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	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	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: ~5
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~6
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-07: ~136

Other:

• Duplicates: ~7,207
• Advertisements/spam: ~4
• Personal photos/selfies: ~1
• Other speedy deletions: ~7
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~4
• Undeletion requests: ~16

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~3
• Interface admin: ~11
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~4
• 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.

Massive deletion requests by IP

• 176.1.22.76 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) requests tons of deletion of old(!) redirects, because they don't like the typos. I left a note on the disc. Maybe an admin can have a look? I assume correctly that we still keep old redirects? I don't see any bad intention, tho. Thx! ----Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I normally use Template:Bad name for those misspelled category redirects which says that misspelled categories should be deleted. That is also the reason C1 in the policy: COM:CSD#C1: Improperly named category:

• "Categories with incorrect names may be speedily deleted after their contents have been moved to a properly named category. If the old category name is also correct, a redirect should be left in place."

My speedy requests were for misspelled category redirects, not for file redirects and not for category redirects with correct names.

But I know that there exist admins which always move categories without redirects as standard also for categories without misspellings. And I know that there exist admins which also delete file redirects without misspellings as standard, not only for new files. I don’t understand these things and I think that those are bigger problems than deleting misspelled category redirects such as the policy says, they should be deleted.

If those misspelled category redirects would not be deleted anymore, just because they are one year old or older, then there would be thousands of misspelled category redirects after a while. I don’t think that this really is what most users want. —176.1.22.76 06:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I want to add: Up to now, these misspelled category redirects (after having moved the category on better names) have always been deleted. Therefore, I don’t understand, why this shall be a problem now. There have been deleted also other redirects without such misspellings, I have also created redirects out of a few of those category redirects without misspellings with a "bad name" tag sometimes, if there was a good target category for it. But I think that especially those misspelled ones really should be deleted. —176.1.22.76 07:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Rename a category #Deleting the old category:

• "If the old category is a simple typo or you are the only person who ever used the category and you are the one fixing it up, it can safely be deleted. Request speedy deletion by marking it thus: {{bad name|new name}}"

Those are the misspelled category redirects, they all have such typos. And there is no difference, if the category was long on the old misspelled name and has been moved in the last days or if there has been an old misspelled redirect, in both cases there exist misspelled category redirects on a name that existed for a longer time. But the policy says that misspelled redirects shall be deleted. It doesn’t say anything about the age of the misspelled redirect or the misspelled category before the move. Nothing at all. I think that this would have to be discussed on the policy talk page, but not here. —176.1.22.76 07:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Now the category redirects have all been deleted. I see a another problem with this. If other admins would have deleted those category redirects with the Template:Bad name on the page, it would normally look like this:

• X deleted page Category:Y ((incorrectly named) duplicate, content moved to [[:Category:NewCategoryName]])

In those normal cases, everyone can find the correct name of the category at once, so there is no problem with it.

But now again, User:Yann (who has a talk page which he has protected indefinite 2 years ago for every IP user) has deleted those redirects. Therefore I can’t talk to him about this directly. When he deletes those category redirects with bad name template, it always looks like this without any link to the new category name after the move:

• X deleted page Category:Y (per COM:SPEEDY)

In most cases, there also is the move log with the new name, then that is no problem. But it might be, that the category was never on the redirect’s name and hasn’t been moved. Then the correct name of the category only is on the deleted page, but not in the deletion or move log. Then the target category can’t be found anymore easily, and users will think that there doesn’t exist such a category anymore, and they can't see why. It would be better, if the new category’s name would always be placed into the deletion log, but I have never seen him doing that. I don’t know, what to do with that problem, because I can’t ask him directly. He is the only admin doing this who is that active with deletions of category redirects, and none of these got the correct category name in the deletion log.

I have also fixed broken redirects already. There have been thousands of those broken category redirects a few months ago after deletion of their target categories. If the deletion log said, Yann has deleted the category, and there was no move log, then it wasn't possible to see, if the deletion has been because the category had been just empty or if it had a better name somewhere else which not always can be found anymore. Then the broken redirect always had to be deleted, if no better target could be imagined.

And is it wanted, that a very active admin has a permanently protected talk page (since 2 years already) and IP users can’t ask him anything on that page about his admin actions anymore and have to address problems or questions directly on pages like this? —176.1.22.76 09:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, my talk page is semi-protected as there have been too many vandalisms. There are very rarely questions by IPs which should not be on a common board, like this one. And yes, I delete empty categories when there are tagged as such. Yann (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with deleting empty categories with the reason "empty" or a link to the speedy reasons. In those cases, there isn’t an existing category to link to. But in these cases from above, they weren’t just empty categories, they were misspelled category redirects which I all tagged with Template:Bad name (for finding the new category names better), and surely, all these redirects also were empty. But the reason for deletion of those redirects wasn’t their emptiness, but the misspellings. And for all of them, there still exists a category which isn’t empty at all. And the redirects linked to them and the bad name tag also did. Therefore, I think that there should be those links to the correct spelled, non-empty categories also in the deletion log. Only then can users or other projects which may have the misspelled link on any page find the category again easily. If only a link to the policy page is in the log and maybe no move log for that category redirect, then they find it not anymore and think, the category itself would have been deleted and not only the redirect to it. Do you see, what I mean? Template:Bad name was created for those cases, so that it is easier to put the correct name directly onto the redirect and then into the deletion log. Could you please put the correct names there in the future? I would appreciate that very much and I think, other users also.

