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
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	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	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	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: ~83
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-10: ~95

Other:

• Duplicates: ~182
• Advertisements/spam: ~3
• Personal photos/selfies: ~197
• Other speedy deletions: ~163
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~9

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~33
• Interface admin: ~14
• 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.

IonaSh

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

This user has been warned twice before on their talk page to stop removing information from files. They have been told that the proper avenue for disputing licenses is through deletion discussions, not arbitrarily removing license tags from files. Today, they again removed a license tag from a file and changed the authorship information despite previous warnings. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Final warned by Yann.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Kia ora, I have put the reasons for changing the license (not removing it as you allege) in the page history and in the discussion log, neither of which you have responded to, as a civil person would. Clearly you have misunderstood the copyright jurisdiction in NZ which is why I changed the licence to the fair use template for speedy deletion. NZ copyright law requires you to make reasonable enquiry. I put the list of photographers from the page you stole the in copyright image from in the discussion page but you continued to change the license to PD. First time a mistake, the other times, deliberate appropriation of in copyright material. I note you have a history of uploading in copyright images. IonaSh (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@IonaSh: As you have been told multiple times, the correct course of action if you disagree with the licensing is to start a deletion discussion, not changing it on your own. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not about disagreeing with the license, it's about you deliberately uploading in copyright material. There are a number of templates which can be applied particularly in case of clear copyright violation which require speedy deletion, and that is what I did. You should not remove those templates when an issue has been raised. I gave you the benefit of believing you had made a genuine mistake but your response and refusal to engage with the issues shows you are determined to upload in copyright material. You very deliberately avoided responding to the discussion page or acknowledging the photographers are still alive. IonaSh (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that there is a "clear copyright violation". The correct course of action when there is a dispute (not an obvious and undisputed violation) is to start a deletion discussion. Speedy deletion is only applicable in cases of undisputed copyright violations. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Photographers names are listed, you did not make a reasonable enquiry as required by law, you ignored a copyright statement, you did not respond to discussion pages, you deliberately chose to repeatedly post in copyright images (and not just the two you have posted from the © Christchurch Star collection). You removed templates, you removed photographer names, and copyright information from the image metadata. Very deliberate copyright violation. IonaSh (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I would encourage you to stop casting aspersions. None of what you are saying is true. I'm not the one here that ignored multiple warnings for vandalism. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

No, you uploaded in copyright material, ignored discussion, removed templates, and then made a personal complaint of "vandalism" because you didn't want to address your copyright violations. IonaSh (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You know that none of that is true so I don't feel the need to respond to that nonsense. I think the fact that you are acting this way on an administrator's noticeboard thread about your own behavior speaks for itself. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You are on an administrators page, so answer the question: why did you remove the photographers information from the in copyright images? IonaSh (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@IonaSh: Please find something else to do. While there is a discussion worth having about this situation (whether uncredited photos are anonymous under NZ law if the publication may have internal records that could identify the photographer, and whether the publication is considered the author for legal purposes), your actions have been unnecessarily aggressive and unhelpful. You should have started a civil discussion, either on AGF's talk page or COM:VPC, rather than making disruptive edits and throwing around accusations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Trougnouf

