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	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

^{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: ~60
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~3
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-11: ~109

Other:

• Duplicates: ~49
• Advertisements/spam: ~3
• Personal photos/selfies: ~19
• Other speedy deletions: ~109
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~4
• Undeletion requests: ~19

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~41
• Interface admin: ~10
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~6
• 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:MoniqueB87 and User:MoniqueB1987

• MoniqueB87 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• MoniqueB1987 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User has nominated the same file for deletion 3 times for a spurious reason using a sockpuppet. See Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504) (cropped).jpg and [[1]] -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I blocked the sockpuppet, warned the oldest account, and closed all DRs. Yann (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nard,

Thank you for your message. I’d like to clarify that I am not using any alternate accounts — all of my edits have been made solely under this account (MoniqueB87).

If there’s been any misunderstanding on that point, I’m happy for the administrators to verify it directly.

As for the deletion requests, they were submitted in good faith and based on Commons’ own verifiability and licensing requirements (COM:V and COM:L).

The Flickr source linked to this file — https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343 — is now private, which means the Creative Commons license can no longer be independently verified.

Under Commons policy, past verification cannot substitute for a currently verifiable source, so the file’s license is now effectively invalid.

My only goal has been to ensure that Commons continues to meet its own licensing standards — there was no intent to spam, duplicate requests, or misuse the process.

Thank you for your understanding,

MoniqueB87 MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: As explained on your talk page, we have a license review process, which can certify that files were under a free license at the time of upload. Once this is the case, we do not care if the source disappears. And yes, you used the alternate account MoniqueB1987, which is now blocked. Yann (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Yann — I understand your position and appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Just to clarify, I did at one point lose access to my previous account (MoniqueB1987) and therefore created this one to continue contributing transparently. I’ve used only this account since and have no intention of editing under multiple usernames. My intent has always been to raise legitimate policy questions in good faith.

On the licensing point — I fully recognise that Commons maintains a historical license review process. However, Commons policy (COM:V and COM:L) also specifies that free licenses must remain independently verifiable.

When the Flickr source becomes private, that verification is no longer possible.

This isn’t about revoking a license — it’s about whether Commons can still confirm that the license is valid today, as per current verifiability standards.

In practical terms:

• The original Flickr link now leads to a private page, so no one can confirm the license.
• Therefore, the “green review” may show past verification but cannot satisfy ongoing verification requirements.

I’m raising this not to contest process, but to ensure policy integrity — both for Commons’ credibility and the accuracy of its archive.

Kind regards,

MoniqueB87 MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This shows paid editing, so any further such edit should lead to an indefinite block. Yann (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yann, I want to clarify that I am not a paid editor and have never accepted compensation for any edits or actions on Commons.

All my contributions have been made independently and in good faith, with the sole purpose of ensuring accuracy and compliance with Commons’ own verifiability standards.

If there’s any misunderstanding, I’m happy for administrators to review my account activity — everything has been transparent and policy-focused.

Kind regards,

MoniqueB87 MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yann, with respect, the issue here is not about me, my account, or any suggestion of paid activity.

The issue remains purely policy-based — there is no longer a valid or verifiable source for these images.

Commons’ own policies on verifiability and licensing integrity are clear:

if a license cannot be independently confirmed at source, its validity on Commons cannot be guaranteed.

By continuing to host these files under an unverified license, Commons risks undermining its own standards of accuracy and trust.

This is not a personal matter — it’s a question of maintaining policy consistency and public credibility.

Respectfully, fighting those who highlight this concern does not reflect well on Commons or its commitment to data integrity.

Kind regards,

MoniqueB87 MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: Hi, You do not need to repeat the same thing again and again. Please read what I wrote on your talk page, and this page: COM:LR. Yann (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Yann, thank you for your note. I’ve read your replies and reviewed COM:LR carefully.

I want to clarify that my concern is not with the review process itself, but with the fact that the source is no longer valid or publicly verifiable. Without an accessible source, the claimed license cannot be confirmed — and that is the core issue I’m trying to address.

Could we please focus on the validity of the current source rather than on procedural assumptions about my account? My intention has always been to ensure that Commons’ licensing integrity is maintained.

