Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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 ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
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
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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	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}

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.

Flag LTA

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

Uploads (fake "historical" flags) seem similar to what I recall from other flag-focused LTAs I've seen in the past, e.g. User:Nv7801, but I can't look up those uploads to confirm. Does this need a CU or is it obvious enough to block outright? Omphalographer (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Done Obvious enough to block outright. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  He's back under an alt. NorthTension (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Done by Achim55. Yann (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yutyo77764

Yutyo77764 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Re-upload images that were previously deleted in January because they either violated copyright or were not properly licensed. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. One week block. I deleted something. Taivo (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lmngr34

Lmngr34 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

After some blocks, this user restarted uploading copyvio photo. File:モー娘。ライブ「マイナカード」で本人確認ハロプロ発表デジタル庁に協力不正転売防止など検証.webp Netora (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a year (3rd block), all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zsfcsfcafsa4334534

Zsfcsfcafsa4334534 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user is repeatedly recreating and uploading files not in the project scope Cyberwolf (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked indef., clearly NOT HERE. All files deleted, again. Yann (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cyberwolf (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

A1Cafel upload restriction review

See User talk:A1Cafel/Archive 14#F2C ban to familiarize yourselves with the context. In October 2024, I imposed a topic ban on A1Cafel from using Flickr2Commons due to issues raised on this board. A few days later, I discovered that he was using Flickypedia to transfer Flickr images just as before, the only difference being the choice of automated tool. To close this obvious loophole, I restricted him to only built-in MediaWiki upload tools and additionally imposed a limit of 10 uploads per day, since a major concern in that discussion was his indiscriminate upload of large quantities of images without due diligence. A month later, on appeal, I agreed to allow him to use automated tools again, but with the 10-upload limit in place. Recently he has asked me to increase the limit to 20 per day. To me there's not a huge difference but it just seems like kicking the can down the road. What does the community believe to be the best way of ensuring that A1Cafel handles large-scale uploads properly? (Note that I have previously banned him from F2C per an AN/U thread in April 2020, but agreed to lift it on appeal a few months later. Clearly that hasn't worked, so I'm trying to find something that does.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been problems with his uploads this last few months? If not, 20 is still far from bulk, and presumably still leaves him in the range where he will have good motivation to review what he's uploading instead of grabbing randomly. Again, intention should be to prevent trouble, not to punish. - Jmabel ! talk 17:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long that there has been no evidence of any issues with uploads he has done, I do not see a problem with increasing it to 20. Bidgee (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree as well, 20 is allowable. Taivo (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support A1Cafel is a tough case. They do a high volume of good work, but we have to build these fences around them because they also have a history of going off the rails (overzealously, not maliciously, I would add). I see A1Cafel as a net positive and want them to stick around, and am content to trust the people that have been managing those fences keep doing so. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support As the person who made the flickypedia discovery, 20 sounds well within the range that he can manually check. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support A1Cafel has done a lot of good work in the past and increasing it from 10 to 20 seems like a small enough change where it won't cause any concern. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oviedo64 keeps uploading images from public sources as his own

Many of Oviedo64's uploads are obviously harvested from the Internet (newspaper sites, Instagram etc.) and then uploaded as "Own work", even submitted to WLx contests. Already checked the first four files and added copyvio template, but per his discussion pages, he has been doing that for years without ever responding to the notifications. Much likely there are still more copyrighted images in his uploads. Plozessor (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Indef-blocked. Not here to help. All uploads deleted. Bedivere (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere Question, I can't speak for all the uploads made by the user. But weren't the files File:Herbert von Dirksen 1938.jpg and File:Embajador Herbert von Dirksen.jpg modified to mention a real source (linking to the National Digital Archives)? I remember asking for permission to overwrite these files and modifying their descriptions a while ago, if so could these uploads be undeleted or do I have to open a request for it? Franco Brignone • Talkpage 06:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Bedivere (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finley2014xox

