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
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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: ~71
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~25
• No license since 11 June 2025: ~66
• No permission since 11 June 2025: ~129
• No source since 11 June 2025: ~24
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-06: ~190

Other:

• Duplicates: ~1,746
• Advertisements/spam: ~6
• Personal photos/selfies: ~52
• Other speedy deletions: ~34
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~20

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~13
• Interface admin: ~12
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~7
• Protection level: ~1

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.

User:Altair Netraphim

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

• All uploads should be checked closely; (example File:Lorong Sanatorium Pakem.jpg, claimed as own work) fake EXIF ​​data has been addressed before, and User was blocked for a week. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 122#User:Altair Netraphim.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Sir/Madam,

First of all, I apologize. In the past few weeks, we have only just begun rechecking the uploaded images, as there are quite a lot of them. Many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, and some were uploaded by other colleagues on various platforms, including Facebook and cultural service (Dinas Kebudayaan). We are making efforts to establish partnerships with cultural heritage communities, relevant institutions, and agencies responsible for cultural heritage. However, the old images they provided have unfortunately lost their metadata. This is why I have only recently started reviewing each of the images that have been flagged on my talk page, one by one. Altair Netraphim (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim: Kindly review faster than you upload, so as to catch up.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay sir, thank you. I have revised some of the licenses. I have also requested expedited deletion for some of the images. I am alone in running this review process among our team. Altair Netraphim (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim „ Many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, and some were uploaded by other colleagues on various platforms, including Facebook and cultural services (Dinas Kebudayaan).“ What exactly is this supposed to imply? All I can detect in this previous example is incorrect EXIF ​​data for an image that was already on Facebook in 2021, including a caption "ARTABABZ", which was cut out. COM:PCP? זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 11:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention and response. Regarding the statement that many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, what I meant is that most of these files no longer retain complete EXIF information—either due to compression processes or because they were re-uploaded across various platforms, such as Facebook or websites managed by the Department of Culture. Some of these images were also not uploaded directly by me, but by fellow members of the cultural heritage community in Sleman as part of their collective documentation efforts.

As for the image with the caption "ARTABABZ" that was previously uploaded to Facebook in 2021, I understand that its EXIF data may be inaccurate or truncated. This aligns with my earlier explanation that many images no longer contain their original or complete metadata, likely because they have circulated across different platforms. Some of the images were provided to me by members of the cultural heritage community; we requested them legally and communicated directly with the contributors, who, to my knowledge, uploaded them themselves. If any of those images contain incorrect EXIF data, and this is considered problematic, please feel free to remove them. Altair Netraphim (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The image was heavily edited. An iPhone 11 Pro doesn't normally take images like this, nor do they produce pixelated ones like the two other images I discovered were copycat. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: There are further points to consider: COM:FR seems not to have been fully understood. You're specifically using it to renumber images. Why, for what reason? Renaming isn't intended for that purpose; it's not a Crit 2 error, an incorrect number is not meaningless if the rest of the filename is correct, nor is Crit 3, the number doesn't bother anyone, and especially Crit 4, is being misused. Remember: "Just because images share a category does not mean that they are part of a set." זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I understand that the iPhone 11 Pro generally produces high-quality images, and if there are photos that appear to have been heavily edited or show pixelation, it is most likely due to reprocessing, compression during upload, or format conversion by certain platforms. I also do not rule out the possibility that some circulating images originated from other sources or were edited by others before they reached me. If there are any images that are considered inappropriate or suspected to be copies, I am more than willing to review them and remove them if necessary.

Some of these images have already been submitted for removal and have been taken down, while for others, I am still in the process of tracing their sources—particularly from publicly accessible, copyright-free platforms managed by the Indonesian government. Kind regards. Altair Netraphim (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim, Your so-called copyright-free platforms. It's interesting how, when you visit these sites, you can always see copyright notices (example 1) (example 2). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:direktoribudaya.slemankab.go.id I have some issues with the claim that these are government sites, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand that copyright issues—particularly regarding sources from government websites—indeed require careful examination. When I referred to certain platforms as "copyright-free," what I meant was that some Indonesian government websites (such as the Dinas Kebudayaan Sleman), including those managed by local cultural agencies, often share materials intended for educational and public documentation purposes, even if they do not always explicitly state an open license on every page or file. I truly appreciate you pointing out relevant examples, including the deletion discussions on Wikimedia Commons. It was never my intention to mislead, and I am, of course, open to being corrected, including removing related content if it does not meet the appropriate requirements.

Regarding the "Perpustakaan Digital Budaya Indonesia" platform, to the best of my knowledge, it is managed by IACI (Indonesian Archipelago Cultural Initiatives), with support and funding from the Kementerian Kebudayaan dan Pendidikan Indonesia (Indonesian Ministry of Culture and Education). Contributors who wish to submit cultural materials to the platform must undergo editorial review, and submissions are not published automatically.

Again, it is not my intention to mislead, and I fully support the removal of any content that does not comply with the necessary guidelines. Kind regards. Altair Netraphim (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim: So you admit to sharing your login details to allow other people to upload here? How does that work, exactly?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Have the same question. Phương Linh (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim, we would like to get a answer. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 13:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

WikiHelper3906 (resolved with a warning)

WikiHelper3906 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions): the recently deleted File:Long Island.jpg, claimed as own work. was a blatant plagiarism of my photo File:Gantry Plaza State Park Long Island City 01 (9431668991).jpg (simply a crop). This means that now literally everything they ever uploaded has been deleted as a copyvio. Relatively new and lightly active account, but at least one very recent edit, so not entirely moot. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice! WikiHelper3906 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

You did not notice you cropped someone elses Photo? Can you explain how this happened? Kritzolina (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kritzolina: Wilful disregard for policy COM:EVID, as well as COM:CSD#F1.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I know this is what it can be described as. I really want to hear from WikiHelper3906 Kritzolina (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

It's all because I didn't check twice before uploading. Sorry. WikiHelper3906 (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems you are extremely careless in how you do your work on Commons. Do you have any ideas about how you could constructively contribute images to Commons and on how to avoid similar mistakes in the future? Kritzolina (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't really know, but I'll try to be good here...? Also, please stop commenting. My comment plant is currently overloaded. Let it deload. WikiHelper3906 (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hm, I am not sure you understand the nature of my comments correctly. I am trying to determine, if there is any reason I should not block your account. "Sorry" and "I'll try to be good here...?" are not really convincing me so far. Can you give me anything more substantial? Kritzolina (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I will for the best check twice before any picture, and I will also make sure to enter the true copyright details. WikiHelper3906 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

With this promise I will let you go with a very stern warning. I will put this on your discussion page. Do not remove it before at least 6 months have passed. If you upload any pictures without proper license, your account should be blocked. Kritzolina (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This participant has been given a warning. Incall ^talk 18:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I still fail to understand how someone could have accidentally believed a crop of a photo I took was their "own work," which seems to be the claim here. - Jmabel ! talk 23:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I think Hanlon's razor applies here. Weather or not this means that they don't meet CIR is uncertain. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 01:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we have to understand how this happened. We have a promise that this person will not do anything similar in the future - and a warning that will make it very easy to block them the next time anything like this happens again. Kritzolina (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Kritzolina (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Mentxuwiki

• User: Mentxuwiki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: After the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 40#Mentxuwiki and warning, the user went on to forget the advice given and made these edits: not including intelligible reason, year, month, or day; not creating the subpage; and not transcluding (these times for file description pages).

