Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.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
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
131, 130, 129, 128, 127, 126, 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
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
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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.

Successive helper

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion
✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Former duplicate report

[edit]
✓ Done Blocked for 3 months, file deleted. Yann (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Adinar0012 and mass deletion of redirected categories

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Adinar0012 (talk · contribs)

Some other eyes and opinions needed on this. As a couple of examples, Category:1955 at Berlin Tempelhof Airport and Category:1955 architecture, converting plausible cat name redirects into G2s. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I reverted the diffs provided by Andy; the rest can wait and see I guess Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I went ahead and mass-reverted all the G2 tags Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
We still end up taking damage though, because of the usual handful of admins who can't resist a speedy deletion, even when it's bogus. Category:1953_events_at_the_Amsterdam_RAI Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I see while I've been away for a few days no one has followed this up. Is there any admin who objects to a block here? Or does Adinar0012 have something to say for themself? - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

OtikolenoiL uploads

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago12 comments6 people in discussion

OtikolenoiL (talk · contribs)'s uploads may have been all COPYVIOs. See their message on my talk page. I hope someone will act on this matter. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 20:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I want all these photos removed. Thnks OtikolenoiL (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The photos I'm requesting be removed are ones
I downloaded from Facebook and Twitter. I then modified the EXIF ​​data, replacing it with my own, including my author information.
Currently, the owner of these images is asking me to remove them from Wikimedia Commons to avoid legal repercussions.
Thank you for helping me resolve this issue.
OtikolenoiL (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment I deleted all these and some more. @OtikolenoiL: Are all the remaining images taken by you? Est-ce que toutes les images restantes ont été prises par vous ? Yann (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yann: There are definitely more here. I have only checked a few examples, but all of them were used elsewhere before the user's "alleged own work claim" uploads. Note: All of the users uploads are most low resolution files, sometimes with just a few KBs. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 04:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Ziv: OK, I deleted more files. I now understand that EXIF was faked on many pictures, if not all. So we probably should delete them all. I also wonder if we should block this account, because not understanding copyright is one thing, and faking EXIF data is another. Yann (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
They seem to have more copyvios. I support blocking the user and deleting all of their uploads. There's no reason to trust any of their license claims, and it isn't fair for the community to have to do detective work on each one to prove copyvios. -Consigned (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Ziv and @Yann: I  Support such actions.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Some of the images were taken by me, but conversely, the images I've underlined do not belong to me; they are copyrighted images, which is why I want them removed.
Certaines images ont étaient prises par moi, mais au contraire les images que j'ai soulignées ne m'appartiennent pas, sont des images sous droit d'auteur, voilà pourquoi je souhaite leur suppression
OtikolenoiL (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@OtikolenoiL: I would recommend that you tag those images that are definitely not your own with a deletion request or a speedy deletion request yourself. (Je vous recommande d'ajouter vous-même une demande de suppression ou une demande de suppression rapide aux images qui ne vous appartiennent manifestement pas.) זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 14:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay thanks. OtikolenoiL (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I think the copyrighted images have already been removed. Thank you very much. OtikolenoiL (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oursana sorting by arbitrary number

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago13 comments9 people in discussion