Kind regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not a dispute about policy interpretation; it’s about the integrity of the license. A license that can no longer be verified is, by definition, invalid under Commons’ own standards. I believe this deserves attention on its own merits, rather than being dismissed as a procedural matter. MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Yann,

Kindly click on the original source link below and verify for yourself — it no longer leads to a public page:

🔗 https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343

As you can see, the Flickr source is now private and therefore cannot be verified. This makes the existing Commons license unverifiable and, by extension, invalid under Commons’ own standards.

I hope this helps clarify the factual issue at hand.

Best regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: The file in question was license-reviewed by FlickreviewR 2, an automated bot operating under the Commons:License review process. That means the license was independently verified at the time of upload, not by the uploader. In other cases where the bot can't verify (perhaps due to crops prior to upload here) it may be reviewed by a highly trusted user or administrator after upload.

Once a file has passed license review, Commons policy treats it as permanently verified, even if the original Flickr page later becomes private, deleted, or otherwise inaccessible. This is standard practice and fully in line with {{Flickr-change-of-license}}.

If you believe the file infringes on your copyright despite this review (i.e. you are the copyright owner, and you refute that the image ever was freely licensed despite this automated review), the appropriate channel is not further on-wiki discussion but a formal DMCA takedown notice sent to legalwikimedia.org.

From a Commons perspective, the issue you are wanting to discuss is closed. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jonatan,

Thank you for clarifying the process. I understand that FlickreviewR 2 performed the automated license review at the time of upload and that Commons treats such verification as permanent.

However, I respectfully submit that this situation falls outside the intended scope of that policy. The Flickr account in question was fraudulent, and Flickr itself has since confirmed that the images have been made private at the source. In other words, the “verified” license was issued under false pretences — it was not a legitimate free license at the time of upload.

This means the license was not just withdrawn later, but invalid from the outset, which fundamentally changes the context of the automated review. The question isn’t whether the license was later revoked, but whether the license ever existed in good faith.

I’m raising this not as a procedural disagreement but as a matter of accuracy and integrity. A fraudulent upload cannot create a valid or “permanent” license.

Thank you again for taking the time to engage with this. I hope it can be reconsidered in light of these specific circumstances.

Kind regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: I am a license reviewer myself, so I know what to be on the lookout for when doing license reviews. Hence my question: how would you demonstrate that the old Flickr upload was fraudulent and thus amounts to COM:FLICKRWASHING?

And while it's true that the actual source file for File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg (and its crop) was removed from Flickr, the upload here carried over a complete set of metadata (EXIF). These EXIF here on Commons are conform to other uploads by the original author still visible on Flickr, the shots were made with the same entry-level DSLR and lens, and the software is also the same. This circumstantial evidence points towards the image being a legitimate upload with a legitimate license, not a fraudulent one. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Grand-Duc,

Thank you for your detailed response and for explaining the reasoning behind your conclusion.

To clarify — the issue here is not whether the EXIF data or equipment details are consistent with other uploads. Those elements can easily be replicated, especially when images are re-uploaded from secondary or fabricated accounts. What establishes legitimacy in this case is not metadata similarity but the verifiable authenticity of the Flickr account that originally applied the Creative Commons license.

In this instance, Flickr themselves have confirmed that the account was not legitimate and have since made all of its content private. The platform’s own action demonstrates that Flickr no longer recognises the account or its uploads as valid, and therefore any license attributed to it cannot stand.

This is why I referenced COM:FLICKRWASHING — because a false Flickr account applying an invalid CC license falls directly within that definition. The “circumstantial” evidence based on EXIF cannot outweigh the primary source (Flickr) no longer standing by the license or its visibility.

I understand the importance of consistency in Commons processes, but when the source platform itself has acted to restrict or disavow the original upload, continuing to host the file here under a “verified” but now void license undermines the integrity of Commons’ licensing standards.

Thank you again for your time — I’m raising this purely to ensure that the project’s licensing accuracy remains sound.

