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.
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.
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.
Latest comment: 4 days ago10 comments7 people in discussion
This user continues to add incorrect categories to photos, even though he has been warned multiple times to stop doing so. According to his user talk page, his categorization behavior has actually been problematic for years.
In recent weeks, he has been warned multiple times to stop doing so and to first correct the mistakes he has made. However, he does not respond to these requests but continues undeterred. This kind of behavior is simply destructive when the person’s name is even included in the file name, and the photo is used in his biographical article and Wikidata entry.
Agreed. I mentioned as an example that Krok6kola has added "unidentified men" to images all men in the image are clearly identified by name and category, eg File:CalderonDubyaHarperCommanders.jpg, File:Dali 2 Allan Warren.jpg a week ago, I asked the user to stop doing that and fix the clearly wrong edits they have done, but they have not. If they continue to refuse to undo their own bad edits, what is a solution? Perhaps a temporary block and bot reverse of all Krok6kola over the past month? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support further block of Krok6kola, preferrably indef. Eversince this legendary edit, I'm convinced for the rest of my life that this user is not able to be a net-positive for Commons. --A.Savin22:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Commons is about creating free media content (preferrably of decent quality), not about worshipping "saints", not about charity and the like. INeverCry was also considering kind of a "saint" by not few users, including admins, but we all know the rest of his story. --A.Savin08:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support per Infrogmation and A.Savin If possible, include a reverse of edits over some period of time to help reverse invalid categories, like the suggestion by Infrogmation. -Ooligan (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
"All those of you who treated him this way, can you explain why, under the same rules, which have not changed even a single letter since then, such mass contradictory decisions are being made? Can you explain why you're making such offensive attacks against someone who carefully studied the deletion history of similar files and came to you with the same justification that has led to hundreds of file deletions? Does the Commons community consider all those deletions to be a mistake? Why then have all those files still not been restored? So is he guilty? Or is there something rotten in the state of Denmark?" – plucked straight from this comment made by the reporter Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t·c·he/him) 09:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Distinguishest thou not a quote from a paraphrase, knave? Wouldst thou have the words of the Immortal Bard subjected to such malleability? (Methinks I have got a bit off topic here...) - Jmabel ! talk17:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment In this case I would ignore this issue and close as not done. If someone wants to lodge a complaint they should not hide behind an IP. Besides, I don't see an issue with Whyiseverythingalreadyused's behaviour Gbawden (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have deleted both the files and had issued an indefinite block for two reasons, one Abusing multiple accounts and second reuploading content deleted per community consenus and personal files generated by AI. I still think that the user is NOTHERE. But I have removed my block bcoz @Taivo: had handed the user a one week block just seconds ago. Shaan SenguptaTalk11:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Uploads the same file over and over again despite it being deleted everytime. Has twice asked for its undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-12#File:黃晴雯 個人照.jpg and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-10#File:黃晴雯.jpg, respectively, denied both times and yet despite this keeps uploading the file time and time again. This is so blatantly against the rules and done so many times that it is obvious for the user that hey has done wrong. Therefore bringing them here instead of just tagging them with {{Dont recreate}}.
File deleted. The only question now is what to do with the user. The account's only activity has actually consisted of re-uploading the same image again and this has been going on since December 2024. A one-week block, the usual first step in such copyright cases, likely won't achieve much, as they will probably just upload the image again once the block expires. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes08:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@TansoShoshen I refute this. I have not been uncivil. I have asked the user to provide evidence.
I have disclosed that the copyright holder is a friend.
I was asking about DMCA as that will be the next step for action. I am starting at the lowest level which is removal of this image as it does not meet the free requirements for Wikipedia.