And after 2 years of protection, I think the talk page could be opened again and only be protected for shorter terms, if there will be vandalism again. Kind regards —176.1.22.76 13:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Please create an account. With the number of your edits, you would be autopatrolled by now. Yann (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I’ll think about that. But that doesn’t answer those deletions without links to the categories with the correct names. If you’ll change that, I really would be glad about that. I don’t put the bad name templates onto the misspelled category redirects only to see again and again that the names of the correct spellings are not in the deletion log nevertheless. I’m already trying to avoid your deletions because of this, but as you see here, I can't. —176.1.22.76 18:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Could you please list the deleted categories? Yann (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I can’t list all those category redirects, there were many. But I’ve also found some, where really no move log has been. If I find them again, I’ll post them here. There also were some on 5 July, as I saw. I might have some of the deleted categories in some tabs, let’s see. —176.1.16.133 07:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, here are three of those examples that I can find now:

• Category:Pavillion im Murmelbachtal (Wupper): This category had been moved twice and lies now at Category:Pavillon (Parkanlage Vorwerk). I put a bad name tag onto the misspelled redirect and you deleted it with the reason "per COM:SPEEDY". Now, in the log, there are only red links, and everyone has to link through the log to Category:Pavillion (Parkanlage Vorwerk) until they can find the correct category. If there would be a link to it directly in the deletion log, finding it would be much easier. The log looks now as if the redirect would have been deleted because of being broken, because the target category has been deleted, but it hasn't. It's still there, on another correct name. This is not very good.
• Category:Pavillion of Chehel Sotoun: I had tagged this category redirect also with a bad name tag. But in the log, noone can find the correct name of the category anymore. I would guess, it could be at Category:Pavilion of Chehel Sotoun, but it isn't. I don't know, where that category is now. Everyone has to guess, if the category has been just empty or if it is elsewhere, but can't be found anymore.
• Category:Unicredit Pavillion: One more case like that above. I also put a bad name tag onto it, it was on another name, I would guess, it could be at Category:Unicredit Pavilion now, but it isn't there, it must be somewhere else. I can't even find myself, where the last two are now, but I know that they are still existing, because I used the bad name template for them. These logs are very bad now.

These are some of last week that I can find now, where this deletion reason really causes problems. There were more of those cases also on 5 July, maybe I can find some more of them, but I won't find every such problematic log entry anymore after many weeks with those kind of deletions. Please change that and always put the correct names into the logs as other admins do, then there will not be such cases anymore. And broken redirects to such log entries can’t be fixed, if they would exist. And would you please put the correct names in those three logs above, because noone can find the correct category names with those kind of log entries anymore, not even myself for the last two cases. --176.1.16.133 09:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hossein simaei

• User: Hossein simaei (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning 10:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC), including File:برج سامان فراز.png and File:فوتبال ایران و قطر.png.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Yann!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Uslmray

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

Reuploads File:Michael-Ray Pallares coaching Maxime Janvier at the US Open.jpg, previously deleted as copyvio, under a new filename, File:Pallares Janvier US OPEN.jpg, just an hour after given final warning {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit: It actually seems the user has reuploaded four files that all were deleted as copyvio, see below from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp	File	Uploader	Deleted file	Uploader
Jul 05 2025 03:18 PM	File:Pallares Janvier US OPEN.jpg	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 30 edits)	File:Michael-Ray Pallares coaching Maxime Janvier at the US Open.jpg (Und | Log)	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)
Jul 05 2025 03:11 PM	File:Michael-Ray Pallares González 2022 State Games of America Gold Medalist.jpg	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 30 edits)	File:2023 State Games of America Gold Medalist (Michael-Ray Pallares).jpg (Und | Log)	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)
Jul 05 2025 03:11 PM	File:Michael-Ray Pallares González 2022 State Games of America Gold Medalist.jpg	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 30 edits)	File:2022 State Games of America Gold Medalist.jpg (Und | Log)	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)
Jul 05 2025 03:01 PM	File:Harry Cicma 2.jpg	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 30 edits)	File:Harry Cicma.jpg (Und | Log)	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)

Jonteemil (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

YugoPoloFan

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

User recreated one of the files deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by YugoPoloFan, still out of scope. -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done There was not a formal warning, but that's done. All files deleted again. Yann (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. User re-uploaded out-of-scope files. I blocked him/her and will delete the uploads. Taivo (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Rheabrux

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

I've already blocked this user for a week on a precautionary basis, but I believe the block should probably be longer, even indef. No one edit was particularly out of line, but cumulatively the pattern of their edits appears to be disruptive, and I now see that they have already been indef-blocked for that on en-wiki.