Kind regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

No. The file is private (403), not removed or deleted (404). Flickr has not made any determination that there is anything wrong with the upload that you can discern from that link. We operate under the Precautionary principle, but you have provided no evidence that would justify invoking it here. You are effectively throwing around accusations of fraud without supporting evidence, as if repeating speculative claims generated by tools such as ChatGPT. The Flickr user seem to be a professional photographer and I don't see any evidence that they may have committed any COM:FLICKRWASHING. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jonatan,

Thank you for your reply. To clarify — regardless of why Flickr made these files private, the key issue is that the original source is no longer publicly viewable or verifiable.

https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343

Commons policy (COM:L and COM:V) requires that a Creative Commons license remain publicly accessible and independently confirmable. Once a Flickr source becomes private (403), that verification chain is broken. A license that can no longer be verified cannot remain valid.

Even if a license was previously reviewed, its validity depends on the continuing public accessibility of the source. Since that is no longer the case here, the file no longer meets Commons’ verifiability standards.

I’m simply raising this to ensure Commons’ licensing integrity is upheld — this is not a question of preference, but of verifiability.

Best regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: please have a look at en:WP:DROPTHESTICK.

• There's no violation of Commons' policies and guidelines visible at File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg. The license was confirmed from the Flickr source. A nowadays dead source doesn't hamper a validity of a license demonstrated in the past. There's no need to have a perpetual ability to confirm licenses.
• There are no indications that the Flickr source engaged in fraudulent uploads. The specific file is hidden, true, but your sentence "Flickr themselves have confirmed that the account was not legitimate and have since made all of its content private." is plain wrong. The account from Sean Reynolds and its photostream are visible at/from https://www.flickr.com/photos/littlemissizzyb/ .
• It is true that EXIF are datasets that can be edited, see Commons:EXIF. But this needs some somewhat advanced knowledge about tools and characteristics that aren't really widespread. Especially if you have the aim of actually faking a dataset to make it look like a genuine photoshoot, there's a plethora of things to watch out for: serial numbers for lenses and body in a format that conforms to the manufacturer's standards, exact dates of captures down to the second or even millisecond, software versions, original filenames - and taking care of not duplicatinmg anything... It is REALLY easy to overlook things when engaging in such faking activities, leading to inconsistencies, especially when there's an aim to fill a Flickr account. I checked several uploads from Sean Reynolds on Flickr, and I didn't spot anything unusual or unexpected. The EXIF on Flickr and the local EXIF corroborate a valid licensing.

Your case to get the file(s) deleted is a really weak one - it won't result in a success for you, as far as I can tell. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Grand-Duc,

Thank you for taking the time to review this. I’ve read your message carefully and fully understand the perspective you’re outlining.

However, the issue here is not about the technical EXIF data or assumptions about the photographer’s intentions. It’s about verifiability and licensing integrity under Commons policy.

According to COM:L and COM:V, the validity of a license depends on the continuing ability to verify that the work is indeed available under a free license. Once the source link no longer displays that license publicly, Commons can no longer independently verify it.

Whether or not the Flickr user’s photostream still exists is not the point — the specific source URL cited on Commons is now private and therefore unverifiable. As a result, the chain of evidence confirming the license is broken.

Commons itself cannot act as both host and verifier of a license that can no longer be demonstrated from an external source. That’s the core concern being raised here.

Best regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain why your client hates it so much. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nard,

With respect, this discussion is not about personal feelings or anyone’s preferences — it’s about Commons policy, specifically the verifiability of a license and the validity of a public source.

Comments implying personal motivation are not appropriate or relevant to the issue under discussion. I’d appreciate it if we could keep the focus on policy.

If you check the source link yourself — https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343 — you’ll see that the image is no longer publicly visible. You are effectively protecting a file whose supposed source no longer exists in public view, which raises a clear issue of verifiability under COM:L and COM:V.

Thank you,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Can someone block them per en:WP:NOTHERE? We just keep going in circles and MoniqueB87 refuses to drop the stick. Bidgee (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

With respect, Bidgee, I’m not here to “go in circles.” I’ve raised one clear and verifiable concern:

The file’s source link is no longer publicly accessible, which means the claimed Creative Commons license can no longer be independently confirmed.

This is not a behavioural issue; it’s a licensing and verification issue. Labeling it otherwise doesn’t resolve the underlying compliance problem.

