Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

^{Translate this page}

Note

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

User:Dronebogus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, scatterbrained and disruptive. Special:Diff/1039295525 is disruptive, too (trying to prevent an Admin from doing his duty). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. that is a personal attack, see COM:CIVIL 2. that is not disruptive and it's also not "trying to prevent an Admin from doing his duty"; the admin inappropriately closed a DR against pretty clear consensus and I agree with what Dronebogus wrote there and again it's not disruptive and not what you said it is. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Jeff G’s defense I called myself scatterbrained. I would not consider that even a personal attack. But I don’t like Jeff G saying I’m in the wrong for questioning administrative action in his favor (since he has voted “speedy keep” with irrelevant arguments on all these nominations). Dronebogus (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More unnecessary than personal - Dronebogus used those words himself. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I

Support doing something about this user. Special:Diff/1039295525 is disruptive. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks are disruptive. The above comment is not disruptive and I agree with it and there is nothing wrong about asking an admin to not close further DRs on a subject, it doesn't mean they have to do so. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:The Bushranger at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/05#Exey Panteleev photography and COM:SCOPE made a very strong case that Infrogmation’s close at the first DR was an inappropriate supervote. Now they’re making more questionable closes in the same subject area that don’t reflect an actual consensus and aren’t based on strength of arguments, merely implementing a majority opinion. That’s not how Commons works; we aren’t an “ay or nay” democracy. Dronebogus (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that was particularly disruptive if what you considered the wrong sort of close caused you to reopen a whole bunch of deletion requests. You should have asked for them to be reopened as a bundle, now you have created a whole bunch of work for a whole bunch of people and to top it off, people can't see the context and that they are being discussed as a group. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even saying I should have done? I’m lost. Dronebogus (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution option

I think the following would be appropriate:

All the deletion requests are speedy closed noting that they should have been done as a bundled discussion.
Dronebogus creates a new, bundled deletion request with his rationale.
A reminder is to be made not to make personal attacks. A reminder is to be made that people should address the criteria for deletion, which was the educational value of the images. Admins should not be speedy keeping if the substantive and valid criteria is not discussed.
Dronebogus is admonished that recreating so many deletion requests on already frequently closed and related images is disruptive and will not be tolerated in future, regardless of the validity (or lack thereof) of their reasoning for requesting file deletion.

On the third point: I think one of the problems here is that we have a knee jerk reaction based on a valid criteria (we don't censor Commons) without considering the other valid criteria that is raised (no educational merit). If those discussing these images would give a reasoning for the educational value of the images, we would all be on firmer ground. I personally see no educational merit to the images, but others may be more persuasive in their reasoning. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your first two suggestions would’ve made sense immediately after I opened the DRs; now they’ve been open a week or two so they’re active and should not be procedurally closed. The third is pointless because everyone should already be doing these extremely basic things and knows they should; plus RodRabelo has already been appropriately disciplined for his behavior. I’m not sure what the fourth one is even about— are you suggesting I should not open a bunch of individual DRs as opposed to one big one (which has been repeated in this discussion ad nauseam), or are you suggesting I not be allowed to open further DRs on this topic, or what? Dronebogus (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m saying we need to close all the DRs and a single umbrella discussion needs to be had. Which you should have done in the first time. And the third point isn’t pointless - reminders need to be made all the time. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riad Salih

