Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~24
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• No license since 16 October 2025: ~7
• No permission since 16 October 2025: ~13
• No source since 16 October 2025: ~4
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-10: ~239

Other:

• Duplicates: ~190
• Advertisements/spam: ~1
• Personal photos/selfies: ~45
• Other speedy deletions: ~30
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~1
• Requests for unblock: ~5
• Undeletion requests: ~15

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~37
• Interface admin: ~15
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~7
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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

---

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

---

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

Note

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

User:Trougnouf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commons:Picture of the Year/2016/Candidates

• Commons:Picture of the Year/2016/Candidates hyperprotected
• Commons:Picture of the Year/2017/Candidates not protected at all

Please change protection level of both to "autoconfirmed". Taylor 49 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done but on autopatrol level to avoid vandalism and allow all file renaming. GPSLeo (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

User is mass-emptying categories based on interpretation and personal preference and not policy

Several threads on User talk:Rathfelder show this user unilaterally changing the category scheme. Sometimes this is helpful and it is certainly well-intentioned, but the entire rationale behind many of these decisions is off-base and the latest rash of edits (such as this) are removing categories from the parent category Category:Scientific journals by name, which is supposed to list all journals together (minus those in its subcategories, but either way, Rathfelder is not inserting it into the subcats, so it is entirely removed). There have been many such problems, including one that was raised at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_97#User_unilaterally_changing_and_emptying_categories,_not_responding_to_others'_concerns. See:

• User_talk:Rathfelder#Why_are_you_removing_date_categories_from_files?
• User_talk:Rathfelder#Why_are_you_removing_dates_from_files?
• User_talk:Rathfelder#Category_removal
• User_talk:Rathfelder#Why_are_you_emptying_a_category_again? (the issue that I raised above)

I think that this user's reasoning is wrong and these edits are undoing a lot of work by other users. The additions that Rathfelder makes and diffusion of large categories is useful, but the removal of work and unilateral emptying of categories is not and this problem has been ongoing for a long time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I meant to add that in addition to doing some proper and useful diffusion alongside doing removals of valid and useful categories, this user is also inserting inaccuracies, such as labeling a journal as a book, which are two different kinds of publications in two different kinds of schemes. These are serious problems in judgement and undo a lot of useful work that others have done, making some categories much less useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I dont think there is a clear difference between scientific journals and books. Many of them physically are books and many are categorised as books. We could have a category for public health journals.

I am attempting to categorise journals of all sorts by country and by year. I dont think Category:Scientific journals by name is very useful. Most of the content needs to be added to other categories. if fully populated there would be many thousand entries. My guess is that less than 1% were included before I started moving them. Journals quite often change their names over time and there is not agreement whether for example the name should include "The", so it isnt very helpful to sort them by name. Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I think a category for journals by name is helpful as some sort of "reference work" or "glossary" where you can simply look up a journal name alphabetically. I don't know in what field of work you are, but I often find myself using alphabetical lists of all kinds at work. Nakonana (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

This is illustrative of the exact two complaints that I have above:

• You don't think something is useful, so you personally remove it.
• You think that since only a small percentage of a given kind of work is done, therefore you should undo the work that has been done (e.g. see on your talk page where I mention how most files here don't have descriptions in Korean: that's not justification for removing the ones that do!)

These are the recurring issues that I have in a nutshell. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

While like many categorizations, there can be confusion at the edges, scientific journals are periodicals and treated differently by the bibliographic community. To go into a mass deletion because you don't think they're distinct is unreasonable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Concur with Prosfilaes. - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

So would people see a category like Category:Scientific journals by name, with perhaps 30,000 entries, as useful? Rathfelder (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

All X by name or X (flat list) categories are made for listing all such things in a big category. Even some categories that do have diffusion schemes still list all instances as subcategories, such as Category:Surnames. You cannot impose a top-down hierarchy model on all categories here: that's not how it works in principle or practice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Meh. I don't know how to use it, but there are people who do find it useful, and on a collaborative project, that's frequently enough reason to leave it alone. Moreover, there's many categories of the type, and it's not really an argument that should be had on scientific journals alone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

But doesnt it give rise to problems like Category:Books in French. Too crowded with 92,466 files. They arent even in alphabetical order. How would anyone find this helpful? Rathfelder (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Probably mostly for category intersections. Just like many tags on sites that use those. - Jmabel ! talk 13:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I dont understand. Can you give some examples? Rathfelder (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Jhonvitor01 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Jhonvitor01 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Continued uploading of non-free images after being warned. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month- 2nd block- lets see if they get the message Gbawden (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

User:AI Editor User

AI Editor User (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Repeated uploads of copyright violations. User had been formally warned twice. 0x0a (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week by Herbythyme. Yann (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Daniel Broomfield Ua

Can someone please block this person already? Their unconstructive POV pushing is disruptive and is wasting the time of all concerned. Geoffroi 22:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

