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
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	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	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}

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

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~126
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~2
• No license since 28 April 2026: ~24
• No permission since 28 April 2026: ~63
• No source since 28 April 2026: ~22
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2026-05: ~69

Other:

• Duplicates: ~57
• Advertisements/spam: ~6
• Personal photos/selfies: ~61
• Other speedy deletions: ~31
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~14

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~21
• Interface admin: ~19
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~16
• 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.

XtraJovial and Chyutokuu-Shinsei

• XtraJovial (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Chyutokuu-Shinsei (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Context: COM:ANV#SKERQ872873 (Special:Permalink/1199880736#SKERQ872873 in case that gets archived.

@XtraJovial: stated that they were "pretty convinced" that Chyutokuu-Shinsei is the same person as the blocked SKERQ872873. Chyutokuu-Shinsei replied by saying that the charge was being raised on the wrong page, and there there is no evidence to prove this, but did not deny the charge. I asked directly @Chyutokuu-Shinsei: will you state categorically that what XtraJovial says is not what is going on here? They continued to dance around the issue and did not give me a direct answer. So: here we are in the right place. I'm inviting XtraJovial to make their case and Chyutokuu-Shinsei to respond. One of two things is the case: either XtraJovial owes Chyutokuu-Shinsei an apology, or Chyutokuu-Shinsei should be blocked. I don't think there is a middle ground here. - Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I will only respond if XtraJovial gives an evidence. 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 03:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Because right, I would not treat the same way as SKERQ872873 when I talk to people. I need the evidence first. 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 04:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Because if there is no appropriate response from XtraJovial, he need to apologise to me. If not, I will come to a result. 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 04:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way I

== AM NOT AND DO NOT POSSESS ==

the SKERQ872873 account. 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 04:12, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I want to preface this by saying I'm primarily familiar with SKERQ872873 from their behavior and sockpuppetry on enwiki (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SKERQ872873/Archive). Chyutokuu-Shinsei appears to act in a similar fashion to them. The account appears to be named taking inspiration from Japanese railway lines – much like many of the socks. Further, there's a similar focus on policy (vandalism on enwiki, copyvios here). Chyutokuu-Shinsei also has very little contribution history beyond/before engaging with SKERQ872873, only uploading a copyvio train image before yesterday; that file was named similarly to what SKERQ uploaded here before the tirade of personal attacks and whatnot (see here and here for some examples). XtraJovial (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Well I need to come up with an answer. I will respond to you by latest this Wednesday. 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 05:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Because I was trying to see if Wikimedia accepts copyrights, so I picked a photo from the web to test. 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 05:04, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way the files of April 2036 has been uploaded. Take a look at my uploads for info. 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 05:57, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chyutokuu-Shinsei 10 years in the future?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Oops sorry mistyped, April 2026. 😣 Sorry 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 06:28, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chyutokuu-Shinsei: Please follow COM:SIGN#Rules on customized signatures policy "If nicknames are used, make sure they can be attributed to a specific user".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I will do so ASAP. Thanks for reminding me, and also sorry about that 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 09:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

That's not how that works. Commons's licensing policy is very clear - all media must be freely usable. Moving foward, please limit experimentation to the Commons sandbox, or your personal one. XtraJovial (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh thanks for the advice. ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 22:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

But let’s stick to the topic here. ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 22:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

What do you want to say about me? ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 22:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Chyutokuu, I already confirmed that SKERQ872873 is not you. Don’t panic anymore.

I checked with you already. GokuraNoMori (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

So is it possible that XtraJovial apologizes to Chyutokuu in that case? GokuraNoMori (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This account was created the day this discussion started. Its only edits are related to Chyutokuu-Shinsei. I don't know why a brand new user would be interested in this discussion or this user specifically; it's possible, sure, but not exactly probable. XtraJovial (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Gokura is actually one of my friends, so they are concerned about me 😣 ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 06:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way, it was created before this discussion started ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 06:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

See here. XtraJovial (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

GokuraNoMori is a brand new account all of whose edits so far are related to Chyutokuu-Shinsei. I think someone is trying to play us. - Jmabel ! talk 05:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

They explicitly said they were "Chyutokuu's friend". I'm not as familiar with Commons' policies on such things as en.wiki's, but assuming good faith that that is a true statement, on en.wiki this would almost certainly be considered meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This is Commons, not English Wikipedia. We are to abide to each page’s policies. ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 06:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Please do not get confused. ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 06:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to take a stance here that means I am not the admin who should deal with this. I believe Chyutokuu-Shinsei is a troll operating several accounts (though it is possible that we are dealing with several trolls who know each other; I don't really care about the distinction). They are wasting a lot of people's time and producing nothing of any significant value to Commons. If it were left entirely to me, I would indef-block Chyutokuu-Shinsei rather than keep wasting time on something that has no apparent benefit to the project. I'd probably do the same with GokuraNoMori, though admittedly on less evidence; still, their only contribution here has been in relation to Chyutokuu-Shinsei, which does not bode well. It seems like other admins are still extending some benefit of the doubt, and that is their prerogative. I've said my piece and I'm done here. If anyone else wants to keep discussing rather than reach what to me seems like a foregone conclusion, have at it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I have already said, where is the evidence? ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 08:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

If not we shall close this discussion. Might be a waste of time too, I agree to Jmabel. ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 08:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm blocking both accounts as NOTHERE. Whether sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or just disruptive, they are wasting our time. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Taivo, I think there is a need to revoke TPA. The user is spamming messages that serve no purpose. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I thought about that, but decided not to. I'll give the user one more chance to request unblock. Taivo (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Chyutokuu-Shinsei is now globally locked by EPIC. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Santo Crew

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

This editor is routinely uploading images they find on the Internet somewhere and claiming the images are their own. I've nominated quite a number of their images for deletion, and then attempted to discuss the issue with them at User talk:Santo Crew#Your image uploads. They've ignored that, and have continued to upload images that are blatantly not their own. These include the follow images nominated for speedy deletion by other editors:

• File:Dato' Sri Dr. Ismail Sabri bin Yaakob.jpg
• File:Tan Sri Muhyiddin bin Haji Md Yassin.jpg
• File:Dato' Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak.jpg

Requesting a block of this user and blanket deletion of their images. User has been notified of this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Since starting this thread, the user has continued their copyright violations and ignoring conversation. They've now uploaded File:Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.jpg, which the metadata clearly shows is not copyrighted to the uploader, but to Jabatan Penerangan Malaysia (Department of Information Malaysia). The above three images have all been speedy deleted as implausible self ownership claims. When I posted User talk:Santo Crew#Your image uploads, I also placed a translation of my comments into what I believe to be their language. They're ignoring it. User simply doesn't appear to care about copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Partially done. I've blocked them for a month and let them know they face a much longer block if they do the same after returning.

