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
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	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	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	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: ~15
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~23
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-07: ~101

Other:

• Duplicates: ~3
• Advertisements/spam: ~12
• Personal photos/selfies: ~2
• Other speedy deletions: ~74
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~2
• Undeletion requests: ~20

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~7
• Interface admin: ~14
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~5
• 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.

Unnecessary file renames, continuing

After User talk:AnRo0002#Renaming 3 (and several earlier discussions on their talk page) and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/05#Unnecessary file renames, User:A.Savin blocked User:AnRo0002 for "after warnings: several file moves against COM:FNC despite requests not to do so". This was their second such block for the same cause.

The issue persists, for example recently in:

File renamed: File:Mountain Avens (Dryas octopetala) - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg → File:Dryas octopetala - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg

Please can we have the necessary action taken to stop this once and for all? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I think renaming images from geograph.org.uk does not affect users but if you prefer I don't rename files from this source agauin (@A.Savin, whats your opinion?) anro (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The source is immaterial. You also recently renamed:

• File renamed: File:20120901Filz-Klette Hockenheim2.jpg → File:20120901Arctium tomentosum2.jpg
• File renamed: File:Lamium album, Utterslev Mose, København, Denmark (26565586370).jpg → File:Lamium album (26565586370).jpg

Both of which discarded information; neither of which were from Geograph. There are ample other bad moves in your recent history. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20120901Arctium tomentosum2.jpg is a file created by anro. So I don't think that there is any kind of problem here. I am not entirely sure about File:Lamium album, Utterslev Mose, København, Denmark (26565586370).jpg, but is Søborg a part of København or is it not? So may be these are not the very best examples for excessive renaming. However, what is the reason for renaming File:Mountain Avens (Dryas octopetala) - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg, which is a perfectly valid name IMO? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

As I said "There are ample other bad moves". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

May be, e.g. just recently File:Atlas roslin pl Bluszczyk kurdybanek 3621 7088.jpg -> File:Glechoma hederacea Atlas roslin pl Bluszczyk kurdybanek 3621 7088.jpg and a number of similar images. I don't speak Polish, but "Bluszczyk kurdybanek" is the Polish version of Glechoma hederacea, see pl:Bluszczyk kurdybanek. Commons:File renaming is an official guideline. It says that criterion 3 does not "cover moving a file from its common usage name to its scientific or technical name" and that "if possible, language and schema should be preserved". Therefore, I cannot see any valid reason for such a move that discards the common (Polish) name for the scientific name, even though anro's name might be understandable for a larger number of people than the Polish name. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, the Polish name is still there, of course. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• I don't want to intervene 3rd time in this case, but I  Support further escalating block for AnRo0002, as the renames are definitely unnecessary and not covered by our policies. --A.Savin 15:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  There are also potential grounds for deadminship on misuse of advanced tools, and removal of filemover right.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

   Support both de-adminship and removal of filemover rights. Looking at their recent edits they rename a lot of files against policy on a daily basis (filtering by the "new redirect" tag, they have renamed files more than 500 times this month alone). This has likely been going on for a very long time. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't like piling on but this sort of thing is particularly out of line from an admin. It is very rare that a file that has a meaningful filename that is correctly spelled and not actively misleading should be renamed, especially for a file that has been around for a long time. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with Jmabel's comment. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Broadly agree with the above. I can see zero necessity for these renames, and there's no credible case being made for one. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

AnRo0002 deadmin discussion

AnRo0002 (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes)

Given that some above agree with me and no one does not, I think we should have this discussion.