Since blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive, for the moment I left this as a relatively short block to allow discussion to take place without continued disruption. - Jmabel ! talk 14:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there is not even one useful edit. Yann (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: so would you say "indef" or some particular duration? - Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks to me from their global contributions that they continue to make useless (or worse) edits on other wikis to which they still have access. I personally lean toward indef: I don't see any likelihood of them becoming a productive user. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I would say one to three months. Yann (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Since no one else is speaking up, three months it is.

 Done - Jmabel ! talk 02:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Veronicagazzara

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

Seems to have reuploaded all their files that were deleted the other day as copyvio. User was also warned two days ago with {{Dont recreate}} but apparently they haven't listened. Jonteemil (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

User:PrestigiousLynx4378

PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Recent copyvios after the last warning. Quick1984 (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I admit that I did a lot of things wrong. Basically, I just uploaded materials from the very first half of the 20th century (when in Russia they entered the public domain 70 years after their creation/publication, before 1956), as well as photographs of people currently living (if they died, then yes, they could be published with a non-free license in the Russian Wikipedia). ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Quick1984 and admins & moderators of Wikimedia Commons, I think you can understand me. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course I could go myself to certain places where the person lives and photograph them. But the problem is this: I'm only 16 years old, and I don't have the money or resources for these tasks. Especially if we are talking about some currently living people who, for example, were born and live in Ukraine (for example, take the same Larysa Bryukhovetska), the Baltics, as well as in NATO and EU countries, then being a citizen of Russia it is impossible to do this, due to the well-known events after February 24, 2022 and the sanctions that followed. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

In the case of Anatoly Krasinsky, the author of his photograph is unknown. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Excellent. And this fact allowed you to conclude this photo can be uploaded under Creative Commons Attribution license? Quick1984 (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I just thought that if a photograph is of a living person, and it is not taken from a work of art (like a movie or TV show) that is protected by copyright, then the photograph is not copyrighted. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

But thanks for your clarification. I will try to take these comments into account in the future by uploading either public domain material or your own photographs. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

If times of peace come. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, I am ceasing my activities in Commons Wikimedia, limiting myself to just one warning in 2025. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

And until this whole situation calms down. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is the latest (namely, about the situation in Ukraine, which has lasted since February 24, 2022, and the subsequent sanctions from other countries), it only aggravated the reason for my inability to perform such tasks. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

And also: maybe you can just drag and drop these files (such like a posters of films from 1920s and 1930s) into Russian Wikipedia. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

UPD: I saved some of the files mentioned, along with their links. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I saved the links of this files in txt format. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

These are blatant copyvios: File:Ольга Шервуд.jpg; File:Анатоль Віктаравіч Красінскі.jpg. You are uploading non-free photos under a false free license. Quick1984 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I have given above the reason why I cannot just go to one country or another to photograph them: I don’t have the resources or money for this. PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Already removed them from Wikidata. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

In the case of Olga Sherwood, I replaced it with a free photo from 2019 by Ivan Abaturov. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Almost every photo of a living person is copyrighted. (There are a few exceptions, but most of them are for photos at least 50 years old in certain countries, or for photos taken by employees of a handful of governments that put all their work in the public domain.) It's a pretty good rule of thumb that unless you know exactly what you are doing, or have a specific free license to cite, nothing from the last 50 years and very little from the last 70 years lacks copyright; even some works that are 120+ years old still have copyright. For almost anything from recent decades, you need a specific free license.

The fact that you are not in a position to take a particular photo yourself does not give you a right to upload an unfree photo to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Category blanking again

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

user is again blanking all categories and making files uncategorised, and then nominating those categories for deletion, e.g.

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:SZ_Shenzhen_Futian_Ping%27An_IFC_mall_shop_July_2025_R12S_04.jpg&diff=1054645679&oldid=1054057286
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:SZ_Shenzhen_Futian_Ping%27An_IFC_mall_shop_July_2025_R12S_07.jpg&diff=1054645685&oldid=1054057309
3. Category:July 2025 in Futian District.

for this account alone, other users have told them not to do so at least twice:

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HingWahStreet&oldid=1011814552#About_removing_categories
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HingWahStreet&oldid=1011814552#Removing_categories

RoyZuo (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I get that this is done to fix overcategorization, but why not just recategorize the file then in the correct category? Sev6nWiki (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@HingWahStreet Didn’t you said in your statement after you were unblocked this April that you would stop categorising/editing files related to Anonymous HK Photographer 1, to prevent this exact situation? Tvpuppy (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sev6nWiki I tend to categorize it into Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 needing review, but I am not sure so I originally blanked it.

