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
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	125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

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.

Worvandae

Latest comment: 2 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion

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

I would like to report an account suspected of blocked evasion here. I accidentally got this [1], [2] so they can be Musée Annam, Tarchivum, Unserefahne, they are all the same and assume Chu An instead of Chu Van An. Another case is [3], [4] nón tơi instead of nón lá.

Examples from other project [5].

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

They made non-consensual edits like the examples above. They wrote Chiến-kiện Hà-nội 1946 instead of Trận Hà Nội 1946 (this is the old way of writing mixed with Chinese). They got mad when I rollbacked/undid the LTA IP range edits [6] is locked by EPIC year by year. I think the WMF community has reached a consensus on blocking their global edits, they were blocked on every project viwikipedia, enwikipedia, commons with different sock masters. They passed the test on wikidata for some reason so I guided them as newbies but they do not follow instructions but harass and attack individuals [7]. I think they intentionally harass Mxn (CU of viwikipedia) with such edits. I retired from wikidata still worried about their edits here.

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

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

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

@Greenknight dv, @Băng Tỏa Do you have any comments here based on your work at enwikipedia and viwikipedia [8]? Henrydat (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

Comment: This user is still a problem. Yesterday I turned down a requested move that would have changed perfect English grammar into a mess. His requests are primarily changing the word at to in. When filemovers turn down a request he just requests the move again hoping someone else will do it. Geoffroi 19:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

WP:CIR and User:Drbogdan

Latest comment: 12 hours ago18 comments8 people in discussion

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

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

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

Notification (diff)

Response (diff)

Edit to image rights (diff)

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

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

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

It took me a few minutes to fix all the templates with VisualFileChange

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 12:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

It seems that's not exactly a workable solution here. Drbogdan appears to have assumed every image from JPL is free to use. For example, this image has rights beyond just JPL; also assigned to the Max Planck Institute, UCLA, and the German Aerospace Center. This image has a rights situation beyond the standard JPL release, and this is just a vanity image of his own publication history in an unreadable format. There's dozens of space images removed for copyvio reasons linked on Drbogdan's talk page; I think there's going to need to be a manual review of the uploads. Wikibreaksock (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drbogdan should be indeffed. He was banned on enwiki for a reason and that reason is clearly applicable to Commons as well. --Dronebogus (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately I agree with Dronebogus here. This pattern is an exact duplication of the behaviours that got him CBANned on en.Wikipedia, and if he hadn’t just explained to me in response that he has neither the time nor the interest in cleaning up his messes, which right now number in the thousands, I wouldn’t have even brought it here. As it is I think this is the same mix of extremely poor editing, an unwillingness to reflect, a willingness to engage in personal attacks (which, to be clear, is what the above contextless screed about drama boards was), and most importantly a willingness to treat commons as a personal web host for dozens of now-removed personal images (link) and his personal “biography” (link) it’s pretty clear these issues will be intractable, or else some lessons would have percolated to commons from his en.wp CBAN.

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

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

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

I

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

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

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

Reply - Thanks for your comments - based on my experiences over the years, wiki-culture seems to have improved in some ways since earlier times - I've encountered many, many good-faith collaborators along the way - unfortunately, a few detractors as well - seems to come with the territory - nonetheless - my understanding, mostly from User:Huntster, an administrator on Commons, was that the image descriptions and related as currently presented were *entirely* ok - and may still be *entirely* ok afaik - as before, my contributions (over 18yrs/98k global edits/306 articles/2.5k uploaded images/11k watchlist) depended on my interest, time and circumstances - which may be different these days for one reason or another (mostly real-world) - regardless - thanks to all those who commented (esp constructively) over the years - and to all those who provided me the opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia - Wikipedia is a truly great project for the very best of reasons in my opinion - at the very least, a worthy beginning step to the responsible literature - in any case - no problem whatsoever - back to regular stuff - plenty on our plate these days - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Latest comment: 5 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

Also 174.200.71.119 (talk · contribs)

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

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

And they're back...

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

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

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

Involved block review - DoctorWhoFan91

Latest comment: 4 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest comment: 5 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bloomagiliw

Latest comment: 4 days ago10 comments2 people in discussion

I think Bloomagiliw has understood the problem and there is no gain to be bity towards this contributor. Thanks Agent 007 (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I withdraw my nomination Agent 007 (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

User:Nigar1972

Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

Um3wawy64m4

Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

User:Ltbdl

Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adamant1

Latest comment: 3 days ago10 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:越前太郎

Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

Block evading user

Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Removal of speedy tag and sockpuppetry

Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These three users are

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

@Atlan; When it concerns suspicion of abuse of sockpuppets, next time it is better to turn to Commons:Requests for checkuser. --Lymantria (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

Latest comment: 8 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

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

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