Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

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

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~152
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• No license since 19 August 2025: ~2
• No permission since 19 August 2025: ~9
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-08: ~199

Other:

• Duplicates: ~193
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~57
• Other speedy deletions: ~521
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~1
• Undeletion requests: ~11

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~13
• Interface admin: ~12
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~11
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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

---

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

---

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

Note

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

Rafe87

Rafe87 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

After having been told in no uncertain terms that File:Still from Israeli government ad.jpg was a copyvio, Rafe87 uploaded File:Captura de tela 2025-08-16 132842.png, the same image plus a caption. I see only three possibilities here: (1) the files are not copyvios, though certainly if this is the case it is not on the basis of either rationale that Rafe87 put forward in that linked discussion; (2) the second upload is a deliberate upload of a copyvio; and/or (3) Rafe87 lacks the level of understanding of copyright called for by CIR ("competence is required"). These are not, of course, mutually exclusive, and the first of the three would surprise me. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

In light of the fact that I can't see the files, I'm inclined to lean towards a CIR block, but keeping TPA. Indefinite doesn't always mean infinite. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 05:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: Image is figure 3 of this article, on page 11. I think the background is way to complex for it to be below TOO, which is the only basis on which I could imagine accepting it without a license. - Jmabel ! talk 06:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: I agree with Jmabel on this.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.@Jmabel, I'm going to put it above ToO in country of origin. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I endorse this report, and at the same time would encourage admins to review 1) Rafe87's claims about copyright and 2) their accusations of censorship and other malfeasance, each in the linked discussion.

en:User talk:Rafe87#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction may also be relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

For the context, please see the Help Desk. Yann (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

That is the discussion linked to in the opening sentence of the report. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I added the link to the whole discussion, which includes accusations by Rafe87 of censorship. Yann (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done I blocked Rafe87 for a week for reuploading copyright violations. Feel free to block longer for unfounded accusations. Yann (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

This user's comments on the Help Desk are both rude and show incompetence. But IMO if that Help Desk section is all there is then they don't rise to the level of disruption where a block should be used. The comments are strictly on topic about Commons policy and administrator actions and copyright, all of which are appropriate to discuss there, and we should allow such criticism of administrative actions. It is better if users are allowed to criticize administrative actions, people who read the criticism will see for themselves how stupid it is, than to give the impression that we are suppressing criticism of administrative actions with blocks. The block is appropriate for reuploading copyrighted contents of course. – b_jonas 07:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@B jonas: Not sure what you are driving at. My report here didn't even mention their remarks in that help desk discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 19:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: : Yes, it was on the helpdesk where Yann warned Rafe87 “stop making unfounded accusations, or you will get blocked” and you said something similar. Rafe hasn't replied afterwards though, and it doesn't seem like either of you are pushing that either, so maybe I should have let that issue drop. – b_jonas 20:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@B jonas: His remarks on the talk page were not why I requested the block (though I can't say he helped his case there) and not what he was blocked for. So are you just saying that something he didn't get blocked for was not enough reason for a block? If so then, yes, please, let's let that drop. - Jmabel ! talk 22:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Correct. – b_jonas 10:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Namihka

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

Is it ok to just create blank categories? I believe all these new pages should be deleted (except the ones that somebody else has already developed). Gikü (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days, all new categories deleted. Yann (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit too harsh for a first time offender who only joined 6 hours ago and even responded to Gikü's message on their talk page? They might have created the categories in good faith just not knowing the policies and procedures here. Or were the categories crystal clear vandalism? Nakonana (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm also confused what happened here, though creating several dozen blank category pages is certainly a problem (hides the fact that the category doesn't really exist). Still, it looks to me like, for example, Category:Villa F. Lechien (1976), when deleted, was a reasonable category, largely built up by Abxbay. Similarly for Category:Players of Gimnástica de Torrelavega, built up by Herodotptlomeu. I haven't checked too many more, but Yann, I think you should review these deletions (they look like a mixed bag), and probably unblock the user. None of these blank categories came after they were warned by Gikü. They had been creating them up until minutes before the warning, and four hours had elapsed between the warning and the block. - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

OK. A few hours would have been enough anyway. Yann (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: will you be reviewing the deletions? - Jmabel ! talk 05:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