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Gbawden: Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Abdellah-Laroui.jpg and [16] – especially for you, since the admin doesn't know how to see who uploaded a particular file (although one doesn't even have to be an admin to find that). Are you going to apologize for a false accusation? Quick1984 (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Yann: In the future, could you please use a more specific rationale than "per COM:SPEEDY" when doing speedy deletions? In the case of File:Portail cities of Algeria icon.svg, it was a G7 (author request), but non-admins like Jeff G. can't see the deleted history and may get the wrong impression. (And for actual F1 copyvios, a link to the evidence in the deletion summary would help for documentation purposes.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: Thanks, yes I did get the wrong impression. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's summarize a bit... This discussion started with a complaint by Jeff G. where he accused Riad Salih of repeated copyvio uploads. The only "evidence" were two links, one from January this year, other from 2023. After I tried to speedy close this as obvious nonsense, Gbawden came and accused Riad Salih of uploading a recent copyvio as File:Abdellah-Laroui.jpg and accused me of being partisan towards Riad Salih. But according to the deletion log Riad Salih has nothing to do with uploading of File:Abdellah-Laroui.jpg. That said: 1) Yes, Jeff G. had placed a nonsensical complaint, because we don't "punish" old mistakes with blocks; 2) Admin Gbawden falsely accused Riad Salih of copyvio and falsely accused me of protecting him, 3) Admin Gbawden of course refuses to apologize for these false accusations, 4) The behaviour by Riad Salih is actually very mellow and friendly, unlike Jeff G. and admin Gbawden... --A.Savin 12:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's easy to verify the original complaint by checking https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/upload&type=upload&user=Riad+Salih&offset=&limit=500 , so this case was obviously another ...

dont know what others were doing about this ... post. RoyZuo (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:カトーポッポー

カトーポッポー (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

User kept insisting on removing DR tags from these images ([17] and [18]) with DR currently opened, even though I already explained to them in the edit summaries [19][20] and once again at their talk page here. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

これ以上の行為は荒らしとみなします。日本国の法律では、著作物は、日本国著作権法第十三条により、パブリックドメインの状態にあります。同条は、同法第二章の規定による著作の権利の目的となることができない著作物として、次の著作物を列挙しています。

一　憲法その他の法令

二　国若しくは地方公共団体の機関、独立行政法人（独立行政法人通則法（平成十一年法律第百三号）第二条第一項に規定する独立行政法人をいう。以下同じ。）又は地方独立行政法人（地方独立行政法人法（平成十五年法律第百十八号）第二条第一項に規定する地方独立行政法人をいう。以下同じ。）が発する告示、訓令、通達その他これらに類するもの

三　裁判所の判決、決定、命令及び審判並びに行政庁の裁決及び決定で裁判に準ずる手続により行われるもの

四　前三号に掲げるものの翻訳物及び編集物で、国若しくは地方公共団体の機関、独立行政法人又は地方独立行政法人が作成するもの

まずは、Tvpupp氏がこれを読んで理解すべきです。この内容を読まずに削除依頼を何度も出すことは、議論を破壊しようとするだけでなく、単に荒らし行為です。合法のものを何度も削除しようとすることが理解できませんし、あなたは、私の返信に意見を返していませんCommons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by カトーポッポー。これは非常に問題であると考えます。wikipediaでは、腕ずくで解決しないとありますが、あなたは自分の思い通りにならないからと言って、腕ずくで削除しようとしています。カトーポッポー (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Google翻訳) 削除に関する議論が完了するまで、削除に関する議論通知は削除しないでください。ファイルを保存すべき理由に関する議論は、削除に関する議論で扱われます。ファイルが保存された場合、この通知は自動的に削除されます。

(Original: Do not remove deletion discussion notices until the discussion is completed. Arguments about why the file should be kept belong in the deletion discussion. If the file is kept, the notice will be removed automatically.)

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)修正カトーポッポー (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file is legal. Please do not delete the file, which constitutes vandalism. (In the Japanese public domain, the file falls under those created by national or local government organisations, independent administrative institutions or local independent administrative institutions. カトーポッポー (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I consider any further actions of this nature to be disruptive behavior. Under Japanese law, the works in question are in the public domain in accordance with Article 13 of the Copyright Act of Japan. This article lists types of works that are not subject to copyright protection under Chapter II of the Act:

The Constitution and other laws and regulations;

Notifications, instructions, circulars, and similar documents issued by the national or local governments, or by institutions such as independent administrative agencies and local incorporated administrative agencies (as defined in the relevant laws);

Court judgments, decisions, orders, and rulings, as well as decisions and determinations made by administrative agencies through procedures equivalent to judicial proceedings;

Translations and compilations of the above-mentioned works prepared by government agencies or the said administrative bodies.