I leave it to someone else to do what it takes to track down the copyvios. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks for the block. Maybe it will get their attention. I've done a fair bit of the copyright checking. In many of the searches, I've come across the images on images.google.com searches, attributing them to this or that site. But, when I got to the site, the image isn't there. Still, in every case I've checked I've yet to find a single image that they took themselves. They're just grabbing them off the Internet. They're also always adding coordinates for images that place the camera over 100km off the coast of Nigeria, in Nigeria, or in Niger...all of this is 10 thousand kilometers from Malaysia...yet all of the images are of Malaysia or people of Malaysia. That's why I suggested the blanket deletion. None of their uploads are their own work. None of them indicate where the camera was actually located. In essence, they're lying about the source and location in every case. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I just found the source of File:Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.jpg

What is this? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 22:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

"100km off the cost of Nigeria" - perhaps on w:Null Island? If so, that's more likely to be a software glitch than a deliberate choice by the user. Omphalographer (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Considering that it was frequently not the same, but somewhere in that region, I doubt that. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The new user Santa alkhairil (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is an obvious sock of Santo Crew, re-uploading many of their deleted files. Marbletan (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Enough. This user needs to be permabanned from Commons before we think of cleaning up their uploads. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support as nominator. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh well; the sock already got beheaded

Might as well focus on the main account Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Santo Crew now indef-blocked. I'll also block Santa alkhairil as a sock. [I now see Herbythyme got there before me.] I don't think the rest of this particularly needs special admin action, but if there is something that does, let me know. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Matchboxposters. SEO?

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

@Adtonko: brought this user to my attention on my talkpage.

The user uploaded a huge collection of "old" matchbox labels, incorrectly licensed with {{PD-ineligible}}, dates in the file dexcription probably incorrect. Then the source is always "Scan from the MatchboxPosters vintage matchbox label collection" with a link to matchboxposters.com, a shopping website that seems to specialize in marketing pictures of old matchbox labels as posters. I think we not only have a licensing problem here with all the uploads from this user, but there is also massive SEO spam being carried out. In this sense, the uploads should be deleted and the user whose name is identical to the name of the website should be blocked, but further opinions on this are welcome. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 01:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ziv thank you for posting this. I came across this users uploads at the 'new uploads page' with a Westpaket-'Extra Stamp', that was claimed as Matchbox Label. The Copyright Status of German Stamps is unclear. The Courtcase against Wikipedia is a precedent. (COM:GERMANY#Stamps) I started a DR on the File in question.

The File description has, as Ziv pointed out, a link to a store, not a collection. What makes me believe that this is a SEO is the tracking parameters in the url. ?utm_source=commons&utm_medium=wiki&utm_campaign=commons_seo Adtonko (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

&utm_campaign=vandalism Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

xtools:ec/commons.wikimedia/Matchboxposters tells me that this account has made all its edits (bar 4 in the project namespace) in the file namespace, all of which are file uploads.

Of the 4 projectspace edits, 2 are spent on a subpage of Commons:Batch uploading, 1 is to transclude the subpage onto the parent page, and 1 is to dispute the person who nominated one of their files for deletion (DR subpage). Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this, and apologies for the disruption. Responding point by point.

On the SEO concern. You are right that utm_campaign=commons_seo was indefensible. That tracking string should never have been placed on a Commons file page and I do not contest the framing. I am running a bot-flagged batch edit right now to remove all utm_* parameters from the source URLs across every one of my uploads. The job is idempotent and progress is logged; it should complete within roughly 100 minutes from this post. After it finishes the source field will read https://matchboxposters.com/go/<id> with no tracking. If the consensus is that the bare link is also unacceptable I will remove the URL entirely and leave plain-text attribution to the collection.

On the batch process. Before scaling up I posted a request at Commons:Batch uploading/MatchboxPosters vintage matchbox labels on 6 April 2026, including five sample files and an explicit invitation for feedback on metadata, categorisation, and licensing. The "Opinions" section received no responses in the twenty days that followed. I read the silence as tacit acceptance and proceeded, which I now recognise was the wrong call. I should have pinged the batch uploading talk page or COM:VPC directly. I will pause all further uploads until this thread reaches consensus.

On licensing. I accept that {{PD-ineligible}} was applied too broadly. It fits the bulk of generic commercial labels, but stamps and any label with non-trivial original artwork need country-specific tags or removal. I will not contest individual DRs filed on that basis. For the broader corpus I am happy to work through a relicensing pass (per country, per design type) under guidance from a regular here, or accept a mass DR on the entire batch if that is the preferred outcome.

On dates. The "circa 1940s/1960s" labels in descriptions are best-effort estimates from collector references, not authoritative. I will either remove the dates entirely or qualify them as estimates with a source note, whichever is preferred.

On the username and COI. The account name does match the commercial site, which I should have disclosed up front per COM:USERNAME and COM:COI (a page that does not exist - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)). I will add a COI disclosure to my user page today. If a username change is required I will request one.

Concrete commitments right now:

• Uploads paused until this thread closes.
• utm_* parameters being stripped from all 2,496 live file pages via API.
• COI disclosure to be added to User:Matchboxposters today.
• No contesting of any DR filed on licensing grounds.

I take the concern seriously and would rather rebuild the contribution properly under guidance than have it deleted in bulk, but I accept that is not my call. Matchboxposters (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The last thing you need is a wall of text

Hello administrators? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Just trying to take the criticism on board, happy to take tips Matchboxposters (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

This user (and in fact all instances of insource:"commons_seo" in filespace) appears to qualify for treatment with Special:Nuke.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:33, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Whatever the criticism of SEO or backlinks here, how does this affect the content? Are they outside copyright restrictions? (so can we keep them) Are they valuable to the project? I don't see "delete because we don't like the uploader" as a valid deletion reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Andy Dingley: The content as a whole is spam vandalism. COM:CSD#G3 applies.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:40, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

What is SPAM VANDALISM ? I can see no part of Commons policy that conflates the two like that. Spam yes, but I can't see this as vandalism. If there were uploaded by a different editor here, what would need to be different for us to indeed welcome them here? If there isn't an issue on licensing (presumably dependent on the age being now PD), then why shouldn't we hold them here? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Each file advertises their website in multiple ways. Spam is a type of vandalism that we regularly see reports about on COM:AIV. The default configuration of Twinkle Global classifies it overall as "abuse" when reporting to m:srg, but has special reporting for spam / spambot and crosswiki spam.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Apart from any outstanding licensing issues, which do appear likely, I fail to see a problem here. We're willing to source material from ebay, amazon, and other commercial sites while retaining a source link, but if someone shares an educational collection of images and includes a source link to the collection site it's inappropriate? Personally, I don't even mind the referral link -- we use all sorts of hashtags, links parameters, etc. to help GLAM institutions track usage of the photos they upload to Commons, so why not this? It's not like a url that includes "SEO" transforms that link into SEO -- it's just a referrer. Then, when people raise a range of issues about the uploads, the uploader promptly comes here to take it all on board, make the fixes (including that url), and gets met with "wall of text" dismissal? I do not know why we're intent on shooting ourselves in the foot here. [Again, apart from licensing] this seems like a nothingburger, and I thank the uploader for sharing their collection with Commons. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Look at the revenue models. Of this advertised site, ebay, and Amazon, which does not pay the suppliers for incremental sales? Only this one. Which has been advertising directly here? Only this one. Which has thousands of uploads, in this month alone? Only this one. Which can have net profits from advertising here? Only this one.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

"When you share your media with Commons, you may get increased attention/traffic" is a standard part of the pitch when we try to convince people to share their media here, whether museums, professional photographers, or businesses. If someone can share their collection with the world for free and benefit in some way without penalizing reusers, I see no problem with that (assuming everything useful/in scope/properly licensed). If the description said "A poster of this can be yours for the low, low price of $29.99 at url" that would be one thing, but merely linking to the source? And willing to make changes when objections are raised? Not a big problem IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:29, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

There is much more than licencing here. there are countless copyvios. Several of these 'matchboxlabels' are, in fact, Stamps. Claiming not to know who manuactured the boxes in question is also a braod misinformation. on almost ALL uploads there is visible who made the matchboxes. Anything made in the 1960 or moving forward can not, i repeat, can not be public domain in US until 2030. Anything made in the 50ties may be in PD, but the artists may also still live -> not pd. The work is not anonymous. the manufacturers are, most of the time, plainly visible ON the 'scans'.