In order to evit another block of my user, I left to you review the deletions. Thank you. Namihka (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Namihka: I don't follow that. I assume by "evit" you mean avoid (like evitar in Spanish), but who is "my user" (your account?) and who do you mean by "you" in "I left to you review the deletions"? That came under my comment, are you expecting me to do the review? Seems to me that should be Yann's task, not mine, I'm not the person who did a bunch of deletions without review. - Jmabel ! talk 17:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: Please undelete Category:Moldova photographs taken on 2025-08-10; Namihka's edit was not the last one, I improved it after (I think?). There may be other categories in the same situation. Gikü (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Namihka (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I undeleted some categories yesterday, which were deleted again by The Squirrel Conspiracy, who also blocked this account for socking. Yann (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: can you explain why you deleted Category:Villa F. Lechien (1976)? As I remarked above, seemed like a perfectly valid category, largely built up by Abxbay. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this discussion. I used Special:Nuke on the three GMatteotti socks. Happy to restore this. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

So far, I have looked at 11 of these, and found six apparently perfectly good categories (having both parent categories and content). I'll go through the rest, but Pinging @Yann, The Squirrel Conspiracy, when doing mass deletions like this, please at least look at a reasonable sample of the pages in question. Given how many of these I'm finding that are fine, I'm pretty sure neither of you did that. - Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've now been through the rest of the categories. Apparently I hit more "good" ones at first than typical, but the end count for the 57 categories that were in a deleted state when I started was 21 "good" categories, 36 "bad" ones, so I stand by my earlier point. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems that YellowFangs (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) is a sock of the same. Yann (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Cannot upload photo

I tried to upload file Aeshna viridis f1 from W. Commons to my paper "Фітохорія" in Wiki ua, but failed. Please help me. В. Николов (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to "upload" it, you just need to "add" it by typing [[File:Aeshna viridis f1.JPG|thumb|Your description]] when you use the Source Editor. @В. Николов. Nakonana (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@В. Николов nevermind, I fixed it for you. The problem was that you wrote ".jpg" in lower case letters instead of ".JPG" which would have been the correct file name ending in this case. Nakonana (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

A lot of thanks! I became more clever than yesterday В. Николов (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here with any user's conduct; @В. Николов: things like this belong at COM:Help desk, not on this page which is for reporting conduct problems.

Anyway, Already done. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

BaldiGaming99yeah

BaldiGaming99yeah (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user has repeatedly uploaded multiple copyright violations, even after a final warning. User:Yann gave them a final warning four days ago for uploading copyvios, and the user uploaded another one afterwards. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Clearly NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

About User:Caterpillar84, possible infringements on copyrights through derivatives

Hello,

I happened to encounter an upload from Caterpillar84 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user in the recent files. As I deemed it potentially problematic, I reviewed their other uploads. Some results are seen under Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Caterpillar84 and others as single DR (cf. their talk page). I spotted some more photographs of artworks in their uploads, notably uploaded around the 4th and 5th of August, 2025. Examples ('Ill put them into the DR process now): File:Kelly blue.jpg (-> en:Ellsworth Kelly) and File:Eggleston yellow.jpg (artist still alive). This situation merits a review going more in-depth IMHO, with checks about US copyrights registrations. I hope for some helpers here who may be more proficient in the matters than I am. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

ROI-12 longduzboub

ROI-12 longduzboub (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

He can be blocked just if you know what means this user name in french... On frwiki, he has been blocked as "account created to vandalize". The pic can be deleted too : it was created (it's probably himself) to vandalize the article Cars (film) on frwiki but he was blocked by a filter. Supertoff (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for inappropriate username. File deleted. Yann (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Conduct by The Squirrel Conspiracy and other admins

This administrator's most recent conduct in relation to the powers of file deletion, I find incredibly shocking. I will repeat here what I have stated in my unDR request, that this is a wholly inappropriate abuse of power that denies any due process that is supposed to take place here on Commons when a file is suspected of being copyrighted. The files either should have been tagged as suspected violations and which should sit for a decent amount of time, or been nominated for deletion and which should have remained open for even longer. Both options are supposed to provide a measure of time in which other users can become aware and participate. Three hours is NOT an acceptable amount of time for an admin to play judge, jury, and executioner with zero input aside from their own.

I am aware of at least one other file, unrelated to those in the unDR I opened, that seemingly disappeared out of absolutely thin air. I don't know whether The Squirrel Conspiracy has been involved in these disappearances, or if other admins are doing it as well, but any admins that are deleting files by themselves without any sort of process or input whatsoever and in such short amount of time should be officially discouraged. This is not ok. There is nothing important enough that a suspected copyright violation needs to be deleted with such expediency. It is not a fire. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion says The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussions and immediately delete files or pages... F1 (clear copyright violation) is one of those cases, and these deletions were perfectly valid.