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I endorse this report. In fact, this issue goes back over four years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I recommend that a few more admins read Commons talk:Categories#Sorting by arbitrary number. I think there is a real problem here, and I would like to see at least something like a TBAN from cat sorting. I'd love to see them turn this energy into making good gallery pages (a far better way to accomplish what they seem to be after), and I wouldn't even object to Oursana being able to propose a cat sort on a given category talk page, but not to cat sort unilaterally. I am pretty convinced they are doing more harm than good. - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would agree with a TBAN. As a side note, we should have a standard template to put at the top of categories that are using well-defined sorting (such as by-date sorting while relevant). I could draft the language, but I have no experience making translatable templates. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Until now it is not forbidden to sort. On my disc you find also three positive reactions. Even the Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2022/02#Numerical_sort_keys#Numerical sort keys had no result. One can only get banned for something that is clear forbidden.
Many times also on my talkpage t talked with User:Wuselig for whom all sortkeys are not necessary, but he never told me to stop.
I was thanked for my sorting by user:FotoDutch
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=thanks&user=FotoDutch&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist&excludetempacct=1
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAmsterdam_photo_2023_-_a_modern_metal_arch_bridge_for_pedestrians_and_bikers%3B_location_is_at_the_west_side_of_Central_Station._In_the_background_the_Prins_Hendrikkade._Free_download_street_photography%2C_Fons_Heijnsbroek%2C_CCO_Netherlands.tif&oldid=prev&diff=1118402015[
Sorting by filename is the most unilateral thing to do
Commons:Forum/Archiv/2018/July#Parameter in Kategorien discussed sortkeys, whether practical or not, not forbidden
Sorting by arbitrary sortkey of photos of a creek was also discussed by another user Commons:Forum/Archiv/2022/March#Dateien werden nicht in Wikimedia Commons angezeigt, no word that this is forbidden - which really is not. Oursana (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Coming from Commons talk:Categories#Sorting by arbitrary number, I find their latest comment here to be yet another in a line of being unable to see anything wrong with their approach. Multiple veteran users who explicitly express their concerns about this, are essentially dismissed as "but nobody really has had a problem with this". --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
There are two things, 1. to accept other users different opinions now, which I do and stopped categorizing long ago, 2. to accept a ban for something that was not cleared before. And for both you must accept that many did not have a problem, or didn't like but didn't care, and some even liked it. Even Jeff was not clear. Was the problem the sorting or the "failure" of explanation. For commons categories are not many rules. Some create cats for 1 file only, some do not bother about the chosen language by cat naming, some create ambigious cat names, specially in the arts without artist's name. Some say galleries must have two files. All is not fixed and there are endless discussions. And you must admit that the "discussion" was from the beginning very agressive, agf was missing, and sorting by arbitrary file names gives no better quality. There are no rules for file names and no rules for the size of categories. The longer commons exists, the more files have to be managed, and many editors and users are not convinced from commons category system which has to be improved. By sorting I often realize to create dividing categories like Remote views of Royal Palace of Amsterdam with 116 files from Royal Palace of Amsterdam, which contained ca. 500 files when I started, certainly unuseful. I suggest to keep open the possibilities to agree on a sorting system on the cat disk. By year in the arts is often useless. Oursana (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
the "discussion" was from the beginning very agressive, once again that's not true. People is kindly asking you to stop since years, you juste ignore everybody that does not agree with your idea, and keep repeating that a lot of people thank you for your sorting (which IMHO is greatly overestimated, this is the log of the "thanks" you received). It's true there are not specific regulations about sorting files, this is a wiki, and it's ok to be bold trying to improve the archive. It's not ok to just ignore everybody that is telling you to please stop. --Phyrexian ɸ 14:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Everybody's out of step except my Johnny!"

@Oursana: if you accept this now, and stop doing creating these arbitrary sorts, I don't see any reason for a block, but please stop insisting that no one ever said anything to you about this before, clearly several people did, they just didn't push the matter. - Jmabel ! talk 20:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I stopped already, but let us be open for discussions. And you? When you read English and German (in some given links) you realize that I mentioned it myself and linked the discussion with Pigsonthewing and the unsuccessful Village pump in 2022, with two answers. Commons:Forum/Archiv/2022/October#Umbenennen von Dateien "Rename of file" to the end Ralf Roletschek cites my numeral sortings with this 17-04-15-Potsdamer Platz-RalfR-DSC 0028.jpg filename, which he thinks ridiculous and does not revert, and XRay talks about a discussion when he could not convince me, Raymond dislikes all sortkeys and says he simply ignores, with hope to wikidata.
So there are fans (perhaps still not to many), users who do not care, dislikers who do not care, dislikers who care but do not act and the famous group here. Together with the works on a Glam occasion I learned from Ralf Roletschek to use simple forthgoing numbers what I did to be transparent. Not convincing is to set arbitrary filenames over numeral sortkeys and that there is no regard of the often convincing better result of the category. What I told Pigsonthewing and what is true we had 10 years a community office in Hamburg. So I was in weekly real contact for ten years with many commons photographers, admins and editors. In our Hamburg community there were no complains (group 1 and 2 above) but strong dislikers of the commons category system. I sometimes actively asked them, when their photos were concerned. I remember there was a baloon flight over Hamburg with ca. 4 commons photographers everybody with his own naming system. So I helped with accepted categories and sorting. - I am not so happy, but happy we finish this.Oursana (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:MasSaudagar