There is no dispute, however if @TansoShoshen feels as if there has they have made no attempt to discuss it resolve it with me. Māori M (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not done I don't think this calls for administrative action at this time, but I do think Māori M needs to extend more of an assumption of good faith toward other users here, and to consider that on a site where we have been dealing with complex copyright issues for over two decades with almost no interventions by WMF's lawyers, there might be a fair number of people who, while most are not lawyers, have a pretty strong working knowledge of copyright law. - Jmabel ! talk17:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I just got out of a long discussion and slept a bit for the first time in a week. I want to say that I am sorry for acting like that; I reiterated my clear willingness (as I was already noting) not to intervene; I hold a strong personal grudge against the person concerned, but it will lead to absolutely nothing. I am a victim of child abuse and I am bipolar, which pushes me to prefer violent actions toward people who insult me and my loved ones; but after discussion and having taken some rest, I think I acted badly toward this person, who is just an idiot who wanted to show off out of a desire for power. What particularly annoyed me was his hypocritical attitude in managing the document; he was ready to keep it and had no problem with it, but when he saw that I reinstalled the category that was relevant against his wishes (even though he knows nothing about anarchism and is a total nobody), he requested a deletion. There will be no action from our groups toward anyone affiliated with WM, especially since, as I had pointed out, rapists or harassers have been quieted down by WM lately, which personally proved me right in the position I had tried to get the movement to adopt, which was a conciliatory position. If I run into him, of course I wouldn't like him, but I won't run into him; and even though we control Paris and the police are incapable of protecting anything, no action will be taken on our part; I just signaled this to several comrades after waking up. I haven't slept lately and I am burying a loved one, so I hope you can understand the particularly strong symbolic violence I have just suffered from this arbitrary procedure. He wanted to exercise a will to power, which goes down very badly with me and us, but frankly I am neither the most violent nor the most radical, and people who have met me will all tell you that I am a friendly person. I just lost the person who raised me and who spent their life helping and educating me, so I am in a particularly difficult emotional state—which I hope you can understand. I will hold a grudge against him, that's for sure, but no initiative will be taken on my part or on the part of any group (at least those I associate with, I cannot commit for the whole movement) either toward him, whom I assume to be probably a Quebecer boomer who doesn't have the codes of how to behave when dealing with French or Parisian people, nor with anarchists, but I hold neither a fierce hatred toward him, nor anything at all, and as I said when I was very angry and deeply hurt by his unilateral and, it must be said, arbitrary actions, I have no interest in seeking confrontation or ruining things for him or WM; and I have been a moderating factor within the movement toward them. Paris is ours, and I tried to bridge the gap between the conference and the movement, and the AFAPB, which would have probably acted differently—and the comrades from the AFAPB don't mess around. So I apologize to the person for my gut reaction and, it must be said, not very friendly behavior, even though I hold a significant grudge against him that I will keep until my death; but the interest of both myself and the movement is not to attack random groups, especially since I myself have been very active on Commons. I hope you understand that my emotional state is not very clear during this period; when you lose a man who was so close and so good to us, and who loved us so much, you are not very rational. So I apologize to the person for my reaction (but not for the grudge that I will keep until his own apologies, if they ever come) and to the community for this mess, but I think you can understand my reaction a bit. See you around (or not). Aristoxène (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
threat
I ask for the deletion of all my uploaded files on Commons (pseudonym:Aristoxène). You have no respect for me and the fact that I'm burying my loved ones, I have no respect for you neither, I was just talking to one of you to say I was feeling chill those last months with WM, it's not the case, bye. If I stay I will become violent and will do stuff I shouldn't. You are not friends and you are not helpful and so you can go f yourself. Aristoxène (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Protecting rapists, deleting my photograph, asking for identities of activists to give them to the cops, these are your methods. I moderated the anarchist desire to fuck up your convention in Paris I said 'No it's not the focus ok they protect rapists but let's not destroy them because it's still a good project' and this is how you act when I'm burying my loved ones. You are a piece of shit and it's best that I leave this shit. Aristoxène (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
