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
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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	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: ~45
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-06: ~89

Other:

• Duplicates: ~23
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~20
• Other speedy deletions: ~45
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~2
• Undeletion requests: ~16

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~4
• Interface admin: ~18
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~26
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
• Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
• It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User:Kallerna

This is to ask for review recent (sysop) actions by Kallerna.

a) I had blocked Karelj for a duration of 3 days for uncivil comments. Latest was this one, which comes as very disrespectful towards the photographer, however Karelj is well known for other disrespectful FPC "reviews" such as this one, for which I already had warned him, which he opted to ignore completely.

b) Several users agreed on obvious incivility of such comments, such as: Aristeas, SHB2000, XRay, Radomianin.

c) Nonetheless, Kallerna came "out of nothing" and unblocked the user -- completely out of process, without seeking any discussion, neither with me nor on Admins' noticeboard, also there wasn't even an unblock request on Karelj's talk page.

d) The unblock comment was "Groundless block [...] Silencing user who do not agree with you?", which I find libelous obviously false and uncivil, as neither did I ever discuss with Karelj in any sort of disagreement, nor did I vote or otherwise comment in the same FPC nomination whatsoever.

e) Similarly poor was their comment on my talk page ("Please do not block users who do not share the same views as you", etc.).

f) Further discussion on my talk page with Kallerna on this matter turned as useless.

g) Therefore, Kallerna's behaviour should be reviewed in terms of: 1) incivility -- due to false claim of myself blocking a user because of contentual disagreement; and 2) obvious violation of Commons:Blocking policy, in particular: "To avoid wheel warring, another administrator should lift a block only if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block".

The sysop Kallerna I'm going to notify on this thread.

Thanks --A.Savin 22:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 to what A.Savin said. I also find Karelj's refusal to communicate a major red flag – not just for the above but also for "But the image here looks, like from child, who receivd his first photoaparate and learns, how to operate with it". Kallerna should have discussed this beforehand, instead of unilaterally unblocking and making spurious accusations. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to get involved here, as I am already part of the discussions about incivility on that nomination page. I just wanted to make people aware that Kallerna is one of only 3 people opposing this FPC nomination (which has more than 20 support votes), so when judging the possibility of a conflict on interest one should consider this fact. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This – thanks for mentioning it, as that too hasn't been mentioned before. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that 1. Karelj's comments are quite rude, if not disrespectful, 2. Kallerna's unblock is out of process. If you don't agree with a block, please discuss it instead wheel warring. Yann (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Yann, thanks for your comments. I have explained my actions in the user talk pages of A.Savin and Karelj. There is also a lot of conversation about the possible rudeness of Karelj in the nom page. I reverted the block due to it being inadequat, as pointed by fellow admistrator Christian Ferrer. —kallerna (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: Would you also like to explain your possible conflict of interest as mentioned by Kritzolina above? --SHB2000 (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: I wouldn't have blocked Karelj at this point, but your hastily unblocking is nevertheless an issue. It sends the wrong message. Yann (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, I should have contacted another administrator here and let someone else revert the block. However, the user had been wrongfully blocked for two days at that point, so I did not want to wait any longer. —kallerna (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

A showcase example how not to address a complaint about one's own behaviour. --A.Savin 14:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Kallerna, if you snarkily try to dodge attempting my question (or A.Savin's) by Dec 2, I will start a nomination to desysop you. Sysops need to be held accountable to their actions; not answering questions raised towards you about your potential misuse of tools is a red flag and is unsysop-like behaviour. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I would support that. Kallerna is good photographer, but definitely not good for the sysop team. As a (possibly offtopic) side-note, look at their talk page (the QI promotions). They have uploaded masses of images of contemporary buildings in South Korea where there is no FoP. Many have been deleted already. A sysop should have at least a very basic knowledge what to upload on Commons and what not. Kallerna seems not to have this knowledge. And this arrogancy is the final straw. Thanks --A.Savin 13:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: courtesy ping – 2 days left to answer my/A.Savin's question before I will start a desysop nom. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