•  Support as proposer.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Support I don't think it's worthy of an administrator to ignore requests for highly controversial file renaming without comment and to ignore requests not to disrupt my file naming structure. On the contrary, the renaming continues unabated, and when I look at his discussion page, I'm not the only one with this experience. --Lukas Beck (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Support removal of both filemover and admin rights. Rules should apply equally to everyone, but admins are nonetheless held to a higher standard to match their role and the responsibility it entails. This would not be acceptable for anyone to do, much less an administrator. Continuing the same disruptive behaviour after two blocks shows a clear unwillingness or inability to exercise good judgment, which should be disqualifying for someone in an admin position. --ReneeWrites (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  I will stop renaming files imediately except of agreements with authors anro (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Stehst du selber scheinbar nicht zu deiner Meinung und kannst deine eigenen Aktionen nicht angemessen erklären bzw. verteidigen, so bist du erst recht nicht als Admin in diesem Projekt geeignet. --A.Savin 22:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  mittlerweile erkläre ich jedwede verschiebung oder löschung, und ich lasse bis auf meine eigenen Bilder fast alles von verschiebungen unangetastet anro (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose I assume that anro actually stopped all attempts to impose a name scheme on plant images by renaming them disrespecting the guideline. As long as this remains so, I don't see any urgent reason to remove his admin and filemover rights. On the other hand, creation of lots of lengthy and extremely specific "by year" categories like Category:Plantaginaceae in the United States in July 2012 or Category:Digitalis in the Northern Hemisphere in July 2005 is detrimental to finding images in the category system. I know that this kind of categories has led to quite a number of complaints over the years. But this activity does not involve any misuse of advanced tools. I also do not know whether anro needs admin tools for his work, even though he is a very highly active user. Anyway, I appreciate his friendliness and his enthusiasm working on Commons and uploading huge amounts of photos. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  my by month by year categories are dissolving overpopulated categories like Veronica in the Northern Hemisphere in April (meanwhile less than 200 images) and, @Robert Flogaus-Faust see Apiales in Hesse in July 2015, to reduce the category Apiales in Hesse in July anro (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  That may be so and I suppose that we discussed this already. The worst case may be if a cluttered species category like Category:Veronica persica is split into small pieces like Category:Veronica persica in the Northern Hemisphere in April. This category did not contain many files, but you divided it even further into currently 16 by-year categories, nine of which contain just two files or less. I really wonder who would go to so much effort to look at all these categories. This just means hiding photos very well in a completely exaggerated and hardly usable category system that may have a single advantage, i.e. an improved ability for the photographer to easily find their images of a species taken on a specific date, neatly united in a category. Of course, this could also be done with personal (hidden) categories. I personally prefer an offline list of my uploaded photos sorted by date for this purpose. By the way, I use this kind of extremely complex categories if they exist and I might have created even a few if similar by-year categoriess existed before. However, I won't create any additional ones. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

   I handle that the same way Lukas Beck (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  @L. Beck: My uploaded files should all be in personal (hidden) Category:Files uploaded by User:Jeff G. and the cats below it.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  I have already created such categories, but unfortunately I am not keeping up with them. But I like that idea. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Please see also this discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AnRo0002#Category:Pinus_in_Germany_by_state --Lukas Beck (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  Even after being addressed on his discussion page, he continues to delete categories in an established category system without any discussions. And unfortunately, he approaches the issue with indifference. I can only repeat myself, but I expect a lot more from an administrator. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  Category:Pinus sylvestris in Germany by state exists and also Category:Faboideae in Germany by state. Obviously, placing photographs directly in these categories would not make any sense. May be it is just too late or too hot, but I don't understand the issue. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  I recreated and refilled the categories after anro emptied them without debate and deleted them using his administrator privileges. Regards Lukas Beck (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  This debate has had its uses. This category has since been created. The topic is closed for me. But I'll leave the comment here and show how the user anro works when he's not addressed intensively and repeatedly by other users. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by L. Beck (talk • contribs) 11:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Support --A.Savin 15:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Aladdin Meier (Politic-Legal Secretary)

Aladdin Meier (Politic-Legal Secretary) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Spamming invalid DRs--Trade (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Looked at three of their DRs and all comments on those supported deletion, so @Trade if there is a problem here you are going to have to be a lot more specific. - Jmabel ! talk 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I closed one DR and nominated one more file for regular deletion. Currently block is not needed. Taivo (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

User:高崎岳野

• 高崎岳野 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Persistently uploading the same copyvio screenshot from Youtube while many speedy deletions and warning. See his log. Netora (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Final warning sent. Yann (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately our warnings were ignored. File:Que-14316926564.png Netora (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Now blocked for a week. Taivo (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Sarim Wani

