photo. From what little evidence there is, it may simply be a case of Bidgee pursuing damages for a blatant copyvio, which would be entirely in his rights.

That, said, if there was substance to the original complaint, any intelligent discussion was headed off by a non-admin with no obvious connection to the matter making rather abusive remarks to the complainant and driving them away from the discussion, and by other users (mostly IPs) being comparably abusive toward Bidgee. I'd have no objection if some other admin wants to pursue some blocks or other sanctions of the various disruptors.

 Not done No administrative action taken. If there is something substantive here, start a new thread. & thanks to Chris.sherlock2 for suggesting I come back and close this. - Jmabel ! talk 05:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to the user who contacted me privately to inform me of this unfounded allegation.

I will keep this brief, since I’m making this comment during an unpaid break at work.

I do not use Pixsy to deal with any licensing infringements, I do not have and have never held an account with them. I have in the past requested for those who fail to follow the Creative Commons license requirements to address them, only in extreme cases I will take it to a copyright lawyer.

The OP is either lying or is being duped (fraud). I would like to know more, since there would be stolen identity fraud if it is a real claim. Bidgee (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Since there's a closing mention, I don't know whether any edit is still needed; nevertheless, I rewrote my comments above. Still, an individual who's, by all appearances, representing a company ("They demand we pay[..]"), finding the ANU board (instead of the help desk or village pump) with his first edit after registration on the same day and leveraging accusations that also look by all appearances as a try to shift blame will IMHO never become a contributor that can participate in building a good media repository. I am aware that it may be usual to express denials or refusals in a roundabout way in English-speaking regions, that's at least the content I recall from essays about different company cultures I read in media outlets over the years, but calling out ineptitude still felt right. Or do you want to bother with a new guest who's waltzing in, claiming having suffered some torts and asking for punitive measures in the third sentence they ever wrote? This behaviour is much much more closer to classical internet trolls populating the commentary sections on news outlet sites or social media offerings than to people genuinely requesting assistance. Last but not least, there weren't any indications whatsoever of Bidgee engaging in intensive defence of his IP rights on his talk page. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m a bit weirded out that one of the anons knew that I had a bit of a dispute over categories with Bidgee. Something didn’t seem quite right. Whatever animosity or troubles I have with Bidgee, he doesn’t deserve whatever these folks are dishing out. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s all a bit strange. Still waiting in them returning to address they false accusations but not holding my breath. Bidgee (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I also had such a case some years ago where an organization wrote me that a copyright lawyer on behalf of a large photo agency demands money from them for using a photo I made. They never responded after I wrote that I do not work with these agency or lawyer. But they could also not confirm that they really used my photo and not the one of someone else looking very similar. GPSLeo (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I hope you are OK Bidgee and this didn’t take you away from work too badly. Despite our differences, you have done a lot for Wikimedia and I know of a mutual friend you once looked after when others were being horrid to him. You’ll always have my respect for that. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

User:KainanCity CP

they says a employee of a city office. but, we don't verify it (COM:UPOLICY). is it correct? eien20 (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Eien20: Convenience link KainanCity CP

I am not sure what you are asking. If you are asking for verification of what someone says on their user page they do for a living, no, we do not normally verify that. Is their some situation in which you believe they are doing something that would be invalid if that claim were not true? - Jmabel ! talk 20:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't verify they are city officers. e.g. File:Kainan-city-streetscape.jpg is same as [16], File:Kainan-city-sakuas-roadside-station.jpg is same as https://www.instagram.com/p/CwpBi3lRcRG/. is they a city office really? --eien20 (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Eien20: I don't understand why the statement on their use page matters. It would be very odd for someone to claim a job they don't have and declare a non-existent conflict of interest, but even if they did, a conflict of interest lets them do less, not more.

If they are (as they apparently are) uploading copyrighted materials previously published without evidence of a free license (in this case, as "own work"), then it does not matter who they are employed by, they still need to go through the same COM:VRT process as anyone else. Most likely they are legitimate here, though, because they are uploading higher-resolution versions than what was published, or at least than what we know was published.