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

This isn't something that merits a block imo. Bedivere (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere: How do you suggest we deal with their pollution of Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage and Category:Deletion requests - No timestamp given in these cases? For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 18 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), over four years ago.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I know that, but to me, this is a rather innocent mistake. It's obvious to me Mentxu wanted the files to be speedily deleted instead of opening a deletion request, and so I will be honoring these requests as they seem to be working with Wikimedia España in that sense, and assuming good faith, too. I will give a final warning, however, following:

@Mentxuwiki Te pediría por favor, ya que es la segunda vez que te reportan por el mismo motivo, que utilices la función de "Nominar para borrado" para pedir la eliminación de alguna imagen, y no lo hagas de la forma que has hecho, con nominaciones incompletas que motivan este tipo de reportes, que en otra ocasión de seguro terminaría en un bloqueo, lo que sería desafortunado. Bedivere (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Buenos días,

Así es. Se trata de un error por mi parte porque no recuerdo la plantilla que hay que incluir para solicitar el borrado de una imagen. Y no me resulta sencillo encontrarla. Voy a intentar tener más cuidado. Saludos! Mentxuwiki (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Si, por favor @Mentxuwiki. Si necesitas ayuda puedes pedirla. Pero no ingreses solicitudes incompletas nuevamente, de lo contrario, lo más probable es que seas sancionada por haber ya dos reportes por el mismo motivo. Bedivere (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Patryk2710

I suggest you take a look at the contribution by User:Patryk2710. I think that many of the photos he posted do not meet the requirements of copyright law. For example, from May 11 to 18, he posted several dozen photos uploaded from various services to Commons. There is no information whether he has a free license for these photos. Jaburza (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

(copied from AN/B) I sifted through the photos from May 11 to 18, and they do have proper licensing templates and generally look fine to me. They include free photos from Flickr, coming from Klub Lewicy's official Flickr and verified by FlickreviewR 2, as well as works from gov.pl from before August 2022 and tagged with {{Gov.pl}}, pending admin review. @Jaburza: I recommend you share exact files you have concerns about, otherwise I don't see any issues here. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Patryk2710 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I warned him and encourage you to nominate all suspicious photos for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Szekszter

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

Every single image seems to have been tagged as their own work, but were copyright infringements. We have one image left they have uploaded and that looks remarkably suspicious. I recommend this user be blocked indefinitely. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. User is warned. I deleted last remaining upload as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Asadpolash

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

User has a clear history of uploading copyrighted material. I find every one of their images suspicious, and clear copyright violations. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you please show a single thing that is copyrighted? Also, which of the images seems suspicious to you? Asadpolash (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

There are a number of photos that have been deleted already. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. User is warned. Considering his unfortunate answer here today and missing reply in DR-s of his uploads, I decided to close all DR-s against his files as deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Edward Myer

Edward Myer (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Exclusively uploading copyvios, w:wp:COI issues Dronebogus (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user and closed one DR. Thank you for nominating his rest uploads for deletion! Taivo (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant Wikipedia history

@Taivo is upset that I rolled back his revisions on the article Disco king Mario He changed what I update in the article, and I rolled his revisions back, as what I had was properly sourced, and accurrate. He did not like that so suddenly The image I had for Disco King Mario is nominated for deletion and deleted by @Taivo. In turn some one else suddenly nominates all the images I upload to commons for deletion,(that are active in live articles on wikipedia) even though they are properly license and sourced and given attribution Just like the image I had for The Disco King Mario article. All the images I have upload fall under Creative Commons CC by 3.O Attribution-ShareAlike, and should not be up for deletion, as the are properly licensed, attribution has been given, and They violate no copyright laws on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. My image for Disco King Mario should be restored as-well Thank you... @Bobby Cohn @Timtrent please advise. Disco king Mario Revision History curprev 10:19, 11 June 2025 Filedelinkerbot talk contribs  7,741 bytes −20   Bot: Removing c:File:Disco King Mario.jpg, deleted by Taivo (Copyright violation; see Commons:Commons:Licensing (F1): Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disco King Mario.jpg). undothank curprev 00:51, 11 June 2025 Edward Myer talk contribs  7,761 bytes +1,947   Undid revision 1294730416 by Alyo(talk) undo Tags: Undo Disambiguation links added ==== 9 June 2025 ==== curprev 13:18, 9 June 2025 Alyo talk contribs m  5,814 bytes −1,947   please don't blanket undo my edits unless you know why I made them. undothank Tags: Rollback Reverted curprev 05:28, 9 June 2025 Edward Myer talk contribs  7,761 bytes +1,947   Undid revision 1294585606 by Alyo (talk)undo Tags: Undo Reverted Disambiguation links added Edward Myer (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC) I have been pinged here. I have advised the editor at w:en:User talk:Edward Myer#About soliciting images in this edit. This message is the sole part I will play in this conversation, save to say that I see I am pinged in several places with overalapping requests. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC) I have no behavioral problems Tavio Talk is carrying over a wikipedia issue to Commons @Taivo is upset that I rolled back his revisions on the article Disco king Mario He changed what I update in the article, and I rolled his revisions back, as what I had was properly sourced, and accurrate. He did not like that so suddenly The image I had for Disco King Mario is nominated for deletion and deleted by @Taivo. In turn some one else suddenly nominates all the images I upload to commons for deletion,(that are active in live articles on wikipedia) even though they are properly license and sourced and given attribution Just like the image I had for The Disco King Mario article. All the images I have upload fall under Creative Commons CC by 3.O Attribution-ShareAlike, and should not be up for deletion, as the are properly licensed, attribution has been given, and They violate no copyright laws on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. My image for Disco King Mario should be restored as-well Thank you... @Bobby Cohn @Timtrent please advise. Disco king Mario Revision History curprev 10:19, 11 June 2025 Filedelinkerbot talk contribs  7,741 bytes −20   Bot: Removing c:File:Disco King Mario.jpg, deleted by Taivo (Copyright violation; see Commons:Commons:Licensing (F1): Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disco King Mario.jpg). undothank curprev 00:51, 11 June 2025 Edward Myer talk contribs  7,761 bytes +1,947   Undid revision 1294730416 by Alyo(talk) undo Tags: Undo Disambiguation links added 9 June 2025 curprev 13:18, 9 June 2025 Alyo talk contribs m  5,814 bytes −1,947   please don't blanket undo my edits unless you know why I made them. undothank Tags: Rollback Reverted curprev 05:28, 9 June 2025 Edward Myer talk contribs  7,761 bytes +1,947   Undid revision 1294585606 by Alyo (talk)undo Tags: Undo Reverted Disambiguation links added Edward Myer (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC) I cannot see any involvement with Taivo in the WP article history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disco_King_Mario&action=history Your images were nominated for deletion by Dronebogus. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Edward Myer I would have to agree with them as to that nomination. I have no idea why you've posted loads of irrelevant WP history links here. They change nothing on this project, and they don't even involve the people you claim they do. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Wrong report and nomination. On 20 May I tagged 5 images uploaded by the user from YouTube as copyright violation because they did not have Creative Commons license on YouTube. After this time they have only uploaded images with the correct license. @Taivo has said this nonsense "I suspect, that you have no right to give any license for these photos. Copyright of the photos belongs usually to photographer and I suspect, that you are not photographer of any of these photos. This may be considered stealing of other photographers' work." when these are not photographs and @Edward Myer has never claimed to be the copyright owner  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   17:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you User:Edward Myer or $999$REAL? Or are you using both accounts? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley this is my 1 and only account  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Could be a meat puppet Dronebogus (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