All of this because I readded the category 'Anarchism in France' (of which 98% of files are mine) when you had removed it ; at first you didn't want to delete it at all but when things weren't going in your way you asked for speedy deletion. This is so hypocritical and hatefull on your part and I'll act accordingly. Aristoxène (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I take risks within the movement to say that protecting rapists is ok, this is not a random stance to take, I took risks I said like 'Ok but if we do this we'll be arrested, better to focus on other things than their convention, I don't think WM is a focus right now, even though they protect rapists, I think most of them are geeks and random people we don't care'. I take risks for your ass and this is how I'm being repayed. Aristoxène (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
They even wanted to tag all your headquarters last year and find back the rapists. Why didn't it happen ? Who told them to not do it ? :) Aristoxène (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's been 10 years I'm here on my former and new accounts and I was never treated with such hatred and disgusting behaviour. So yes I won't search you actively or whatever ((hence why I removed my message after being too angry) but don't let me meet you because I swear I go to jail ; oeil pour oeil dent pour dent. Aristoxène (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not saying these are good uploads, but they don't seem to me to call for any admin action beyond deleting them, which has already happened. Re-upload of something already deleted would merit a long block. Upload of more than a handful of files like this might merit some sort of block. - Jmabel ! talk02:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Conduct and harassment issue regarding User:Mohammed Qays
Latest comment: 6 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion
I here report a conduct issue involving User:Mohammed Qays, who is an administrator on the Arabic Wikipedia. This user is using hostile language, making false accusations of lying, and attempting to intimidate me to drop a valid copyright nomination on File:Whataboutism.svg
I flagged File:Whataboutism.svg as a copyright violation because the character design is an exact match for a copyrighted commercial vector asset on VectorStock (Asset ID: 33139742). The uploader claimed the file was entirely "Own work."
When I opened a formal deletion request, the user responded with an aggressive personal attack on the deletion page:
"@Cipher Nox ما هذا الكذب!! قلت لك الصورة متوفرة بصيغة حرة (free) بموقع... توقف عن ترشيحها للحذف... وكذلك توقف عن تزييف كلامي بأسلوب غير صحيح ودلالات غير دقيقة، وكذلك أكتب بالعربية لأنك تجيدها."
False Accusations of lying and distorting Words: The user loudly accused me of "lying" and "twisting his words." However, in his own previous edit summary, he explicitly admitted to using a transformation tool on existing assets ("مع تعديلات"), which legally constitutes an unauthorized derivative work. Pointing out his own admission is not "twisting words."
Failure to Provide Proof / Deflection: In his hostile response, he provided a link (https://www.magnific.com/vectors/arabic-clothes) claiming the image is available there for free. However, checking that link reveals the image does not exist there. He has completely failed to provide any evidence to back up his claims, using aggressive rhetoric instead of proof.
Language Gatekeeping: The user is demanding that I write exclusively in Arabic because he knows I am capable of it ("وكذلك أكتب بالعربية لأنك تجيدها"). Wikimedia Commons is an international project where English is the standard lingua franca for deletion requests so that global administrators can follow the case. Demanding a specific language to obscure a discussion or make it harder for the broader community to audit is highly inappropriate.
As a local project administrator, User:Mohammed Qays should be modeling the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). Instead, he is using hostile accusations of dishonesty and language demands to deflect from a clear violation of Commons copyright policy. I request that an administrator step in to review this behavior and ensure the deletion discussion remains safe from personal attacks. - - Cipher Nox (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The statement makes no sense regarding the license. If my translation is correct the message is not formulated in a friendly way, but not to be considered harassing. GPSLeo (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is no harassment here. This complaint is overwrought, and not something yet requiring admin involvement. Mohammed Qays' status on other projects is of no relevance; it does not subject him to additional duties here, which seems to be the purpose of its mention--verily, all users are subject to the UCoC, which is not something adjudicated on the Commons anyway. The accusation of lying is indeed a failure to COM:AGF, but is not a personal attack. Mohammed Qays is welcome to request writing in another language, just as Cipher Nox is equally welcome to decline to do so. Mohammed Qays' comment was not appropriate, and instead "deflection" as noted. It is likely to harm his position at the DR, as he's chosen to pound the table rather than address the copyright concern, which is telling. Эlcobbolatalk19:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Elcobbola@GPSLeo@The Squirrel Conspiracy وفق ما ورد أعلاه، أحب أن أوضح بعض النقاط التي تحتاج توضيح للزملاء الأفاضل، الشخص المعني @Cipher Nox قام سابقاً بتوليد صور باستخدام أدوات (AI) عني وعن زملاء بمشروع ويكيبيديا العربية وكانت الصور المولد ذات دلالات غير لائقة وهجوم شخصي عليّ تحديداً، وقد ضايقني بحساباتي على منصات التواصل الاجتماعي، وهو ما لا تسمح به جميع قواعد المؤسسة، وأيضا شاركها مع عدة أشخاص خارج الموسوعة وبسبب ذلك منع من المشروع منعاً دائماً، وما زال يعمل على مضايقتي في مشروع ويكي كومنز، واعتبر جميع نقاشاته هي استفزازية وتصيد.