1 day left, Kallerna. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've been travelling the last week all over Europe (at the moment at airport) and have not seen these comments. I'm sorry, but I do not know why you have this motivation to de-admin me. All I did was unblocking wrongfully blocked user. You are not a admin, and you are not involved in the matter - I did not have any reason to communicate with you. I'm here to contribute to the project, not to discuss with trolls. —kallerna (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna Are you calling SHB2000 a troll here? Kritzolina (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's some serious baseless accusations right there, Kallerna. "I do not know why you have this motivation to de-admin me" – I want Commons to be a project with sysops that has sysops who know how to use their tools properly. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Currently both sides seems to be rather over provocative. You all should cool down and try not to the escalate situation. -- Zache (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be useful to know exactly how I'm provocative, however at least I didn't insult a long-term contributor and Wikivoyage admin a troll. --A.Savin 14:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

In this case you were from start threatening with consequenses [1], [2]. From that things did go in couple days from mishandled blocking/unblocking to deadmin vote. However, being admin not about competition, but co-operation and i would say that more fruitful course of action would have been just to explain why you gave the block and ask why it was lifted without any threatening. So that there would be understanding between admins why they did what they did. The discussion could have taken so much time that original three days block would have been irrelevant, but it doesn't afaik really matter. If initially blocked user continues bad behaviour there would have been new blocks because that, if not then problem was solved anyway. --Zache (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

"Silencing user who do not agree with you" is clearly disrespectful, uncivil comment, especially given the fact that it's also false. Kallerna, you still didn't response how come that I'm "silencing users". This block log comment should be hidden at the very least. --A.Savin 13:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Could a third admin please hide this comment? Thanks --A.Savin 14:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done I hid the edit summary. Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. --A.Savin 17:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@A.Savin, Kritzolina, Yann, and Abzeronow: Since it's December 2 and Kallerna did not respond, I started a desysop nomination which can be found at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship). Apologies in advance for any formatting errors (I'm new to this process). Pinging everyone involved in this discussion. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand that one may see the edit summary as insensitive, but might it be worth keeping it public for the duration of the de-adminship discussion be worthwhile so that the log can be seen by participants? @A.Savin and Abzeronow: Would either of you have an objection to this sort of thing? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, temporarily unhiding is no problem. --A.Savin 03:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with temporarily unhiding if it is necessary. Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Per request/consent. GMG^talk 01:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I have closed the de-admin request as inadmissible per policy. Commons:Administrators/De-adminship states: "Please note this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal;". From the above discussion I see nothing that can be called consensus. Personal comment: There should no room for uncivilty, there should be more blocks for uncivilty, and such blocks shall not be removed. Supporting a hostile environment should not be seen as acceptable conduct of anybody, especially not of an admin. --Krd 14:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, Commons really lets sysops get away with such misuse of tools – I thought it was pretty clear from this discussion that Kallerna's behaviour was inappropriate. Oh well... --SHB2000 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, we can of course accuse Kallerna of lifting the block and ignoring questions on purpose, but we can hardly accuse anyone here on Commons of not having commented in this thread. --A.Savin 04:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll admit I severely overreacted when I wrote that comment above. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think A. Savin hit the nail right on the head in the discussion above: «Kallerna is good photographer, but definitely not good for the sysop team.». Well, sure. I mean, Kallerna might also be an excellent driver, a keen model railroader, or a loving spouse — but it doesn’t matter. Being a good photographer is only relevant for Commons in as much as they publish their good photography with a suitable license. It doesn’t follow necessarily that a good photographer would also be a good curator of photographs and other media, let alone a good sysop thereof. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I think A. Savin's block was harsh but within bounds of policy as Karelj was being disruptive by their behavior of making disrespectful comments. Kallerna's unblock was totally against policy, sends the wrong message as Yann said above, and I'm also concerned that they show no contrition for the unblock or the lack of communication beforehand. They also have not addressed that their COI in the matter. I also concur with Krd that we cannot support a hostile environment. Abzeronow (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• @A.Savin: I would only suggest that the original post needs reworded per COM:NLT. There are many ways we can express our view without using legal terms like libel. GMG^talk 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • • Corrected. --A.Savin 02:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Having had a bit more time to look into the matter... No, one admin should not reverse another's actions without discussion unless it is egregious misuse of the tools that leaves room for little interpretation, something of the type that you start looking for a Steward for an emergency desysoping. I would expect an acknowledgement of this standard as a bare minimum from Kallerna. Having said that, it's a little on-the-nose to be arguing over incivility and the response from A.Savin is "bla bla", which very much comes off in text as being frustrated and not super keen on discussing the issue on equanimous terms. GMG^talk 22:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

In broader terms: undoing a block is almost never (maybe literally never?) an emergency. Unless I'm missing something, in this case the block (whether justified or not) had one more day to run! Commons can do without any individual contributor, myself included, for a day. - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: Since you said you were travelling (see above), I waited before writing this. Hopefully you can answer now.