• User: Sarim Wani (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning for doing so and block.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Block was for intimidation/harassment. Final warning and one file deleted. Yann (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment

I am relatively new to copyright laws and was unaware of certain YouTube copyright rules, which led to the removal of two images due to the same error. I acknowledge the mistake and will ensure it does not happen again. Regarding the last image involving the J&K Bank logo, the situation remains somewhat unclear. Although many consider J&K Bank to fall under the RTI Act, it does not appear on the official online RTI portal. While it is a public government entity, as noted in J&K Bank Ltd. v. Central Information Commission, 2019, its applicability under RTI law is still debated. For peace of mind, I have filed an offline RTI request through a third-party service provider. Sarim Wani (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

RTI and copyright laws are different. I don't think that falling under the RTI Act automatically leads the content to be under GODL. Yann (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Yann: You already final warned in this edit 17:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Are final warnings from late last year no longer relevant? Perhaps another Admin can take a more objective approach.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. I was waiting for another admin's opinion. Yann (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yann: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I suspect User:Liamniar, User:Loreroll and User:Thomsongazelle are all the same person. The first two have posted copyrighted photos of coyotes (one since deleted) and labeled them "African coyotes" (which don't exist). Thomsongazelle and Loreroll were both involved in the creation of a now deleted Indonesian wiki article on this invented species, and the timestamps of their edits on this page are very close together. Mariomassone (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Confirmed Blocked and tagged. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

user:Kentaro2022

Kentaro2022 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

personal attack and reject talk --eien20 (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether calling a bot an idiot is a personal attack. - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

JLStevenNgao

Personal attack on his talk page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JLStevenNgao). I had warned this user not to bother me but he didn't listen and now he resorts to attacks. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: seems to me like you absolutely unnecessarily poked a bear, and it used its claw. If you like, I can block both of you, but I am certainly not going to just block him. - Jmabel ! talk 05:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I dunno what to do with him, I tried to deal with him. I really want him to stop messaging me because I was a really busy user as I edit and upload files.

For context: I told him that the Philippines are out but he still thinks that the Philippines are qualified FIFA Nations/Canada-Mexico-United States 2026? This suggest he refused to acknowledge that the Philippines are out of the qualification.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIFA_Nations/Canada-Mexico-United_States_2026&diff=prev&oldid=1048701952

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIFA_Nations/Canada-Mexico-United_States_2026&oldid=1019518146

Some of the countries he added are not qualified as shown in his previous edits to the gallery page. Is there is any really good advice on how to deal with this? I just don’t want to deal with this person or his edits anymore since he keeps adding Philippines to the qualified section despite telling him that the Philippines are out and cannot be qualified for the World Cup next year (yes, I did show a news article that the PH is eliminated). Apologize if I really provoke the user (even though I tried to remind the user about the boundaries and also remind that adding the Philippines to the qualification system is vandalism since that country is eliminated as documented by football sources), I had a really rough time as I am a busy person who makes and uploads files and it can be really stressful for me. Should I take a break or something like this?

SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

See also COM:ANB#FIFA Nations/Canada-Mexico-United States 2026.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Since the situation is more of a dispute between me and JL, please close this because we need to discuss the topic further in that one. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

GladysAlegre

GladysAlegre (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has repeatedly uploaded copyright files despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

User hasn't uploaded anything in more than a week. Final warning issued yesterday. GMG^talk 12:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Textstil

Textstil (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Immediate reuploading copyvio after deletion File:2.Babi 2019.jpg → File:Portrait Babi Badalov 2019 wiki.jpg. Romano1981 (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 12:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

self-reversions

I modified a script I'd written to update the descriptions of a bunch of files I uploaded recently, and accidentally used the prefix Category: rather than File:. I therefore need to do a shedload of self-reversions: everything I did today between 17:21 and 17:44.

Could someone with revert permissions revert these? Sorry, and thank you. Marnanel (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Marnanel: I assume you mean rollback? How about I just give you 24 hours of rollback and you can make sure the particulars are cleaned up proper. This can be done decent easy by going to your contribs and opening the rollback action in new tabs. Then just close all the tabs.