It is incredibly common for admins to tag a file as copyvio and then immediately delete. The purpose of that is so that the user gets a talk page notice about the file, rather than having it simply disappear.

It's less common to open a DR and then speedily delete files, but it does happen, particularly when you discover something after the nomination. For example, I've opened a DR for low-quality files, then speedy deleted them shortly afterwards when I discovered they were copyvios. In those cases, the need for a DR becomes moot if the files are eligible for speedy deletion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I responded to the files in question at the UDR. As to tagging then immediately deleting, as Pi said, tagging them for is so that there's a talk page message - this is both a courtesy to the user so they know why their files are deleted, and a record so that if they continue uploading copyright violations, other admins can see they were warned and block them if necessary. COM:CSD doesn't require notification, however. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the files were indisputable violations meeting the criteria for (essentially, in the timeframe that these things normally take) instantaneous deletion. The coats of arms of the various countries are, in several cases, expired from copyright. The question also arises of their deriviative work.

Even if it is disagreed upon on that point, to open a DR and then close it by themselves within what was less than 3 hours is, in my opinion, not acceptable. The point of a DR is to open discussion, not escape it. I would have been asleep when that took place. I had no opportunity to even become aware of the DR, nevermind comment, nor did any other user, before the files were deleted.

The other issue is just how far this behaviour has been taken. As I stated, I know of another file that was disappeared out of thin air. It was a Saudi traffic sign of a similar design to File:Fig. 84 - Semaforo a 150 m - 1959.svg. The only real difference worth noting was a red border instead of black, and a different typeface. Pi.1415926535 states that admins have the authority for unilateral deletion where the offending file's copyright status is indisputable, well that most certainly was not the case with this file which absolutely 100% qualified as PD-shape and PD-ineligible. Whether it was The Squirrel Conspiracy or another admin that deleted that file, the requirement for indisputability is not being strictly followed. There is far too cavalier an attitude being used here of "I'm an admin, I know what what I know, and I'm right", even when that isn't the case, which says to me that we need to take a step back. Admins are not infallible, and they don't know everything. It doesn't mean they're malicious, but it does mean they are using a lower standard than what I would define as "indisputable". How many other files are there that have been disappeared when they should not have been? I don't know how to answer that. But whichever admin was involved in the example file I am referring to is far more fast and loose than they should be. If there is to be a very high standard, it is not being held to that level. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Presumably no one can usefully comment on the latter case, since there is no way to find the file in question; do you know who the uploader was? With that, there might be a chance of finding it. - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Admins are entrusted specifically because copyright issues on Commons often require judgment calls that cannot always wait on a lengthy discussion process. COM:CSD#F1 is intentionally written to give administrators the discretion to act when a file is believed to be a copyright violation, even if it is not universally obvious to every user. That authority exists precisely because Commons must err on the side of respecting copyright law, not on the side of keeping borderline or dubious files available.

Deletion in such cases does not mean the file is gone forever, Commons has a very low bar for restoration if there is reasonable doubt, via COM:UDR or deletion review. But the expectation is, and must be, that admins can act unilaterally where they see potential copyright infringement. If we instead required every uncertain case to sit for months of discussion, Commons would risk becoming a repository of material that may be infringing; this would expose both the project and the Foundation to legal consequences.

So while it can be frustrating when deletions happen quickly, that speed is a feature of the system, not a flaw. If someone disagrees with a particular judgment, the right venue is undeletion requests, not restricting the discretion admins are supposed to have in enforcing copyright compliance. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The example file in question was uploaded on August 18th or 19th (more likely the 19th). It was mistakenly tagged for speedy deletion as a copyright violation by another user. I removed that tag without converting it to a DR because I viewed the file as so obviously simple that an actual debate was entirely unnecessary. I left an edit summary of "Not copyrightable." I later went to work, and when I returned home the file had disappeared in what came to be 6 hours or less. Clearly an admin speedily deleted it according to their own wisdom. Because the file was here for such a brief amount of time, it had not been used on any articles or pages. I also did not think it necessary to add it to my watchlist, and my memory is not good enough to recall the filename. Because it was deleted, I cannot see my own edits to the file either. So in this case, I don't even have the luxury of knowing the filename to be able to open an unDR request. If an admin is willing to look through my edits between those dates for an edit summary of "not copyrightable / not copyrighted", they may readily find it.