بخصوص الصورة بحثت عنها ولم أجدها ربما حذفت من موقع (www.magnific.com) لكنها بالفعل كانت هناك، لكن على أيه حال كان قرار الحذف سليماً، ولكنه حرف كلامي بطريقة غير سليمة وقد أشرت في ملخص التراجع أنها كانت في الموقع المشار له في الأعلى، ولم أشر إلى أي أداة (AI)، وأنا ملتزم بقواعد وسياسات الموقع، لكن هذا الشخص تحديداً لا أريده أن يتحدث معي ولا أن يناقشني أبداً.
The individual in question, @Cipher Nox, previously generated images using (AI) tools depicting me and several colleagues from the Arabic Wikipedia project. These generated images contained inappropriate content and constituted a personal attack specifically targeting me. He also harassed me through my social media accounts, which is a clear violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's policies. Furthermore, he shared these images with several people outside the Wikimedia projects, and as a result, he was permanently banned from the project. Despite that, he continues to harass me on Wikimedia Commons, and I consider all of his interactions with me to be provocative and targeted harassment.
Regarding the image in question, I searched for it but could not find it. It may have been removed from the website (www.magnific.com), but it was indeed available there at the time. In any event, the deletion decision was appropriate. The issue is that he misrepresented my statement. In my edit summary, I simply indicated that the image had been available on the website referenced above. I did not mention any (AI) tool, and I remain fully committed to complying with the site's policies and guidelines. However, I do not want this particular individual to communicate with me or engage with me in any discussion whatsoever.
For additional context and supporting information, please see:
The image was not removed from Magnific. I found several assets of where it was stolen used from, on the website from the same artist (https://www.magnific.com/author/stockgiu), and it is a premium, copyrighted asset requiring a paid commercial license.
I also searched deeply on the website and the artists page for free assets, and none of the artist's free assets had the two men design where the uploader used from.
This proves that by the uploader's own admission, they took several copyrighted assets from an external website, modified it a little bit and uploaded it to Commons, and falsely labeled it as "Own work"
Bringing up irrelevant off-project disputes from Arabic Wikipedia is a clear attempt to deflect from this pattern of copyright violations. For the admin's reference, here is the diff where the uploader explicitly admits to sourcing the file from Magnific while attempting to downplay its status: diff (image of the history on imgur)
Reuploads the same file, File:StoryToys Software Company Logo Image File Capture.png, a third time despite having been warned by me not to do it again. When they asked for help as a response to my {{Dont recreate}} tagging, I also instructed them to upload the file to upload the file locally to Wikipedia AND explicitly once again told them NOT to upload the file here a third time. Despite this they have now uploaded the file here a third time disregarding everything I wrote. Jonteemil (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
This user has been consistently reverting my edits and leaving comments on talk pages (both on files and three on my own within the past two days) that I perceive to be passive-aggressive in nature. I have already contacted the user on their talk page regarding their behavior, which I believe falls under COM:HOUNDING. The user admitted that they are following my edits and has accused me of "not being concerned with the consequences of my edits." I have attempted to ignore the comments, in an effort to disengage in the conversation, as many of them appear to be passive aggressive; in particular, this thread in which they warn me "not to collide" with them; this thread in which they mention they "surprisingly" had to "sort out" my edits; and this Revision of File:Valle di Cadore-Bandiera.svg, in which they verbatim tell me "don't approach [their] files"—despite not even being the original uploader of the work. While I recognize that I have made mistakes in using simpleSVGcheck, and have looked at these automated edits more carefully, I still believe that this conduct constitutes COM:HOUNDING because of the sheer number of reverts to my edits over the past two days and numerous talk page discussions on my own user talk page and on other files, some of which I feel are not within the scope of "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of local policy"; refer to the posts here and here for examples. ForeverFlying (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
First, I have corrected the “maintenance burden” that has been inserted (in “other fields”) on File:Valle di Cadore-Bandiera.svg (correction diff.), since, after the file was overwritten a second time, the code no longer displayed the corresponding information (last uploader & exact file size).