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

MasSaudagar (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
I think they attempted to insult me when they wrote "but here we are, peole are scary enough to delete my edit, and page" "cheers wonderful nerds admin :)" on their user page (though it's hard to tell from the broken English), so I guess someone else should handle this now. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Gbawden, you deleted their user page a few hours ago. I don't know what the contents were that time. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
i have warned them to be civil. Let's see what they do next Gbawden (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done Blocked for a week. After my warning they posted on their user page again. Hopefully they get the message Gbawden (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Poprace once again

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Even though I reported abusive contribution of @Poprace a little bit more than a week ago [2] and this user received a ban for a week, he ignored the reason of blockade, hasn't improved in any way whatsoever, and obviously did not acknowledge that, see - a second after the end of blockade, he's once again posting pictures without proper license or permission. In other words, it's either a bot or somebody who pretends is not aware of breaking Wikimedia's rules (even though this user was multiply reminded about his abusive behavior on the discussion page and through the ban). Please, consider more serious actions, another weekly ban does not fix anything. Deuwberst (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

You're talking about 8 files here. Hardly flooding. I fail to see how you expected them to "improve[d] in any way whatsoever" whilst blocked. The complaint you now make about them uploading "without proper license or permission" would seem to be here and the like where @TimWu007: is incorrectly tagging these files (uploaded as CC0 own works) as "missing evidence of permission". That is an incorrect tag and an error by TimWu007. Clearly they do have a licence tag, added by Poprace at the time. They seem to be exactly the sort of images taken by someone walking into a dealership or car park and photographing the car.
Precisely what is wrong here? What are you accusing Poprace of?
They are not "without proper license or permission", they have a CC0 added at the time of upload.
If you are accusing Poprace of uploading photos from somewhere else, i.e. not their own work, then firstly the tag added by TimWu007 is wrong: they would still not be missing evidence of a proper licence, they'd by copyvios (and we'd have to judge them differently). You would also have to state this clearly in a DR (not just a speedy, unless it's clear cut) and you'd also have to make some level of argument, with evidence, to support your claim. If these were taken from elsewhere on the 'net, then post a link to the original files and make this clear. But without doing that, you're simply harassing Poprace without evidence, and this has clearly become some sort of personal campaign for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Momoshark

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have recently been patrolling abuse filter logs and marking copyvios or marking files are patrolled. I was looking at Special:AbuseFilter/12 and came across File:Pugibuni - Birthday 1 present.jpg (revision history) where the uploader - User:Momoshark removed the {{Db-fairuse}} tag put up by User:ScalarFactor.

I reverted the edit and said "do not remove delete tags" in the edit summary and gave them a warning in their talk page. The warning, along with all deletion notifications has been reverted by the User.

The SD tag was again reverted by the uploader. I put up the tag again saying "Do not remove delete tag yourself" in edit summary. In response User:Momoshark reverted the edit and said "Nope you have been blocked" in edit summary and put {{Blocked}} in my talk page. He does not have the authority or the ability to do so. I reverted his edit in the file page which marked 3 reverts. User:Momoshark again reverted the edit saying "LTA" in edit summary.

I attempted to find a resolution to the dispute and posted in his talk page which was also reverted by the User. I again put up the deletion tag for now.

I think this is a case of Commons:Disruptive editing and goes to COM:BP for edit warring. I am seeking 3rd party solution. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 20:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: deleted the file as I was typing this. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 20:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done Warned again, user blocked for 3 days. Hopefully they get the message. Yann (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Should I post {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ in their talk page despite them being blocked. Also can you revert the block notice in my talk page? Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 20:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done This account is indeed a sock, so blocked indef. Yann (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Disruptive and automated misuse of CSD F10 tags by User:Omphalographer

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I am reporting an ongoing issue with User:Omphalographer regarding the reckless and automated use of CSD F10 (speedy deletion) tags.

This user is systematically tagging legitimate files without checking for cross-project usage, specifically ignoring Wikidata. Recently, my file File:Bent24Oficiallogo.png was tagged despite being actively required for the verified Wikidata item Q139845387 (which includes official authority controls like ISNI).

A quick look at User talk:Omphalographer reveals a clear and ongoing pattern of disruption: there are over 9 recent complaints from different users about unjustified speedy deletions, including at least two other verified official logos.