User Tvpupp should first read and understand this legal basis. Repeatedly submitting deletion requests without considering this information not only undermines constructive discussion but constitutes disruptive editing. I cannot understand why you are repeatedly attempting to delete content that is legally permissible. Moreover, you have not responded to my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by カトーポッポー. This lack of engagement is very concerning.

Wikipedia is based on consensus and not on forcing outcomes through persistence or brute action. Yet, your repeated attempts to force deletion simply because things are not going your way appear to be exactly that — an attempt to impose your will rather than seek consensus. カトーポッポー (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have blocked them from editing the file namespace for 1 month. They don't seem to get the message that regardless of whether the file is ultimately kept or deleted / regardless of whether they are right or wrong, the deletion notice needs to stay on the file page until the discussion concludes. Hopefully this will solve the issue, as while they were edit warring, I don't think a full site block is the best solution here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy I just noticed User:Justppw (account created today) had reuploaded some of the speedy-deleted images of User:カトーポッポー, see logs of [21] and [22]. I suspect this to be a sockpuppet attempting to circumvent the file namespace block implemented above. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Blocked the new account and deleted the uploads. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not upload the file in question. To begin with, given the way images have been unilaterally deleted, isn’t it possible that someone else uploaded it? The reality is that files are being removed solely at the discretion of users such as The Squirrel Conspiracy, Tvpuppy, Netora (who previously deleted my work without proper justification), and Krd—none of whom appear to have a sufficient understanding of Japanese law. As Jeff G. has acknowledged, the first step should be to restore the files that were removed without proper discussion, including File:Masao Tachiki.png and others. カトーポッポー (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@カトーポッポー: FYI, none of the files you have requested undeletion seems acceptable with the information you have provided. Please read COM:L before accusing others not to understand copyright law. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@カトーポッポー: could it be that you're operating on some misunderstanding? You're repeatedly asking to discuss the copyright status of some files. But exactly that was underway and you should be aware of that, as you removed deletion request templates! The relevant redactional processes are actually the deletion requests! The wording may be not truly pinpoint to that effect. But it is the usual way to open a deletion request when you want to challenge any kind of legitimacy in a media file in Commons' repository, be it on copyright grounds, project scope or whatever else may be a justification to delete under the Commons:Deletion policy. But these deletion requests are, by design, open-ended and the place to argue whether any file is legitimately present. Deletion requests aren't an actual menace that compulsorily end in deleting something, but a standard quality-assurance tool. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand-Duc:I’ll return your words to you, verbatim. Could it be you who’s operating under some kind of misunderstanding? You’re unilaterally deleting works that are clearly in the public domain under Japanese law—and even going so far as to delete my original creations. At this point, it’s hard to say that Wikimedia Commons is functioning properly. Deleting someone’s original work? That’s absurd. What kind of rationale do you think justifies that? What you’re doing looks a lot less like policy enforcement and a lot more like censorship and authoritarianism.thank you.カトーポッポー (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann:"You’re not going to mention the fact that someone who can’t read Japanese and doesn’t understand Japanese domestic law is arbitrarily deleting my work, are you? Of course you won’t—because it would be too embarrassing to admit that Yann’s actions were wrong all along. I suggest starting with studying Japanese. Then, try actually reading the text carefully. Thanks, lol."カトーポッポー (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@カトーポッポー: there is literally no circumstance under which it is OK to remove DR notices from file pages while the DR is still under way. This is simply a process issue. It has literally nothing to do with the merits of the DR. Even if the DR is nonsense made up by a vandal, which will result in a rapid close of the DR as "speedy keep", the notice of the DR should not be removed from the file page before the DR is resolved. Do you understand this? Because your comments above suggest that you don't. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. However, I cannot stay silent when only I am being restricted from posting, and even my own photographs—which are clearly free of copyright issues—have been deleted. Netora and EugeneZelenko, who initiated this dispute, have not faced any restrictions or penalties. In particular, Netora has gone so far as to delete my copyrighted works, which is an outrageous act. This is something that should be recognized by the administrators present here as well. Moreover, Netora has been avoiding the discussion altogether.カトーポッポー (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