I see you did not notify them of this discussion on their user talk page. I will do so now. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry for the inconvenience. I believe that they are a authorized being. this account provide files is provide under CC-By v4 even though their website is not provide under CC-by v4.0 ([17]). --eien20 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Tosurasit

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

This user has a pattern of placing speedy deletion tags, such as {{No source}}, on files, particularly those from offline sources, without providing a rationale when questioned. This behaviour has been observed on Thai Wikimedia sites, where the user, under the username Rameshe999, was permanently banned for mass deletion nominations. The user has also operated several sockpuppet accounts, as documented here. It is requested that their edits be reviewed and potentially reverted. --Wutkh (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Another thing I just noticed, they tagged {{No source}} to their sockpuppet accounts' photo (e.g. Special:Diff/1091144685, upload by Pitpisit) --Wutkh (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I also blocked all socks: Category:Sockpuppets of Pitpisit. Yann (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much --Wutkh (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Toruhoney back to copyvios after block

Toruhoney (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) was previously temporarily blocked for repeated copyvios. After the block was lifted, immediately uploaded another. Think a longer possibly permanent block is in order. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Every single one of their 57 uploads has been a copyvio; it's clear that they aren't listening. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring by FunkMonk insisting that thousands of videos of birds are videos of paleontology

I don't know if there's a better place to take this and if you think there is this could be moved there. I already talked with the user on the talk page with no success.

FunkMonk is edit warring at the Category:Videos of dinosaurs I created, insisting that

• the 3,806 videos of birds like ducks, geese etc all belong into the Videos of paleontology category (and by extension the Paleontology and Videos of Earth sciences cat) despite that this is factually false and despite that this renders the category useless / just pollutes it
• that all videos anyhow depicting a dinosaur, including a music video and old fantasy films, are videos of the science of paleontology, the scientific study of the life of the past, mainly but not exclusively through the study of fossils (earlier I had copied the subset of videos that actually are about paleontology into that Category:Videos of paleontology; there could also be a subcat like 'Videos of dinosaur paleontology' for example)

Prototyperspective (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• A single revert is not "edit-warring", and you're the only one who keeps reverting. Dinosaurs are generally categorised as a palaeontological subject, as they are on Wikipedia itself[18], there is no logical reason why they shouldn't be here too. Everyone knows birds are dinosaurs, but everyone also knows what most people mean when they say dinosaur. No need to be counter-productively pedantic. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  You reverted twice. The Wikipedia category may need fixing too and is no good reason to introduce this inaccuracy to here. Additionally, there is little use of Wikipedia deepcategory views unlike on Commons where pollution categories like Paleontology or Earth sciences with thousands of bird videos helps nobody and is inappropriate. Dinosaurs are a paleontological subject, but not currently living birds and neither are music videos or videos of old fantasy films videos of paleontology. This is not counterproductive, it's caring about accuracy instead of slowly letting the categories fade into meaninglessness and usefulness as well as making sure Commons categories are useful and show what they claim to show etc. I think you're being pedantic on insisting on this change when it's simply factually false which should be the end of the story. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Birds are dinosaurs. Get over it. If you want to fix the categorization here, then set up some sort of structure with 'archaic dinosaurs' separate from 'dinosauria' Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Birds are not dinosaurs. Birds are believed to be biologically related to dinosaurs, but that doesn't make them equivalent to dinosaurs, especially not for purposes of categorization. (There's more of a phylogenetic basis for describing birds as a type of reptile, but that isn't a useful description for purposes of categorization either.) Omphalographer (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not going to make a fuss about categorization, but birds are descendants of theropod dinosaurs, and by modern biological standards, that puts them in the clade of Dinosauria and thus they are dinosaurs. It's a definition, and definitions are always going to be debatable, but biologists define groups of living things by clades, and clade Aves (birds) is a subset of clade Dinosauria (dinosaurs). And birds are more closely related to T. rex than T. rex is to Triceratops; it's only recency bias that has us lump T. rex and Triceratops together and exclude the emu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Birds are dinosaurs. Get over it. Are you referring to me? You may want to reread because I'm totally fine with birds being dinosaurs. Or are you saying it's okay to remove the categorization of videos of birds flying being videos of paleontology? It's somewhat unclear. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Class Aves being in claude Dinosauria does not mean that "Birds are dinosaurs" in any useful or meaningful linguistic way. The term "dinosaur" was specifically constructed to refer to diverse groups of long extinct species, and that is still the word is still generally used for. To classify living birds within "paleontology" is simply wrong per what en:w:Paleontology means. The relationship of any existing species of birds to dinosaurs is much more distant than the relationship of living people to Homo habalis - and we do so not categorize living people, even though we're fellow Hominini. I think most educated people are aware that birds and dinosaurs are significantly related, if one feels that this fact needs to be more widely known, categorizing living birds as "paleontology" is not a useful way to do so. I don't know if the intent was to be edgy or provocative, if so see Commons:Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Do a Google search or Google Books search on "non-avian dinosaurs". It's a reasonably common phrase. Why is grouping birds in with their 100 million year old ancestors, just like we do with mammals, not useful? It is productive to understand that the dinosaurs did not just go extinct and the mammals took over, instead the dinosaurs are still one of the more prominent groups of creatures on the planet.