User:A1Cafel

A1Cafel (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Hello, I'm reporting A1Cafel for a long-standing and repeated pattern of behavior that appears targeted and obsessive. This user has been nominating for deletion nearly all the photos I upload that contain murals, wall writings, stickers, and other forms of street art—public works with no copyright restrictions. These nominations often occur while I am inactive, as I rarely log into Wikimedia Commons. As a result, my files are frequently deleted without opposition, which undermines the fairness of the deletion process. All the photographs I upload are my own original work and were created specifically to be freely distributed for educational and non-commercial purposes. This can be verified on my user page and through file metadata. Here is a list of some of the affected files:

File:Buiobuione Seattle Murals 01.jpg

File:Boeing Everett Factory Seattle Washington Buiobuione 02.jpg

File:Buiobuione Advertising on a wall of a house in Maafushi.jpg

File:Mural painting in a street in Chefchaouen 1220.jpg

File:Asilah city alley and mural painting.jpg

File:Inhabitants of the city of Asilah and wall paintings of Asilah.jpg

File:Alleys of the city of Asilah 1000.jpg

File:Buiobuione Seattle Murals 02.jpg

File:Buiobuione Seattle Murals 03.jpg

File:Buiobuione-Murals in Seattle Washington State USA-01.jpg

I believe this behavior by User:A1Cafel reflects a personal issue rather than genuine concerns over copyright, and it negatively impacts legitimate contributors. This has now become disruptive, and I request administrator review and possible action to prevent further misuse of the deletion process. Thank you. --Buiobuione (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

On what legal or Commons policy basis do you assume these files are okay? GPSLeo (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

"public works with no copyright restrictions." is, I think, the core of the problem here. The trouble is that they're unlikely to be so.

Works are created with copyright by default. This may then be licensed by the IP holder. They may even (although this is legally problematic) be 'gifted to the public domain'. But unless the original rights holder chooses to do this, it doesn't happen automatically. Thus it pretty much never happens. If more content creators understood Creative Commons, then maybe that might slowly change.

There is a viewpoint that 'works in public are not protected'. This is the root of Freedom of Panorama, which is a common legal construction in much of the world that says broadly, "If it's in public, and you record it from a public space, you have not breached any copyright.". However not all countries have such a law. Many have such a law for only some classes of work. If they do not have it, then they're still protected under copyright.

A1Cafel largely edits here to find works that might fall under FoP, in countries which do not recognise that, and to have them deleted. I recognise that this is extremely frustrating for someone, like yourself, who in all good faith is trying to record them. After all, many photographers publish books of collected graffiti for their own profit. But that's not the Wikimedia way. But A1Cafel is, by the letter of the law (and not always) correct in this. Even though you are not the first to find it intensely irritating.

Good luck with your photos. But they're probably not going to be hosted here on Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing to be done here, A1Cafel gets a lot of flack for this but actually he's doing the right thing. I've been critical of him in the past, but I think I probably owe him an apology (which I'll do shortly). By and large, he's correct in nominating murals for deletion in the way he has. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Buiobuione: First, you mentioned that your files are often deleted while you're inactive and thus unable to defend them. Please know that deletion requests are open for at least seven days, and you can enable email notifications for your user talk page (deletion request notifications are notified there) so that you’re notified even if you’re not logging in regularly. This way, you'll have a chance to respond before a decision is made.

Second, regarding your uploads: while it's clear you are the photographer, Commons policy requires that all visible content within an image be either in the public domain or freely licensed—not just the photo itself. When a photo prominently features artwork like a mural, graffiti, or a sticker, that underlying work may still be under copyright, depending on the country’s Freedom of Panorama laws.

Unfortunately, FOP doesn't exist everywhere, and in many countries it is either limited or non-existent for 2D works like murals. This means that even though the work is visible in public space, reproducing it photographically for unrestricted reuse may still infringe copyright, unless a valid exception (such as de minimis) applies.

As for A1Cafel, while their actions may feel targeted, they are working within Commons policy to flag files that may not comply with copyright law or our licensing policy. That said, you're always welcome to participate in deletion discussions and present counterarguments or evidence of freedom (e.g., a license from the artist, FOP coverage, a de minimis argument). In some cases, files do end up being kept when a valid rationale is given.