Also anyone watching will see you self reverting and not some dude reverting you a hundred times. GMG^talk 19:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

User:ILE7

• ILE7 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Problema (reason):Buenas ,ese usuario hizo reupload y removio el Template Copyvio de este logo (File:Grupo Indalo (logo).png) ,yo dije al usuario que no publique el logo y lee... (osea enseñé al usuario para que publicará el logo simple pero me ignoró y removió el Copyvio en este logo). Por favor bloquea por edit war y Copyvio.

AbchyZa22 (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: Hi, The file to which you added a tag is not a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done I tagged 2 other files which do not seem to have the proper permission. User warned. Nothing else to be done now. Yann (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

WikiAddict1996

WikiAddict1996 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User resists CSD nomination by re-uploading previous deletion on File:Ellie Carpenter 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup Portrait.jpg.

Please see this log for deletion history. Thank you! Sev6nWiki (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done will block for a week. If they do this again, a much longer block is in order. - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Yoslo30

• Yoslo30 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Uploaded File:Logo Sabah FC (Azerbaïdjan).png after having been tagged with {{End of copyvios}} in October. Jonteemil (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Guardia circular

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

Has uploaded several copyvios since having been tagged with {{End of copyvios}} just more than a week ago. Jonteemil (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done will block for 2 weeks and leave a further message. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Toxica1982

• Toxica1982 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Was tagged with {{Dont recreate}} in May yet has now done it again reuploading File:Nkzyqueen.jpg as File:Toxica.jpg. Jonteemil (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked her for a week. All contributions are already deleted (out of scope). Taivo (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Block evasion

• Kodamkasuari (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Kodam18kasuari (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Kodamkasuari uploaded File:Mayjen TNI Jimmy Ramoz Manalu foto terbaru.jpg which was deleted as copyvio but has now been reuploaded as File:Mayjen TNI Jimmy Ramoz Manalu ACC terbaru.jpg by sockpuppet Kodam18kasuari. Master has been indefed on idwiki whence the sock likely was created. Jonteemil (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Taivo. Yann (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Massive deletion requests by IP

• 176.1.22.76 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) requests tons of deletion of old(!) redirects, because they don't like the typos. I left a note on the disc. Maybe an admin can have a look? I assume correctly that we still keep old redirects? I don't see any bad intention, tho. Thx! ----Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I normally use Template:Bad name for those misspelled category redirects which says that misspelled categories should be deleted. That is also the reason C1 in the policy: COM:CSD#C1: Improperly named category:

• "Categories with incorrect names may be speedily deleted after their contents have been moved to a properly named category. If the old category name is also correct, a redirect should be left in place."

My speedy requests were for misspelled category redirects, not for file redirects and not for category redirects with correct names.

But I know that there exist admins which always move categories without redirects as standard also for categories without misspellings. And I know that there exist admins which also delete file redirects without misspellings as standard, not only for new files. I don’t understand these things and I think that those are bigger problems than deleting misspelled category redirects such as the policy says, they should be deleted.

If those misspelled category redirects would not be deleted anymore, just because they are one year old or older, then there would be thousands of misspelled category redirects after a while. I don’t think that this really is what most users want. —176.1.22.76 06:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I want to add: Up to now, these misspelled category redirects (after having moved the category on better names) have always been deleted. Therefore, I don’t understand, why this shall be a problem now. There have been deleted also other redirects without such misspellings, I have also created redirects out of a few of those category redirects without misspellings with a "bad name" tag sometimes, if there was a good target category for it. But I think that especially those misspelled ones really should be deleted. —176.1.22.76 07:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Rename a category #Deleting the old category:

• "If the old category is a simple typo or you are the only person who ever used the category and you are the one fixing it up, it can safely be deleted. Request speedy deletion by marking it thus: {{bad name|new name}}"