Do you maintain you position, i.e. that your unblocking of Karelj was justified? Also do you apologize for calling SHB2000 a troll? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

+1 GMG^talk 13:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

+2 --A.Savin 14:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

+3. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've been informed privately that Kallerna will be indisposed until at least the end of the holidays. I would suggest that we have a touch of the spirit of the season and recognize that this can be resolved, but that waiting a touch doesn't necessarily constitute a crisis. GMG^talk 20:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @GreenMeansGo: that's fine with me if Kallerna is genuinely taking a break; there is nothing emergent here if they are not actively using their admin privileges. When they are back, though, this needs to be on the radar. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jmabel here, there's no rush to this. Hopefully, they will answer questions after they come back from their break. Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

    I agree – a lot of people will be on break in the next 3 weeks, myself included. As long as they answer our questions and apologise to A.Savin, that's good with me. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Deadminship for User:Kallerna

•  Support. This subsection should clearly show Bureaucrats whether or not there is a consensus because Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship) was deemed "inadmissible".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Had Kallerna written in this statement sth. like "I've been travelling the last week all over Europe, no time to read this discusion, but meanwhile I see that it was my mistake, I shouldn't have unblocked Karelj without discussion, and it is also not true what I said that A.Savin wanted to be silencing a user who disagreed with him, I'm sorry for that", then we could have closed the whole thread straightaway and move on, but seeing what they actually wrote... No way. --A.Savin 16:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Defending uncivil behaviour by being uncivil and overriding normal procedures on the way is not what I expect from an admin. --Kritzolina (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support as the nominator of the now-invalid thread; what Kritzolina and A.Savin mentioned. Thanks for starting this subsection, Jeff G.! --SHB2000 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I'm not as extreme as A.Savin, but Karelj shouldn't have been unblocked without discussion, and Karelj hasn't even seemed to hear that the edit comment was as much of a problem as the unblock.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support not to discuss with trolls ... ouch Killarnee (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Neutral on de-adminship, but in favor of starting a formal process to discuss it. It doesn't worry me as much that Kallerna did the wrong thing in the first place as that the way they've handled this (including apparently not understanding that non-admins are allowed to participate in this page, and calling another user a "troll" for doing so). If Kallerna believes this was fine on their part, then that's a problem. If they understand at this point that they blew this -- in more than one respect -- then maybe they are liable to grow into the job. - Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose GMG^talk 17:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose I do not believe this isolated incident rises to the level of a desysop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  At least an acknowledgement from Kallerna would be good, but no, they've yet to acknowledge why their actions were problematic. Had they done so, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose per above. 1989 (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment terrible unblock on the basis of both procedure and what I'd call a degree of involvement (karel and kallerna having more or less the same style of participation at fpc, and this being about fpc participation), but to the extent this is about that one unblock I'd say this should be closed with an unequivocal warning. I'd prefer to see a pattern or at least another example of bad judgment with tool use to support here. Stopping short of opposing though, as I think it's reasonable to say "we should have a deadminship conversation" which is all this section is deciding. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Right, "we should have a deadminship conversation".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 10:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment What Jmabel said. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support per OP and Jmabel. --Daniele Fisichella 12:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support per above. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Jalapeño (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Schlurcher (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC) . The following quote shows are huge misunderstanding of Commons policies: You are not a admin, and you are not involved in the matter - I did not have any reason to communicate with you. (the part before the comma should be irrelevant)
•  Support Their only block log entry is the one under discussion here, which has a taste on it's own. The attitude shown above, plus ducking away, holiday season or not. --Krd 08:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yilku1

For the last 8 months, this has repeatedly removed Category:Unidentified locations in Buenos Aires from this one photo.