Side note: you wrote that your photos were created "specifically to be freely distributed for educational and non-commercial purposes", but it’s worth pointing out that the licenses you have applied (such as CC BY-SA 4.0) are actually for unrestricted commercial reuse as well. That’s a great contribution to the Commons mission, but it does underscore why copyright concerns are taken seriously, particularly with artworks included in your photos that may not be yours to freely license. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done No admin action needed, per discussion above. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley@Chris.sherlock2@GPSLeo@Josve05a Thank you for your answers. However, I would like to highlight an aspect that seems totally absent and that is instead the founding pillar of murals made by street artists. Murals, just like stickers or simple tags. Murals are works created by artists whose main purpose - even before communicating the message contained in the work - is the appropriation of a private wall to make it public and to make a work public. The concept behind each mural is the claim of the need to re-appropriate a private space and make it public domain, just like the work of art itself that is deliberately created in a public context and on a support (the wall) that cannot be transported for example to a museum, because art - and this is also a founding principle of murals - must be enjoyed freely, not for a fee, by anyone. I therefore find it incredible that they try to apply laws on private property to those who, instead, fight it with a work of art. If an artist were interested in claiming the rights to his own work of art, he certainly would not create it in a public context. Furthermore, Murals, and this also seems paradoxical in the application of any copyright law, are created on a wall so that it itself composes a canvas, on which an artist can superimpose another work of art covering it in part or completely. In essence, what this user seems to be totally ignorant of in blindly applying the law is the knowledge of what he is applying the law to. Personally, I also find it incredible that I find myself talking about something that is self-evident and I find it incredible that someone applies a law without evidently even knowing the basics of what he is applying the law to. Simply put, if Banksy wanted to protect his works from copyright, he would not create them on a street or on a wall of someone else's private property. And yet those who deal with such precision and zeal in applying censorship rules should at least know the subject and remember why, for example, Banksy had one of his works of art shredded at the end of an auction or how Blue destroyed one of his murals before it was transported to a museum. I believe that those who are totally ignorant of a subject cannot deal with this subject, I believe that those who are culturally ignorant of a subject cannot take any law and apply it according to their moods on what they do not know. Reasoning in this way, almost all the topics on Wikipedia should be censored. And again, the blind application of this rule provides for a territoriality that makes no sense to apply on Wikipedia. Should we then delete every page that deals with cannabis from Wikipedia because in some states it is prohibited? Should we eliminate any religious topic because in some states where the law is regulated by a monotheistic religion? But first I repeat it and invite you to reflect. A copyright law is being applied to those who strenuously fight against private property and the very concept of copyright. Not only does this represent violence against artists and their works of art, but it conceptually becomes a repressive and censorial political exercise against those who create a work of art. Having said this, I leave you to your reflections, but you are certainly defusing those like me who, in their own small way, for years, have tried to give support to wiki commons and to knowledge to those who cannot have the same fortune that I have had, to travel and see a bit of this world. Buiobuione (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Buiobuione: I appreciate the passion in your comment, but Commons operates based on applicable copyright law, not artistic intent or political symbolism. Whether or not an artist opposes private property or copyright as a concept is not legally relevant. What matters under Commons policy is whether the depicted work is free to use under copyright law in both the source country and the United States. Personal or ideological views about what art "should" be do not override those legal requirements. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thank you very much for your very kind reply. I understand the meaning of your words and I understand the ways in which on wiki commons it was decided to apply the laws. Personally I believe that there should be distinctions based on the work that is published and that the request for cancellation should be made by someone who has at least a solid cultural basis on the topics it addresses and personally I think that this is missing from the request that was made. In any case I am bound to accept the rules of the platform that I use which unfortunately will determine an acknowledgement on my part if I continue to pour and maintain - I have at least a hundred nations to publish in photos - on wiki commons my contents since it comes into strong conflict with my purposes of publication as well as with the contents that I publish. It is truly a shame to note that it is not possible to adopt a yardstick based on the topic discussed but that a law is applied blindly regardless of everything. It's an approach that doesn't belong to me and that doesn't belong to my culture but as written, I will adapt and let a void prevail. Thanks again for the answer and for the time you dedicated to what I wrote. Have a nice day Buiobuione (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Not many of us like the situation, but we operate under the laws of each country the photo is taken. We all don’t like the situation, but what exactly do you expect us to do a lot it? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand as I wrote previously that there should be guidelines but the guidelines should in my opinion also be interpreted. Let me give you an example: there are countries where it is forbidden to demonstrate in a square to contest laws or decisions of a government. Is it legal to document those demonstrations with photographs or written reports? Because in fact, murals are often a manifestation of dissent starting from the violation of a private space. If we apply the rules without analyzing the object of what we are applying them to, in my opinion, we can even reach the denial of the very breath of a human being. It is a paradox but it is so.

In any case as I wrote, I must respect the rules of this platform if I decide to publish on this platform. And the crux now is this, I have more than 100 states in the world of which to upload images. I just have to decide if this platform is for me the place where it is possible to freely share or not, and this is the reflection I have to make at this point, so as not to feel like a victim as I would feel in an autocratic state. Once again, thank you for taking the time to listen to my words and my dissent, you have been very kind. See you soon and have a good day Buiobuione (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand, but the rules are clear. You are complaining about A1Cafel yet he hasn’t done anything wrong. Perhaps you owe him an apology? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Forgive me but I don't understand what it means that I didn't do anything. Every time I noticed the requests for deletion I commented, even if late because I don't live on Wiki Commons, I did it. As for the apology, no, I don't think I have to do it because I don't think that reporting a problem that I perceived is a fault, I don't think that asking for a confrontation with the community is a fault, I don't think that presenting my reasons is a fault and finally because I don't think I have assumed any undignified behavior or that hides a specific problem with this user. Rather, I perceive the opposite if you like, that is, feeling accused. In any case, it seems to me that what I wrote in the previous comments highlights that I respect Wiki Commons' approach but certainly I can't share the application of the laws without a minimum analysis of the object to which they apply. I respect it, I won't publish any more, presumably I don't think I'll publish anything at all because anything at this point, for Wiki Commons, could fall under a violation. I will not feel safe anymore even publishing the tail of a whale because the whale has not given permission to publish its tail as well as a street photograph after all even Henri Cartier-Bresson would have problems publishing on wiki commons at this point. I leave you in the wise hands and decisions of A1Cafel who will surely enrich wiki commons more wisely than people like me. As for me, thinking back to my contribution here, now that I think about it, I do not see why I should continue to see my photographs published on hundreds of blogs, news and with the most disparate contents without receiving a penny. Because in the end this is what happens, a person asks himself, "but you know what? I sell them". Best regards and my respects to the entire wiki commons community Buiobuione (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

What you do with your photos is your business. You came here to complain about A1Cafel, but we have explained he has not done anything wrong.

we have now explained our stance on copyright, I’m not sure there’s much more to discuss. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

In fact, A1Cafel has also requested the deletion of a mural made in Chefchaouen, Morocco.

In Morocco, there is “freedom of panorama” for permanent works located in public places.

According to Moroccan copyright law (Law No. 2-00, amended by Law No. 34-05), it is permitted to freely photograph and publish images of permanent works visible in public spaces, without the need to ask for the author's authorization, if the use is not commercial.

Because:

- The work was permanently installed in a public space (e.g. a street wall, not a temporary exhibition).

- The author has not explicitly prohibited reproduction with a visible or declared clause.

- The image is photographed by you or released by the person who took it under a free license

- The use is encyclopedic, informative or cultural, not advertising or merely commercial.

The user should have exercised greater zeal and greater attention before requesting the deletion and this can only call into question his complete work. Buiobuione (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Hi Buiobuione. This is a significant issue here and you deserve a platform, so I've re-opened this thread.

Re Morocco, do you have a link or a diff for this, as we can't do much otherwise. COM:FOP Morocco for reference. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I think I can see the trouble here. Morocco has some FoP, but it's restricted. It's too restricted to be acceptable for Commons.

There's also the question of what Commons is here for.

Commons is not Wikipedia. Commons is not a general repository of all knowledge. Commons is here instead to be a repository (however limited that has to be) of free content, guaranteed to have a free licence. This is useful if (like Wikipedia) you're trying to build a repository of all knowledge - but it's not going to have everything in it, because the project has chosen (deliberately, and for good reason) to limit itself to free content. Which is great, BTW. If you're writing a book and free content is going to make that easier, come here first.

There are things that Commons can't do, and important information that it can't hold. So Wikipedia also permits some non-free content (see en:WP:NFCC). But that's not this project.

Now, back to Morocco. Like a a number of countries, Morocco has FoP, but it doesn't have fully free FoP. It's only allowed for non-commercial uses. Which is fine, but it's a choice to pitch it at that level, and it's not the same level that Commons has chosen to pitch at. Commons is so purist over the freedom of its licensing that we require things to be free for all uses, including commercial ones.

So, I can't see the file or the DR you refer to, but I can guess what the basis for it would be. And it's one I can't argue with. It's not unfair, it's an incompatibility between project goals. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Then those artists should (as a few are already doing) tag their finished works with a Creative Commons copyright marker, to indicate that they are happy for their work to be reproduced and widely distributed. This is, as yet, rare. I did post photos of some local ones, with closeups of the markers, but A1Cafel (unsurprisingly) had them deleted anyway.