If we want to do this case by case, we can do that. Adtonko (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

But I am assuming COM:AGF on part of Matchboxposters, because they are willing to participate in this. Adtonko (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

If there are any other suggestions you have @Adtonko, let me know Matchboxposters (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Adtonko All 152 postage stamp uploads have now been nominated for speedy deletion (G7). 44 tagged today, 105 tagged in prior runs, 24 already removed by admins. No remaining stamp files from this account should be active on Commons. Matchboxposters (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair point on the issue of stamps - I'll have a dig, filter the stamps and mark for speedy deletion also. Thanks for pointing it out. Matchboxposters (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that a lot of files will need to be deleted, and I would ask Matchboxposters to be a bit more proactive in looking for those, rather than just say "I will not contest individual DRs filed on that basis." - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

It is not at all true that "Anything made in the 1960 or moving forward can not, i repeat, can not be public domain in US until 2030." US works published before 1964 needed a renewal to still be copyrighted. US works 1964-1977 need a copyright notice, and US works 1978-1988 needed a copyright notice or appropriate response. I don't know where 2030 came from, either; works published before 1978 get 95 years of copyright from publication, which leaves 1960 works until 2056, and works published 1978-2002 are 70 years after death or 2048, whichever is later.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me that if they can recognize copyvios and refrain from uploading them in the future, no sanction is needed here. There's been a bit of a mess, but I agree with Rhododendrites that it is not a big deal. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Matchboxposters has nominated many files for speedy deletion. Thank you for that. I think no further sanctions against the user are necessary, as they actively helping to resolve the issue. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 09:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate that :) Matchboxposters (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Following up on Jmabel's request for proactive removal rather than passive acceptance:

All post-1950 uploads (excluding Soviet-era labels, which have a distinct PD status) have now been tagged for speedy deletion (G7). This covers 934 files across Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, India, Romania, and ~30 other countries. The 5 remaining files from that cohort appear to have already been removed.

The UTM parameter strip is also complete across all 2,505 uploads. ——Matchboxposters (Matchboxposters (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC))

 Comment All files are now deleted. Yann (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Personal user uploads

Charcoalchoe25 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
I'd appreciate other views on a user's uploads. I came across them originally because I saw a couple of screenshots and then found more. I warned them about copyvios and their response was I just upload pictures of my life. I looked deeper and have now removed significantly more screenshots however looking at the other uploads I can't honestly see where they fit in our scope. I don't want to consider nuked them until other eyes have looked. Thanks Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I would  Support nuking. I just took a quick look, none seem useful to me. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd support removing most of these. This feels like a user using Commons uploads as a personal photo blog - a few photos like File:2025년 3월 2일 일요일 바로 이 날 여행을 가면서 본 보리암의 종.jpg might incidentally be of educational value if identified, but most are unremarkable personal shots. Omphalographer (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks both. That was the direction I was moving but I thought it was worth reflecting first. Appreciated Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment  Support nuking as F10, we are not a free webhost. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Herbythyme, Revision #1205265174 for your kind attention. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

What a nice personal attack... /s Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Meh, some days you are the pigeon, some days the statue... I've posted something on the user page and will reflect and deal with it later. Thanks anyway. Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:46, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• File:2022년 12월 28일 수요일 바로 이날 코로나19 확진 판정을 받을 때 받은 문자.jpg
• File:2026년 4월 23일 목요일 바로 아까 내가 맨 처음으로 파리바게트 검암 2지구점에 전화를 한 기록.jpg
• File:2026년 4월 25일 토요일 바로 각각 오늘 오후 2시 55분과 바로 오늘 오후 3시 2분에 바로 롯데리아 홈서비스와 아빠에게 전화를 한 기록.jpg
• File:2026년 4월 28일 화요일 바로 아까 오늘 오전 11시 2분에 아빠에게 전화한 기록.jpg
• File:2026년 4월 28일 화요일 바로 아까 내가 오늘 오후 12시 31분에 검암경서동주민센터에 전하한 기록.jpg
• File:2026년 4월 29일 수요일 바로 오늘 오후 1시 27분에 2026년 소비쿠폰을 물어보려 한 전화(630).jpg
• Phone or checking account number in old revision: File:2026년 4월 20일 월요일 바로 오늘 오후 8시 8분에 남은 내 농협카드의 잔액.jpg

..those seem to be phone numbers? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes; may we need oversight here? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:25, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It's been sent to OS. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

OS done for all files above. Raymond (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Herbythyme: this individual needs to be indeffed; they have continued to upload pictures of their personal life, mixed with CC0-tagged blatant copyright violations

e.g.

1. File:2026년 4월 29일 수요일 바로 오늘 오전 3시 34분에 깨어나면서 먹은 감자 샌드위치 2개.jpg is a personal image
2. File:2026년 4월 29일 수요일 바로 오늘 오후 12시 27분부터 먹기 시작한 즉석 커리(626).jpg is another personal image
3. File:2026년 4월 30일 목요일 바로 오늘의 서든 어택의 점검 시간(640).png is a copyright violation

Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done indef-blocked, those three files also deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

How to handle a problematic VRT volunteer

Discussion moved to Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard#Multiple issues with VRT volunteer

Content before the move, mostly replicated on the other noticeboard

Dear all. I'm an admin myself, but as I'm invested on this, I want to ask for help on how to handle this issue. One of the projects I working on as a member of the Basque Wikimedians User Group is called "History of the Basque Country in 100 objects". In this project we are working with various GLAM institutions, most often museums, trying to have them contribute with images of historical objects from their collections. The project is succesful, and most museums are kindly donating images. Building trust with these institutions takes time, sometimes months, explaining why we need thoses images, how are going to be used and what are the license needs for the project. Not easy, but after long conversations, we are getting good results. However, even if we are doing everything correctly, many times we are finding an issue with the same VRT volunteer (User:Krd). The main issue is that he asks for things that shouldn't be asking for, like copyright status and authorship of roman artifacts or working permits of museum staff, which are not responsability of VRT volunteers. Here are some examples of recent interactions with them: Ticket:2025070110004112: where they asked to list files that were already listed and then asked for copyright status of Iron Age artifacts. Never closed nor resolved it. Ticket:2025011510005463: where they asked for copyright status of ancient objects and to show the contracts of the photographers with the institution. (closed by User:TaronjaSatsuma)) Ticket:2025061710007823: where they asked how is that the author of an image, sending an image from his official e-mail account, signing a document with his own name is the copyright holder of the photographs themselves, and how is that the author have the right to photograph a Middle Ages sculpture. (Closed by User:Nemoralis) Ticket:2025060310007662: Where they ask to list photos that are already listed (closed by User:TaronjaSatsuma) Ticket:2026042810003577: the last one, where they ask again to a Museum how is that they own their own images. We have reports from these partners telling us that they are not willing to continue with this kind of contributions if they are going to ask for things that are out of scope. Some of our collaborations are at risk, and I really don't know how to proceed. Best. -Theklan (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC) @Theklan: The VRT Admins' Noticeboard would be the place for such a discussion. Anyone you pinged should be able to bring the discussion there.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC) I'm moving the discussion there, if it feels more suitable. Thanks! -Theklan (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC) @Theklan, you should have notified the concerned volunteer about this thread (I have done that now for you). As per the first point of the Notes on top of this page: did you try to resolve the dispute by discussing it directly with Krd? --Túrelio (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC) Thanks! I pinged the volunteer here, but you are right. And yes, I tried to resolve the dispute many times, which brings new requests that shouldn't be happening, like asking about the authorship of Iron Age objects. Theklan (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC) The notification was marked as resolved.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Block threat by User:Jameslwoodward