• Yilku1 (talk · contributions · user rights management)

No explanation was offered, even though pinged for it in the talk page, no geolocation or any other form of spatial identification was offered to justify the repeated uncategorization. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yilku1: What location in Buenos Aires is depicted in File:TranviaBsAs.jpg?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 14:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This photo is in Buenos Aires City, this is not an unidentified location. Yilku1 (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Yilku was made autopatroller on 11th of November. But (s)he has copyright problems (see his/her talkpage) and this removing "unidentified" templates problem as well, so I removed his/her autopatroller bit. Taivo (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Should I add back Category:Unidentified locations in Buenos Aires to that photo (and to any other in the same situation) now?, or would that be edit warring? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: So you just come here to report me first instead of just first leaving a comment in my discussion page? (i don't remember that ping, i do a lot of edits be more specific) Yilku1 (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You ignored my quaery to you on the file’s talk page after you repeatedly vandalized its categorization. You were reported here not too soon: Your absurd reply above (15:34) is all the proof I need that you’re either trolling or lacking competence, and I have neither time nor patience for either. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Why do you accuse me like that? The photo was taken in Buenos Aires, is not an Unidentified location, and call me a troll for saying that? why? Maybe you vandalized the image after it is clearly not an Unidentified location and taken in Buenos Aires. Yilku1 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll bite: what part of Category:Unidentified locations in Buenos Aires you don’t understand?

Please note that one of its parent cats is Category:Buenos Aires, which refers to the city itself, not to the surrounding (but not encompassing) Category:Buenos Aires Province — so this is not a case akin to, say, Category:Unidentified locations in São Paulo (state) versus Category:Unidentified locations in São Paulo city.

I suggest you either find out the location of this photo and add it to the file page (through specific categorization under Category:Streets in Buenos Aires and/or geolocation), if you know BA well enough, or else drop the stick and let others improve this filepage.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

So you are just going to spam the category to every image that doesn't have coordinates? Yilku1 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yilku1: "Spam" is a rather unnecessary pejorative here, unless you think it would be appropriate to ask if you are "spamming" questions to this conversation. Buenos Aires is a large enough place that if there are no coordinates, no street address (or even an approximation to that), no indication of neighborhood, then it is appropriate to add Category:Unidentified locations in Buenos Aires. Have a look at Category:Unidentified locations in Seattle, Washington, for example. - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Jmabel. When it comes to trams in unidentified locations within a given system, we can at least be sure that the location in question is somewhere along the (usually well known) track, extant or extinct (unless the tram in question is set off track, of course). When there’s enough categorized media to justify it, a specific category can be used, to simplify the geosleuths’ work, as in Category:Trams in unidentified locations in Lisbon, which in turn is under Category:Unidentified locations in Lisbon/along known routes. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all images and other media files that portrait or refer to unidentified locations in Buenos Aires should be categorized in Category:Unidentified locations in Buenos Aires, just like, say, all images and other media files that portrait or refer to sculptures of trolls in Sweden should be categorized in Category:Sculptures of trolls in Sweden. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Replying to myself concerning the edit warring issue: Taivo already fixed it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile a much more helpful user did identify the location of the photo in question, so it was then correctly removed from Category:Unidentified locations in Buenos Aires. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Giov.c

• User: Giov.c (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading (including File:ALCAMPO Auchan.svg, File:LOGO UNISA.svg, and File:Logo IP New Redraw.svg) after block for doing so. Attempting to violate COM:OW.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 07:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but no copyvios are uploaded since August and now it's December. Taivo (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

User: 103.97.162.97

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

One of User:Rishad 57pymr's various IP addresses. Attempted to revert my deletion request at File:66 Infantry Division Insign of Bangladesh Army.svg as well as his old comment chain at User talk:Alexphangia.