Also because CC recognises the CC-nc requirement on licensing (no commercial use) many of the artists choosing to use them are making that a condition, because they don't want commercial exploitation of their work. Commons requires free licensing though, even for future commercial use, and so that still excludes them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you really think that artists like Shepard Fairey, JR, Invader, Vhils, ROA, D*Faceo Swoon or the thousands of taggers or street creators would start writing the type of creative commons license under every post? And above all, is it possible that people don't understand that these forms of art are exactly antagonistic to this stuff here, that they see it as one of the major problems of our time? But having said that, without wanting to continue and turn everything into a polemic, I will respect the rules of wiki commons but since I don't agree with them, I will stop publishing and distributing free material here (currently used by a lot of websites). Good luck with your work Buiobuione (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't make the rules. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This thread was already closed for good reason. It was inappropriate of you to reopen it @Buiobuione. I'm closing it again with  no action needed. Bedivere (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I ever saw this got closed. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock2: Search "No admin action needed, per discussion above." in what's now the upper middle of the conversation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

re-opened by Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC) See the Morocco section. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This has now been closed and reopened twice, without (as far as I can see) any further evidence of wrongdoing by A1Cafel. I don't want to "boomerang" it, because it seems that Buiobuione's misunderstanding of some aspects of Commons comes entirely from honest, well-intentioned ignorance, but it does not seem to me that a continuing discussion of A1Cafel's conduct is the context in which to discuss Moroccan FoP or the complex legal status of graffiti art.

Buiobuione, I suggest that if you wish to continue on Commons you read the bullet-point at Commons:How to#How is Commons different from other online media repositories? beginning with "Commons is uncommonly rigorous about copyright," and that you should feel free to ask further questions at COM:HELP or COM:VP as appropriate, but beware of further alleging misconduct by this particular user. On the other hand, if (as implied by some of your statements above) you don't wish to contribute here any longer, why waste our time and yours by continuing this? - Jmabel ! talk 21:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• I would like, and would certainly welcome, Buiobuione to continue to contribute here for as much as is compatible with both their interests, and the restrictions that making the project workable imposes upon us all. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  So, Andy, what did you expect to accomplish by reopening this? If he has a problem with a deletion that has been requested, then he can respond to it there. This discussion was about the presumed bad behaviour of A1Cafel, which turns out to have been completely above board. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• I expected to give Buiobuione an answer to their very reasonable question, in the place where they'd expect to see such an answer. If you want to close it now, please do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

  Given I’m not an admin, I’m not sure that would be appropriate. Perhaps you should. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, of course I would prefer that they continue here; sorry if it sounded otherwise. - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  sorry for the delay in replying. You are certainly right about the fact that I should have made the opposition to the cancellation of the images of Morocco in the appropriate place. However, I was reporting this case not to oppose the specific cancellation but to highlight that in my opinion, the accuracy with which you described the work of this user - after having verified in my case - is not in light of an in-depth analysis, then so accurate because in Morocco, the problem of the images of the murals under certain conditions, can be published. It was only an example that I reported in light of the fact that I perceived but it could only be a communication problem related to the tools we use and the translation system, that I ended up in the dock after my report.

  I don't want to waste your time and I assure you that I don't particularly like getting lost in these things either (I think you can trace my behavior here) also because unfortunately I work a lot and I prefer to spend my free time in other ways.

  In any case I will not keep you any longer, I have reread each of your interventions and in thanking you once again for the time you have dedicated to me, I underline that I understand your positions and I understand that in some cases of cancellation, my photos were certainly not suitable for this platform. At the same time both the educational purposes with which I have and would have liked to contribute collide with the idea that a rule can be applied to those who fight those very rules, especially if they do it peacefully and with their own paintings in public places. This is the reason that leads me to interrupt the contributions even if with great regret (many photos have also been used on Wikipedia and Wikivoyage).

  Once again thank you for having dedicated space and time to me, I wish you good work and in any case I congratulate you for the dedication and passion with which you contribute. Good luck@Chris.sherlock2@Andy Dingley Buiobuione (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Oddfb

• User: Oddfb (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reason for reporting: Hello, I am reporting @Oddfb for repeatedly uploading fictional flags that are not based on any reliable sources, as well as exaggerated personal maps which clearly fall beyond the project's scope. Many of his files have been deleted, as noted on his talk page. @AL BdYE mo is just another account he uses to upload similar files to spam arabic articles.

Riad Salih (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I ran a check and I would say that meatpuppetry (two users coordinating actions) looks more likely than sockpuppetry (one user with two accounts) regarding those two accounts. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, the same users are intervening in the articles simultaneously. This is also occurring here in Commons with the same files being added, waiting for his response, as the user is active. Riad Salih (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Dr. Thomas Liptak

It has been brought to my attention by user Taichi that this user Dr. Thomas Liptak has been recurrently uploading photographs using contradictory, incompatible licenses. At first I found no problems, but having a closer look, it appears this user publishes the files under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. However, by reading the metadata, the photos have a clear notice saying "Online copyright statement https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/de/", and "Usage terms CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 DE". I am tempted to speedy delete all of their uploads but wanted a second opinion first. Bedivere (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I cannot change the original metadata in the photos. I used these by default at the time of capture. The current license information (CC-BY-SA 4.0) should be crucial when uploading to Wikimedia; otherwise, I will not be able to provide any more photos. Dr. Thomas Liptak (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, so the valid license is CC BY SA 4.0 (or similar? I saw there was one licensed CC BY)? Bedivere (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dr. Thomas Liptak I'm waiting for your response. Bedivere (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the valid license is CC BY SA 4.0. Dr. Thomas Liptak (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dr. Thomas Liptak I'm fine with that, but your previous pictures will need to be updated, in order to remove the incorrect metadata, to avoid any potential conflict. If you could do that, I'd be very grateful. Bedivere (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

User:RodRabelo7 and User:Dronebogus

This user, who was recently blocked for making abusive comments directed at me, is still following me around targeting my edits in various annoying and hostile ways:

• Speedy closed a nomination I started immediately after I opened it; while COM:INUSE is a legitimate SK reason (and I was unaware that the file was in use at the time I nominated it, and was considering reverting it) the existence of Category:INUSE files deletion requests/pending shows that it’s not mandatory to close them ASAP; the fact that they were blocked in a disagreement over the files in this series makes this seem highly vexatious.
• They tagged a file I uploaded with the Category:Images of low quality tag, which based on both the files in the category and personal experience is basically never used for “illustrations someone considers poor” (practically all the files are small or blurry photos). They were blocked in part for lambasting my artistic ability in an ad hominem attack, referencing this exact image.
• I can’t easily provide concrete evidence of this, but they are abusing the “thank” feature to ping me every time I say something less-than-positive about their conduct or for other things that make no sense to thank me for. I can provide screenshots if I really need to.
• I asked them to stop this sort of behavior on their talk page; they just reverted it without a response beyond yet another vexatious “thank you” ping.
• They have not shown remorse for the behavior that initially led to their block; they reverted their block message with “keep this playground to yourselves” (implying everyone else were the ones acting childish) and removed a bunch of good-faith, purely automated DR notices as “trolling”. They also returned from their block with this message, which I think speaks for itself.