----

カトーポッポー (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@カトーポッポー: You must stop your antagonist attitude right now. Please listen to people who are experienced users. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@カトーポッポー: QED with "You’re unilaterally deleting works that are clearly in the public domain under Japanese law". I am technically not even able to delete works, that's a software right for administrators to which I do not belong. I'm often doing things like opening deletion requests; this kind of editing is possible to anyone, even those without registered accounts. Please inform yourself about Commons:User rights and in general, how our media repository operates. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Netora&@EugeneZelenko&@Jim:I'm not here because I have business with you. What I want to address is the behavior of those with authority here, as well as the individuals who irresponsibly fueled the fire—Netora, whose command of Japanese is questionable at best, and EugeneZelenko, who jumped into the conversation uninvited. Netora, for his part, has been dodging the discussion entirely, while EugeneZelenko seems to have vanished into thin air, possibly because he was completely refuted.

The confusion only escalated when you mistakenly inserted yourselves into the exchange while I was dealing with them. Let’s be clear: the real issue lies with Netora (who deleted my copyrighted works), EugeneZelenko (who proposed deleting photos that are legally unproblematic under Japanese law), and Jim—who, during those very discussions, took it upon himself to close them unilaterally and forcefully, apparently after being logically defeated. He didn’t even bother to read or understand Japanese law before pushing through his decision.

And that, for the record, is what I want written down here.カトーポッポー (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@カトーポッポー Please be careful with your tone that you may get blocked if you continue to argue that you are right. (w:WP:BOOMERANG) 〈興華街〉📅❓ 03:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@カトーポッポー: How can Netora have deleted any of your copyrighted works without Admin privileges? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.First, how about restoring the copyrighted image of mine that you requested to be deleted before making any comments? That’s the first thing you should do.カトーポッポー (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

photos that are legally unproblematic under Japanese law must be clearly described (sources and license tags). They were not and you preferred to escalate conflict instead of just fixing issues. If you still do not understand what need to be done, please ask help of Japanese-speaking administrator or user who understand Commons policies. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done I blocked カトーポッポー for 2 weeks. They continue to be unnecessarily antagonist despite a warning above. Yann (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked should probably be extended with talk page access removed, as they are resorting to insults on their talk page. Yann (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked indef. by Jameslwoodward. Yann (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A S M Jobaer

User: A S M Jobaer (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user categorizes his photos using very general categories, such as Category:Asia for pictures of his cats, even though he has been asked not to do so. He submits technically very weak photos to QIC and ignores comments about them, continuing to nominate images with similar issues.

He created a mess on the FPC page by removing his withdrawn nominations himself (even though this should be left to the bot), and did so after being warned by another user. Yesterday, he tried to reject a photo on QIC simply because the subject did not interest him.

When I posted a message on his talk page, he started leaving reviews, such as lack of categorization, on properly categorized images.