Leaving the original code as is—as is customary on many files—would have ultimately avoided all the additional steps.
I'd like to add, by the way, that while the latest upload highlights the risk of a non-binary {{Image generation}} code in a file page SVG information field, i.e. other than simply w3c valid/invalid, overwriting a 233-octet file with a 160-octet one is generally pointless, since both files take up the same amount of space on the server's storage device —at least 512 octets, probably 2kb each— but it does require storing an additional webp/png preview in the file history; depending on the image, not only might there be no benefit, but the overall impact could actually be negative.
That said, I was indeed in the process of grouping a user's files into a specific category, so that they could easily access their files for maintenance purposes, when a new Image generation code was inserted on one of those files by a scripted action —was I hounded??—, the file overwritten, then the next Image generation code placed.
Usually, within a user category, an effort is made to maintain a certain degree of consistency among the files; I would also add that it may not always be well-received to point out in the description that a file was originally larger than 40 MB when it is now a few octets, in the sense that it isn't necessarily very considerate to highlight the mistakes of contributors who may not be well-versed in these kinds of issues and who, in the end, are quite capable of resolving them on their own.
On the other hand, the file size comparison shown on the image page may be relevant in the case, for an example, of a 233-byte file that has been reduced to 160 bytes, but this would only apply to example files, intended for a specific type of user —not all users, who, above all, need to have access to a user-friendly tool, i.e. as simple as possible. That is why it seems to me far more sensible to keep the original tool per original uploader, so that the said uploader remains completely independent on this matter, without having to get involved in considerations that fall outside their area of expertise or even interest.
Eventually, I admit that this comment: “also, don't approach my files”, wasn't very appealing, but in my defence, if I may say so, it happened after several reversions, and during the work I mentioned earlier. So I'll put it another way: Please @ForeverFlying, don't you ever approach my files, thank you.
I do not think it is necessary to revisit the matter of my involvement with this file – I mean, as far as I am concerned, since I personally have nothing further to add on the subject, other than to say that the fact that the result was not taken into account, nor even looked at, is exactly of the same approach as the the intervention that has been revoked here (July 3rd) for having removed the codes “gf” (French graphic Lab) and “s=d” (“diagram”), and therefore the associated categories.
The reason I've taken a while to explain my reversals on the user's page is that I believe, first and foremost, that when using this kind of scripts, one should ensure, above all, that everything is working perfectly before using it, and also be prepared to take on board any criticism in order to improve their tool; nevertheless, it is a mistake I will not make again.
It goes without saying that if the original uploader overwrites the file, they will most likely not know what to do with this information, or even what it refers to – it's hard to imagine how many Inkscape users are scared by the mere, absurd idea of opening an SVG file in their Notepad – or SimpleText. Furthermore, this is certainly not a change that can be considered as minor, as it adds a significant amount of height –not to say weight–, to the page, and is not necessarily the most aesthetically pleasing; here again, this is intended for specific users and files, and not all.
Then the {{Unbulleted list}}, placed by the script has been removed, for the mere reason that althought the field {{Author|design|unknown}} is used by certain users, it is not essential, in the sense that a coat of arms, especially in this particular case, is not an exact vectorisation of a document, but an original representation created by the user, based on a description –the blazon– which is itself in the public domain.
There is therefore no obligation to cite the author of the description, moreover, the information is not always available; when it is available, generally the files are placed in a dedicated category, example Category:Coats of arms by Jean-François Binon, where it can be seen that few files credit the author of the description, who, in any case, is never the author of any image reproduced here, since the images –the representations– themselves are not in the public domain – unlike the blazon (description), that is.
Eventually, whilst the time a photograph was taken is important, the time this kind of file was uploaded is of no significance, therefore it was removed too.