I am tired of this user following me around using standard commons processes and tools in a vexatious manner. It’s clearly passive-aggressively hostile behavior and even more annoying than just being insulted directly. I cannot assume good faith was intended in any of these superficially innocuous actions because this user cannot even bring themselves to apologize for a blatant personal attack. I request that they either stop this behavior immediately or for an admin for force them to stop. Dronebogus (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WP:BOOMERANG: Please first explain why you nominated an image used in a project in which you do not even have an account, for deletion. Also explain why you insist on the nomination. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I nominated it by mistake. I don’t insist on it; I left your close in place and reverted my restoration of the deletion tag. Plus I don’t need an account on Russian Wikinews to nominate an image there for deletion— that makes no sense. I could just as easily ask you why you are defending an image on a project you edited exactly once. Dronebogus (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I am defending the COM:INUSE official policy. I have no interest in the Russian Wikinews, but I respect their right to self-determination—something you did not do when you attempted to Wiktionary:vandalise#Verb their project. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I respect INUSE; I wouldn’t have made the nomination if I had noticed the fact that it was in use. I made it in the heat of the moment out of frustration and didn’t follow all the proper steps. On the other hand, nothing you’ve done has been explained or justified. Why are you following me around targeting edits in topics we’ve fought over, if not to spite me? Dronebogus (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

RodRabelo7 I think you need to stop misusing the Thank feature for a start. If you have been asked to stop doing this, then I suggest you might want to seriously consider that it is a legitimately upsetting thing to do and not in the spirit of the feature.

It is also completely unacceptable to accuse a very respected Commons contributor The Squirrel Conspiracy of using your talk page as a "playground".

All in all, I think the evidence presented here does look like you are harassing Dronebogus. Dronebogus can be abrasive at times, but overall is not a bad sort. I don't know what the history is you have with him, but it's not a good idea to do at least most of the things he has pointed out.

In terms of the COM:INUSE nomination - well, I think on this one Dronebogus was unwise, but he has apologised and it was just an error of judgement. It's a controversial image, it's hard for me to say. Certainly he doesn't deserve the treatment you are meting out to him right now. Please stop. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

RodRabelo7 why did you add the file itself into this DR. I'm sure you're familiar that usually nsfw files are supposed to be mentioned as such in the DR, in addition to the fact that images aren't added separately as the heading already links to the file? You are sort of being disruptive in this, seemingly bcs you dislike Dronebogus. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

There was just a very long discussion about Dronebogus's nominations of these Geekology images. There is an open deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology). This is obviously a contentious area. So why is Dronebogus continuing to open individual deletion discussions about these images? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Because a few of them had distinct enough rationales to justify separate DRs. That’s all. Dronebogus (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

That’s not convincing. I’m sure we warned you this is disruptive. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

You made a bunch of suggestions about warnings/“reminders” that were never carried out. The discussion had no formal conclusion, no action was taken. A bunch of users there were entrenched in the ongoing discussion (the original reporter was RodRabelo7, the user who prompted me to start this discussion), and the three admin opinions were “please be more careful” “actually not a problem at all” and “not a noticeboard-worthy issue”. There was no unanimous “warning” like by a unified group of concerned parties like you seem to think there was. In any case how many did I nominate? Two or so out of 800-and-something? If I am no longer allowed to make individual DRs for Geekography or whatever, then that’s fine. I will not nominate a single file until the current discussions are all closed. But I think whatever I did wrong here pales in comparison to RodRabelo7’s behavior, which is still ongoing. Dronebogus (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, since you opened the deletion discussion covering all of these files on 19 May, it looks like you've started dozens of deletion discussions about Geekography images or groups of Geekography images. Even if there are individual reasons to delete these, why couldn't these wait until the original discussion was closed? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reverse ekiben position.png has been opened by RodRabelo7 since this COM:AN thread was opened. That is deeply unimpressive. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

  The timing sucks, but the last close was ridiculous. There were valid reasons to delete, so how on earth did the conclusion come to “per discussion”? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

  The only other image available at the time was a bad AI image. The reasoning to keep made perfect sense at the time. If someone nominated it in good faith, this wouldn’t be a problem at all since even I don’t care about the image and don’t think it will ever be used now. But this is more than “bad timing”; it’s RodRabelo trying to a) continue harassing me without outright breaking any rules, and b) distract from his own conduct with an irrelevant nothingburger controversy you’re feeding into. Who cares about an uninvolved admin’s decision to keep a file almost a year ago and whether it was a good call? It has nothing whatsoever to do with RodRabelo’s conduct right now. Dronebogus (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Support block Dronebogus isn't the easiest person on the project to talk to during a contested DR, but RodRabelo7's behavior towards Dronebogus is unacceptable. I placed the last block on RodRabelo7 and should probably not place this one (especially considering their response to it), but I do think a longer block is now warranted here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Off topic