Would also appreciate if an admin could deal with my deletion request. This guy - who has a long history of sockpuppetry and copyright violations - reuploaded something I made and claimed to have created it himself. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. 3 days block. Vandalism is either reverted or deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Lofty abyss

Hello there, this might seem weird as Commons is not my most active spot, but I have some concerns regarding the user Lofty abyss. He is an admin here on Commons, and does in fact meet the activity requirements, but I'm still concerned about this user's activity over the past couple of years. Examples:

• He has made only 50 edits between February 2015 up until now, and 100 edits between May 2012 up until now. Many of them are also just him moving user pages of renamed users, and not actual edits. He has also not made a single edit to Commons since February 2021.
• This user has a little more than 1,500 edits on Commons, and the last 500 of them have been from December 2009, the month he became an admin, up until now. Most of these edits are between 2009-2011, after which his activity seems to have really dropped.
• He has made 100 admin actions since October 2019, and none since August 2023. Most of his admin actions during these years also seem to just be him deleting duplicate/empty categories as well as some userpages, and not actual files. I'm also noticing that most of these actions come within months between each other with about 5-7 of them each time, both of these points makes it look like he's just making these actions to retain his adminship. He has not handled any deletion requests since June 2020, not made any blocks since July 2020 and has only one logged action in the user rights log from 2010.
• He has not made a single file upload since December 2009.

I don't know if this actually qualifies for a de-adminship or anything, but I think this is very low for an administrator here on Commons and I barely think these points demonstrate a need of adminship. EPIC (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• I mean...Not doing anything isn't really a way of abusing the tools. The inactivity requirement is the standard. I don't think you're going to get much traction on a de-mopping when the main issue is that they're not as active as we'd like, but still within the admin activity requirements. GMG^talk 17:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• @EPIC: Please inform people when you report them here. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I'm sorry. Will do so. EPIC (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

To paraphrase George Washington John Quincy Adams (I stand corrected), we don't need to go out into the world in search of monsters to destroy. There is no problem having someone minimally active keeping admin privileges, as long as there is no sign that they abuse those privileges. I myself might be perceived the same way as a minimally active admin on en-wiki. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Jmabel (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes) shows plenty of blocks, protections, deletions, and moves, and even some rights changes. You are a valued Admin here, as well as the most helpful person at the Help desk and the Village pump. I appreciate your many insights. You use your Admin bit on enwiki to help people who post here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 20:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

On that last, exactly. I rarely do admin things on en-wiki that don't start with issues on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Lofty abyss: At least you should mention that you are an admin on your user page, and it is customary to mention which language(s) you speak. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not really the central issue here, but that's John Quincy Adams. GMG^talk 12:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Consensus that there isn't actually any problem here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: I would have waited until "Lofty abyss" answers, but I agree there isn't any problem here. I added an admin template on their user page. Yann (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Why the haste? It's not even 24 hours yet and only 2 people had opposed out of only 4 that participated. We've had community desysoping for inactivity previously, not something extraordinary. I think this should be left open for input from others. -- CptViraj (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

교복을 입은것은 아청법에 위배됩니다

삭제해주시기 바랍니다. 116.42.92.73 02:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If Google translate has handled the above correctly, it is a claim that "Wearing a school uniform is against the child protection law" and a demand that some unspecified thing be deleted. (I have no idea what user this person is claiming to have a problem with, and I suspect the information simply isn't there.) I have no idea what country, if any, has such a law, but I'm utterly certain that there is no such law in the U.S., where our servers are hosted. School uniforms in South Korea gives no indication on any limits about wearing or displaying school uniforms. I cannot readily find any reference to any law of this sort with 10 minutes of searching, so unless someone can cite something solid, I am not inclined to take the claim seriously. - Jmabel ! talk 08:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW there is a South Korean prohibition on sexualized images of children, even if those are drawings rather than photographs, and their courts have apparently held that a school uniform is enough to mark the subject as a child for this purpose. But this would only apply if the images are sexualized. Certainly such images are common in Japan and legal in the U.S.; school-style uniforms are a common adult fetish object in both countries and doubtless elsewhere. There might be some issue about such an image being uploaded by a user who is a citizen of or resides in South Korea. As for us hosting such an image, though, we are no more bound by that than by a Saudi prohibition on showing a woman's arms. - Jmabel ! talk 08:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

7BIGDREAM again (the 3rd time)

7BIGDREAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

7BIGDREAM is back uploading copyrighted content again with this, this, this, this, this, and this in December 2023. Was warned previously in this AN report, followed by blocked in this AN report. I don't see, how they have learned their lesson, as they are still uploading copyrighted content without care, even after their block expired with this, this, this, this, this, and this in April 2023 (2 months after their block expired), hence would support a indef block as I believe enough is enough. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months. Lets see if they get the message. Final chance Gbawden (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User Albedo, categories, and block discussions