@Tvpuppy Yes, Now I have already stopped doing this, and I admit that mistake. I will release my full statement regarding the user in minutes, and will keep distance from this user forever. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 00:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@HingWahStreet: Good. I already asked you to stop beating a dead horse in Special:Diff/1054592949 11:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

My full statement. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 01:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

https://hktransportjournal.blogspot.com/2025/07/special-update-10-july-2025.html 〈興華街〉📅❓ 07:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Why should we trust that you now really mean what you promise after you broke the pledge in the past? GPSLeo (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Please block me indef. I have sent a global vanish request. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 09:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef., per user's request. Yann (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

ARABCREATOR7

ARABCREATOR7 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Uploading non-free works after previous blocks. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 23:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done 6 months for third block The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Rozemmer

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

Removing deletion templates from files with active deletion discussions (Special:Diff/1054619550, Special:Diff/1054761349, Special:Diff/1054761169); removing other users' comments from deletion discussions (Special:Diff/1054778544). Omphalographer (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Files deleted, user indeffed as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Kingfahad6110

• Kingfahad6110 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploads deleted copyvio after given {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for two weeks. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

SI.ZITU

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

Self-promo account. NOTHERE. Jonteemil (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indef. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Bukagaming official

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

Self-promo account. Already blocked on enwiki. All Wikidata entries deleted as promo. Jonteemil (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indef blocked here and on Wikidata. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Пантелија

This Пантелија (talk · contribs) is re-uploading previously deleted personal photos. He is probably sockpuppet of Војвода Саша Милосављевић (talk · contribs). --Smooth O (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Info I've notified both accounts of this discussion per note #4 of COM:ANU, if that helps. Sev6nWiki (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Alexsandroclaudino92

• Alexsandroclaudino92 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Alexsandroclaudino92 has recreated two deleted pages. I can't see if the files are the same as before but an admin may please check. Anyway, all the user's files have sources but I can't find any license on the pages, except on File:Catedral de huehuetenango.jpg whose source was Flickr and license there was All rights reserved. On the bottom of each webpage where the user has gotten their other files are copyright notices, none of which indicate that the files are free. Given the user's history, two blocks for copyvio, I think it's fair to say the user just uploads any photos he finds online without regarding copyright whatsoever and then just chooses a free license on Commons. The user has only four edits that weren't in the File namespace and two of them were posting undeletion requests, one of them was responding to a response to one of their deletion requests and one was a removal of a deletion notice on their user talk page. So it seems the user doesn't really communicate or explain, nor complain on their their blocks. I boldly suggest blocking the user a third time and nuking uploads as NETCOPYVIO. Jonteemil (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Has been blocked on ptwiki as well. Competence is required. Jonteemil (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Catedral Santa Maria Mãe de Deus.jpg was the same file as before, I've deleted it again. File:Cardeal Pizzaballa.jpg is unrelated to the previous file of the same name, except in terms of its subject. - Jmabel ! talk 03:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. One year block (third block). No good edits from that account. Taivo (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Adrianxcasas2011

• Adrianxcasas2011 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Uploads new copyvio. Has one prior block for it. Jonteemil (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged

• Laurel Lodged (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Please block the user. This is not the first time he has insulted organizations of Russian Orthodoxy. [1] Official name: The Patriarchal Parishes in the USA, it was "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States", has become "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States". It's an insult! Ыфь77 (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Also, please cancel his edits regarding the organization "The Patriarchal Parishes in the USA". --Ыфь77 (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Reply As usual, the complainant's reversions of my edits consist of a single crypic wod - ERROR. No further rationale is offered by him. I have attempted to engage the complainant in a discussion - see here. As usual, he ignores logic and insists that my intent is to insult the ROC. This is not true and he has been asked on myltiple occasions to desist from such remarks. As I pointed out there, an official name, while useful, is not always to be slavishly followed in categorical space. Within the self-contained bubble of the ROC, the name makes sense; outside the ROC, it's impenetrable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Explanation, online translation: There is a registered religious organization in the USA, categories have been created for it. Laurel Lodged came in and renamed the categories as if this organization didn't exist. Denying the existence of anything is an insult. Ыфь77 (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: To eliminate inaccuracies, it is necessary to supplement, not rename. Ыфь77 (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  You are making a nuisance of yourself both here and elsewhere. I feel that the previous block for such behaviour has taught you nothing. Another, longer, block may be necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: You need more time to realize that you cannot approach religious organizations thoughtlessly. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: The user knows the name "Patriarchal Parishes in the USA" and will search for it. But it was "canceled" by Laurel Lodged. Is the convenience of one person above the convenience of others? I can't translate the term "узнаваемость" correctly, but that's what Laurel Lodging removed, while insulting a religious organization by canceling its name. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  See Wiki article Russian Orthodox Patriarchal Parishes in the USA where it is written "The Russian Orthodox Church in the USA is the name of the group of parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in America that are under the canonical authority of the Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus'.". Nothing could be clearer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: You don't understand the organization of the Russian Orthodox Church, but you've taken it upon yourself to edit categories. These parishes are united into an organization "The Patriarchal Parishes in the USA" with the status of a separate deanery. And you canceled this organization! Ыфь77 (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  The Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch is officially called the "Rūm Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East". Is Wiki "cancelling" the church by shortening the name to just "Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch"? Navigational ease trumps Easter-egg puffery. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Your name "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States" contains neither "Patriarchal" nor "Parishes". The comparison is inappropriate. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: For reference: "Patriarchal Parishes" is the standard name for an organization at the level of a separate deanery in the Russian Orthodox Church, see Category:Patriarchal Parishes of Russian Orthodox Church. Before the Laurel Lodged edits, there were 6 such categories. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment It feels weird to read that a name change from "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" to "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States" is seen as insult (cf. wikt:insult). In no fashion can I see that as derogatory, both names are quite neutral, the latter even more descriptive for people not deeply involved in the subject. And even if somebody had the medical meaning of insult in mind, approx. causing harm to some body tissue, it could not be transposed to such a renaming action. It's way easier to see and understand Ыфь77's present report as unsettling or uncouth activism, especially with known precedents to his file. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: The first name corresponds to the name of a religious organization, while the second one does not. In other words, by using the second name, you deny that such an organization exists. It's like saying, "There is no such Church." Isn't that an insult? I'm sure Laurel Lodged didn't want to write this, but he did. Therefore, he is guilty of insulting. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Uh, "In other words, by using the second name, you deny that such an organization exists. It's like saying, "There is no such Church." Isn't that an insult?" - that fits exactly in what I meant with "unsettling or uncouth activism". Languages all across the world allow for synonyms, and nothing disappears just because some official name is not used. The war in Ukraine, for instance, doesn't not happen just because it gets called "special military operation" among some countries and political circles. And a church doesn't vanish from existence just because it gets described with words that differs a bit from what the church calls itself, but which are contextually fitting. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: You're wrong. It's one thing to name a religious organization by another name, it's another to name it as if the organization doesn't exist at all. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding the word "insult" keep in mind that they are using a machine translation tool. The incorrect or confusing word choice might be the result of machine translation. However, if the organization is called "The Patriarchal Parishecl in the United States" then it's rather odd to rename it into "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States". That's like renaming the category for "Google Inc." to "Information technology companies in the United States". It doesn't make sense to rename the category of a specific organization to something generic and non-telling like "buildings". The organization has a name, and if that name is "Google" then call the related category "Google" instead of "information technology companies of the United States". Nakonana (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment FYI, I denied speedy deletion of Category:Patriarchal Parishes in the United States. Yann (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Online translation: I needed it to save the edit history when renaming it back. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Do you agree to rename it back? Yann (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this a disciplinary forum, not a category renaming forum? If you want to restore the status quo ante bellum (i.e. Category:Patriarchal Parishes in the United States) pending a full name change discussion, sure, go ahead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on this category, which is what should have been done from the start. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment At en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute, the Committee voted that Laurel Lodged had "failure to observe consensus", bad "behaviour towards other editors", was "indefinitely banned", and was "indefinitely topic banned from maintaining categories." His behavior here is no different, so the punishment should be no different (except we just have indefinite blocks here rather than bans).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  In personal communication with Laurel Lodged, I became convinced that he has 2 opinions: his and the wrong one. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  I could have made the same observation about your own behaviour but I have tried to keep my comments to the facts, not personal abuse. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Sure. Just look at your message here from 11:52 (UTC). Ыфь77 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  You appear to have gone straight to outrage, actually. That doesn't reflect well on you at all. Why didn't you take this dispute through the regular process of categories for discussion? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Not a single dialogue with Laurel Lodged has ended in that place yet. Religious insults require a quick solution. Ыфь77 (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  So you think it's OK not to make the attempt? And you consider this to be a religious insult, when it is likely just a misunderstanding? Your outrage is not impressive. I personally side with you over this, incidentally, but they way you are going about this is not helpful. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Do you see how much space this theme takes up? How much time has been practically wasted? All this time I took away from the really necessary editing of Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. That's why I prefer to immediately attract the attention of third parties rather than explain something to Laurel Lodged on my own. Ыфь77 (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  I watched that discussion, and it was against BrownHairedGirl. Everything should be seen in that light - one of the worst participants of Wikipedia has ever seen, and one who was indefinitely blocked. I don't think I'd give this dispute much weight on Commons. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Are these category names interchangeable? "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" as far as I can gather from this discussion, is the official name of a church (church as in organization, the "canonical division of the Russian Orthodox Church...in the United States of America and Mexico" per [2]). "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States" reads as a subset, as it applies to just buildings. Is the dispute that it should be "Buildings of the Patriarchal Parishes in the United States"? CMD (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  My sense of the situation is that the category Category:Patriarchal Parishes in the United States refers to just buildings (i.e. consists of church buildings and monastery buildings). They are not "parishes" in the sense of a parish hall, a parish church, a parish school, a priest, Easter parades etc. They are just buildings. I also have the sense that it is not an autocephalic church (i.e. it takes it's instructions directly from the Patriarch of Moscow). The label "parishes" suggest a canonical structure (e.g. a parish / deanery / diocese / province). However, that is not what the category actually contains - only buildings. To anyone outside the bubble of the ROC, the results of clicking on the category would be quite surprising. And "patriarchal" is not really enlightening either: which one is in scope - Constantinople, Rome, Alexandria, Moscow? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Give examples of organizations of other Orthodox Churches with the name "Patriarchal Parishes". Ыфь77 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is a disciplinary forum, not a category renaming forum. Your comments are misplaced. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: My comments are appropriate here: if it hadn't been for your extremely erroneous renaming, this section would not have existed. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Laurel Lodged: in this case, it is relevant to discuss the substance of the matters at hand. If you were a little high-handed, but clearly correct, that is a less likely to result in a block than if you were both high-handed and wrong. And high-handed, wrong, and avoiding discussion is sort of a trifecta. - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Hold on a moment... how is he being high handed? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  • @Chris.sherlock2: Sorry, I'm not inclined to go back and research and produce diffs; you are free to take my word or not; if you seriously doubt that I am speaking honestly and, feel genuinely free to start an AN/U discussion about what you believe to be my possible bad faith. In that case, I will do the heavy legwork to back up what I'm saying, but I really have other things I'd rather be working on right now. I am not the one who brought the complaint here, I'm just commenting as an admin who has been engaged in this situation with these two for roughly a year.