The problem we’ve got now, though, is that dozens of different t deletions around this area are now coming up. Dronebogus seems to think this is acceptable, even though there is a deletion request that is covering all affected images. Fir some reason we seem to have let the last conversation about this expire with no conclusive decision as to how to handle this. Its not manageable to have so many different deletion discussions about the one set of images. Frankly, having so many is disruptive. Because we let the last discussion expire, it seems Dronebogus thinks it is acceptable to open more deletion discussions on the images. For clarity, should there be dozens of deletion duscussions around these images, or should it be centralised under one discussion? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC) That is a completely separate issue from the conduct dispute that this thread was created to address. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Indeed. That was being addressed in the old thread, but it got archived. What do you propose we do, as it isn’t resolved and is currently causing problems. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC) I just said I’d stop doing it until the current batch is closed. Most of them could be closed at this point since it’s been the minimum amount of time and there is a consensus at most of them (even if I don’t personally believe it’s a legitimate one at a majority because it’s the same three users making irrelevant arguments over and over again). Dronebogus (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Ok, but from my view of the timeline, why did you open that DR after you said you wouldn’t open any more DRs until that batch was done? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC) I thought the files had different enough rationales (in that they referred to specific older DRs) to justify opening separate requests Dronebogus (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Dronebogus, who are "the same three users making irrelevant arguments over and over again"? Please ping them. RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Why? They’re not involved in this dispute. I might disparagingly characterize their arguments but I am also treating them as legitimate. Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC) They were not, but you involved them. @Tm and Tuvalkin: mayhaps your arguments are being considered irrelevant here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC) I mentioned them, in a side-discussion about what to do with the open discussions. You’re involving them because you need support from sympathetic users as you don’t have any justification for your behavior and want to shift the attention onto me as much as possible. Dronebogus (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Thanks, but no thanks. I am here to categorize photos of Lisbon trams or whatever other random thing I might be attracted to, because I value the core goals of this project. Voting keep in DRs is part of that, but sparring thereat with people with opposing views is for me at most a necessary burden, not something relish on. No need to repeat everything here again. Has Dronebogus insulted me? I don’t care. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC) What is my unacceptable behavior that warrants a longer block, which wasn’t already sanctioned in a block that you yourself—who by the way is trying to delete the same images as Dronebogus—imposed on me? What is this behavior you’re referring to in this rather vague comment? RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)  Comment For the record, the most recent deletion request by the account Dronebogus related to “pornography” was opened on 21 May 2025. After this very topic was started, he has already opened three different deletion requests in this area. This, without responding to the questions from @Counterfeit Purses and Chris.sherlock2: , who both pointed out that there may be something behind his insistence on nominating files for deletion that have already been kept in past discussions or whose relevance is only being questioned by him. To me, the provocative and destabilizing nature of the recent deletion requests seems self-evident, almost as if, displeased with the direction this topic is taking, he is trying to win by shouting. RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Commons:Deletion requests/File:I am Noël Loozen and I am searching for naked girls to photograph in my bedroom, please leave a message...webm isn’t even related to geekography. Now you’re trying to turn this into a problem with me and “pornography” in general? Am I not allowed to open DRs about anything with naked women in it now? Stop throwing red herrings around and address your own behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Alright then: two deletion requests opened, in less than two hours after opening this very topic. This after weeks without any new DRs related to Geekography. Why don't you want to address it? Anyway, your behavior lurking around categories of naked women is very bizarre, to say the least… RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Who gives a crap where I “lurk” around? I sometimes spend time around categories with nude women in them because I need a photo reference for a drawing or because reviewing new COM:NUDE uploads is a completely normal maintenance activity per COM:PORN. I don’t give a crap, let alone judge, whatever you happen to be focusing on at any given time. Dronebogus (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Completely normal, heh :^) You're right! RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Oh, and still didn't address the concern. I'll repeat it: two deletion requests opened, in less than two hours after opening this very topic. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Ans you haven’t addressed a single one of my complaints. Stop leading everyone on these wild goose chases to distract from the actual subject of this thread. Dronebogus (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This has gone all over the place. @RodRabelo7: can you explain how any of what you have written here justifies the way you were using the "thank" feature and why you think this was appropriate? In particular, why did you write "I can only step away", implying that this is the last you would engage with the subject, and then continue to be as involved as ever before? - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanking is a way to show that I am aware without making an edit. If I had written “OK”, would there be all this fuss? So why can’t I just press a little button and make it clear to just one person that I am aware? 2) The file was and still is COM:INUSE; therefore, it was appropriate to close it because that deletion request would have been a waste of time. The very user who so often nominates nude photos of women for deletion admitted that they acted incorrectly. Insisting on this point is a waste of time. 3) The template on my user page already says a lot about this point. I am away from the project, meaning I will not spend energy, money, or time to enrich it. That does not mean I cannot deal with vandalism appropriately. I don’t see you complaining about my copyvio tags, for example. 4) And please ask the other account that is the subject of this thread to answer the question above. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

No, thanking is a way of saying “I think this was a good edit and appreciate it”; when you “thank” someone for a negative remark it comes across as either “I’ll take that as a complement” or “I’m just trying to pester you as much as possible by filling up your notification bar with annoying nonsensical pings from someone you don’t particularly like”. Dronebogus (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I've collapsed part of the discussion above. RodRabelo7, Dronebogus, and Chris.sherlock2: Most of the conversation in this thread thus far has been rehashing previous conversations, and going around in circles doing so. Please all three of you to disengage from this thread. The admins are aware of the history here, and any that aren't can look it up pretty easily, so the continued rehashing is just getting in the way of any resolution being reached. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I'm "engaged". - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

You’re making yourself engaged by starting or engaging with irrelevant tangents RodRabelo then uses to filibuster the discussion with the Chewbacca defense. You clearly don’t approve of RodRabelo’s conduct; stop making it easier for them to get away with it (not that they’re likely to given the overwhelming evidence and lack of acknowledgement of any wrongdoing) just because you have a few minor issues with my conduct. Dronebogus (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

You keep using that word “filibustering”… I really don’t think you know what it means. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Filibustering is obstructing congress with irrelevant yapping; I’m using it here to refer to obstructing a discussion with irrelevant yapping. I know what it means. Dronebogus (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I do see your point now. I withdraw from this discussion. I apologise for any confusion or unhelpfulness my words may have caused. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

•  support block per squirrel. this has gone too far. --Bedivere (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• RodRabelo is now explicitly disrupting this thread by reverting User:The Squirrel Conspiracy’s collapse of a large part of the aforementioned irrelevant yapping. Why has no-one done anything to stop this behavior already? Dronebogus (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  The fact that you refuse to answer a simple question proves it all. Every accusation is a confession. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  What question? You’re the one not answering any questions about your actions. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• I have no idea what the point of this edit is but it’s almost certainly some kind of trolling. --Dronebogus (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Well, turning DRs into a soliloquy is itself pretty confusing and unhelpful. It's as if RR7 actually does think that attacking nominator or having a pissing context for who loves Commons more, is somehow relevant to deletion.
  Doubling down and bragging about your block, while continuing the same approach does not bode well for finding a resolution other than a longer block. GMG^talk 16:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  User:GreenMeansGo With all due respect, why are you not just blocking him now? You’ve seen the evidence, combined with the total lack of remorse, and the user is still being disruptive even with this discussion open. What more do we have to wait for before someone puts their foot down? Dronebogus (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment (partly by way of response to Dronebogus just now) there has been so much flooding the field that it gets hard to work out what exactly is going on. One of the problems is that by firing off in 17 directions, RodRabelo7 has deflected almost all intelligible discussion of the original charges, making it difficult to say what are the grounds of the block.

 Done I will block RodRabelo7 for two months for just that, making a circus of this process instead of addressing the accusations against him. No problem on my side if another admin wants to change that for either duration or rationale, but at least we will be done with this mockery of a discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you did something, the charges are pretty clear and based in evidence presented during this discussion: stalking, harassment, vexatious abuse of process and tools, disrespectful and rude conduct, and trolling. He is going to come out of this block exactly the way he came out of the last one (learning nothing, doubling down, still playing the victim and probably still harassing me). They have shown clear evidence that they think because of their substantial investment in the project they are above the rules. That attitude is incompatible with Commons. The only solution here is an indef. Dronebogus (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

And if that happens, a third block for the same behavior will almost certainly be indefinite. Meanwhile, you would do well not to respond to every comment they make. The back and forth made the conversation spiral and meant it took longer to resolve, and continuing the back and forth only makes you look worse, because it shows you're not willing or able to disengage when the discussion is no longer productive. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

seconded, Squirrel. Rod will certainly get an indefinite block if they return to do the same. Bedivere (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus, you nominated some files for deletion, how can this user appeal? 〈興華街〉📅❓ 06:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked Dronebogus for a week for that. My full rationale is on their talk page. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

good call. when I entered Rod's talk page and saw the messages left by Dronebogus, I thought about blocking him for such poor judgment, but thought people would think I'm too quick on the trigger. anyways, well done, definitely unacceptable behavior from Dronebogus. Bedivere (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Good block. I would support anything up to an indef of Dronebogus after that DR nomination, under COM:CIR. It's such a petty behaviour that anyone who could even think the possibility of that being a good idea raises serious questions about their fitness to be here at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