On 9 December 2023, user Albedo once again categorized files into a non-existent category (also misspelled) and they removed these same files from a valid category. I commented on their talk page at Moving photos from Flora of North Carolina. After perusing this noticeboard, I see this is a behavior the user is repeating, even after a now-indefinite block of editing categories and at least one topic ban that I can see. There are at least two problems with the changes made on 9 December: the files were removed from a valid category created by project consensus, and the (non-existent) category name was misspelled. See, for example, File:Sericocarpus asteroides 45807689.jpg. It looks like the user has changed their M.O. to editing Plants files from which they are not banned. Jeff G. called for a block of this user above in #Category:Graded roads. That might not be a bad idea at this point. Eewilson (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Asteraceae in Nortth Carolina (sic, note the misspelling of "North"), it appears to be composed entirely of files placed there by User:Albedo. This seems to me to be an effort to get around the block against editing in category space as such. Unless there is a much better explanation than I expect, I would support an outright indef-block at this point. - Jmabel ! talk 02:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Eewilson and Jmabel: I moved those files back to Category:Flora of North Carolina. I, too, would support an outright indef-block. Here is the latest evidence of incompetence.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 03:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Eewilson (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The user continued to edit without replying here, so I blocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, thank you. Eewilson (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry (Tinkubhoi)

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

Hi! There's been a good deal of disruption on en.wp from this user and numerous socks. I've nominated some files here for F10 deletion, apparently all depicting (and uploaded by) the same person. The accounts I found include: User:Oojhh, User:Bhohfugig7zrx, User:Kkkkllllpp, User Laxmo, User:ଜ୍ଜ୍ଜ୍ଜ୍ଜୀ , User:Laxminarayanmmmmm, User:Nmkjgyu and User:Oojhh; I expect there are more. I've not notified Tinkubhoi as he's apparently not registered on this project. Over to you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Please link usernames as follows:

Oojhh (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Bhohfugig7zrx (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Kkkkllllpp (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Laxmo (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

ଜ୍ଜ୍ଜ୍ଜ୍ଜୀ (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Laxminarayanmmmmm (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Nmkjgyu (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

You also failed to notify them per above or mention them. I did that for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done All blocked. Tinkubhoi is not registered here. Yann (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Roman Ivanovych Kovalchuk

Copyright violation: from video

• File:Staw Muhavka.png - deleted 13:45, December 9, 2023 Túrelio
• reloaded after deletion File:Stawky Muchawka.png - deleted 23:48, December 9, 2023 Polarlys
• reloaded after deletion File:Каскад ставків в селі Мухавка. 6-й став.png - deleted 13:34, December 10, 2023 Polarlys
• reloaded after deletion File:Каскад ставків в селі Мухавка. 5-й став.png - deleted ???

And also other files with Copyright violation. It is too much! This must be stopped. --Микола Василечко (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Микола Василечко: You failed to mention or notify Roman Ivanovych Kovalchuk (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, as instructed above. I did it for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry (images of June Spencer)

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

User:Enujrecneps ("June Spencer" backwards) was blocked on 13 October for uploading copyvio images of actress June Spencer, falsely claiming them as own work. All the images were deleted.

User:Moskcorbenuj ("June Brocksom" backwards, Brocksom was her husband's name) uploaded further images of actress June Spencer on 20-23 October, claiming them as own work. Unclear if any of them were reuploads of the ones deleted above. Belbury (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Enujrecneps was blocked for a week by Achim55. I blocked Moskcorbenuj indef. for socking. Yann (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

User: SK Jahid Islam

SK Jahid Islam (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Sockpuppet of Rishad 2522, long-time vandal and uploader of copyrighted material. See also the report on 103.97.162.97, belonging to the same user, which is still on this page. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Indefinitely blocked. Uploads are deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