Thread: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:STALKER꞉ Shadow of Chernobyl – quest journal.jpg (the file was restored by Yann which James complained about)
Diff: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests (Diff ~1205045917)
And, by the way, I can do without the ad hominem comments. This is the second time you have made such comments. If you continue, one of our colleagues will probably block you.
Honestly, I'm unsure what the first time was supposed to be. The "second" time I asked James to have some coffee and explain his point more clearly with direct quotes and sources. He makes confusing statements which I said reminded me of how some LLMs mix things up. If you're getting things mixed up, a cup o' joe probably can't hurt. (I'm not saying James is using an LLM) There's also little use in lecturing the author of some policy text on what it means.
Note that James in that same comment says "{{Attribution-GSC Game World}} simply says that we can use a GFDL license on pre-2011 GSC files.", except it doesn't say that. The company was "dissolved" in 2011 which is something I pointed out in the discussion, it's not in the template. The legal situation here is unknown and the company was re-opened in 2014. Without extensive knowledge of how this went down, Ukrainian corporate law and ticket access you can't reach a definitive verdict. As far as I can tell, James is not a VRT agent, I'd be surprised if he knew Ukrainian corporate law, and if he extensively researched the reopening he hasn't shown his work.
Threatening a user that they will be blocked for questioning their confusing statements seems pretty hostile to me. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz Implying a contributor is using LLM is not assuming good faith. Civility is especially important in complex cases where people might not know all the details of a situation. I don't really see anything for admins to do here other than issue a civilty warning to both parties and move on. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 15:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Alachuckthebuck, if I believed James was actually using an LLM I wouldn't have suggested coffee. I've struck that line as it was only a tangential comparison and if anyone sees it as an accusation it won't contribute to anything good. It could just as well have said "You seem to be getting your facts mixed up" as it's not about LLMs but about the act of mixing things up. But it's struck now. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

If a reasonable person can construe what you wrote as a personal attack or aspersion, then it isn't clearly written. Commons is a multilingual project, and if a native english speaker is struggling with what you wrote, non-native speakers are going to have a much harder time understanding what you wrote. Humor doesn't really work well on a multilingual project. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

But neither, really, do block threats against generally good contributors over relatively minor matters. It's one thing to ask for a retraction, it is another to threaten a block. - Jmabel ! talk 18:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Cddoanhnghiepvietnam

Cddoanhnghiepvietnam (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Upload copyvio file after last warning. MinhVN1863 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Aml-401

• User: Aml-401 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Rajkot Municipal Flag.png after final warning for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Unfortunately I have to block the user. Many copyvios after your last warning. Taivo (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Taivo: Special:Diff/1205779943 is just begging for an indef, and is also abuse of TPA.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe the request should be granted. Wouldn't mind if such bragging has TPA revoked. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 01:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Raderich

• User: Raderich (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:José Sanz y Díaz.png after final warning for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

That's not true. I uploaded an AI picture created by me without knowing that AI is not allowed in these cases. But it is not a copyright violation in any case.--Raderich (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward no administrative action at this time but, Raderich, you need to be a lot more careful. For example: File:Sixto de Borbón de niño.jpg. How can you be confident that the unidentified photographer of a 1947 picture has been dead over 70 years (which is your licensing claim there)? That would mean they died less than a decade after taking the picture. Similarly, how could File:Boinas rojas en El Quintillo.png possibly be CC-0? The only way for something to become CC-0 is an explicit granting of that license by the copyright-holder. I will nominate both of those for deletion. There may be reasons they are in the public domain, but what is stated is wrong.

It looks to me like either you don't understand copyright well or you are being sloppy. If the former: please educate yourself on the topic before uploading more third-party files. You might want to read COM:THIRD and the country-specific pages about copyright for the countries whose materials you are handling, e.g. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain. If the latter: be more careful going forward.

If this pattern continues, we really have no reasonable choice other than to block your account. People cannot take a ton of time policing your uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 18:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

User:MariuszRokin

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

@MariuszRokin: I believe that MariuszRokin may be another sock puppet of User:Uniminomumm. They are renominating Polish images that were not deleted at the first attempt using similar rationales. I can't see how two random people would try and delete the same obscure public domain image from 1926. Uniminomumm blocked on 28 February 2026 and MariuszRokin created on 17 March 2026. The current nominations should be reversed, they were previously warned about abusing speedy deletion. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:L. Urbaniak jako reprezentant Polski w meczu lekkoatletycznym z Jugosławią.jpg RAN (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

User:StanPoetas

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

Creates spurious deletion requests, does not engage in discussions around them. Gikü (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I closed all the DRs as kept for not presenting a valid reason for deletion. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Also issued them a final-level warning for vandalism. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Gikü: speaking of their user talk page, you forgot to notify them with {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ as is mandated at the top of the page; I've done it for you Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:48, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm not writing here often, forgot the procedure; will do it! Gikü (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

:) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:54, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Already done I think that's enough for now. If same behaviors continue, next time it's a block. - Jmabel ! talk 22:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Michael Cornelius Zepter

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

New user creates spurious deletion requests. dllu (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

DR closed, warned the user. In case they don't desist, the batons of block are on the way. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 18:19, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Already done I think what Aafi did is enough. Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Deltaspace42

Deltaspace42 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user A user who received his autopatrol rights less than a month ago, yesterday closed more than a dozen deletion requests, mostly providing no reasoning beyond 'kept'. Please review their activity. Romano1981 (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Romano1981: please provide diffs. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 05:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Easily visible: [1], but okay: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Romano1981 (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe that the reported user was exercising an implication of "per above", but then they could have just said that Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Calin Sebastian Catalin is an easy keep. Romania in that era had a very short duration of copyright for photos, all photos from Romania in that era are now PD. - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Surely many of these nominations could have been closed this way, but if you don't have to be an administrator to do this, demonstrate your experience and understanding of copyright issues, as well as explain your decision, then maybe such DRs can be closed by a bot? Romano1981 (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Romano1981, DRs should not be closed by a bot, otherwise this file Commons:Deletion requests/File:JP 日本 Japan 沖繩 OKINAWA 那霸 Naha Omoromachi Shintoshin 新都心 Naha Main Place 商場 Shopping Mall Tax Free Goods package January 2025 R12S 02.jpg would have been closed as kept. Please don't think that I just count Keep votes and close without reviewing the files myself. Deltaspace42 (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would certainly have blurred the larger images on the right side of the respective machines for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Food ticket vending machines in Yayoiken.jpg. @Deltaspace42: : did you zoom in on these to see how high-res they were before deciding they were de minimis? - Jmabel ! talk 06:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel, yes, I reviewed the files before closing the discussion. I believe de minimis can be applied for this file. So that you don't think that I close based only on existing votes, there was another file with similar vote Commons:Deletion requests/File:JP 日本 Japan 沖繩 OKINAWA 那霸 Naha Omoromachi Shintoshin 新都心 Naha Main Place 商場 Shopping Mall Tax Free Goods package January 2025 R12S 02.jpg, which I reviewed and came to the conclusion that de minimis cannot be applied to it. Deltaspace42 (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Deltaspace42: I think you got this one wrong. By the nature of de minimis is that it shouldn't be any harm to the overall image to blur that element, so when it's borderline (as this is), it's probably better to blur. If the de minimis argument was correct, no harm done. If the de minimis argument was wrong, problem solved. (I'll deal with the blur.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:34, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Done, but there seems to be a caching issue. See [24] to bypass the cache; eventually it should "take." - Jmabel ! talk 17:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel my understanding of de minimis in this case is that if problematic images were blurred, the vending machines themselves would still be visible in good quality. Examples on COM:DM page do not have blurred areas, so I was under the impression that it's not critical to blur them. Also, when I zoom in on the images, they are not in good enough quality (if someone were to crop them out of the whole image). Deltaspace42 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schlafzimmer 14 1.jpg looks entirely correct. @Romano1981: what do you doubt about this? Third nomination of a twice-kept photo with no comprehensible new argument. - Jmabel ! talk 06:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Romano1981 (fixing ping for Jmabel) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