I believe I have been rather neutral in not assigning any malicious intent. I am however assigning potential ignorance (not an insult, ignorance is merely defined as a lack of knowledge or information) and a lax attitude. Can it be appreciated where I am coming from? That at least one file that had absolutely no business being deleted at all, nevermind speedily, was, without any oversight? That the admin involved should have taken into account that even if they themselves did believe the file was a violation, there was already at least one user that expressed their dispute of that status in the file's recent history, and thus it would not meet the criteria for speedy deletion and should have been re-opened as a DR? And then for me to have deep concern after seeing several other files deleted in a similar fashion? I am not saying the files which caused me to initiate this discussion are not violations with any confidence, but that I believe it is far less clear than the level of certainty I would deem required for speedy deletion. Is it understood that I have legitimate reason to question just how much this has occured and how many other files have been deleted without oversight or discussion of any sort and which very well likely should not have been?

Policy, as it has been quoted, may or may not be legitimate, but we should base that upon is how it is practiced in reality. I believe I have established a problem with how it is being practiced. I named The Squirrel Conspiracy because they are the admin I have seen actually do this in relative "real time", but I don't know how extensive this is. As I stated before, the standard needs to be very high, and I don't believe it is being held high by all at this time, which hurts the project. It hurts it in removing legitimate files, and it hurts it by reducing trust. Fry1989 ^eh? 13:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Since you mentioned that you made an edit to that traffic signal file, I was able to find it by looking through your deleted contributions. File:Saudi Arabia - Traffic lights 800 metres.svg was not deleted for a copyright reasons, but because it was uploaded by Jermboy27 (Fry is already familiar with them, but for everyone else, they are an LTA that likes to upload fake traffic signal images). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the file. As I stated, it was initially tagged for copyright reasons, which is why I presummed it was deleted on the same grounds. If it was subsequently deleted based upon the uploader (a known abuser), I apologise. However, the infobox did contain a linked source, so it still presents a bit of a problem. I am prepared to say that I may have over-reacted to a degree, but I still feel that there needs to be a tighter understanding of just what exactly qualifies for speedy deletion. A file should not be deleted speedily merely for being uploaded by an abuser if it contains a legitimate source (indeed this abuser is known to upload a mixture of sourced and unsourced material), nor should it be speedily deleted based on its potential copyright status if a disagreement has already been expressed in the file's edit history. Would that be an accurate statement? My contention is that speedy deletion (in many cases) removes the ability of others users who may have pertinent knowledge to express themselves, because they may be entirely unaware that the file is even being questioned. There are certain files that are so indisputable that yes, it is appropriate to delete them without hesitation, but can we say that is always (or predominantly) the case? Fry1989 ^eh? 17:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

 Comment IMO keeping files uploaded by LTA just encourages them to continue, specially when socking. It is also burdensome to check them all. So a speedy mass deletion is appropriate in those cases. Yann (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

ساطي المساد

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

Another sock of دامر العمري. Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Jonteemil (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Indefinitely blocked by Squirrel, all contributions deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Fanblade81 failing to provide image permission

• Fanblade81 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

User has been uploading official social media photos of Filipino actor Alden Richards since March, repeatedly claiming to have received permission from Richards' manager or team to do so, but that permission has never been sent to COM:OTRS for verification, or declared on the subject's social media.

Since a final warning for this in April they've uploaded four more photos of Richards without providing evidence of permission, two of which have already been deleted. Belbury (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked Fanblade for a week and deleted his uploads about Alden Richards. Taivo (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Martin832

A user is changing the colors on flags as he wants. Here's an example: File:Flag of Slovakia.svg, here File:Flag of Iceland.svg or here File:Coat of arms of Slovakia.svg. He's not providing any sources and is commenting, 'The colors are better.' He is also starting an edit war and not providing any valuable sources. The user himself User:Martin832 wants to be reported and banned as he wrote on my talk page User talk:Dasomm. Dasomm (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  Comment I warned Martin832 about COM:OVERWRITE, and protected the 3 files for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I am so sorry. i know i changed a lot of colours. The flag of slovakia or the flag of icland. I am really sorry. i will revert the flag of Iceland to the official colours. Dasomm, i appreciate so much for reverting the flag of Slovakia and the coat of arms of Slovakia to the official version. Also i am very sorry for reverting so much. Hope you have a happy, joyful and great day. Martin832 (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Usedknobby

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

Reuploads File:Male penis.png as File:Human penis and testcle.png a mere hour after being warned with {{Nopenis}} by A1Cafel. Jonteemil (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Kayode Badmus

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

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

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

MDGreatZ

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

Has been creating an article on Wikipedia with a number of copyrighted images. They were all deleted a few days ago but they have simply reuploaded them. Warned them on their talk page. Cloventt (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Deleted copyvios; blocked uploading. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Irreconcilable anti-collaboration attitude from Krd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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