User:LibertarianLibrarian85

LibertarianLibrarian85 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Several times now this editor has removed speedy deletion notices and a deletion discussion notice from an image they uploaded. See editing history of now deleted File:Assad Toppled.png. I warned them about this behavior on 11 June 2025 with this edit. This editor has ignored this warning, and removed another deletion discussion notice from a different file they uploaded [1]. I've restored the deletion discussion notice. I recommend this editor being blocked for their disruptive behavior. Editor has been informed of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Last warning sent, file deleted, Flickr account added to blacklist. Yann (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Ibadsk

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

This user is abusing in English. They are using unacceptable and slang words in hindi and threatning as per this Agent 007 (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I would  support a personal attack block here. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 00:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

padhe likhe jaahil insaan pheli baat They are using nhi he is using hota hai.. aur dusri baat meine sirf slang word use kiyaa tujhe koe threatning nhi di samjha.. mei message dal rha huna toh bahot soch samjh ke ek ek word daal rha hu.. mere saat apna dimag mat chala tera dimag khatam hogayegaa..

school nhi gaya tu, sikhaya nhi kisine tujhe single person aur multiple person mei kya fark hota hai ?? jaa phele padhlikke aa update yourself with education..

mera page delete kiu kiyaa ???? tu kya samjha mera ek page delete karega toh mei dusra nhi bana sakta.. abee tu mera ye acc wikipedia pe se block bhi karwaiga naa toh mei dusra acc banaa lunga tu woh bhi delete karwaiga mei teesra banaa lungaa.. and this will go on.. tu delete karwate karwate thak jaayegaa samjha.. Ibadsk (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

aur hindi mei issliye bol rha hu taaki tu sunn sake becoz mei english mei bolugaa toh tujhe hazam nhi hogaa mei english mei bahot acche aache word use karta hu issliye Ibadsk (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Given the response here, a clear indef block, and I guess we'll just have to block them each time they create a new account. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indef blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Reported to SRG. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 08:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

user-account impersonating Elon Musk

Elon musk official account (talk · contribs) blocked for inappropriate account-name. --Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Globally locked. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 08:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

User:D.kalezic

D.kalezic (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

• Copyvio after warning.

ManFromNord (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 13:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

-chanakyakdas

• User: -chanakyakdas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 18 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), over four years ago.

As precedents, ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke and was ultimately blocked indefinitely, Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman, and Mommy Debby was blocked 20:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC) by Jmabel for "Vandalism: + repeated incomplete deletion requests. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=957080538#Mommy_Debby" (now archived to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 117#Mommy Debby).

-chanakyakdas made this deleted edit on or about 14 February 2022 (UTC) to File:DunkirkPosterAswiki.jpg: indicating with malformed {{Delete}} a need to have their own upload deleted on creation day, within the parameters of COM:CSD#G7. I tagged that file for speedy deletion and then notified them of that, reminded them of their mistake, and instructed them in these edits ending 17:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC), creating User talk:-chanakyakdas#File:DunkirkPosterAswiki.jpg. They did not reply. They did it again in this deleted edit on or before 30 December 2023 (UTC) to File:Kolpitha.png: omitting transclusion and the subpage. I notified and warned them in these edits ending 12:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC). They did it again in this deleted edit on or about 1 April 2025 (UTC) to File:Ahomor Din.pdf: not including year, month, or day; creating the subpage with {{Delete}} instead of {{subst:delete2}}; and not transcluding, and I warned them a second time in Special:Diff/836721427/1015946207 these edits ending 12:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC). They did it again in this edit 02:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC) to File:সমাজ শক্তি (প্ৰথম খণ্ড) V2.pdf: not including year, month, or day. They still have yet to reply to me. Please block them.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

They finally replied in Special:Diff/1045163038.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me about this discussion. I appreciate the feedback and recognize that I made errors in my recent deletion requests regarding formatting and procedural aspects. I’ve taken note of the concerns raised and will carefully review the relevant policies (such as Commons:Deletion requests and Commons:Deletion guidelines) to ensure I follow the correct process in the future. If there’s anything specific I should address or clarify, please let me know. I’m happy to learn and improve.

—-chanakyakdas (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: would you agree that should resolve the matter unless there are further problems? - Jmabel ! talk 19:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Unnecessary file renames, continuing

After User talk:AnRo0002#Renaming 3 (and several earlier discussions on their talk page) and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/05#Unnecessary file renames, User:A.Savin blocked User:AnRo0002 for "after warnings: several file moves against COM:FNC despite requests not to do so". This was their second such block for the same cause.

The issue persists, for example recently in:

File renamed: File:Mountain Avens (Dryas octopetala) - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg → File:Dryas octopetala - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg

Please can we have the necessary action taken to stop this once and for all? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I think renaming images from geograph.org.uk does not affect users but if you prefer I don't rename files from this source agauin (@A.Savin, whats your opinion?) anro (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The source is immaterial. You also recently renamed:

• File renamed: File:20120901Filz-Klette Hockenheim2.jpg → File:20120901Arctium tomentosum2.jpg
• File renamed: File:Lamium album, Utterslev Mose, København, Denmark (26565586370).jpg → File:Lamium album (26565586370).jpg

Both of which discarded information; neither of which were from Geograph. There are ample other bad moves in your recent history. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20120901Arctium tomentosum2.jpg is a file created by anro. So I don't think that there is any kind of problem here. I am not entirely sure about File:Lamium album, Utterslev Mose, København, Denmark (26565586370).jpg, but is Søborg a part of København or is it not? So may be these are not the very best examples for excessive renaming. However, what is the reason for renaming File:Mountain Avens (Dryas octopetala) - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg, which is a perfectly valid name IMO? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

As I said "There are ample other bad moves". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

May be, e.g. just recently File:Atlas roslin pl Bluszczyk kurdybanek 3621 7088.jpg -> File:Glechoma hederacea Atlas roslin pl Bluszczyk kurdybanek 3621 7088.jpg and a number of similar images. I don't speak Polish, but "Bluszczyk kurdybanek" is the Polish version of Glechoma hederacea, see pl:Bluszczyk kurdybanek. Commons:File renaming is an official guideline. It says that criterion 3 does not "cover moving a file from its common usage name to its scientific or technical name" and that "if possible, language and schema should be preserved". Therefore, I cannot see any valid reason for such a move that discards the common (Polish) name for the scientific name, even though anro's name might be understandable for a larger number of people than the Polish name. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, the Polish name is still there, of course. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• I don't want to intervene 3rd time in this case, but I  Support further escalating block for AnRo0002, as the renames are definitely unnecessary and not covered by our policies. --A.Savin 15:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  There are also potential grounds for deadminship on misuse of advanced tools, and removal of filemover right.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't like piling on but this sort of thing is particularly out of line from an admin. It is very rare that a file that has a meaningful filename that is correctly spelled and not actively misleading should be renamed, especially for a file that has been around for a long time. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with Jmabel's comment. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)