Not only it is of no significance, but it has to be systematically removed, since the only result of its presence is that it clutters up the search engine with useless keywords, thereby weighing down the database. That said, I also admit that it is possible to view servers' capacity, just like their storage space, as being as infinite as it is free.
To conclude the discussion which would have been interesting to have, the question arises as to whether there are any plans to run a similar script, some day, for an example on the 2,000 files of this category, or even on just a few, or one or more files from that one, for another example, in which case it would no doubt be advisable to give notice before carrying out any work, however minor, even if it's only a test.
That's what I might call “coordination”.
Just like, perhaps, in the fact that we have been reverted several times, the key point to remember is not that we have been reverted but why, in this topic, the key word to remember, in my opinion, is rather “coordination” than “collide”. But it's true that in both these examples, one is free to choose.
If any specific questions – or less specific – I'd be glad to answer them.
Uploaded File:Roger Lukaku-1994.png falsely claiming it as own work in December after having been tagged with {{End of copyvios}} in October. No blocks were given then so reporting them now. The user has uploaded 7 photographs, that yet aren't deleted, only one of which has any Exif information. Given the uploaders history of uploading copyvios, would {{No permission since}} on these seven file be in order? I've tried TinEye/Google lense to find the source of these photos but to no avail. I however suspect they might be very zoomed in, given the very bad quality of most of the photographs. Jonteemil (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is a constitutional right to express our opinion in Europe. I stated that Didym is making statements without legal basis, I did not upload the photo against the common WIki policy. Yes, I consider it an abuse to intervene in a person's work without analyzing the actual situation. Fdanielbic (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Fdanielbic: the First Amendment of the United States, even if imported to the European Union, does not override the policies of Wikimedia Commons or any of the myriad other platforms operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. In fact, as an American online platform, Wikimedia Commons enjoys the legal right, granted by that very law, to moderate your content.
Isn't deleting the same file twice without reading the license distribution notices an abuse? Are you authorized to abuse the patience of volunteers? Please answer! Fdanielbic (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
If Didym had abused the patience of volunteers, the other editors would have prohibited himthem from being an administrator, not to mention an interface administrator. You have, on the other hand, abused the patience of volunteers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 times, in a conservative count inferred from your talk page. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t·c·he/him) 09:24, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is evident and obvious for anyone to believe that the file is copyrighted and since it is already available on internet, the copyright holder must send the permission to COM:VRT.
You asked, "Isn't deleting the same file twice without reading the license distribution notices an abuse?" Not, when the file in question is clearly a copyright violation, and fails to provide the evidence of copyright information. So, you comments here and here are highly inappropriate and might result in blocking of your editing privilege. However, I'll leave that decision to another administrator and ask you to read policies and guidelines. Ratekreel (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment This appears IMO to be a new user who wants to contribute but doesn't understand how commons works. The bigger issue is the lack of civility and threats/accusations. Whether that behaviour is bad enough to merit a block or a stern warning I will leave to another admin to decide Gbawden (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why You don't understand that some files were my own work (Popa, Voicila), and some files were sent by the families of the subjects about I have wrote? Why are you trying to impose an imaginary reality? Fdanielbic (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Fdanielbic: When I tried to do that, something in this section was too complicated, so I got 'The "reply" link cannot be used to reply to this comment. To reply, please use the full page editor by clicking "Edit ".'. Please do the suggested edit for this section instead. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Continued uploading of copyvios after final warning. I've tagged a few of the uploader's file for deletion but likely more are copyvios, please help with going through them. Jonteemil (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I would like to request review of Jcb’s handling of copyright-related (speedy) deletion nominations. My concern is not simply that we disagree on the copyright status of a file, but that speedy deletion is being used in situations where the legal/policy interpretation is genuinely disputed.
In the case of File: Maurice Henri du Croo.jpg, I provided a detailed explanation on Jcb's talk page based on the source's own copyright information and the relevant anonymous-work provisions. Regardless of which interpretation is ultimately correct, the issue is clearly not an unambiguous copyright violation suitable for speedy deletion. A regular deletion discussion would have allowed the community to evaluate the competing interpretations.