  Laurel Lodged has repeatedly, unilaterally changed category names in terms of Eastern Orthodoxy in North America. Despite repeatedly having their changes be controversial, I don't recall them ever starting out by trying to build consensus rather than make unilateral moves. The particular case here isn't among the more egregious, but it's a pattern. Probably the most egregious, and certainly one where the the term "insulting" would reasonably apply, was to attach the parenthesized qualifier "Moscow Patriarchate" to categories about the Orthodox Church in America. The OCA was once under the Moscow Patriarchate, which let go of any authority over the OCA and considers it autocephalous. Some other national Orthodox churches do not recognize the autocephaly of the OCA. The analogy I'm about to make is imprecise, but this is contentious in the manner that it would be for someone to move Category:Ukraine to Category:Ukraine (Russian province) or to move Category:Gdańsk to Category:Danzig. There has been a pattern here, and that this case is but one example of that pattern.

  Laurel Lodged is reasonably knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy in North America, more knowledgeable in the area than I am, but their edits in this area have been repeatedly contentious, to say the least, and they are never proactive in seeking consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Whoa! I’m not accusing you of anything, nor would I ever impune your honesty. I’m not sure why you would think this of me… - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  Really, I must object to the above comments of @Jmabel: . He knows better. He knows that I have been an active participant in the discussion Dioceses of the Orthodox Church in America since 23 April 2025. He knows that I have set out my case and sought to build a concensus. That that has not been possible is not my fault. The discussion would have benefitted from the input of other third parties. Regardless, it points to the fact that I have tried to engage with the complainant in a reasoned discussion. I think that Jmabel should withdraw the accusation of "I don't recall them ever starting out by trying to build consensus rather than make unilateral moves". By the way, you may refer to me in the third person as "he/him", not "they/them". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  • @Laurel Lodged: I had no idea of your gender until now. "Laurel" us usually a woman's name, but I figured it was best not to presume. I will refer to you by male pronouns from now on.
  • I did not say that you do not participate in efforts to reach consensus. I said that you consistently act without trying to build consensus first. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: As I wrote earlier, Laurel Lodged is poorly versed in Orthodoxy. The category refers to a religious organization, and the fact that there are no other photos in it besides buildings means that no one has photographed anything else or specified this category for personalities/rituals. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• There are a few issues on process here: Laurel Lodged renamed something (it looks likely incorrectly I'm afraid). However, I doubt they did this to insult anyone - going straight to outrage is hardly the way to handle this. Instead of discussing this in the appropriate area, which is a CFD, the opposing party has gone straight to Laurel's talk page. Now they have brought him to AN. I've now done what they should have done, which is to add it to categories for discussion. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Both @Ыфь77 and @Laurel Lodged have been very recently blocked for these disputes. I think some more drastic measure needs to be taken now (I'm not doing it myself as I blocked them last time) issuing 1) interaction ban between Laurel and ...77. 2) topic ban on religion 3) block. Bedivere (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  А мне то за что? Я только отменяю то, что сделал Laurel Lodged! Ыфь77 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment There doesn't seem to be any discussion here. "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" is obviously not just buildings, but seems frustratingly terse and unclear. The website for the organization is at https://www.mospatusa.com , the header says "The Patriarchal Parishes in the United States (Moscow Patriarchate)" and the footer says

Any Republication for the Glory of God is Permitted with the Reference: "The Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA - www.mospatusa.com"

(do you think we could get a free license or is that "for the Glory of God" thing going to be a blocker?) which indicates that even they don't "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" is a sufficient descriptor.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Moving a category from "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" to "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States" is an insult? Seldom read such nonsense... --A.Savin 19:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This is the third time we've had this exact same discussion, featuring these exact same users, on admin noticeboard too. At this point, the recurring discussion itself is becoming disruptive. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

After reading Jmabel’s comment, perhaps we need to put a condition on LaurelLodged that he is not allowed to move any categories but must submit them to categories for discussion first? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I insist, they should all be blocked temporarily for disrupting the project, and have them both placed an interaction and topic ban. Bedivere (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Can I point out that it was not me who disrupted this forum? It was the nominator. Since I followed the process, why should I be the one who is punished? It is the nominator who, among other offences, has not followed process. For my part, I boldly moved, I opened a discussion; my next move would have been to bring the disputed move to CFD. For which of these things am I deserving of punishment? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems, though, that you make controversial moves. Perhaps it might be better if you stepped away from this area. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