Finley2014xox has repeatedly been creating massive "catchall" categories for content that is already properly categorised and diffused. For instance, today they were adding Category:List of NASA vehicles (which doesn't even exist, although they may have been planning on 'creating it at the end') to every NASA aircraft and spacecraft, that are all already categorised as NASA aircraft and spacecraft, and was adding both subcategories containing the images and the images themselves. They have now received four warnings for this and requests to stop, brushed off these warnings, and today when I asked them to stop with the NASA overcategorisation their repsonse, while they did stop, was to edit my comment [1], which is inexcusable. Requesting a block as 'not here to improve the Commons' and a rollback of the remaining ~150 additions of Category:List of NASA vehicles to images and categories. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Huntster blocked and I removed the bad category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. He was very clearly warned, explained why it was wrong, and still chose a dismissive attitude and continued on their way. They are not here to collaborate. Please watch for any socks that may pop up. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:TrentBuchet

Hello, I made a reply on a DR made by User:TrentBuchet, but I was called a “rat”, seen here [2]. It appears the user is a sockpuppet of User:VoidseekerNZ, the original uploader of the image nominated in the DR. I don’t understand why the user felt the need to insult me, when I didn’t say anything remotely provoking. After the insult, I decided it’s probably the best not to interact with this user, to prevent any further aggression. So could any admins help me warn this user of their behaviour? Thank you. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

interjection

ˈrats

—used to express disappointment or frustration TrentBuchet (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Already blocked at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#TrentBuchet. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Tvpuppy (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hmd5i (3rd report)

Despite being warned twice to not personally attack me (being warned a third time after sending this personal attack), this user has persistently sent personal attacks, such as Calling me a dumb person, Falsely claiming that I vandalise with no evidence, and finally, telling me to "delete myself" off Wikimedia Commons here. I believe that this has gone way too far, as this is persistent, and since they have already been blocked once, I request that they be blocked indef. Thank you. 🗽Freedoxm🗽 (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Of course, "delete yourself too" is not polite, the user was warned for that and after that (s)he has not edited – already over 2 weeks. The previous block was not for incivility, but for copyvios. In my opinion nothing more should be done. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential block evasion by 24eeWikiUser

24eeWikiUser (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

24eeWikiUser is currently under a six-month block on Commons for repeated uploads of copyright violations. However, their en-wiki account has continued to create several pages. On 28 January, Nkunda102 (previously dormant since mid-2024) uploaded a high-quality portrait photo of Ghirmay Abraham. (The image, a professional-looking portrait photo with EXIF data stripped, is credited to "Protais", which 24eeWikiUser, whose account was previously known as MrTallBoy, has disclosed on Metawiki as his own name.) The next day, the IP address above added it to a en-wiki bio of Ghirmay Abraham created by 24eeWikiUser. Then, on 13 February, Puerta25 (previously dormant since September 2024) uploaded a dubious "own work" photo of Tsion Gurmu (it has visible signs of being a cell phone screen capture). Minutes later, Puerta25 added it to an en-wiki bio of Tsion Gurmu created by 24eeWikiUser. A checkuser query was inconclusive; I don't know if this is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry but the apparent coordination and focus on images for 24eeWikiUser's en-wiki creations after long periods of inactivity suggests a connection, particularly since 24eeWikiUser cannot edit on Commons right now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be block evasion. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Socks blocked. Yann (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

24eeWikiUser requested unblock. I did not close it immediately, in my opinion discussion is needed here. Taivo (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I let a message on their talk page. For the record, 24eeWikiUser was not blocked for sockpuppetry, but for uploading unfree files after warnings. Yann (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin, but sharing for perspective: 24eeWikiUser should not be unblocked early. He has been blocked before for image license problems and still continued to upload copyrighted photos as his own work right up until the most recent block. Due to my role as a new page reviewer on en-wiki and his prolific new page creations, his work comes across the new pages feed often. I have several of 24eeWikiUser's pages on my watchlist due to edits done to remove text copyvios and request revdel, so I noticed when photos (similar in style to those added by 24eeWikiUser before his block) were added to these articles by otherwise dormant accounts and an IP from Rwanda, which 24eeWikiUser has disclosed on Metawiki as his location. Hope this helps as you evaluate this block. Edited to add: Regarding the sockpuppetry, 24eeWikiUser stated on his talk page: The images were uploaded in good faith and credited properly, with no intent to violate policies. If he did not upload the photos from Nkunda102 and Puerta25 accounts, how would he know that they were credited properly or be able to comment on the good faith of the uploaders? He has also not addressed the fact that Nkunda102 attributed the photo of Ghirmay Abraham to "Protais" as noted above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Boy666