Category:Humans is a redirect to Category:Homo sapiens, which is a member of Category:Hominidae. What's in that category is partial, but if you keep digging, it includes categories like Category:Politicians of Argentina, and thus File:Aníbal Fernández, Security Minister.jpg is categorized as Hominidae. And frankly, humans are always an exception.

That said the issue seems to be including all the fantasy and living dinosaur stuff into paleontology, which is not helpful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

One has to pay attention to the exact wording. Prosfilaes said "Do a Google search or Google Books search on 'non-avian dinosaurs'." @Omphalographer said "Birds are not dinosaurs." Both have it true in a certain way. Birds ARE (biologically) dinosaurs, but the common language has it that "dinosaur", those killed of by the Cretaceous extinction event, actually means "non-avian dinosaur". The scientific imperfection in our category system here stems from the common language use, it's as @Infrogmation said: "Class Aves being in claude Dinosauria does not mean that "Birds are dinosaurs" in any useful or meaningful linguistic way."

I think that, as written below, putting Aves material of living organism in paleontology categories is wrong. On Wikipedias, there are two different category trees for organisms in parallel: one using scientific, binomial names and one using common names if available. Something similar could be a broader solution here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

And as I said, "Birds are dinosaurs" is useful, by removing the idea that the dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Jurassic and instead conveying that many groups of many animals went extinct, and that certain groups of dinosaurs and mammals survived the mass extinctions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

"Birds are dinosaurs" is useful, by removing the idea that the dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Jurassic and instead conveying that many groups of many animals went extinct, and that certain groups of dinosaurs and mammals survived the mass extinctions

While that may be true, it's not the job of categories to convey that message. Categories are there to help users find images. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Categories exist to help people find content. Someone searching the category dinosaur is not looking for a goose. Let's not miss the forest for the trees here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Precisely. To quote Jmabel from another recent thread: Commons categorization isn't mainly about ontology, it's about helping people find things. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify: this originally was not about whether birds are dinosaurs and I don't really care about the question – it's whether (any/all) videos of living birds belong into the (Videos of) paleontology category.

Don't care whether this is solved by removing the birds subcategory or basically by removing the Videos of paleontology cat on the Videos of dinosaur cat where the subset of videos directly in that cat that are about paleontology directly copied into the Videos of paleontology cat (already did this). I think if birds are widely accepted to scientifically be dinosaurs, then the subcat does belong into it. Especially if other cats are also structured like it which makes sense.

In that case, the aforementioned issues could be solved by having a separate category Category:Non-avian dinosaurs which may be a needed or good cat to have anyway. Non-avian dinosaurs is a common accurate term. (Btw, note that there aren't just ordinary people searching files by colloquial associations among the Commons users.) Furthermore, again not all videos depicting dinosaurs such as 1920s films showing some are videos of paleontology so I still don't think it should be set on the entire cat even if the Aves subcat is removed; and there could be a subcat for these videos (containing e.g. videos from a natural history museum, showing fossils and explaining current paleontological knowledge about some dinosaurs and interviewing some paleontologist) which does have the cat set. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this reminder. Yes - paleontology is "the scientific study of the life of the past". It isn't specific to dinosaurs (however one may define those), but a video depicting modern-day species like birds is not "of paleontology" in any sense. Omphalographer (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Abidahnaf008

Abidahnaf008 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) This user keeps uploading copyrighted photos from the internet. Please see their talk page, it is full of deletion notices.