My point of view is neutral. It means that it is you who defends certain political ideas. I just want to find out what legislation has to be applied to the panorama objects in Crimea. There are already three versions: Ukrainian, Russian, and US! So how can people contribute to Wikimedia Commons if you don't know what copyright law should be used and ban people who are finding it out? Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You're not finding anything out. You have no understanding of copyright, nor do you care. You won't listen to anyone. Nobody agrees or will agree with your political bullshit. Geoffroi 22:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Once again, my point of view is neutral. It means that it is you who defends certain political ideas. There is a simple question: what copyright law should be in Crimea? Using Russian law means violating Ukrainian law. Somebody says that it should be US law. I have already said that the most reliable source in this case is Wikimedia's layer conclusion. So why don't you just show such a conclusion? Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The question of what copyright law should be in Crimea is not relevant to Commons. And using Russian law doesn't mean violating Ukrainian law; if you obey Russian laws against murder in Crimea, you will be obeying Ukrainian laws against murder as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

He hates Russia and Russians. That's why he's here. You or another admin should block him so we don't waste more time on a discussion that's obviously going absolutely nowhere.@Geoffroi [1]

No, I just say that according to international law, Crimea is Ukraine. The UN point of view is the neutral point of view. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You know nothing at all about copyright. All you know is that you hate Russians and you want to troll Commons about it. Geoffroi 22:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd watch out for boomerang. Daniel isn't behaving perfectly, but neither is it okay to abuse him. Objecting to the invasion of Crimea is not hating Russians or even Russia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

He's casting legal aspersions above even on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. I linked their fair use policy and their legal noticeboard and without looking at it he said they're violating Ukrainian law. Sounds like a pov troll to me. Geoffroi 23:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

No, the UN point of view is not the neutral point of view. It is a point of view. We aren't Wikipedia, and we don't have the same NPOV rules, but in Wikipedia, you'd be forced to discuss the view of Ukraine, Russia and the rest of the world.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Topic banned: Quote: "Consider this a topic ban from discussing anything related to legal issues in Crimea (except for actual good-faith deletion discussion) for a period of 1 month." --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

MrGreen105

• User: MrGreen105 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:ShehbazSharif-new (cropped).png after final warning for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The file that I posted was an extract from ANOTHER file by another user that I was unaware was deleted due to copyright violations. Aside from this extracted file, not a single file (given my scarce participation in Wikimedia Commons) that I have posted has been deleted due to copyright violations. I understand the issue with this extracted file; however, when I uploaded it, there was no deletion nomination for the original, so I hope you can understand. Besides this apparent flaw, I have upheld Wikimedia Commons guidelines to my knowledge. Thanks, MrGreen105 (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Seriously? This was the user's talkpage before last cleaning. I might have accepted that this file was a reasonable extract from another file, and that this was overzealous, but you claiming not a single file has been deleted due to copyright violations when I can see that talk page destroys any good faith I might have given you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not what I claim (or intended to claim). I am referring to files that are CURRENTLY posted; I am aware of previous violations, which I have taken into account through the cessation of any posting that involves dubious copyright statuses. MrGreen105 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

To say that your currently posted files haven't been deleted is tautological.

That said, the issue here should be what happens going forward. I'm out the door right now; can someone work out how many recent uploads have been a problem (and I wouldn't count a derivative work of something that was already on Commons, we've pretty much all made that mistake). - Jmabel ! talk 13:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked MrGreen for a week. Without his sentence "not a single file that I have posted has been deleted due to copyright violations." I would not block him. Taivo (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Ingyames

Ingyames (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) uploads previously deleted files and removes SD templates after warning. --Ovruni (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Ovruni, thank you for your message and notification.

I would like to clarify that the image I uploaded is a **professional portrait of myself**, published under **CC BY 4.0 license**, and is **relevant to my Wikidata item (Q136567729)**.

The speedy deletion (SD) template was replaced with a **standard deletion request** according to Commons guidelines, so that the file can be properly reviewed by administrators. I had no intention of circumventing the rules; my goal is for the file to remain **legitimately and verifiably available** for Wikimedia-related projects.

I am happy to provide any additional information if needed. Thank you for your understanding. Ingyames (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as spammer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Toniker0501's removal of DR notices on PH congressmen images

I just discovered that Toniker0501 (talk · contribs) removed the deletion request tags that were added to the images of PH congressmen when I nominated those for deletion using VisualFileChange tool. For the removal actions, see this. IMO, the deletion request (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official photographs of members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines (2019)) is valid as it concerns the images being authored by a professional photographer from private sector instead of a government employee. Toniker0501 should have commented on the DR page if they oppose deletion, instead of removing valid DR tags. I'm requesting an admin to sanction this user, and revert all of their removals of DR tags on the nominated images. Kindly see also the images I nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official photographs of members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines (2016), as it seems the DR tags were removed, too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

User:StPaul.jpg

StPaul.jpg (talk · contribs) -- LTA Livioandronico2013, easily identifiable per DUCKtest as yet another sock. --A.Savin 11:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)