This user is waging an edit war despite ongoing discussion and, pardon me, good arguments. I would appreciate it if an experienced administrator could take a look at this to help de-escalate the situation. Thank you. Lukas Beck (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Neutral. Looking at the photo, the color of the sky shows that the sun is quite low and there is so a kind of lighting diffusion in all the image, therefore it looks indeed to the begining of the golden hour to me as stated by Trougnouf in his user page. That being said I'm neutral because I'm not a huge fan of personal photos sorted in general categories. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Please note that while the discussion so far has only been about one image, there are other images from the user that were categorized as golden hour, and I can't even begin to see anything "golden" in them. For example: File:Låddejåhkå river along the Nordkalottruta in Padjelanta National Park (DSCF1398).jpg or File:Reindeer skull in Pärlälvens fjällurskog (DSCF2138).jpg Lukas Beck (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Christian Ferrer: Note that this photo is valuable enough to have been used on the Persian Wikipedia ( fa:کوله‌گردی ). I see your point nonetheless, the vast majority of the pictures I post are not so personal and I would appreciate for the type-of-light categories I add to remain. --Trougnouf (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• @L. Beck: when reporting someone usually we give a notification to the concerned user, no problem this time I did it. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you Lukas Beck (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Note that Lukas Beck performed the first and last golden hour related edit on File:A couple of backpackers posing during a hike along the Kungsleden in Sarek National Park (DSCF2728).jpg. They now removed the golden hour category on File:Tarraätno river in Pärlälvens fjällurskog (DSCF2364-DSCF2381).jpg, which was also taken during golden hour, without reaching a consensus here. I meticulously check the pictures I take to categorize whether they were taken during golden hour, civil twilight, nautical twilight, and astronomical twilight based on the sun angle, it makes a noticeable difference in lighting (even when taking pictures of outdoor objects and when the sun is not fully visible) and I would appreciate not having Lukas Beck or anyone else subjectively delete this data. --Trougnouf (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly sympathetic to your work on Commons. Many of your shots are truly excellent. That's beyond question. But I can only repeat myself. The golden hour isn't a time of day in the traditional sense. It can't be compared to sunrise or sunset, or to the twilight phases. Rather, like the blue hour, it has a poetic value for the photographer. And if the sky is cloudy, as is clearly evident in your pictures, the golden hour simply isn't visible in the images. It would be wrong to categorize these images as such. Please note that I have already written this to you on your discussion page. Lukas Beck (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lukas Beck: I have no idea why you think the "golden hour" requires a cloudless sky. Do you have any authoritative source for that claim, or is it just your personal opinion? - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I may have expressed myself a bit unclearly. Perhaps more clearly: In these photos, the phenomenon of the golden hour is not visible, presumably due to the cloud cover. I wouldn't generalize that a cloudy sky can't also represent the golden hour. Lukas Beck (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I am noticing that Lukas Beck has been removing more of the golden hour categories (than I can keep track of) from my pictures. Once again I am asking that they refrain from doing so unless a consensus is reached here that validates their activity (and regardless, not to unilaterally assess and delete my work on a given picture without discussing it and reaching a consensus first, since their contribution is obviously not consented to), and that they please undo their removal and restore my work. I haven't been contributing as much lately and I really don't want all my time and energy spent on Wikimedia Commons to be spent tracking down and restoring my work which was taken down according to a user's opinion and arguing over meaningless details.

I actually left Lukas Beck's latest reversal on the initial picture and added starting a discussion about this edit war in my todo list (which means it probably would never have gotten done) because I did not wish to devote my time and energy to it but Lukas Beck forced my hand by starting this discussion so here I am arguing, and on User_talk:Trougnouf#File:A_couple_of_backpackers_posing_during_a_hike_along_the_Kungsleden_in_Sarek_National_Park_(DSCF2728).jpg calculating precise angles, and now I guess they are tracking and taking down my work and I feel a bit harassed and worried for my contributions, and I really would much rather be devoting my energy to something else happier and more productive. Please stop and undo your destruction. --Trougnouf (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It makes sense to have this debate. It is not intended to discredit you or your work. It is meant to create a consensus and provide security for future edits. I have explained my point of view. It is reflected in what is stated in Wikipedia articles about the golden hour, and with that, I believe I can justify my changes objectively. By the way: There were just a handful of changes that I made to your images. So let's not pretend that I undermined hours of work on your part. That is not an accurate representation of the situation, and I will not accept that accusation. Lukas Beck (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how many changes you've made and I have no way to know how many and on which of my images without going through your contribution history between two indefinite periods (since you've continued your deletion work even after starting this discussion) and trying to recognize my files in the lot. That is problematic. And your list of Special:Contributions/L._Beck is quite huge, making it seemingly really difficult for anyone (especially someone who is not you) to revert them. --Trougnouf (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Since these are files you uploaded, all of my changes (as I said, about a handful) should be visible in your watchlist. There, you can, of course, easily track all the changes. However, please don't undo my changes; after all, there's no golden hour to be seen on these. ;-) Lukas Beck (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear administrators,
Can this be settled?
I would like to restore the golden hour categories and end this senseless edit war and arguments.
It all stems from a subjective assessment (see also: User_talk:Trougnouf#File:A_couple_of_backpackers_posing_during_a_hike_along_the_Kungsleden_in_Sarek_National_Park_(DSCF2728).jpg where Lukas Beck seems to say as much and associates the golden hour with some poetic value) and since we don't (and most likely will never) have some kind of golden-hour-approval-committee like we do at Commons:Quality_images and Commons:FP, I strongly believe that I, as the author of these images, am entitled to make this assessment w.r.t. my own work (so long as the sun's angle falls within the golden hour range). --Trougnouf (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure looks like golden hour to me. The lack of any terrestrial light sources makes it hard to say definitively. - Jmabel ! talk 20:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