Apart from File:Syed Nazrul Islam in 1970.png, all of their recent uploads were also taken from the internet. I have tagged several for speedy deletion. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান  Done, copyvios deleted and user blocked for one week. Could be indefed if this behaviour persists. Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

NOHNIME

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

Exhibitionism-only account Dronebogus (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, VOA, NOT HERE. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Mahaveer Indra

• User: Mahaveer Indra (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: continued copyvios uploading like File:PMJDY Logo.png and File:Bhim app logo.svg after three blocks for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. Other files were old, but File:Life Insurance Corporation of India logo.svg (from [19]) was uploaded on 18 September 2025. Yann (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Wycliffe Kipkirui

• User: Wycliffe Kipkirui (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

I am bringing this here because there is a file that was uploaded under a fraudulent license, but because an earlier version of it was deleted, administrator access is be needed to view the previously uploaded file and determine that the image was not properly licensed. This photo of Hassan Omar Hassan was uploaded on 4 October by Wycliffe Kipkirui with a date of creation on 4 October as "own work." The same day, an IP (likely loutsocking) responded to a query on Wycliffe Kipkirui's en-wiki talk page that I'm his personal photographer. so this is my work. and yes i took the picture today. However, an identical photo was uploaded earlier this year by 1OutstandingSeason (talk · contribs) and deleted by Explicit on 25 September following a deletion discussion. Since the photo was identical, that would mean Wycliffe Kipkirui's statement and own work claim are invalid. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, exactly the same file. I blocked 1OutstandingSeason and I will block Wycliffe as well. Also I deleted the file in question. Taivo (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Chainsawbot

• User: Chainsawbot (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Unauthorized bot. Malforming and making DRs without evidence.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

User:名古屋グランパスファン

• 名古屋グランパスファン (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Through copyvio warnings, this user persistently upload same copyvio fire engine's images. Netora (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• The user claims they are the original contributor to both the website and here. We may want to look for someone who speaks ja to explain COM:CONSENT. GMG^talk 14:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Netora: next time, please inform the user on their talk page, that you reported them. I gave User final warning. Not only the fire engines were copied from the web, the other images from a website called https://www.homemate-research-ic.com. You can read japanese, please look at the other uploads. Thanks. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 14:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  In the COM:UD, this user insisted removed photos were his own work. Then I asked the proof of author and free licensing in the source website, but that isn't done yet.

  And this user uploaded new copyvio image copied from Google Street view; File:豊田市消防本部 中消防署.jpg. Unfortunately this user doesn't seem to understand commons policies. Netora (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Presumably should be blocked, but it would be a good thing if someone who can read and write Japanese did this. - Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

New Socks TA-2023 (Report October 6, 2025)

Hello, new socks have been discovered for the TA-2023 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) account again.

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

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

Gek-234 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

• Previous TA-2023 socks were previously restricted and globally blocked in the report dated May 22, 2024.

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

RrrHh123 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

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

Linclinc7373 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

• Please request that the above socks, which are restricted in Persian Wikipedia due to their association with the TA-2023 account, be globally blocked. thanks

CaesarIran (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: @Jeff G.: Hello dear friends, I have contacted you to investigate this issue.CaesarIran (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) as of this posting, only the first three have ever edited Commons. Each of the first three has exactly one upload, further editing of that one file, and no other action. Milad-OH's upload was deleted. Hossin hash's (same subject, possibly same photo shoot) there is no indication in Google Lens of it having been on the web before that upload. Gek-234's is the signature of that same person, not copyright-eligible.