User:OrlandoR503

OrlandoR503 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Lots of frivolous deletion requests, often of files COM:INUSE. Sure, there are somewhat random examples of files that might have copyright problems, but that doesn't make their approach to deletion requests valid. One example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandera De Concepcion De Oriente, La Union, El Salvador.gif. User contributions. I'm not suggesting a block at this stage, but a warning in Spanish would be good. My Spanish is survival-level, so I'm not the best one to do it, but I'll post something to their user talk page now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Convenience link: User:OrlandoR503 - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@OrlandoR503: al menos, no es aceptable nominar un archivo para remover con un una justificación sin sentido ("FDFGHJKL"), ni sea "Ya No Me Sirve" mucho mejor. Los archivos no quedan aquí para servir un usuario en particular. - Jmabel ! talk 20:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Last warning for vandalism sent. DRs closed. Feel free to block. Yann (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

ArnaudDarko

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

The user re-uploads the same file over and over, ignoring the last warning given by Mdaniels5757. Günther Frager (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done indef-blocked. They have appear to have uploaded the same copyvio half a dozen times, and the account has no other meaningful activity. - Jmabel ! talk 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Permanent Block request for violation of Topic Ban by A1Cafel

1. Originally, in 2021, A1Cafel was blocked against Deletion Requests (DRs) here. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 93#A1Cafel and yet more abusive deletions

2. In August of 2022, the topic ban was partially lifted.

Regular DRs are OK, however, their was an exception for speedy deletions. Quote:

"Tags for speedy deletions and timed deletions such as missing permission etc. may still not be applied though. (emphasis added)

3. There are no written exceptions to this Speedy Deletion topic ban.

4. A1Cafel has not appealed their topic ban.

5. A1Cafel violated their topic ban by a Speedy Deletion request here: [[3]]

I had made this a regular deletion request (with comment) here: [[4]]

A1Cafel's "Second Appeal on the Topic Ban" here: [[5]]

Closing Admin. wrote,

"Per this discussion, A1Cafel is now allowed again to create regular deletion requests (DR). Tags for speedy deletions and timed deletions such as missing permission etc. may still not be applied though. If after three months from today, A1Cafel has shown that their newly created DRs are constructive and successful, the overall topic ban may be appealed at this board. Such an appeal shall include the notification of all participants in the original TBAN discussion. De728631 (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)"

I cannot find any appeal since 31 August 2022, like that offered above.

A1Cafel was automatically notified on his talk page, when I changed the speedy deletion into a regular DR with the following comment:

"Is this user allowed by community consensus to do speedy deletions now?"

A1Cafel Without any comment, they removed the DR notification from their talk page. [[6]]

Also, as of today, there has been no comment by A1Cafel at the regular DR nomination page, where the Speedy Deletion had been converted to a regular DR by me. [[7]]

• Additionally, this August, Administrator @Mdaniels5757 wrote, ::::::A1Cafel was previously blocked by me in January for two weeks for CheckUser-confirmed logged out editing in violation of his topic ban." Here: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 36#Block review: A1Cafel

and he wrote,

"My block" "I noticed that an IP tagged File:Geoffrey-Pyatt.jpg for deletion per CSD F8 as a duplicate of File:Amb. Geoffrey Pyatt portrait.jpg. As it was not an exact or scaled-down duplicate (but a crop), I declined the deletion request. I noticed that A1Cafel had uploaded the image the day before. This is, in my opinion, obviously A1Cafel. Looking at the IP's range (Special:Contributions/219.78.0.0/16), I noticed that there were multiple other edits that appear to be A1Cafel, including untagging his own file for speedy deletion without attracting the scrutiny that doing so logged-in would provide. There may be others on another IP range.

Accordingly, I blocked A1Cafel. I determined a block of one month was appropriate, given that the previous block for this was two weeks.''"

and the concluding discussion, quoted here:

"Discussion

• I think a block was reasonable given the evidence provided. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• This is their third block this year, plus the topic ban, plus numerous admonishments for overzealous behavior. If anything, I think this block is shorter than warranted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• "Ban evasion, please create an account to edit" I dont think someone block evading should be asked to create a new account. Odd block reason. --Trade (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)"