@Yann, A.Savin, and Poco a poco: pinging administrators I know involved with QIC and FPC -- Jakubhal 06:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check also this 'nothing interesting' review -- Jakubhal 06:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify A S M Jobaer of this section first. --A.Savin 07:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have wrote to him again -- Jakubhal 08:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the usual message to A S M Jobaer's talk page, just to be sure that this cannot be overlooked. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert Flogaus-Faust: Thanks. Technically, this is not "the Administrators' noticeboard page", this is a subpage of that one. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know. The link within the message is correct. So what is wrong? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert Flogaus-Faust: Sorry, I should have directed that to @Jakubhal about Special:Diff/1039269371. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not using the template. I don’t write here often (and I hope I won’t have to), but I’ll remember for next time. -- Jakubhal 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am new here and trying to learn new things. truly I am very noob in categorization. If you explain about my mistakes and give me solution ,I will solve them. And also aware in future. Thanks A S M Jobaer (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A S M Jobaer, I would like to kindly ask you a few questions:

Do you understand English well enough to take part in this discussion?
Do you read your user talk page? I posted a comment about categorization there before.
Did you read the help page about categorization that I sent to you?
Did you understand my message that you should use the most specific categories? If yes, why do you still add very general categories like "Cats" but also unrelated ones like "Asia" or "Bangladesh" to photos of cats or school uniforms?
Why do you add negative reviews to QIC photos, such as "not interesting," even though I explained this is not correct, and others also told you this on the QIC page?
Did you notice others telling you this on the QIC page? Do you read comments on your reviews and images?
Do you think it is fair to reject photos at QIC for incorrect or missing categories, when you wrote here that you do not really understand categorization yourself?
Do you think it is OK to review 10-20 photos per day (often with negative reviews), when you have big problems getting QI badges for your own photos (few QIs out of many, many nominations)?

I am asking to better understand your point of view. -- Jakubhal 18:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I understand English (as a second language).Fist of all so sorry about my opinions on QI nominations because I was practicing. Secondly, I have removed those categories like as Asia and Bangladesh. Besides I have noticed others telling on this page. And lastly I have learnt some of guidelines of QI, VI and FI nomination. Next time I will aware of this things. A S M Jobaer (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a lot of work to do with your categorization. It is important to have a look at Commons:Categories and especially on COM:OVERCAT. Therefore, please chose the most specific categories within a category tree that could be applicable to your photos and avoid the addition of more general categories from the same category tree. E.g., your photo File:Beauty in Bloom 03.jpg has four categories assigned to it: Category:Asia, Category:Bangladesh, Category:Dhaka and Category:Helianthus annuus. Dhaka is in Bangladesh and Bangladesh is in Asia. Therefore, Category:Dhaka would be the most specific category among the first three categories. The other ones are overcategorization. However, Category:Dhaka contains a warning that it is too crowded and that subcategories should be chosen if they are appropriate. Therefore, I suggest the subcategory Category:Nature of Dhaka as a (hopefully) better category instead of Category:Dhaka. In addition, Category:Helianthus annuus could be replaced by the more specific Category:Helianthus annuus in Bangladesh. So all of your four categories should be replaced. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your advice A S M Jobaer (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The categories were still not what I told you above. I changed them once again. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Robert Flogaus-Faust for carefully explaining the problems with categories in your photos. I hope this time you understood and will follow the advice.

As for your reviews at QIC, your explanation is not entirely satisfying to me (and you also did not answer some of my questions). What directly prompted me to open this thread was your mass review at QIC just after I wrote to you asking not to post reviews like "not interesting" - especially the one review where you repeated almost exactly these words.

I understand that everyone can make mistakes, and I would support closing this thread. However, I would like to ensure that you will not continue this behavior. So far, when we wrote to you on your talk page, you replied with things like “Thanks” or “I’m still learning,” but then kept doing the same things. You should be aware that after this discussion, there will likely be no further leniency regarding the matters we have discussed here. -- Jakubhal 20:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned from your feedback regarding photo categories and my QIC reviews. I understand my past responses weren't enough and that my actions, especially the "not interesting" reviews, were frustrating. I apologize for not meeting your expectations. I'm committed to improving my behavior and will be more diligent with categories and provide thoughtful QIC feedback. I understand there will be no further leniency and I'm prepared to show my commitment through my future contributions. Thank you for this opportunity to improve. A S M Jobaer (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that answer. From my point of view this thread can be now closed. -- Jakubhal 21:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before closing this thread I would recommend to have a look on the newest nominations of A S M Jobaer on QIC and to see how he will react to my notice on his talkpage Kritzolina (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to improve categories for a few of the photos, but overcategorization and too generic categorization are not the only issues. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was concerned about, as it was the same with the comments left on the user's talk page - "Thank you," but then the same behavior continued. In any case, at this point it is probably up to the administrators to decide what to do next, as so far none have commented in this thread apart from some procedural remarks. -- Jakubhal 04:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a block from uploading until the categories are fixed on the existing uploads and they can demonstrate an understanding that they need to appropriately categorise their uploads. Bidgee (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoramento artista 2.0