So it looks to me like someone who is creating a new account for every action they take. As a result, I'm not sure what a block would accomplish, though I wouldn't oppose it. - Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

All of the usage for the first three accounts are also in 2024, so it's too far back for me to retrieve useful data for a range block. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done nothing to do here. - Jmabel ! talk 04:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

User:地球のとも

• 地球のとも (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

After receiving copyvio warnings, this user didn't stop uploading copyvio photos. Netora (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a week and deleted all remaining contributions speedily as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Christian Ferrer

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

This user deleted 16 of my uploads prior discussion or a standard deletion request. Admins are not supposed to mass-delete user-created files without prior review, unless the case is an unambiguous and obvious policy violation, which my files were not. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

As per the note on the top of this page, you need to notify them. I have done this for you but next time you need to do it. Bidgee (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

My apologies @Bidgee. I appreciate that, thank you. Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

These were clear misuses of {{PD-textlogo}} with complex shapes. (For example, one was an SVG copy of this design.) Speedy deletion was perfectly reasonable here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Castroonthemoon has still quite a laissez-faire attitude in regard to copyrights (and about the notion of derivatives), evidenced at least since Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Castroonthemoon. That's not good. Please assimilate the train of thought that everything is copyrighted unless proven, not assumed, otherwise (and follow PD-Gov statutes by the letter, so do not assume because some media has an official source that it will fall in a public domain status). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I have amended my thinking in regards to copyright, which is why I have focused on more simple, geometric files. I can tell you haven't actually looked at any of the files, given that every single .svg that was deleted was a vectorization of a file that was already on wikimedia commons, done through the {svg-available} or "other version" tag. As for the non-svg files, two that were deleted were released from copyright by the holder, and the infobox files are very clearly allowed simplified depictions. Castroonthemoon (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not true. The raster files are on enwiki under fair use (example of the file I linked above), not on Commons under free licenses. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I misspoke, my apologies. But this is the core root of the issue; I don't have the list of the files in front of me, as they were just deleted on a whim, without any community input. Deleting 16 files at once without proper procedure is still an overstep of administrative privilege. I can justify for each upload why they fall under TOO / are allowed on commons; and if they don't, I have no issue with uploading them locally - the original issue is that these deletions were carried out without community input. Castroonthemoon (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Nothing that I uploaded was a misuse of PD-textlogo. Your example actually demonstrates this point. The logo in question is a plain, flat, geometric depiction of a mountain with a sun behind it, with two circles, and text. There is no expressive detail/shading/individual artistic treatment, it's just shapes arranged symmetrically. Under COM:TOO, this falls well below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. It is a textbook example of what qualifies for PD-textlogo. Castroonthemoon (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Your sentence, There is no expressive detail/shading/individual artistic treatment, it's just shapes arranged symmetrically. Under COM:TOO, this falls well below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. is, in my opinion, again a selective and dangerous reading of COM:TOO. Its absoluteness makes it wrong. Near the top of the TOO page, you have the example of the GIMP logo - an example like en:File:Logo of the Movement for the Liberation of Peoples.png is certainly near the second step or between the second step and the full logo. Then, you apparently didn't take Commons:Threshold of originality#Map into consideration. Going by the filenames on your talk page of the files deleted by Christian, more than half of them have their design origins in countries marked as gray on this map, meaning "No information, assume not OK."

I can only see such a behaviour as too sloppy an attitude towards copyrights, so you should not be surprised if you get some uploads of you deleted on copyright grounds and there's even less reason to raise such a fuss when the circumstances point towards you being in the wrong.

You will have to put the time and effort in tracing logo designs back to the probable copyright holders and document the results for each and every future upload -and abstain from contributing a specific design if the results aren't up to the standards required here. Otherwise, you will likely run afoul of COM:L and COM:PRP again, which may result in blocks on your account. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Corroborating that what JMabel wrote below (we posted a few seconds apart at first): you should have gone to Christian with a list of 1 to 5 files at a time and asked him to enable a standard DR procedure. If you're having sound arguments that could allow a keeping, then I'd expect of every admin to honour such a request, undelete the file(s) and to put it in the DR queue. But making complains like here won't advance any redactional quality assurance and the files will stay deleted. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Castroonthemoon: you brought this to COM:ANU, not COM:AN. Normally, that would mean that your complaint is primarily about user behavior, not about how to get this particular action reversed, but I know you are not a super-active user on Commons so you may not have understood that. So let me ask: are you here to ask for disciplinary measures against Christian Ferrer? If so, I'm going to close this as "not done." There is nothing egregious here; at worst someone acting in good faith speedy-deleted some files that maybe weren't all copvios, but probably mostly were. That is not going to result in a disciplinary action.