Those are the misspelled category redirects, they all have such typos. And there is no difference, if the category was long on the old misspelled name and has been moved in the last days or if there has been an old misspelled redirect, in both cases there exist misspelled category redirects on a name that existed for a longer time. But the policy says that misspelled redirects shall be deleted. It doesn’t say anything about the age of the misspelled redirect or the misspelled category before the move. Nothing at all. I think that this would have to be discussed on the policy talk page, but not here. —176.1.22.76 07:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Now the category redirects have all been deleted. I see a another problem with this. If other admins would have deleted those category redirects with the Template:Bad name on the page, it would normally look like this:

• X deleted page Category:Y ((incorrectly named) duplicate, content moved to [[:Category:NewCategoryName]])

In those normal cases, everyone can find the correct name of the category at once, so there is no problem with it.

But now again, User:Yann (who has a talk page which he has protected indefinite 2 years ago for every IP user) has deleted those redirects. Therefore I can’t talk to him about this directly. When he deletes those category redirects with bad name template, it always looks like this without any link to the new category name after the move:

• X deleted page Category:Y (per COM:SPEEDY)

In most cases, there also is the move log with the new name, then that is no problem. But it might be, that the category was never on the redirect’s name and hasn’t been moved. Then the correct name of the category only is on the deleted page, but not in the deletion or move log. Then the target category can’t be found anymore easily, and users will think that there doesn’t exist such a category anymore, and they can't see why. It would be better, if the new category’s name would always be placed into the deletion log, but I have never seen him doing that. I don’t know, what to do with that problem, because I can’t ask him directly. He is the only admin doing this who is that active with deletions of category redirects, and none of these got the correct category name in the deletion log.

I have also fixed broken redirects already. There have been thousands of those broken category redirects a few months ago after deletion of their target categories. If the deletion log said, Yann has deleted the category, and there was no move log, then it wasn't possible to see, if the deletion has been because the category had been just empty or if it had a better name somewhere else which not always can be found anymore. Then the broken redirect always had to be deleted, if no better target could be imagined.

And is it wanted, that a very active admin has a permanently protected talk page (since 2 years already) and IP users can’t ask him anything on that page about his admin actions anymore and have to address problems or questions directly on pages like this? —176.1.22.76 09:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, my talk page is semi-protected as there have been too many vandalisms. There are very rarely questions by IPs which should not be on a common board, like this one. And yes, I delete empty categories when there are tagged as such. Yann (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with deleting empty categories with the reason "empty" or a link to the speedy reasons. In those cases, there isn’t an existing category to link to. But in these cases from above, they weren’t just empty categories, they were misspelled category redirects which I all tagged with Template:Bad name (for finding the new category names better), and surely, all these redirects also were empty. But the reason for deletion of those redirects wasn’t their emptiness, but the misspellings. And for all of them, there still exists a category which isn’t empty at all. And the redirects linked to them and the bad name tag also did. Therefore, I think that there should be those links to the correct spelled, non-empty categories also in the deletion log. Only then can users or other projects which may have the misspelled link on any page find the category again easily. If only a link to the policy page is in the log and maybe no move log for that category redirect, then they find it not anymore and think, the category itself would have been deleted and not only the redirect to it. Do you see, what I mean? Template:Bad name was created for those cases, so that it is easier to put the correct name directly onto the redirect and then into the deletion log. Could you please put the correct names there in the future? I would appreciate that very much and I think, other users also.

And after 2 years of protection, I think the talk page could be opened again and only be protected for shorter terms, if there will be vandalism again. Kind regards —176.1.22.76 13:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Please create an account. With the number of your edits, you would be autopatrolled by now. Yann (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Seniorjackfr

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

Seems to have uploaded a bunch of copyvios since their first block a year ago. Jonteemil (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

nothing that I uploaded is copyrighted and I'm exclusively on arabic/french wikipedia ever since my arbitrary block on the english section of wikipedia. atleast provide sources and evidences before accusing me of something. Seniorjackfr (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

While reading your user talk page and especially User talk:Seniorjackfr#File:10th NARC meeting.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:D-clik Productions.jpg, my conclusion is that you are either lying or are confused. Jonteemil (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Your talk page has a large amount of copyright violations, . This should clear things up if you're confused. Sev6nWiki (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)