This is just among mass closings I've been asked to demonstrate. And you can find my doubts above. Romano1981 (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not looking through this entire laundry list. @Romano1981: is your objection just the lack of a clear enough closing rationale/ Or are there a significant number of these you think are actually bad decisions, in which case it would be much more useful if you would list those rather than everything he closed. - Jmabel ! talk 06:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate it, that you wrote so many complaints against me without even bothering to look into the matter. Fortunately, there are other administrators who have already started reviewing: [25] Romano1981 (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

For the most part, I haven't found much to disagree with their conclusions. The Sealand stamp seemed like a copyrighted object since I don't see any indication that people behind Sealand have put their works into the public domain and so I treated it as if it was from any British author. There was a close of a 1953 French photo in which the rationale was bad, but I'd have given the file more scrutiny to see if it was public domain in France. Abzeronow (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. And what about File:Starosta krośnieński Wincenty Karuga z chłopami z okolic Krosna Odrzańskiego.png? The file still has a false free license. Romano1981 (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-anon-70-EU}} is a plausible license for that photo, I disagree with RAN about PD-Poland, no evidence that this photograph was published without a copyright notice. So probably public domain in Poland as an anonymous photo, but restored by URAA since this entered the public domain after 1996. Abzeronow (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, for me, the problem is not about how many closings exactly are wrong now. I see a user with little to no understanding of copyright issues is taking on the task of closing DRs en masse, inexperiencedly selecting nominations where someone else has left a 'keep' vote. If tomorrow there are 20 or 50 such enthusiasts, the whole institution of deletion requests could be compromised. Romano1981 (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

While I agreed with the closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Юрий Васильевич Емельянов.jpg I don't think I would have closed it myself, but I may be overly cautious. Per COM:DR: "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial. If in doubt, don't do it."
There is, if I'm not mistaken, a bot or process that kinda expects DRs to be closed using delreqhandler. Deltaspace42 is doing it manually and typically closing with '''Kept''' instead of '''Kept:''' like delreqhandler does. This might cause issues. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz, I expect that placing {{delh}} and {{delf}} templates is enough for a bot to then archive the discussion, and it doesn't matter whether there is a colon symbol after Kept. At least it's how it works at CfD. Could you please clarify what issues you are talking about? Deltaspace42 (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Deltaspace42, I'm only repeating what Storkk told me in 2018: "Secondly, by convention DRs are closed either Kept or Deleted, which aids bots that do statistics." - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz, ok, but they didn't say anything about using colon after Kept. Deltaspace42 (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Deltaspace42, true, I apologize for my memory being so terrible at recalling details of conversations I had 8 years ago. But as Storkk referred to bots it's quite plausible the bot code will expect the exact output from DelReqHandler, which includes a colon. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I almost never use DelReqHandler. - Jmabel ! talk 00:14, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Deltaspace42: FWIW, I do think just "Kept" is usually a little too terse. "Kept by consensus", "Kept, no valid grounds for deletion", "Kept per [User]", "Kept, strictly de minimis", etc. would be better and, yes, as a non-admin you probably should be keeping away from closing DRs where there is a gray area about which way they go (e.g. a borderline de minimis case that could imaginably go either way). On the other hand: closing clear-cut cases is very welcome, especially with a clearly stated rationale. - Jmabel ! talk 00:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I've closed a number of requests since this discussion started, sticking to more obvious cases. I now write "Kept: per <reason>", though I want to point out that the procedure doesn't require writing the comment after Kept: "Add a line (----), then, on a new line, either Kept or Deleted, an optional comment, your signature..." (emphasis mine). Deltaspace42 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Deltaspace42: perhaps that should change in the guidelines (though it's difficult, because there are cases where that little is enough). Romano1981 is correct that what you were doing is not in line with usual practice. - Jmabel ! talk 20:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

~2026-20620-64

• User: ~2026-20620-64 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log • Abuse filter log)
• Reasons for reporting: NOTHERE.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done GPSLeo (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

User:SecretName101 and Image Renaming

Bear with me, I don't edit Commons much, so my apologies if this isn't the correct venue. User:SecretName101 has been renaming/moving images to overly descriptive names. For example, they moved File:Coming Out After The Rain Delay (22207758).jpg to File:Green Bay Packers players (including Smith and Nall) reentering the field at Lambeau Field (Green Bay, WI) after rain delay of 08-28-03 preseason game, while Tennessee Titans players (including Volek; Schifino; Drumm; Calmus) stretch.jpg. There has been a few hundred of these over the last week. (see their move log). A great many of these, imo, are excessive and ridiculous, making it clunky and burdensome to use in articles. Is this acceptable naming conventions at Commons? And if not, how best is it rectified? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding such long descriptions to the file name if the current name is already descriptive would be clearly against the renaming guideline. If the original name is totally meaningless like in this case there is no rule how much information the new file name should contain. GPSLeo (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

That's true, but Commons:File naming#Concise certainly advises against file names like this. At 233 bytes, it's almost at the maximum possible filename length. Given there's only 14 images in the relevant category, I believe a shorter file name - absolutely no longer than File:Green Bay Packers players reentering the field at Lambeau Field after rain delay of 08-28-03 preseason game while Tennessee Titans players stretch.jpg - would be just as useful and less clunky. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007 My motivation for this is that was blocked from uploading any new files indefinitely, the sticking issue preventing my unblocking being that the blocking admin believes past uploaded files had insufficiently descriptive filenames. I was instructed by the blocking admin that file names must be highly specific, and that I must rename a significant number of existing files before an unblocking would even be considered.

The admin who imposed my block (being Pi.1415926535) insisted:

• files such as "Neponset River (53927241312).jpg" are impermissibly vague, and should be renamed to something highly descriptive like "Neponset River west from the Harvest River Bridge, March 2023"

The aforementioned admin also cited as impermissible file names such as:

• File:Ezekiel Elliott (51787125794).jpg
• File:Washington at Dallas Photo 62 (51786511091).jpg
• File:Harvard (53928486519).jpg
• File:Green Line Extension February 2019 (46462029445).jpg
• File:Green Line Extension Track Work, December 2018 (44579704700).jpg

The aforementioned admin has also contended that filenames such as "File:Albany-Rensselaer Station (47775488151).jpg" are not descriptive, and instead insists on names such as "File:West platform at Albany-Rensselaer station, April 2019.jpg"

Hence why I have taken the impression that hyper-specific titles are preferred by Pi.1415926535, and have wanted avoid Pi.1415926535 arguing my titles are still under-specific if I ever again appeal my block.