Running automated deletion scripts without basic manual verification creates a massive bureaucratic burden for legitimate creators and the entire moderation team. I kindly request that administrators review this user's automated tagging practices before more legitimate files are blindly nominated for speedy deletion. Bent24oficial (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bent24oficial: you're most likely abusing Wikimedia projects for self-promotional endeavours, which are forbidden anywhere - including Wikidata (see: COM:NOT, d:WD:NOT / d:WD:SELF and as reference en:WP:NOT and es:WP:NOES). So the issue doesn't lie with Omphalographer, but within your misunderstanding of the projects. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your comment, @Grand-Duc. However, the core of this report is not about my user account, but about a documented pattern of an administrator misusing automated scripts for CSD F10 tags without manual verification, which has affected multiple users and official logos recently.
Regarding your concern, please note that Wikidata guidelines explicitly allow the addition of verified authority controls (such as international ISO standard ISNI keys) to prevent data duplication and maintain the semantic web structure. This is a structural contribution, not "self-promotion" as defined in d:WD:SELF. The file is actively used under the P154 property on Wikidata.
I kindly ask to keep the focus of this noticeboard on the automated tagging practices reported here, rather than shifting the discussion toward personal assumptions. Let's wait for an independent administrator to review the case. Bent24oficial (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh, frankly: how deep did you delve into the structures of rules and user roles here? You're making several false assumptions, likely due to not being well-enough informed. Omphalographer is not an admin (see COM:Administrators) and there are no automated tools tagging images.
According to one of the edit summaries, he was using the Visual file change tool, which is only semi-automatic - and lead to the slight issue of naming COM:CSD#F10 instead of the maybe better suited COM:CSD#G10 for adverts. But as there is generally a large overlap between both cases, it doesn't matter. Omphalographer doesn't add any burden for the moderation team, in fact, his actions are welcomed and make him an actual part of that team. Well, I digress.
Your account was registered today, the list of your uploads is strictly related to your own media productions - that's an archetypical case of a self-promotional individual trying to use the reach of Wikimedia projects for their own gains, akin to SEO. Doing that makes you run afoul of rules about paid contribution, not necessarily on Commons (COM:PAID), but likely on Wikidata (d:WD:PAID) and certainly on most Wikipedia editions. You may try to subvert the actual issues lying in your activities (SEO, promotion) by trying to blame a valued quality checker, but that won't fly. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Accusations of "paid contributions" or intent to subvert rules are entirely unfounded and violate the principle of assuming good faith. This is an independent, non-commercial artistic project. Fulfilling a structural database need by adding a valid ISNI control and linking an official logo under P154 is a legitimate use of the global repository, not a commercial SEO exploit.
As you explicitly admitted above, the F10 speedy deletion tag was incorrectly applied, which confirms the core of this report: the tool was used without verifying the active cross-project usage clearly visible under "Global file usage." Since the misapplication of the speedy deletion criteria has been acknowledged, I will now leave this thread open for an independent administrator to review the facts. Thank you. Bent24oficial (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
This independent administrator has blocked Bent24oficial for spamming and deleted the images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Re. F10 vs G10 - I generally reserve G10 for files which are inherently promotional in nature, like images advertising products or services, or PDFs containing embedded spam links. These images (book covers) are more situationally promotional than inherently so. Omphalographer (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:毕明明

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Continue to create incomplete DR here, despite the user already been warned many times with this account and also being blocked with their other account. See previous AN/U thread: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 127#RichardBi0129.

At en-wiki, it indicated en:User:RichardBi0129 is a sockpuppet of en:User:毕明明. So, most likely they are the same user. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Blocked for socking, as well as some other accounts: Category:Sockpuppets of RichardBi0129. Yann (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:K7yz3

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago10 comments4 people in discussion