That would be true if you buy into the conversation of the nominator. You see now why he comes to this forum - he gets to make incendiary accusations, instead of having to explain his rationale (other than ERROR) in the calmer waters of CFD. In this forum, he gets to set the narrative. That's hardly fair is it? The moves are only controversial if you buy into the nominator's mindset wherein he reguards himself as the champion of Orthodoxy and will do battle for all perceived assaults on it. As it happens, while not a member of the Orthodox communion, I have quite a strong attachment to it. That matters not a jot to the nominator, who perceives any and all changes as insults to Orthodoxy (and Russia?) and worthy of the most severe sanctions. I will now go to the CFD created above and will present in a cool way what ought to happen to the categories that are the subject of this complaint. In this way you will see that the moves are not controversial and are based on logic. This is what would have happened as the third step of the process had the nominator not pressed the nuclear button and come directly to this forum. As I wrote above, he is making a nuisance of himself both here and elsewhere; for that, I ought not to be punished. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Online translation: You are mindlessly renaming categories related to religion. In the Middle Ages, you would have been burned at the stake as a heretic long ago. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to see you punished, but I do think you should be made to discuss category changes in the future. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I protest: I'm just correcting an obvious mistake by Laurel Lodged. And here it is only because it has never been possible to reach an agreement with him in other places. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Что бы Вы сделали, если бы "Категория:A.Savin" переименовали в "Категория:Разумный, с русским родным языком"? Ыфь77 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Disregarding the category dispute, I've blocked Ыфь77 for 1 month for these "middle-aged" violent phantasies. --A.Savin 18:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Good move. Bedivere (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

So what is going to be the final action here? This does not end with this block Bedivere (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

So… we need to define what went wrong here. From what I can see, LL makes controversial category decisions without discussing sufficiently. I can’t see where he has been uncivil or made personal attacks. So perhaps admins should attack the problem which is that unilateral decisions on categories should be prevented and LL should be forced to discuss category changes. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Vyapar business Indian

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

Promo-only account. Already blocked on enwiki. Jonteemil (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Has been warned by Yann. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

KBD Talent Forge India Pvt Ltd

• KBD Talent Forge India Pvt Ltd (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Block/lock evasion Special:CentralAuth/Kbdtalentforge. Reported on Meta as well but might go faster here. Jonteemil (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

 Blocked by Jianhui67. @Jonteemil: From next time, please post this kind of obvious sockpuppetry, spam, vandalism reports on COM:ANB. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Sameemakhtar93

• Sameemakhtar93 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues to upload out of scope content. Jonteemil (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

 Indef'ed. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Aazzx

• Aazzx (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• A1122ww (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• رضا قنبری مزرعه نو (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Seems to be a promo-only account / NOTHERE. Also possible sock or meat of A1122ww given that A1122ww uploaded File:Rezaghanbari.jpg was deleted and now reuploaded by Aazzx as File:Ghanbari.jpg. All of Aazzx seem to portray this same individual which also A1122ww's uploads seem to have portrayed before they were deleted. A1122ww is in turn likely a sock of رضا قنبری مزرعه نو according to Yann's block log edit summary. Jonteemil (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done All blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Spectra321578

• Spectra321578 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Spectre321578 continues to upload files with questionable licensing and claims of "own work" despite the fact that many of their prior uploads have been deleted for such reasons. Moreover, their responses to their files being tagged or nominated for deletion seem to indicate a misunderstanding as to how Commons works, particularly important things like COM:Own work, COM:NETCOPYVIO, COM:PERSONAL and COM:L. While their intentions might be good, they might simply lack the competence to properly contribute to Commons, at least not without some sort of formal oversight. Comments like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this made over the past few months don't indicate any type of reflection on Spectra321578's part that they might be doing something wrong or might be learning from their previous mistakes; rather, they indicate a bit of hostility towards others and a tendency to blame others for their mistakes. On English Wikipedia, administrators have the ability to restrict an account's ability to upload files instead of simply blocking the account from all editing. I'm not sure if that's possible here on Commons, but it might be a reasonable alternative if it is. Perhaps there's a way to require Spectra321578 submit files for review by a license reviewer or an administrator before they can be uploaded. As it is, Spectra321578 seems to mistakenly think that being able to upload a file means it's automatically "approved" by Commons and doesn't seem to understand the COM:ONUS falls upon them to make sure whatever they want to upload is in accordance with Commons policies and guidelines. Making mistakes is understandable and mostly considered OK once or twice; making the same mistakes over and over again, however, isn't and instead is generally an indication that some kind of response from the Commons community is likely needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment This user certainly deserves a block. I wonder if a short one is enough or not. Meanwhile I sent a strong warning, and tag some more files. Yann (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest a short block first to make an attempt at altering the users behavior, if that fails; escalation would be appropriate. Sev6nWiki (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I should sign a contract with you if you really want to block me, first you blocked me in ru Wiki and now here, that's enough already Spectra321578 (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Spectra321578: Why do you falsely claim "own work"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I just uploaded it and didn't think about it right away, please don't delete the work. Spectra321578 (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