Monitoramento artista 2.0 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user has uploaded several files without providing author or source information, as if the files were their own work. I request administrative intervention. Cosmo Skerry (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked from uploading more files. Some files deleted, and the rest is here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Monitoramento artista 2.0. Yann (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping

I am reluctant to report this, but I think it is clear forum shopping. We currently have two deletion requests for the This Is Fine meme. The discussions are well underway, but now Prototyperspective has opened a new thread on COMMONS:VP/C#Are these derivatives?. This seems to be a very clear attempt at forum shopping. I would like the VP discussion moved to the deletion requests at the very least, because it’s fragmenting the discussions for no real benefit of anyone.

could an admin please intervene here? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What even is forum shopping and why are you making a thread at AN/U for asking a valid reasonable copyright-related question on the discussion board about copyright where there may be experts in copyright? It's not fragmenting any discussion. Have you read what this page here is about? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants taking actions to have their legal case heard in the court they believe is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. I believe you have done that in this instance as discussions are well under way on both files for deletion.

It would have been acceptable to reference the deletion requests in a message on VP, but you have instead opened a brand new discussion and are trying to debate the merits of the images on different forums.

I am asking for the thread to be closed and the discussions to be continued on the deletion requests. There are already people knowledgable about copyright who have been discussing the images. By all means bring attention to the deletion requests, but trying to start a new discussion to fragment and gain an advantage for your views is disruptive and or at all helpful for commons. Let’s centralise the discussion on the the deletion requests themselves, where it is most appropriate. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asking experts on a subject a difficult or apparently potentially difficult question on the subject is what these VP pages are partly there for and just improves the basis of discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point of the deletion requests themselves. There are already detailed and reasoned discussions on both the requests, and you are an active participant. I feel you are trying to gain an upper hand and being somewhat tendentious by the way in which you have opened the VP thread.

I am now bringing this to admin attention with a specific request to close the VP thread with a reference for participants to discuss at the deletion requests themselves. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeking input on a copyright question on a forum about copyright. You apparently think people should be silenced instead of freely debating and asking others of the project and that 3 or so people in some buried niche corner of Commons – that you for absolutely no explained reason take to be people knowledgable about copyright – should decide tough copyright questions. That is fine for you, but these Commons forums are made so that people can discuss complex questions relating to the project. It also doesn't affect just these two files. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except you aren’t asking for wider feedback about derivative images, you are asking about those two specific images. This isn’t wider discussion around derivative images - and we have a policy about that already which is reasonably clear.

Anyway, I’ll let others decide if your actions are reasonable, which is why I have brought this to ANU. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because those two images are early and possibly the first cases thereof. And it doesn't matter either way. It is also wider discussion about images that illustrate memes but look substantially different. Experts on copyright there could just as well conclude it's totally derivatives. One shouldn't crush down on free debate on complex questions on this website. No, that policy is not clear on such cases which is in the question there and why it's asked there in the first place. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren’t I’m afraid. There is an entire policy around derived images - it didn’t spring from nothing :-) there have been many derivative images and a policy was carefully formulated to address the issue. To determine if an image is derivative, it must be taken to a deletion request, which is what we have done.

