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: ~47
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2026-04: ~243

Other:

• Duplicates: ~1
• Advertisements/spam: ~7
• Personal photos/selfies: ~18
• Other speedy deletions: ~11
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~2
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~14

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~20
• Interface admin: ~15
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~7
• 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)

Repeated copyright violations by User:Raleemisa Thato

This user has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted promotional images from the 2025 Superman film and has ignored any warnings on Commons and the English Wikipedia against this. They appear to be deriving the images from fan sites. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: you do not seem to have notified the user of this discussion on their talk page, as is required. I have done so for you. - Jmabel ! talk 00:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

4 uploads, all related to Superman, all deleted. Yann gave a "last warning". None of the uploads post-date that, so I'm not sure there is anything to do here. - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

IgnacioEspinoT

IgnacioEspinoT (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ovruni: I gave them a final warning.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

All their images got deleted btw Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:41, 24 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)

LolaPerez66

user:LolaPerez66 uploads photos with no exif data and then immediately requests deletion. The images are likely copyvios given that information and their behavior is just kind of weird and disruptive. Dronebogus (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked her for a week. Taivo (talk) 11:02, 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)