I’m engaging in good faith and would appreciate if the discussion could remain focused on Commons’ policies — specifically COM:L and COM:V — rather than on user motives. MoniqueB87 (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

You are going around in circles. The community has stated that just because it is no longer publicly visable, doesn't make the license invaild nor that it is no longer verifiable but you keep looping around with the same argument that is getting you no where and is wasting this communities' time. You say you're not doing paid editing yet you said "client" within the topic discussion. Bidgee (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Bidgee, with respect, I’m not “going in circles.” I’m addressing one unresolved compliance issue — that the license is no longer independently verifiable because the Flickr source is private: https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343

You are correct that Commons policy allows reliance on previously verified licenses, but that is not equivalent to ongoing verifiability, which COM:V requires. The public evidence that once supported this file’s license no longer exists, so it cannot be independently confirmed by any future user.

Furthermore, Jonatan Svensson Glad has already acknowledged this same concern in connection with VRT ticket 2023061210005132, where he previously added a noindex tag to this file in 2023 — confirming there was internal awareness of the issue. I’m simply referencing the same underlying problem, not inventing a new one.

And to clarify: my use of the word “client” was a general reference to the subject concerned — not evidence of paid editing. I am not a paid editor and have no financial relationship with any party involved.

It would be helpful if we could focus on the factual question — whether the file’s licensing remains verifiable — rather than on assumptions about motive. MoniqueB87 (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm referring to this request[2]. What specifically about this photo distresses Rebecca Wang so much? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Nard, this isn’t about personal distress or preference — it’s about accuracy and integrity of licensing data.

The file you’re referring to cites a Flickr source that no longer exists publicly: https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343. Without public access, the claimed license cannot be verified by any future user, which undermines Commons’ core standard of verifiability.

This is why the issue has been raised — to protect Commons’ credibility, not to question any individual or past process. MoniqueB87 (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I just realized why these files seemed familiar. I'll disengage from further discussion here since I might be considered involved. See Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2023#When_should_the_{{NOINDEX}}_tag_be_applied... regarding ticket:2023061210005132 for context on why I added a {{Noindex}} tag back in 2023 (which was later removed) to one (or more) of these images. My summary at the bottom of that discussion is especially relevant. And for those with VRT access, there is additional and more recent context on ticket:2025032610009337 concerning the privatization of the Flickr file. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87, about "[...] you’ll see that the image is no longer publicly visible. You are effectively protecting a file whose supposed source no longer exists in public view, which raises a clear issue of verifiability under COM:L and COM:V." Please understand that there is NOT a "clear issue of verifiability". A diligent verification of the license took place in 2020 and there aren't any clues to as that license was fraudulent. All circumstances point toward a photographer exerting his copyrights in granting a suitable license. Please stop your endeavours, the file File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg and the crop will not be deleted on copyright grounds as long as no other evidence of a fraudulent licensing comes up. There are also no other policies or guidelines which would show for a deletion. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Grand-Duc.

I do understand your point regarding the 2020 license verification, but respectfully, the situation has changed. The Flickr source that formed the basis of that review — https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343 — is now private and therefore no longer publicly verifiable.

Under Commons’ own COM:L and COM:V standards, verifiability must be ongoing and independently confirmable. Once a file’s source becomes inaccessible, the chain of verification is broken — regardless of any previous review.

I’m not questioning anyone’s intentions or the integrity of the 2020 review. I’m simply noting that, as of now, the evidence supporting the license no longer exists in public view. That’s a factual concern, not a procedural one.

I’d appreciate if we could focus on this key issue — verifiability, not assumption. MoniqueB87 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jonatan,

Thank you for clarifying — that context is very helpful and appreciated.

Your note confirms what I have been saying all along: the privatization of the original Flickr file is documented within Wikimedia’s own records under ticket:2023061210005132. That fact alone establishes that the source used to justify the Commons license is no longer public or verifiable.

With respect, this goes to the heart of Commons’ own policies.

COM:V and COM:L both require that a file’s claimed free license remain verifiable through a publicly accessible source. Once that source becomes private, the verification ceases to exist — meaning the license can no longer be substantiated in good faith. The passage of time or past bot verification cannot override that fundamental requirement.

In addition, the prior decision to apply a {{Noindex}} tag clearly recognised the sensitivity and ambiguity of this case. Its later removal, despite the privatization of the source, only amplifies the inconsistency between Wikimedia’s internal documentation and what remains publicly visible.

This is not about preference or perception; it’s about maintaining the integrity of Commons’ verification standards. I am simply asking that policy be applied consistently.