On the other hand, if (despite where you raised this) you just want these file brought back for a proper DR, that's reasonable, and I would be willing to do that if I have a ready way to find the files in question. But, please, only pursue that if you really think there is a serious chance any of these are truly PD on one or another basis. Otherwise, this is going to be just a big(ger) waste of a lot of people's time.

Tentative list; if what you want is DRs, let me know whether this list looks correct to you:

• File:Platform the world anti imperialist platform.png
• File:WAP FLAG.png
• File:Sol Rojo Red Sun.png
• File:PROGRESEMOS.jpg
• File:Inkari Islam.png
• File:SCWP'23.png
• File:Harakat Hezbollah Al-Nujaba Infobox Flag.png
• File:Sabireen Movement Infobox Flag.svg
• File:Alianza Popular de Bolivia.svg
• File:Free Socialist Party Marxist-Leninists (Germany).svg
• File:Federation of Parties of the Mexican People.svg
• File:Workers League for the Reconstruction of the KPD.svg
• File:Baqir Brigade Infobox Flag.svg
• File:Left Opposition (Ukraine) Logo.svg
• File:Jordinian Democratic Peoples Party.svg
• File:Movement for the Liberation of Peoples.svg

- Jmabel ! talk 05:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• Hello, as per it have been said by others, this was a speedy deletion done in good faith and, I think, in line with our policies. In my daily check of unpatrolled Special:NewFiles I found one logo with {{PD-textlogo}} while it was clear to me that it was way above the threshold of originality. Therefore I though this logo met the criteria F1 of Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion, so I used Visual Change to perform that deletion and I found among the other uploads of Castroonthemoon several other logos that I thought obvious that there were also above the threshold of originality. I deleted those selected logos (not all the uploads of Castroonthemoon) after to have openend them and checked on each of them the sources and license tags provided. I have close a lot of DRs and it was pretty clear to me that those files, as clear copyright violations, would not survive a formal DRs, so speedy deletions were justified in my point of view. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
• And to comment on what Jmabel suggested above (undeletion of some files and formal DRs), while this suggestion looks reasonable at first view and I thank Jmabel for suggesting as always smart/compromise solutions, I am not in favor of undeletions. I usualy never undelete files that I deleted on copyright grounds (unless the copyright issue is resolved), even if it is kindly asked on my talk page, even if the undeletion is temporary, and even if it is a request by another administrator. There is a process for that, this is com:UDR. As I think those deletions were fully justified, hence my speedy deletions, formal DR(s) would be a lost of time. I will not unedeted those files and I disagree that they are undeleted, but if another administrator decide to undete them I will not cry scandal or "misuse of the adm. tools", I will simply disagree with that and that undeletion [i.e. reinstallation of potential copyright violations] will be done under the responsability of that administrator, not mine. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  I do agree that COM:UDR is the right place to discuss about that. I don't see user/admin problem her. -- Geagea (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. Bedivere (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  • The problem with that here is that for at least some of these files (I did not look at all of them) it appears that Christian Ferrer posted on Castroonthemoon's talk page only after deletion, so Castroonthemoon had no timely chance to look at the files to determine which (if any) the thought were possibly salvageable, nor can he easily make that judgement now, because he can't see the files. - Jmabel ! talk 13:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Yes that's the principle of speedy deletions, we indeed don't ask the opinion(s) of the uploader(s). Hence the utility to have elections for to be administrators who are supposedly trusted enough for that kind of decision. I will probably not comment further, I apologize in advance if either someone else make a comment and that I don't answer, but I clearly said my point and I stick to my position. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