K7yz3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - user continues to upload copyvio and to create fake album covers to spam them crosswiki. Also removes all the warnings from their talk page. Removes deletion tags from their uploads. - Jcb (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

 m:SRG § Global lock for K7yz3. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 10:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
1. I do not spam. I just completed pages without cover, that's all. I have no problem when somebody replaces it by another picture.
2. I take copyright very seriously but the behaviour of Jcb is disproportionate. He requests the deletion of all my files just because they are from me.
3. Yes, I removed a tag some months ago when I added further information to a file. In that time I had no experience yet and I didn't do it again as Jcb claims.
4. Yes, I remove content from my own discussion page when I noticed it. This is not forbidden.
  • Weinfarben.png is a selfmade table.
  • Orangewein mit AP-Nr...jpg is a selfmade photo of a bottle of wine.
  • Zwergplaneten.jpg is a public domain illustration (NASA).
  • Ruth Ellen Maness.jpg is a selfmade photo.
  • 16-9 Format.png is a selfmade illustration.
  • Oranger Wein (cropped).jpg is an excerpt from another file with permission.
  • Dawum Wahltrend.jpg is a public domain illustration (Dawum).
  • Four Colors of wine.png is a selfmade table.
  • Buchhalterisch.ogg is an audio record.
  • Buchhalterisch AT.ogg is an audio record.
  • Scraps 2.jpg is a photo of food.
  • The rest shows fanmade typefaces or simple geometric shapes which are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough.
Please take a closer look at the matter before acting. If you have questions, contact me.
K7yz3 (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Lies. Why then does the reason for your indefinite partial block on German Wikipedia translate to this?
"Reinstating the second ban due to edit war and using non-encyclopedic sources that were overwritten for technical reasons was" (translation cut off at the "was") Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why are you treating me so badly? I don't know what this matter has to do with that? We speak about the permission of some pictures and I explained it. Your mentioned block refers to an article. K7yz3 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
You have been massively adding fake covers to our articles is many different languages, thus spreading false information. Our articles need to contain facts, not your phantasy art. Jcb (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
As you should know, simple fanmade logos are standard practice on several Wikipedia pages such as the German Wikipedia if the original poster/cover cannot be displayed for legal reasons. This has nothing to do with spam or copyright violation. Furthermore you generally marked all my files for deletion although they don't have to do anything with this matter (e.g. sound records, photos etc.). Why do you do this to me? K7yz3 (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
If a file is not allowed for legal reason, a fan-made version is certainly not appropriate. Either it is a derivative work of the original, and it is not allowed for copyright reasons; or it is completely different, and then it is out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is not true. Simplified replicas are standard practice on many Wiki sites which cannot use common sense. You find logos like these in thousands of articles about films and albums because they are ineligible for copyright. K7yz3 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done I blocked K7yz3 for reporting Jcb instead of listening to justified complains about their files. Yann (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Archie Forever

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Archie Forever (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) a lot of copyvios after the last warning. Romano1981 (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Blocked for a week, obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

JesseDegenerate’s undisclosed paid editing

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

See this and compare with this Yacàwotçã (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Not done because disclosure for paid editing on Commons is not required. signed, Aafi (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Aafi woah didn't know that, sorry! Yacàwotçã (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Jcb

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

User Jcb (talk · contribs) ("the voice of Wikipedia") requests deletion of ALL my files across the board, even though he only has a problem with certain files (logos). This is bordering on vandalism. K7yz3 (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Not done I blocked K7yz3 for reporting Jcb instead of listening to justified complains about their files. Yann (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Good call. I'm scrubbing their files from all the wikis.
For those who are wondering, the context of what K7yz3 is referring to is "In my home country I'm known as the voice of Wikipedia, for the number of spoken versions of articles I produced." from Jcb's user page.
Jcb should have probably nominated the logos in their own section to make it easier to discuss the files, but that's not "bordering on vandalism". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dey H.E

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ranwjyaaa and Raden liee alhidayah

[edit]
Latest comment: 18 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Uploading personal photos for promoting himself in Wikidata:special:history/Q123448682. Please kindly delete all of those photos as here is not Instagram anyway. ~2026-32181-89 (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Both blocked indef., one for socking, and the other for reuploading out of scope files after warning. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hugo.fr43

[edit]
Latest comment: 18 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  • Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading for years.

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Delete the lot, block until they discuss and understand the problem here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment Some of the logos tagged by CoffeeEngineer are in fact {{PD-textlogo}}. I deleted some files, and sent the last warning. And files which are borderline the threshold of originality should get a regular deletion request, not a "no permission" tag. Yann (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Кумнац

[edit]
Latest comment: 11 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Кумнац (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) recent copyvios after multiple warnings, including the 'last' one. Romano1981 (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=1222966379"