Relevant discussions:

• User talk:SecretName101/Archive 10#Upload restriction
• User talk:SecretName101/Archive 10#Your account has been blocked
• User talk:SecretName101/Archive 11#h-Unblock request (Jul 2025)-20250708212600.

SecretName101 (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@SecretName101, I saw that you moved pages with valid names to more descriptive where you were not the original uploader: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. I don't think criterion 2 can be applied here.

I was instructed by the blocking admin that file names must be highly specific, and that I must rename a significant number of existing files before an unblocking would even be considered.

I believe they meant that you should rename the files where you were the original uploader under the criterion 1. Deltaspace42 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Deltaspace42 I have re-named thousands of which I am the original uploader, including other Green Bay Packers photos of Lambeau field which is what I was doing the day I re-titled this one in addition to those. But if under-specific types of names are a problem for files I uploaded, one would presume they would be a problem for any files uploaded by any user. SecretName101 (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@SecretName101, you can rename the files you didn't upload only if the renaming falls under the criteria 2 to 6. "More descriptive" is related to criterion 2, but it concerns only cases where names are too generic (only date, broad location, etc.). In this case there were exact names of people, so the file names were not ambiguous and the criterion 2 could not be applied here.

Let me remind you (from Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_not_be_renamed?):

A user repeatedly renaming files under invalid reasons can be stripped of the filemover privilege.

Deltaspace42 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I had been impressed that file names I renamed that only gave the name of a subject (such as a politician) and no further context were insufficiently titled. Again, I was going off of what I had been impressed with by admins, but am open to further guidance.

And I am open to further feedback on renaming and further guidance. SecretName101 (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@SecretName101, the following from Commons:File naming can be relevant to this discussion:

These file naming guidelines are designed to aid uploaders in selecting proper names for their files. It is important to note that while this page provides recommendations for creating suitable filenames, they are not intended to serve as standalone justification for renaming files. Rather, they should be interpreted in conjunction with the file renaming guideline, balancing the principles outlined here with the costs of renaming files. In general, the costs of renaming are significant, so Commons aims to provide stable filenames and renames are limited.

Deltaspace42 (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I will note that I had cited that very passage in previous block discussions, and was essentially told other concerns outweighed all of that language. Hence it was impressed on me that admins now hold priorities of renaming differently than a plain read of this passage should inform. I am now putting a pause on any file renames until I get clearer pictures of what is expected of me to do going forward. SecretName101 (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Common sense dictates that File:Green Bay Packers players (including Smith and Nall) reentering the field at Lambeau Field (Green Bay, WI) after rain delay of 08-28-03 preseason game, while Tennessee Titans players (including Volek; Schifino; Drumm; Calmus) stretch.jpg is excessive. We have image descriptions, categories, and metadata to provide these details. Taking this one for example File:Green Bay Packers and Tennessee Titans players at Lambeau Field after a rain delay during a 2003 preseason game.jpg, is still long but at least manageable. I think you took feedback and made it extreme. There's no need for excessively long titles, again, that example the title is almost as long as the description. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

SecretName101, I am baffled how you took my instructions to mean you should use extremely long filenames. The purpose of a file name, as detailed in Commons:File naming, is to briefly identify what the file shows and distinguish it from other files (particularly those that might be in the same category or search result.) That can almost always be done while remaining concise - if you look at my uploads, almost all are between 30 and 70 characters, yet they detail the exact subject and distinguish each file from every other file on Commons.

In the examples you give of the Neponset River and Albany-Rensselaer names, the original file names only identified the broad subject (the river and the station), thus failing to distinguish from other files of that subject. It only took a few extra words to distinguish the specific aspect (view from a specific bridge, and a certain platform at the station) that the file was showing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

" the original file names only identified the broad subject (the river and the station), thus failing to distinguish from other files of that subject"

How is it baffling that would might presume you would hold the same that a photo of an athlete should further distinguish from other files of that athlete by detailing what sports match they were playing in? Or that a photo of a sports event should further distinguish from other photos of the event by naming the athletes photographed? If a specific train station is still a "broad subject", how is an athlete not similarly a broad subject?

But I also agree that file names should be shorter than that. I just took the instructions I had been given to likely frown on file names that leave out information like what athletes are photographed. I agree that the suggested alternate that Gonzo gave is one that I would prefer, but believed that admins would still hold it to be insufficiently detailed. And I myself had previously raised the point Gonzo fan2007 does about descriptions, categories, and meta-data making files findable without highly-descriptive titles, only for that point (when I raised it) to be rebuffed as wrong.

SecretName101 (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the whole 'descriptive file name' policy is stupid. We have categories and descriptions for that. These excessively long file names will not work on certain systems. The file name in question is only a dozen characters off exceeding the 255 character limit for systemd and when you account for folder name in paths it will exceed the default limits for Windows. I have yet to see a convincing reason why descriptive file names are useful when we have categories and descriptions. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: It is useful to be able to look at someone's contribution page and have some idea what they are working on. (Especially, it is useful to be able to go through your own contributions and quickly re-find something you worked on 3 hours ago.) It is nice to be able to click on "Barack Obama official portrait.jpg" and be reasonably sure it will not be an NSFW file; much harder to be sure about DSC98523704.jpg. It is certainly far more likely that a well-named, poorly categorized, poorly described file uploaded by a newbie will end up decently described and categorized than one named "S50-67-08". It is useful to be able to tell from filenames that certain files form a sequence. It is useful to be able to download files and already have them sanely named. I could go on. - Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough that is one use. I still see benefits in original file names in some instances, as they can tell you how the file was generated. I still don't think overly long file names (anything over 100 characters is excessive) as helpful at all and do more harm due to being incompatible with certain systems. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Jmabel

Self-report. At Special:Diff/1206404027, Romano1981 states that I "wrote so many complaints against [them] without even bothering to look into the matter." I am not asking for any action against Romano1981, I am not even asking for an apology, but I am asking to be exonerated, because I believe I did nothing of the sort. And, unless explicitly addressed, I will stay out of this thread once I have stated my case once. Romano1981 is more than welcome to comment here. (Didn't want to derail the original discussion, which is why I am addressing this here, not on that thread.)

1. I literally do not see anywhere I made a complaint against this user. I wrote the following addressed to them;
   • With reference to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schlafzimmer 14 1.jpg, what do you doubt about this? Third nomination of a twice-kept photo with no comprehensible new argument.
   • (In general) Is your objection just the lack of a clear enough closing rationale[s]? Or are there a significant number of these you think are actually bad decisions, in which case it would be much more useful if you would list those rather than everything he closed.

   The former is a straightforward question, not a complaint. The latter is an effort to clarify what their issue is, and a suggestion that if it is about substance rather than process, it would be more useful to list only the DRs which they believe were substantively wrong.

2. without even bothering to look into the matter: they gave a list of 23 cases. I looked at three of them more or less at random, found that two of the three were correctly decided and the third was mildly problematic (a borderline case about de minimis where I would have blurred the element in question), and figured that rather than look at 20 more I would ask for a clarification of the complaint (see above).