    But there's still the option to challenge a speedy deletion when a regular user nominates files for speedy deletion, because admins don't react instantly to the nomination and therefore an uploader might be able to see the deletion nomination on their watchlist before the deletion actually happens. It might not be much time to react, but there's usually still at least a few minutes or hours between nomination and deletion in which the uploader could challenge it. Nakonana (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  • (Cross-posted) Also, COM:SPEEDY#F1 specifically "does not apply whenever there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research or a plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality." Certainly that possibility exists for at least some of these. - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I checked all files. Speedy deletion was appropriate most of them, except File:Free Socialist Party Marxist-Leninists (Germany).svg which is quite simple, and certainly simple enough for PD-textlogo in USA and in Germany. File:Jordinian Democratic Peoples Party.svg and File:Inkari Islam.png are borderline, and may be in the public domain or not depending on which law we use. Yann (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Busy ATM, but to respond, and just to reiterate, I have no problems with re-uploading the files should they fit within language specific wiki rules; I am not complaining that my files got deleted, the issue is that I was not able to contest these deletions. Given what you said about no action being taken, obviously the best route forward is opening the DR's. I have more to write but I didn't want to just disappear from this discussion. Castroonthemoon (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I never recommend to re-upload deleted content, best to take it to Commons:Undeletion requests if you dispute a deletion. Bidgee (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

re-uploading on language specific wiki's, not back to commons Castroonthemoon (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done no admin action called for. - Jmabel ! talk 14:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Desertstorm1000

User:Desertstorm1000 was indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia (by me as I am an admin there) and has decided, instead of appealing their block there, to try to appeal it here for some reason - see User talk:Desertstorm1000. That would just be odd, but they've also decided to harass me on my Commons user talk page. Note that they have no contributions here other than this. Appears to be 'not here to help improve Commons', I believe. - The Bushranger (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Luca.ramos1

• Luca.ramos1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Luca Ramos Ponzo100000 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Luca Ramos Ponzo10000 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Luca Ramos Ponzo1000 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Luca Ramos Ponzo100 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Luca Ramos Ponzo10 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

User:Luca.ramos1 is using this alternative account to (re)create multiple photos that had been deleted as copyright violation. 0x0a (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I blocked the sock, deleted all files, and warned the main account, who wasn't formally warned. Yann (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: plus User:Luca Ramos Ponzo10 and User:Luca Ramos Ponzo100. --0x0a (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

plus User:Luca Ramos Ponzo100000 and User:Luca Ramos Ponzo10000. --0x0a (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done All blocked, and all files deleted. Main account also blocked, as they are not getting the message. Yann (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Yann!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

User:NoOnEtHeMaStA

NoOnEtHeMaStA (talk · contribs) is making some bizarre and wrong edits and moves. I don't know if it's vandalism, a malfunctioning bot, or incompetence. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Koavf: you did not notify the user that you started this thread. I will do so for you, but surely you have been on Commons long enough that you should know to do that. - Jmabel ! talk 22:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@NoOnEtHeMaStA: You moved Category:Node.js to Creator:Node.js. I've fixed it back. This was definitely wrong, and could have had some very confusing results. If you make similar moves in the future your account is likely to be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

User:August 2025 indef'd

Just for the record: I've indef-blocked the recently created account August 2025 (talk · contribs) after detecting that nearly all their edits were racist-vandalism: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], including the creation of Template:NIGGA. --Túrelio (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmm... Less than month ago I blocked July2806 (talk · contribs), but they do not seem related. Taivo (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

follow-up

Today I've indef'd Niggggga National Park (talk · contribs), which was created minutes ago and is likely a follow-up account to August 2025. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

H2v5o68z

• User: H2v5o68z (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 repeated removal of said warning.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not see recent copyvios. The only deleted upload after July was deleted as duplicate, not as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Jeff G. has been keeping warning me for photoes I uploaded 2 years ago due to ignorance of COM:FOP UAE. I actually nominated these photoes for deletion myself after his first warning. After that, he started warning me not to nominate deletions for copyvio speedy deletion. He is trying to threaten me.H2v5o68z (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