I appologize in advance if I included too much text, missed relevant facts or other flaws, as this is my first such request. --Ooligan (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This seems like massive overkill; was the intent of the ban to actually prevent the user from requesting that files they just uploaded be deleted because they were misuploaded?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you're right. What should they have done instead? Is there a board on the Administrators' noticeboard where they could have requested speedy deletion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the harm in invoking COM:CSD#G7 on own work within 7 days?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait, I checked and the user tried to have another's upload File:Geoffrey-Pyatt.jpg deleted to replace it with their own upload File:Amb. Geoffrey Pyatt portrait.jpg via COM:CSD#G8. It wasn't an exact duplicate, and in such cases Admins delete the newest upload anyway.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 17:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Clarify topic ban

I think that the intent of the community's speedy deletion topic ban was to ban them from requesting speedy deletion on files uploaded by other users. Nowhere in the discussions was there anybody who complained about the user tagging their own files for deletion. Yes, based on the written word of the TBAN, this is a violation of a topic ban, but I don't think that we ought block the user for this. As such, I propose that the text of the topic ban be modified to additionally state that A1Cafel's topic ban does not prevent them from tagging their own uploads for speedy deletion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, if all that happened was an {{SD|G7}} of their own upload, I wouldn't even want to discourage that. It's basic housekeeping. - Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support As is obvious, I have long seen A1Cafel as a negative to the project and would welcome a total ban. However that should not be for G7s on their own uploads, even under the current topic ban on DRs. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Calling him a net negative to Commons is a bit of a hyperbole Trade (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Support. This is obvious to me. And therefore, the current block should be ended. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support This is definitely obvious. Abzeronow (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Partial support for G7-eligible files only (i.e. within a week of upload). I have seen them learn new copyright rules and overgeneralize from what they learned, so I don't think they should be able to tag their own months-old uploads as copyvio; they should continue to open a DR for such cases. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Certainly. This is strictly about G7. Pinging @King of Hearts, is there somewhere the wording was unclear about that? - Jmabel ! talk 20:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel and Red-tailed hawk: Read literally, "A1Cafel's topic ban does not prevent them from tagging their own uploads for speedy deletion" means that they would be allowed to tag their own uploads as F1, which we don't want to allow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

      @King of Hearts: Has A1Cafel inappropriately tagging their own uploads as copyvio been a problem in the past? My understanding is that the problem was how they were applying deletion-related items to photos uploaded by others. I'm fine with limiting it to only being G7s, but I am curious as to if it needs to be limited that much. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Support We should also make this the default for all deletion request topic bans. G7 should still be possible unless it is explicitly included in the topic ban. GPSLeo (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Adv Sh Mishra and Ansh2512

• Users: Adv Sh Mishra (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and Ansh2512 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Adv Sh Mishra was closed as Stale. Please evaluate on the basis of behavior. The users have perpetrated crosswiki spam. The master uploaded a few selfies and wrote a preliminary autobiography at his user page (now blanked and tagged G10), then a more comprehensive one at en:Draft:Adv Sh Mishra (now deleted}. The puppet then uploaded another selfie and tried to repeat the autobiography at the master's user page and complained about hitting Special:AbuseFilter/245 and Special:AbuseFilter/186 in COM:FILTERT#Report by Ansh2512 using these edits.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Both blocked. Yann (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yann: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Labicanense

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

Reason for reporting: This user is a puppet of e.g. User:Livioandronico2013 and User:Fiat 500e. Same camera and same kind of spamming behaviour, i.e. replacing old images with their own on Wikipedia articles without looking for consent. For example, see this version history. Disembodied Soul (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Dr Selvaganesh

Dr Selvaganesh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continuously uploaded his personal images. AntanO 09:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Warned, file deleted. Yann (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:DMLSAQ

DMLSAQ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user File:Irena Ponaroshku 2023.jpg is probably re-uploaded after warning and deletion, several more copyvios detected, other uploads are also without metadata. All are from articles created as undisclosed paid editing. Komarof (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Last warning sent, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DMLSAQ‎. Yann (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:RAGlobal2

RAGlobal2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - uploading a series of self-promotional PDFs. Omphalographer (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Indef., spam only after warning, file deleted. Yann (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Sleevachan

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

This is a known sock, blocked on EnWiki, who keeps uploading deleted images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese). They then add the images to EnWiki as an IP. Please indef. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Indef., all files deleted. I also blocked Phillypaboy123 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions), probable sock, and for massive copyright violations. Yann (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)