If other admins think I did this wrong, I would genuinely like to know that. If they they think this was appropriate of me, I would also like to know that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I don't think you did anything wrong here. I understand Romano1981's concerns about the DR closures, but their response you linked in the diff wasn't very helpful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I also don't think you did anything wrong here. Thank you for having the courage to self-report.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Romano1981: could you please clarify what "many complaints" means for you? If necessary, fall back to another tongue you're more confident in using (you're using the Cyrillic script on your talk page). As far as I can tell: there are literally no signs of complaints authored by JMabel and directed at you and even less "many of them", and there are some follow-up questions, perhaps with a really slight critical undertone, but well within the realms of polite and purposeful communication. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

That "wrote so many complaints" comment was confusing for me as well. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel kudos for self reporting, but I don't see any issues with your conduct. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk — Preceding undated comment was added at 01:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Jmabel did nothing wrong; the other user should be warned against casting aspersions Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Lorgia99

Lorgia99 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) I've deleted File:Lorenz Jakob Lollokauster.png as a hoax. (My apologies that this means non-admins won't be able to see it to weigh in.) Unless I'm wrong about that being a hoax, I believe this user should be indef-blocked on a NOTHERE basis.

See also closely related recent history of en:Lake Maggiore massacres (I know it's a different wiki, but it is part of the same apparent hoax). Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I feel hoax here, and I blocked Lorgia indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel, Taivo, the non-admins have another chance to see it: File:Lorenz Jakob Lollokauster.jpg uploaded by WSEULO (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions).
I had tagged the original following a report on Commons:Help desk (revision 1208807412) by @Squawk7700.
Just filed w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WSEULO. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Achim55 called for an indef of WSEULO back in December 2025: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ryad Idrissi.jpg. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Indef-blocked WSEULO. Deleted File:Lorenz Jakob Lollokauster.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Houtyuhn

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

User:Houtyuhn is causing absolute chaos with aircraft image categories, they are not heeding advice given to them. My contribs highlight the problems. The move of Category:Military aircraft registered in the United Kingdom is very problematic, it is long established and the category would need to be edited in over 2,000 articles. The user is editing faster than I can correct. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Please accept my sincere apologies for the disruption and the extra workload caused by my recent edits. I have immediately stopped all category moves.My intention was to improve the category structure, but I now realize that I underestimated the impact on established categories (such as "Military aircraft registered in the United Kingdom") and failed to seek consensus beforehand.I would like to learn the correct procedures to avoid such issues in the future. I will ensure that any major changes are proposed and discussed on the talk pages first. I am sorry for the chaos caused and hope we can discuss how to properly manage these categories together. Houtyuhn (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The categorisation system for aircraft images has been established for many years, it does not need 'managing', all that needs to be done is to ensure that images are placed in the most appropriate category, the vast majority are already. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Subject: Response regarding aircraft categorisation (XS235 and others)Hi Nimbus227,Thank you for your patience and for pointing out the issues. I have stopped all category moves immediately to avoid further disruption.I realize that my recent edits, especially removing aircraft like XS235, XV814, and XW626 from the "Military aircraft registered in the United Kingdom" category, have caused confusion. My professional rationale was that these are scientific research aircraft operated by institutes (like RAE), rather than combat-ready military assets.However, I now understand that within the Commons structure:Military Serials: Because they carry military serial numbers, they are systematically linked to the military parent categories.Refine, don't Remove: I should have proposed a specific sub-category (e.g., Research aircraft of the United Kingdom) instead of simply removing the parent category, which broke the search path.l point-of-view (NPOV) for future descriptions.I would like to help fix these errors. Best regards, Houtyuhn (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Can an admin please revert this serious move please? I don't believe I have the ability to undo it. There may be other similar moves, I am checking back through the user's contribs. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for moving Category:Military aircraft registered in the United Kingdom. I now realize that adding '/Government' to the title not only broke the naming convention but also caused a massive technical burden for over 2,000 pages. I was trying to be more precise but clearly lacked understanding of the system impact. I will not perform any more moves and am waiting for an admin to revert this safely. Houtyuhn (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I realize I cannot undo this move myself because of the existing redirect and the sheer volume of images involved. I request an administrator to revert the move and delete the incorrect redirect. I will not make any further attempts to fix it manually to avoid more edit conflicts. Houtyuhn (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

My intention was to make the images more accessible (easier to find by registration). However, I now see that my 'convenience' caused technical redundancy and violated the COM:CAT policy on over-categorization. Houtyuhn (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

This category move also needs to be reverted, much too specific and uses an ampersand. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge the issue with the Comet category move as well. My intention was to include the RAE and simultaneously correct the ampersand to "and" per naming conventions. However, I now see that this move was unnecessary and created further disruption. I fully support a complete revert of all my category moves today to restore the established structure. I will wait for an administrator to handle this safely and will not make any further manual changes. I am sorry for the anxiety and extra work this has caused. Houtyuhn (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:De Havilland Comet of British Airways should be deleted, the Comet was not operated by British Airways, the category gives the impression that they did. The single image of an aircraft in that category is in a fictional hybrid BOAC/British Airways colour scheme and was used by apprentices as a ground trainer. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

"Regarding G-APDT, I am fully aware of its role as a ground trainer. My intention in creating the category was based on its visual appearance (livery) to help users identify the aircraft they see in photos. However, I now understand that using '...of British Airways' is historically inaccurate for the database. I will defer to the standard classification and avoid creating categories based solely on livery in the future." Houtyuhn (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like to clarify once more: I am fully aware that British Airways never operated the Comet, and that aircraft like G-APDT served only as ground trainers. The creation of these categories was purely from a visual and livery-based perspective, intended to help users identify the aircraft as they appear in photos. However, I now recognize that this approach conflicts with the Commons' historical and operational classification standards and can mislead the public into believing these were operational fleet members. I accept the removal of these livery-based categories. My apologies for the confusion caused by this difference in classification logic. Houtyuhn (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Houtyuhn: Are you using an AI language model to perform edits on Commons? If so, please stop. We would also prefer that you use your own words to reply in this discussion, rather than using an AI model. Omphalographer (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I checked the first three paragraphs of responses here, all indicating 100% AI generated. Another problem, that I have not so far corrected, is the insertion of random text and web links in the description area of images uploaded by others, an example here. Baffling, in time I will remove them unless a mass rollback can achieve this. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

And if your own words are in a different language, that is fine. We can deal better with Chinese written by a human than with English written by a machine. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of text here. Is there a remaining task (or tasks) for an admin, and if so what? - Jmabel ! talk 20:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, yes.

1. Please revert the move of Category:Military aircraft registered in the United Kingdom back to this revision. It should re-populate with 2,400 images.
   • Anyone can revert the text. Nothing here tells me what content to populate it with (though it sounds, below, like you say you know how to do it yourself: I presume the move of content is something that anyone (not an admin) can do with Cat-a-Lot? - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Please delete Category:De Havilland Comet of British Airways
   • Can't do that without knowing what to do with its content. - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Please revert the move of Category:De Havilland DH.106 Comet (Royal Air Force) back to this revision.
   • Similarly to #1.

   So, please, exactly what admin actions are needed? I still can't work it out. - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I can restore the first category to images it was removed from, thanks. Nimbus227 (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, regarding the AI-generated reply, I want to be honest: I did use tools to help write my previous English reply. This wasn't to shirk responsibility or be perfunctory, but because my foreign language skills are limited, I was very worried that language errors would prevent me from accurately explaining my intentions to Nimbus227 or the administrator, potentially causing further misunderstandings. I intended to use tools to make communication smoother and the tone more precise, but I now realize that this has made people feel I lacked sincerity, for which I sincerely apologize. Houtyuhn (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Houtyuhn: okay, tell us, what do you define as a "tool"? I ask this because certain softwares rely on LLM output, even if they do not appear to be LLMs

Think Grammarly Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Their last reply was also 100% AI-generated. It appears that their English language ability falls short of COM:CIR which redirects to the Wikipedia competence is required guideline. The nutshell summary is apt Sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. They create work that others have to clean up. Nimbus227 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary break/admin repairs

Not sure I can explain it much clearer what needs repairing, would it be easier if I empty the categories? This really is a terrible mess. Nimbus227 (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's tackle one problem at a time, Category:Military aircraft registered in the United Kingdom was moved to Category:Military/Government aircraft registered in the United Kingdom.