The appropriate forum for discussion about the images is the deletion request. You didn’t ask for a wider review of policy, you specifically asked about the two specific images that are being discussed to determine whether they reverted, so you can’t actually claim you are asking for wider input on the policy itself. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tough question in some deletion request can still be taken to the discussion page about copyright questions if the subject is a matter of copyright. It's not "wider review of [the] policy", it's wider input on the question and what the policy means. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a convincing argument had you referenced the two existing deletion requests or even made an attempt at stating the substantive arguments against your position at VP. It would have also been appropriate for you to mention the new discussion about the two images on the deletion requests themselves, but you did not, so your argument that you were looking for wider input from the community as a whole is really very weak. I was only made aware of the discussion when another editor mentioned it on the deletion requests. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: for the future, given that the DRs were already open, if you wanted to get further attention from the people who frequent COM:VP/C, the approved way to do this would have been to post on COM:VP/C with as neutral a statement as you could make of the issues at stake, link the DRs from COM:VP/C and invite people to comment on the DRs, and indicate on the DRs that you'd made the post to COM:VP/C. - Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Salmaci123

Salmaci123 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) (new account)
Taricksalmaci (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) (previous account)

User:Salmaci123 has stated they're en:Tarick Salmaci at en:Talk:Tarick Salmaci which is almost certainly the case, but all of the files they've just uploaded to Commons have previously been deleted as copyvios or for otherwise questionable licensing. (See User talk:Taricksalmaci for some examples of this). Several attempts were made at explaining what the issues were regarding the previous uploads and possible ways those issue might be resolved at both en:User talk:Taricksalmaci and User talk:Taricksalmaci, but they never really led anywhere.

The four of the five files (File:Tarick Salmaci w Hall of Fane Trainer Emanuel Steward (1992 Olympic Trials).jpg, File:Tarick Salmaci in action on The Contender Season 1.jpg, File:Tarick Salmaci pro debut w Muhammad Ali (1992).jpg, File:Tarick Salmaci at age 10 with Muhammad Ali.jpg) appear to be re-uploads of previously deleted files, while File:Tarick Salmaci 2025.jpg looks new but probably needs VRT verification since it appears to be professionally taken. The uploader still seems to have problems understanding what COM:Own work and what COM:2D copying means, and that physical possession or appearing in a photo doesn't necessarily make one the copyright holder of said photo.

Would a Commons administrator take a look at these files? If they're OK, then fine. If, on the other hand, they have issues, perhaps an administrator could explain things to the uploader. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done I deleted these files, and warned the user. Obviously not own works, and no evidence of a free license. Yann (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

debate over target of redirects

me and a user, @Wikiwerner have had a debate over the target of two redirects File:Chess bbl45.svg and File:Chess bbd45.svg I believe they should link to File:Chess bbg45.svg and File:Chess bbd45 1.svg while they think it should link to File:Chess t45.svg you can read the debate so far on my talk page here but in short I argued that for them a new redirect would be easy to create and work just as well but not for me while they argued that I should change it Sense there redirect was older so I should find a new redirect. we went back and forth a while but never got anywhere so we think arbitration is required. PharaohCrab (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should also mention that you built a new system in May, while our system at Dutch wiki exists since 2021, so users are used to it. Wikiwerner (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Altair Netraphim

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

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

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

Hello Sir/Madam,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahmjahangir

Ahmjahangir (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Cross-wiki NOTHERE. Spamming with request that is irrelevant to the project. XReport --Phương Linh (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to messages on user's talk page, they have

Uploaded copyrighted material
Uploaded other files that were out of scope
Left messages on many pages asking for help writing a biographical article, whereas Commons doesn't even host articles

@Ahmjahangir: Do you understand the issues in the messages people have left you? If you continue with the actions listed above, you will be blocked from editing here. Please respond to this discussion. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. Actually I will not edit anything by myself. I will leave any information for the experienced editor to update - which i already promised. And I don't change my words unless there is a significant reason. Ahmjahangir (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHelper3906 (resolved with a warning)