New Boy666 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Uploading copyright violations, even though the user was been informed not to do so.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a week, copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali t7

Ali t7 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Has continued to upload copyvios since having been tagged with {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a month. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8diq

8diq (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Continued to upload copyvio images after unblock. Almost every image uploaded is a copyvio. Does not communicate on user talk page. Northern Moonlight (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for 3 months (2nd block), all files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:प्रबुद्ध प्रसून

User talk:प्रबुद्ध प्रसून re-uploads already deleted images and copyvios, out of project scope images despite he is warned. we need a block here. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 11:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebetan10

Phoebetan10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent uploading of copyright materials. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reuploaded File:Kim Hye-yoon 2024 profile.webp again. They also uploaded deleted File:Kim Hye-yoon profile picture.png after the last warning was issued. Also that note, user is blocked indefinite on English Wikipedia hence they're using IP to evade block just to add image uploaded here onto there. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also noted on en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoebetan10. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uhuru1234polad

Uhuru1234polad (talk · contribs)

Uploads problematic images, many from a site dedicated to curating assets, but the assets themselves have no indications that those are freely licensed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have deleted the content, but not yet blocked the user. --A.Savin 14:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This thread can now be archived from now on. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EF5

Since late last year, EF5 (talk · contribs) (at the time, SirMeme God) has been aware of the copyright issues around third-party images hosted on the website of the US National Weather Service. They were certainly aware of (and participated in) the RfC that found that such third party images found there could not be presumed to be in the public domain or available under a free license.

However, last month, they uploaded a large number of images from an NWS page where they are clearly attributed to a third party (Dr. Keith Mountain). One of the images uploaded by EF5 comes from a position on the source page directly beneath the third party attribution. There is no credible way that EF5 believed these photos to be the work of the NWS as they claimed when uploading. The affected files are:

(Aside: I have previously been in correspondence with this photographer over other images from this set. He still owns the copyright. He was amenable to the idea of releasing them under a free license, but stopped responding to me without actually filling out Commons release documentation. My correspondence with him is captured in ticket:2024091210003958)

In another batch of images they uploaded around the same time (source), they acknowledge that the photos belong to a third party (Wayne Mahoney) but claim "Should be in the public domain as no copyright notice is given." After many months and many thousands of words of discussion, EF5 is well aware that no such notice is needed for images created in the United States after 1989. The affected files are:

EF5 is displaying an ongoing flagrant disregard for creators' copyrights. There are many others I can see that they have uploaded that are at least questionable and will also need checking. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To my eye, the source couldn't be much clearer about this. @EF5: did you somehow miss that or what? - Jmabel ! talk 02:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the New Pekin photos, I think I saw that other aerial shots (i.e. the Henryville aerials) were from storm damage surveys and I believe I mixed them up. Not sure why I uploaded the Henryville tornado photos, that was just a complete lapse in judgement. I've gone through my uploads and FfD'd some of my questionable files, but that obviously doesn't excuse my issue with uploading copyvios. EF5 ._. (talk - contribs) 02:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: I assume you understand that at the moment you are not skating on the thickest ice. I'm inclined to take what you said here at face value, but if you were to continue to make similar mistakes/"mistakes" in the near future, I couldn't give you the benefit of the doubt.

@Rlandmann: I hope that EF5's response and mine suffice for you and that you are willing to consider this resolved. If so, then I believe we can close this section. I would suggest that if you have concerns about files other than the ones above you communicate them to EF5.

Jmabel ! talk 02:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied for now and concur we can close this. I will point out though that there is a pattern of behaviour I am familiar with from this user, here and on en:w. If I see the pattern again, I'll go fishing for the specifics and present them in a new AN/U thread. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

user:Sex01001010

Inappropriate username and prurient behavior/uploads Dronebogus (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there's no such user Bedivere (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ah, it's been renamed. I've deleted their uploads.

Done Bedivere (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hjart

Hjart (talk · contribs)

Once again deletion vandalism in edit-war modus on Category:Bornholm rundt. --A.Savin 13:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]