Respectfully,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Please stop repeating same points again and again.

• MoniqueB87 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• MoniqueB1987 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) banned

* flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343 dead link

* flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8464869504 dead link

* File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg

* File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504) (cropped).jpg

* Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg kept

* Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504) (cropped).jpg kept

* diff, possibly paid editing

Taylor 49 (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

MoniqueB87 seems to be LLMTALK-ing. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 12:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: you're proven wrong again in "I’m simply noting that, as of now, the evidence supporting the license no longer exists in public view." The verified license is now hosted via Commons, there's no break in the chain of verification (Commons took over from Flickr), and furthermore, even the Flickr source can still be checked using the Internet Archive. When accessing the link https://web.archive.org/web/20230314023434/https://www.flickr.com/photos/littlemissizzyb/8464869504/ , you see the CC-By-2.0 reference bottom right, and when inspecting the source code of that archive page, you'll see with https://web.archive.org/web/20230314023436im_/https://live.staticflickr.com/8375/8464869504_5fdd6bfe5a.jpg that the archive page indeed hold the very same motif as File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg.

And you're continuing to disregard the fact that a license that got proven at one time doesn't need to be perpetually verifiable. The concept of "ongoing verifiability" is not existent. You cannot make it happen true by repeating it ad nauseam, it's the same thing as the bogus US voting fraud story from 2020. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked MoniqueB87 for wasting the community's time:

• Obvious LLM usage, such as referring to policies totally unrelated to the matter at hand
• Refusal to listen to anything that is explained to them about Commons policies and practices
• Repeating the same points ad nauseam
• Lying about the reason they want these files deleted, and refusing to clarify their apparently paid editing

Any further use of LLMs, or unblock requests that focus on the files rather than user behavior, will result in talk page access being pulled. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

copyright violation by user:Clonerofhearts

Please delete all these uploads. None of these files are users own works

some taken from here sixth dropbox from right to left

other from google image

and block the user [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences,  Done. I deleted all of the uploads. If the user continues, please inform me. Kadı Message 10:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Taylor 49

Curious interventions from User:Taylor 49 on a deletion request, the user user being adding files to it, and curiously insisting
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Yntzkwl

All uploads with content taken from internet.DnaX (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yntzkwl (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Special:Log/Yntzkwl Registered 2 days ago, of 7 files uploaded only 4 have already been deleted. File:Catedralamantuiriineamului.jpg is pirated from F*C*-B**K. User warned, block indicated if problem persists. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User Klgchanu

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

User uploads images under false licenses and then becomes rude when addressed. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 15:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Account created 8 days ago, Special:Log/Klgchanu of 8 images 5 have already been deleted. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

We are currently discussing the wrong photo license. Please delay the process.

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File: 현무 4-4 발사.jpg

• ^^^^ this appears to be a bad link. Most likely Commons:Deletion requests/File:현무 4-4 발사.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 01:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

2. Commons:Deletion requests/File: 하이코어 극초음속 발사체.jpg

Klgchanu (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Users continue to upload non-free material under incorrect licenses, which is problematic. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv It’s surprising. You reported it as belonging to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) without even checking the source.

File:Hypersonic Missiles,The Front Line of the Arms Race (Defense Prime Episode 82) (Defense Media Agency).webm

and File:Launching Ceremony of the Jang Bogo-III Batch-II 1st Ship, Jang Yeong-sil.webm is SOUTH KOREA.

You said 'The video footage uses images not taken by the Korean Central News Agency.'

It's KFN(Defense Media Agency) and Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN).

This confirms that @Ziv filed a report without properly verifying the source.

Klgchanu (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Klgchanu: What you are doing on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests is spam. This page is only intended for restoring already deleted images, not for preventing a deletion. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyright is interpreted by the user as they see fit, like "The image was used by a government agency and must also be free of copyright." זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv I am raising an issue with the fact that you filed a deletion request without verifying the source.

If you had clicked on the source even once, you would not have reported it for deletion.