1Veertje notified the user of the unacceptability of uploading copyvios like File:Shin Ramyun.jpg in Special:Diff/92274502 11:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC), multiple name changes ago and after the welcome bot notified them of such initially. A1Cafel asked them "Please do not remove valid warning templates from your talk page, except while archiving" in Special:Diff/844413046 03:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC). They kept doing both. I asked the user "please stop signing your speedy deletion requests" in Special:Diff/1030352974 11:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC) in response to Special:Diff/1030253480, which caused Yann's incomplete edits Special:Diff/1030303103 and Special:Permalink/1030303106 (which I then had to fix) because the script Yann uses does not check the sanity of the right curly braces and does not expect signatures which contain them. I'm sorry I misinterpreted the logs (which I would not have had to look at if they did not remove valid warnings) and wrote "final warning" above instead of "many warnings".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/92274502 was 12 years ago man. It was not intentionally uploaded to violate copyright. There are no logo violations from me for at least 10 years. Those files you warned me are all two years old. In addition, they are conversials. Many were kept after community discussionCommons:Deletion requests/File:Dubai Marina 1.jpg. And I haven't uploaded any UAE photoes for two years. H2v5o68z (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The DR from 12 years ago was a derivative work upload: a photo of a popular brand of noodles, which has packaging that is copyright protected. Since then two other users made the same mistake actually. File:Shin Ramyun.jpg needed to be deleted, but just because the file wasn't acceptable for Commons does not make it unacceptable behavior to upload it, just hopefully something they hopefully learned from. Cursory look into recent uploads look good. Vera ^(talk) 15:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

IonaSh

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

This user has been warned twice before on their talk page to stop removing information from files. They have been told that the proper avenue for disputing licenses is through deletion discussions, not arbitrarily removing license tags from files. Today, they again removed a license tag from a file and changed the authorship information despite previous warnings. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Final warned by Yann.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Kia ora, I have put the reasons for changing the license (not removing it as you allege) in the page history and in the discussion log, neither of which you have responded to, as a civil person would. Clearly you have misunderstood the copyright jurisdiction in NZ which is why I changed the licence to the fair use template for speedy deletion. NZ copyright law requires you to make reasonable enquiry. I put the list of photographers from the page you stole the in copyright image from in the discussion page but you continued to change the license to PD. First time a mistake, the other times, deliberate appropriation of in copyright material. I note you have a history of uploading in copyright images. IonaSh (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@IonaSh: As you have been told multiple times, the correct course of action if you disagree with the licensing is to start a deletion discussion, not changing it on your own. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not about disagreeing with the license, it's about you deliberately uploading in copyright material. There are a number of templates which can be applied particularly in case of clear copyright violation which require speedy deletion, and that is what I did. You should not remove those templates when an issue has been raised. I gave you the benefit of believing you had made a genuine mistake but your response and refusal to engage with the issues shows you are determined to upload in copyright material. You very deliberately avoided responding to the discussion page or acknowledging the photographers are still alive. IonaSh (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that there is a "clear copyright violation". The correct course of action when there is a dispute (not an obvious and undisputed violation) is to start a deletion discussion. Speedy deletion is only applicable in cases of undisputed copyright violations. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Photographers names are listed, you did not make a reasonable enquiry as required by law, you ignored a copyright statement, you did not respond to discussion pages, you deliberately chose to repeatedly post in copyright images (and not just the two you have posted from the © Christchurch Star collection). You removed templates, you removed photographer names, and copyright information from the image metadata. Very deliberate copyright violation. IonaSh (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I would encourage you to stop casting aspersions. None of what you are saying is true. I'm not the one here that ignored multiple warnings for vandalism. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

No, you uploaded in copyright material, ignored discussion, removed templates, and then made a personal complaint of "vandalism" because you didn't want to address your copyright violations. IonaSh (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You know that none of that is true so I don't feel the need to respond to that nonsense. I think the fact that you are acting this way on an administrator's noticeboard thread about your own behavior speaks for itself. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You are on an administrators page, so answer the question: why did you remove the photographers information from the in copyright images? IonaSh (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@IonaSh: Please find something else to do. While there is a discussion worth having about this situation (whether uncredited photos are anonymous under NZ law if the publication may have internal records that could identify the photographer, and whether the publication is considered the author for legal purposes), your actions have been unnecessarily aggressive and unhelpful. You should have started a civil discussion, either on AGF's talk page or COM:VPC, rather than making disruptive edits and throwing around accusations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)