User:NoOnEtHeMaStA

NoOnEtHeMaStA (talk · contribs) is making some bizarre and wrong edits and moves. I don't know if it's vandalism, a malfunctioning bot, or incompetence. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Koavf: you did not notify the user that you started this thread. I will do so for you, but surely you have been on Commons long enough that you should know to do that. - Jmabel ! talk 22:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@NoOnEtHeMaStA: You moved Category:Node.js to Creator:Node.js. I've fixed it back. This was definitely wrong, and could have had some very confusing results. If you make similar moves in the future your account is likely to be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

User:August 2025 indef'd

Just for the record: I've indef-blocked the recently created account August 2025 (talk · contribs) after detecting that nearly all their edits were racist-vandalism: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], including the creation of Template:NIGGA. --Túrelio (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmm... Less than month ago I blocked July2806 (talk · contribs), but they do not seem related. Taivo (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

follow-up

Today I've indef'd Niggggga National Park (talk · contribs), which was created minutes ago and is likely a follow-up account to August 2025. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

H2v5o68z

• User: H2v5o68z (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning for doing so, and repeated removal of said warning.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not see recent copyvios. The only deleted upload after July was deleted as duplicate, not as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Jeff G. has been keeping warning me for photoes I uploaded 2 years ago due to ignorance of COM:FOP UAE. I actually nominated these photoes for deletion myself after his first warning. After that, he started warning me not to nominate deletions for copyvio speedy deletion. He is trying to threaten me.H2v5o68z (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

1Veertje notified the user of the unacceptability of uploading copyvios like File:Shin Ramyun.jpg in Special:Diff/92274502 11:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC), multiple name changes ago and after the welcome bot notified them of such initially. A1Cafel asked them "Please do not remove valid warning templates from your talk page, except while archiving" in Special:Diff/844413046 03:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC). They kept doing both. I asked the user "please stop signing your speedy deletion requests" in Special:Diff/1030352974 11:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC) in response to Special:Diff/1030253480, which caused Yann's incomplete edits Special:Diff/1030303103 and Special:Permalink/1030303106 (which I then had to fix) because the script Yann uses does not check the sanity of the right curly braces and does not expect signatures which contain them. I'm sorry I misinterpreted the logs (which I would not have had to look at if they did not remove valid warnings) and wrote "final warning" above instead of "many warnings".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/92274502 was 12 years ago man. It was not intentionally uploaded to violate copyright. There are no logo violations from me for at least 10 years. Those files you warned me are all two years old. In addition, they are conversials. Many were kept after community discussionCommons:Deletion requests/File:Dubai Marina 1.jpg. And I haven't uploaded any UAE photoes for two years. H2v5o68z (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The DR from 12 years ago was a derivative work upload: a photo of a popular brand of noodles, which has packaging that is copyright protected. Since then two other users made the same mistake actually. File:Shin Ramyun.jpg needed to be deleted, but just because the file wasn't acceptable for Commons does not make it unacceptable behavior to upload it, just hopefully something they hopefully learned from. Cursory look into recent uploads look good. Vera ^(talk) 15:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

user: "tastefulphoto"

Oddly named user (who puts quotes in a username?) whose sole purpose here is exhibitionism. Dronebogus (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. "The Squirrel Conspiracy" (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

79.50.89.214

@Taivo: More LTA sock rename requests. Geoffroi 18:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• For other admins, this is a sock ip of GMatteotti. Geoffroi 19:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  Already done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Alexander Hauss2608, AlexHauss2608

• Alexander Hauss2608 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• AlexHauss2608 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Despite multiple notifications on the discussion pages of these two user accounts (presumably and likely used by the same person), the user(s) still uploads uncategorized pictures with watermarks referring to copyrights incompatible with Commons licensing. GeorgR (de) (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The watermarks may not be incompatible with the licensing. However, they are destructive for many of the images and simply make no sense for CC-Zero-licensed works. --Túrelio (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I've now watermark-tagged all watermarked images of both accounts. The 2nd (older) one has mostly non-watermarked uploads, the 1st (newer) one mostly watermarked uploads. --Túrelio (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I added 3 warnings: about scope, thumbnails, and watermarks. Yann (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

HUM35653

HUM35653 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Repeatedly uploading copyright violations after final warning, not responding to communication. TEMPO156 (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done blocked for a week. Jianhui67 ^T★C 04:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Also I closed the DR and deleted all his/her contributions. Taivo (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Lobbyruler Uploading copyvio after warning

Please offer firm advice to this editor 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

User Hayapawa

Hayapawa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is self-promoting user who posts self portraits with pompous titles. Most of his uploads has been deleted and the rest should be. He should probably blocked, too. Pierre cb (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed as spammer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Dibujito6900

Dibujito6900 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for two weeks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)