Category:Military aircraft registered in the United Kingdom has a notice that this category has been moved but still correctly contains its content. I have screenshotted the few entries in the new category to ensure that those images are restored to the original category. The move needs to be undone and I can not move the category back as a redirect is in place. Nimbus227 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The incorrect category, Category:Military/Government aircraft registered in the United Kingdom contains the edit history and needs to be restored/moved back to the revision by Uli Elch Nimbus227 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:de Havilland Comet of British Airways is now empty, I moved the single image it contained to the category for that aircraft's registration. BA did not operate the Comet. Nimbus227 (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I similarly can not move Category:De Havilland DH.106 Comet (Royal Air Force & Royal Aircraft Establishment) back to Category:De Havilland DH.106 Comet (Royal Air Force) nor its content sub-categories, Hotcat will not accept the original category. Nimbus227 (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nimbus227 I didn't know it was possible for Hotcat to reject a category. In that case, you could manually add the category using the source editor if you really need to. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, if you type the original name of a category in to the Hotcat search box it automatically switches to the new name. I can restore the sub-categories manually as there are not that many. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that's due to the catagory redirect template at the top of the old page, deleting that should resolve that issue. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 19:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Good call, have to say that my patience is wearing very, very thin with this situation. Thanks, I'll give that a go. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I have also taken a screenshot of that last category to ensure nothing is lost. Nimbus227 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Military/Government aircraft registered in the United Kingdom is now empty but contains the edit history of the original category. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:De Havilland DH.106 Comet (Royal Air Force & Royal Aircraft Establishment) is now also empty but retains the history of the original category. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

It is bed time in the UK, apologies if I have inadvertently introduced more problems but to be fair I wouldn't be here if the subject user had heeded the advice given on their talk page.

I see similar, escalating problems on Wikipedia, awfully hard to stay enthusiastic, cheerful and helpful sometimes. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there some admin to whom this is all clearer than it is to me? I think the only admin task implied by the above is that three categories (or category redirects) need to be deleted so that someone else can move three corresponding categories back to their correct locations and then use Cat-a-Lot or Delinker to move the files accordingly, but I have this sneaking suspicion that there must be more to this or Nimbus227 would not be writing these convoluted descriptions of what needs to be done. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I think they are trying to ask for a history merge, but there's some discussion they aren't linking to, or they just didn't know a histmerge exists. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 23:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: (1) Is the history of a category page of much importance? It's not like it's likely that the wikitext for the category ever contained copyrightable material. (2) If the category page was moved, and is moved back, then all of its history comes with it. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel (1) maybe? I don't know, but it's the only reason this would be described in the way it was unless there's something missing. (2) the more you know, but that concerns me even more that there's something I'm missing. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 01:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the convolutions, I thought that undoing a category move would be a straightforward admin task. A link to the category history could be added though I agree that attribution of category building is not as important as article history attribution is on Wikipedia. Nimbus227 (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Sippaat6

Also editing under: ~2026-26796-95. User blanked DR targeting their uploads, then proceeds to come to my talk page accusing me of national discrimination. User has not communicated within the DR in question. TansoShoshen (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment: the reported user refuses to respond; it's been 18 hours Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Uploads deleted, user indef'd. Thanks for reporting this. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! TansoShoshen (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Exceu6

Exceu6 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user has made an unsourced change to the map on the Mali War [31]. When I attempted to discuss with them on their talk page, they accused me of being someone sympathetic to Russia and that you are bs, blatant personal attack's against me [32] This is not an acceptable way to treat another user. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

On 30 April 2026, JNIM claimed to have captured the Malian army base in Hombori, releasing video footage that Reuters verified as showing the local barracks

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/kremlin-says-russian-forces-will-stay-mali-to-fight-extremism-2026-04-30/

Nice try, ivan lol Exceu6 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The content dispute is secondary to your personal attacks against me, such as in this very thread. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Yup. @Exceu6: knock it off, discuss the substantive issue, not the person. If you continue in an ad hominem mode, I will block you. - Jmabel ! talk 20:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

ok lets do peace and stop fighting over silly things Exceu6 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment @Exceu6, ok lets do peace and stop fighting over silly things is a a bit rich coming from someone who doesn't seem to understand that commons expects it's contributors to be CIVIL at all times. (for the record, you're the one who's not being peaceful.  endorse a NOTHERE bock, I think 3 months to a year seems about right, unless we want to indef off the bat. Either way's a good block. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 06:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

 Support block starting from 3 months; if Exceu6 abuses their talk page (e.g. to insult Commons), it can be converted to an indef without TPA Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 10:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

CVBM5622222222222222321w53693h2ui1b3hbubuw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) looks like they might be a sock. Bidgee (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

In that case I support an indef against both accounts without TPA Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I've stricken my prior block recomendation, and belive the sock should be indefed without TPA and main should get at least a year, if not indef, no TPA. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed both accounts for sockpuppetry/NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Reaction - Spurzem

Should i accept this kind of reaction for my contributions? Thanks for advice. Carolus (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

(translated) "This rapid deletion announcement by the probably self-proclaimed legal enforcer Carolus is an outrage of unparalleled proportions! "
SMH - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Carolus to answer the retorical question: No. As to Spurzem's conduct, if you have an issue with the deletion of a file, take it up on Requests for undeletion, NOT with personal attacks the tagging editors talk page. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:55, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: file wasn't deleted, and probably won't be. Spurzem's failure to use {{Permission pending}} led to Carolus marking it as a copyvio. - Jmabel ! talk 01:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Honest truth seeker

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

All uploads are part of a spam campaign for ctcjaipur.com (Spamcheck) that has reached here, Wikidata, and the English Wikipedia. I'll be requesting a global block but if an admin sees this in the meantime, a local block would be helpful and the uploads need deleting. Thanks, Harry Mitchell (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell  Done, indeffed and cleared up. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 10:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

"Truth seeker" lol Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations by User:Depuyjeremias

BEGIN moved from COM:VP - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I suspect User:Depuyjeremias may have uploaded one or more copyrighted images. See this example, which is a screenshot from a Youtube video with a "Standard YouTube license". Worse, if you go to about the 10 minutes mark, you can see the actual image in question and an "All rights reserved" notice that was cropped out. The user also has a number of questionable (seemingly AI-generated) edits on Wikipedia, and I wouldn't be surprised if their contributions here were similarly problematic.

Sorry, I don't have the bandwidth/time to figure out the correct process to correct issues like this, so I am just lazily posting here. Next time I will try to read the documentation and do something myself.

Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
END moved from COM:VP - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@CommonsKiwi: instead of using external links for file pages, you could use wikilinks (e.g. File:Reluctance vs Induction force.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reluctance_vs_Induction_force.png point to the same destination)

Just do the colon trick ([[:File:Reluctance vs Induction force.png]]) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

On that note, I have nominated the file you specifically mentioned for speedy deletion as an obvious copyright violation; thank you Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! As you probably surmised, I couldn't figure out how to prevent displaying the image. CommonsKiwi (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@CommonsKiwi, putting a colon in front of the filename prevents it from being displayed. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 01:19, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, got it, Thanks! CommonsKiwi (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

:)

(that trick works for categories too) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:19, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

:) CommonsKiwi (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)