Jcb's response did not address the specific evidence provided about anonymous works and publication-based copyright terms, but instead asserted that there was 'no indication' of anonymous authorship and treated the source’s copyright notice as sufficient evidence of continued protection.
I am concerned that this reflects a broader pattern of wrongfully filing deletion requests, particularly (though not exclusively) involving uploads by me. Examples of previous cases concerning myself where I believe similar issues occurred include:
Given the number of disputed copyright assessments involving my uploads, I am concerned that there may be a personal element influencing the way these cases are being handled. I cannot determine Jcb's intentions, but I am concerned that the listed mistakes on his behalf may have contributed to the decision to now use speedy deletion to avoid the kind of community discussion that these disputed cases require.
I kindly request that you review whether the approach in the Du Croo case is consistent with the purpose of speedy deletion, and whether this case should instead be handled through normal deletion discussions.
I would also appreciate a review of whether Jcb's approach in all of these cases reflects an appropriate use of editorial discretion and whether there is a pattern of dismissing reasonable copyright discussions.
My concern is not that Jcb reached a different conclusion than I did, but that disputed copyright questions are systematically treated as unambiguous and objections supported by policy-based arguments are not being meaningfully addressed. Goran.Mont (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment Jcb's own interpretation of copyright rules is indeed disconcerting. File:Maurice Henri du Croo.jpg may be deleted due to URAA, but other cases mentioned above are clearly in the public domain. Nevertheless, Jcb created DRs with weird arguments. Yann (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The other files are Requests because they weren't clear cases. Usually I always upload PD-Simple, and if a different decision is made, that’s fine too. Bildersindtoll (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment I strongly disagree with the deletion of File:Nuke grey dark.svg (this logo) as a copyright violation. It is in my view certainly below COM:TOO US, which applies here & it should not have been speedily deleted. COM:F1 states This does not apply whenever there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research or a plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality. - uploader correctly tagged using {{PD-textlogo}} & {{TM}}. Pinging User:Alno, User:ShakespeareFan00. ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not absolutely certain it is below TOO, but I am certain that it should not have been a speedy deletion on that basis. Speedy deletion over copyright should be used only in clearcut cases. - Jmabel ! talk00:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi there, I decided to delete the file as the site from which it was reproduced clearly claims copyright on anything it contains. Apart from that, it's difficult for me to say whether this logo is or isn't below the threshold of originality, as for example the 'nuke' symbol in the logo is somewhat distorted in an artistic way, which seems to be an attempt of its author to provide some originality. I just hope I didn't harm by deleting the file... -- AlNo(discuter/talk/hablar/falar)15:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would like to report a possible pattern of copyright violations by the user @Parallelepiped09
Over the past year, this user has uploaded what appears to be hundreds of photographs, many of which are claimed as their own work. Based on my review, I believe that a significant number of these files are not actually his own photographs and have been uploaded with incorrect authorship information.
Last year, I contacted the user on their talk page regarding one specific file (File:Condominio La Casona Sc.jpg), which was a cropped version of File:Northern Skyline Santa Cruz.jpg, and asked them to correct the attribution or source. Unfortunately, I have not seen any change in his upload practices. Some of their uploads have already been deleted as copyright violations, but many others remain on Commons. I believe this may warrant an administrative review of the user's uploads and, if appropriate, further action.
Support further block of Krok6kola, preferrably indef. Eversince this legendary edit, I'm convinced for the rest of my life that this user is not able to be a net-positive for Commons. --A.Savin 22:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons that I am sadly not able to share due to confidentiality. - Jmabel ! talk 03:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment In this case I would ignore this issue and close as not done. If someone wants to lodge a complaint they should not hide behind an IP. Besides, I don't see an issue with Whyiseverythingalreadyused's behaviour Gbawden (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Not done I blocked this TA. Yann (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Done. I blocked the sockpuppet and deleted both his uploads. Taivo (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=Previously+deleted+file+%5B%5BFile%3ARaden+Liee+S.Bis.+%2843899%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=small}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=Previously+deleted+file+%5B%5BFile%3ARaden+Liee+%2865918%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=small}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2025.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