If a file is in violation, we must delete it. Sev6nWiki (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, please leave at least some of them. Spectra321578 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Spectra321578 The time to think about whether a file is your own work or not, whether it would be licensed correctly, and whether it complies with our other policies and procedures, is before you upload it, not after. After would be too late, and could subject us to legal difficulties.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Spectra321578. Whatever happend on Russian Wikipedia is unrelated to what's being discussed above. Commons and Russian Wikipedia are separate projects with their own respecive policies and guidelines. If you were blocked on Russian Wikipedia for some reason, you will need to resolve that on Russian Wikipedia. If, on the other hand, you repeating behaviors that resulted in you getting blocked on Russian Wikipedia here on Commons, then that does become a Commons problem. As I pointed out above, the main issue with your uploads here on Commons has to do with COM:Own work, COM:NETCOPYVIO and COM:L. Have you read what's written on those pages because they've been pointed out to you before? If you sometimes have difficultly understanding English, those pages also have some non-English language versions. If you still don't understand what the issues are even after reading a non-English language version, you could always ask for help at COM:HD (you can even ask questions in languages other than English), or you can try seeking assistance from an administrator who speaks Russian or whichever language you understand best (see Commons:List of administrators by language). The mistakes you're making are fairly common. Making such mistakes once or maybe even twice is generally not a big deal; however, making the same mistakes over and over again, especially after be advised about them, isn't a good thing at all. Commons expects you to learn from your mistakes and understand why the community considers them to be mistakes, but you've shown no indication of being able to do this at all so far. This is why you've ended up being discussed here at AN/U, and this is the issue you need to address. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Eatcha

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

Hi, This user apparently uploaded several images which got QI or FP status, although they are not taken by the uploader, and location and information are all fake. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zaniskari Horse in Ladakh.jpg for details. Such massive deceit towards the community cannot stay unpunished. Yann (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

There's also the question about what to do with all those uploads. It's a lot of photos to go through. --Cart (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

If we do not get a good explanation for this I would simply delete all uploads claimed as own works by Eatcha. GPSLeo (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

And it's not made any easier by the fact that they also imported a bunch of videos from YouTube, making it difficult to spot their image uploads. I've created a tracking page at User:Omphalographer/Eatcha uploads. Omphalographer (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I doubt this user has uploaded any useful, original, self-created work. Deleting all images uploaded by them would not be a bad solution, imo. And though they've not been active since 2021, some sort of block or ban also seems inevitable. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Also adding from the deletion request, on the level of harm they have caused: Eatcha added these images to wikipedia pages of the false subjects, from where they found their way into news websites, social media, yt videos etc.--basically everywhere on the internet--such that you have leading newspapers (like Indian Express), niche news publishers and tabloids (this, this, this, this and dozens more!), even Universities (University of Michigan, and Oklahoma State University which notes that "the breed is usually grey"--imagine an actual expert looking at the image and being deceived into questioning themselves) all using the image of an Icelandic horse while claiming it to be a Zaniskari. A liar's lie repeated by innocent re-users. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

It is really bad to see all of this. And here I thought most of his bad work was made in programming the Bots that we use here. None of the Bots he created for COM:FMC are working any longer, I usually manage that page manually these days or nominators would not get their promotions. I also know that Aristeas have encountered a lot of shoddy coding that Eatcha did on FPC Bot during his time here. Aristeas is presently fixing those bugs and making the bot run smoothly again. It's alwayas such a mess when you trust people who are fraudulent in this bad way. --Cart (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I also want to thank you UnpetitproleX, for uncovering this and your work in digging up all these examples. That is really good work on your part! --Cart (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I created a mass deletion request with all uploads claimed as own works: Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:GPSLeo/temp. I also removed all user rights to limit the damage of possible revenge actions. I would give a week to response and then would also suggest to just block indefinitely. GPSLeo (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah sure, hounding and slandering productive contributors is going much faster and better on Commons rather than fighting *real* vandals, who remain undiscovered for years -- if ever discovered. --A.Savin 12:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@A.Savin: So go fight them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

🤡 --A.Savin 13:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Guys, please! This is not the time or place to re-kindle other quarrels, it doesn't help anyone. --Cart (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

PR20252025

• PR20252025 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploads File:Ulica Zdzisława Beksińskiego w Warszawie.jpg which was deleted in lack of permission, instead of sending the proper permission to VRT and letting them undelete the file when permission has been accepted. Has been warned with {{End of copyvios}}. Also uploaded File:Małgorzata Bogdańska 13-07-2025 r.jpg today which has no EXIF and also seems lika a blatant copyvio. Jonteemil (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted or tagged for deletion. Yann (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

WPBharat

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

Promo-only account. Jonteemil (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Closure requested

There doesn't seem really to be any disagreement remaining at Commons:Deletion requests/File:GY B-limp.webm, but there was just enough disagreement along the way that I probably should not be closing it as an involved party. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Yann (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)