WikiHelper3906 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions): the recently deleted File:Long Island.jpg, claimed as own work. was a blatant plagiarism of my photo File:Gantry Plaza State Park Long Island City 01 (9431668991).jpg (simply a crop). This means that now literally everything they ever uploaded has been deleted as a copyvio. Relatively new and lightly active account, but at least one very recent edit, so not entirely moot. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't notice! WikiHelper3906 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did not notice you cropped someone elses Photo? Can you explain how this happened? Kritzolina (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kritzolina: Wilful disregard for policy COM:EVID, as well as COM:CSD#F1. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is what it can be described as. I really want to hear from WikiHelper3906 Kritzolina (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's all because I didn't check twice before uploading. Sorry. WikiHelper3906 (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are extremely careless in how you do your work on Commons. Do you have any ideas about how you could constructively contribute images to Commons and on how to avoid similar mistakes in the future? Kritzolina (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know, but I'll try to be good here...? Also, please stop commenting. My comment plant is currently overloaded. Let it deload. WikiHelper3906 (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I am not sure you understand the nature of my comments correctly. I am trying to determine, if there is any reason I should not block your account. "Sorry" and "I'll try to be good here...?" are not really convincing me so far. Can you give me anything more substantial? Kritzolina (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will for the best check twice before any picture, and I will also make sure to enter the true copyright details. WikiHelper3906 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With this promise I will let you go with a very stern warning. I will put this on your discussion page. Do not remove it before at least 6 months have passed. If you upload any pictures without proper license, your account should be blocked. Kritzolina (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This participant has been given a warning. Incall ^talk 18:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About User:Garbagesound

Going by the upload of File:Garbage90s.jpg (actually a NETCOPVIO) from this account, I think that the user name Garbagesound (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block userdefinitively fails to comply with the Commons:Username policy, see Garbage (band). A verification that the account operator(s) is/are entitled to use the well-known band name or a name change is mandatory IMHO. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand-Duc: I've informed the user of this discussion on their talk page, which you failed to do. - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ups, thanks! I indeed forgot the notification. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mentxuwiki

User: Mentxuwiki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: After the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 40#Mentxuwiki and warning, the user went on to forget the advice given and made these edits: not including intelligible reason, year, month, or day; not creating the subpage; and not transcluding (these times for file description pages).

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't something that merits a block imo. Bedivere (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: How do you suggest we deal with their pollution of Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage and Category:Deletion requests - No timestamp given in these cases? For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 18 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), over four years ago. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but to me, this is a rather innocent mistake. It's obvious to me Mentxu wanted the files to be speedily deleted instead of opening a deletion request, and so I will be honoring these requests as they seem to be working with Wikimedia España in that sense, and assuming good faith, too. I will give a final warning, however, following:

@Mentxuwiki Te pediría por favor, ya que es la segunda vez que te reportan por el mismo motivo, que utilices la función de "Nominar para borrado" para pedir la eliminación de alguna imagen, y no lo hagas de la forma que has hecho, con nominaciones incompletas que motivan este tipo de reportes, que en otra ocasión de seguro terminaría en un bloqueo, lo que sería desafortunado. Bedivere (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buenos días,

Así es. Se trata de un error por mi parte porque no recuerdo la plantilla que hay que incluir para solicitar el borrado de una imagen. Y no me resulta sencillo encontrarla. Voy a intentar tener más cuidado. Saludos! Mentxuwiki (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HackAround

User: HackAround (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continues to upload non-free files even though a one-week block has already been imposed.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I blocked the user again, closed one DR and deleted speedily multiple complex logos. Taivo (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rochambeau1783

User: Rochambeau1783 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued uploading of fictional or alternate history works after an Admin's warning.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By principle, that's true. But the last bad upload came from 24th of April. All uploads after that seem to be good. Taivo (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]