Klgchanu (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv oh, I mistake. Last time requested deletion, it was processed immediately, so I thought it would be the same this time. Klgchanu (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

All your uploads have either been deleted or their deletion is currently being discussed. Just a side note, and a reference to the user disk of User_talk:Revi_C.#Other uploads by Klgchanu. I don't believe a constructive cooperation with Klgchanu can be expected here; rather, it would only be exhausting if every upload had to be discussed in detail. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It started by you making all quick deletion requests. (including mistakes)

As you have requested a quick deletion, I think you should also be responsible for the act.

As I said, please check the source by pressing the link at least once before requesting deletion. It seems to me that it was just copied and pasted.

Klgchanu (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Another false claim! Do you really think I wouldn't check your sources? זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You did it. You said 'The video footage uses images not taken by the Korean Central News Agency' in File:Hypersonic Missiles,The Front Line of the Arms Race (Defense Prime Episode 82) (Defense Media Agency).webm and file:Launching Ceremony of the Jang Bogo-III Batch-II 1st Ship, Jang Yeong-sil.webm.

It was by South Korea government, and South Korea navy.

I kindly entered all the copyright holders.

If you click the source and check copyright holders once, you didn't claim deletion. I was watching you request deletion in real time. The time of each deletion request was precisely short, and all the reasons for deletion requests were the same.("not taken by the Korean Central News Agency")

That's what I said you didn't check the sources. Klgchanu (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I really wonder why you're doing that to me. All my requests for deletion of images are only requested by you or you to ask another manager. Why do you request deletion without even checking the source? I think you are a meticulous person who doesn't usually do this, but I think you are swayed by emotions. I feel like I'm being cyberbullyed. Klgchanu (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Ziv

Retaliation request. The files were deleted with a good reason: the license is not valid. Yann (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user deleted my images based on false information.

Thie user justified their action using this [https://turdef.com/article/two-koreas-hypersonic-arm-race| article]

as a source. However, it turned out that the article itself had illegally used those photos without authorization.

The missile introduced in that photo was part of the 2021 국방과학기술대제전, a defense technology exhibition held between November and December 2021.

As of January 2022, when the article was written, it was impossible to obtain such photos legitimately.

(Evidence:https://www.bizhankook.com/bk/article/22956)

When I questioned the deletion, the user simply replied that they were not an administrator and told me to “handle it myself.”

I was deeply disappointed to see my images deleted this way.

Not only were they removed based on false claims, but I also had to go through the recovery process on my own to restore them.

I admit that I am not yet fully experienced in uploading images.

However, instead of providing guidance, the user made a false deletion and then proceeded to file a report against me — which is quite unreasonable.

Moreover, the user deleted my images without a proper understanding of Korean copyright law, under which photos from public institutions are generally considered not subject to copyright protection.

Throughout the discussion, I never used offensive or disrespectful language toward anyone.

I repeatedly asked why my images had been deleted under an incorrect copyright claim, yet received no response.

If the user had simply admitted it was a mistake and apologized, I would have accepted it.

Instead, they insisted that I “handle it myself” and left the matter unresolved.

I believe this system itself has a problem.

While it takes only a short time for someone to delete an image under a copyright claim, the person affected must spend significant effort to recover their work.

I kindly ask for a fair and wise judgment on this matter. Klgchanu (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

And once again: I didn't delete anything myself; it was the admin @Túrelio: , but i tagged the copyvios. An unjustified lashing out from a newbie who doesn't know anything about licenses. A news portal is not a government website. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 16:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JET311

User: JET311 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reason for reporting: This user uploaded a bunch of military aviation-related photographs. But that was done with an apparent complete disregard to actual authorships and sources.

• File:VMFA-251F-35CNellis.jpg was claimed as own work, is actually a PD-USAF image.
• File:Rafale Gascogne.jpg was claimed as own work, but has a clear origin statement in the EXIF that does not corroborate that. Deemed a copyvio.
• File:P8blackseaAASdeployed.jpg may or may not be a PD-USN image. The website of the German aviation magazine Fliegerrevue ran a story about a Black Sea incident with that image and attributed it to "Screenshot via X". Deemed a copyvio.
• File:JacksonvilleF35Gator.webp may or may not be a PD-USAF image. The WEBP format is a clear hint at it being a grab from some internet site, the official US military sites use JPEG, or TIFF for modern imagery, as far as I know. I didn't find a source yet by reverse googleing it.

I'd like some hints or advice on how to educate that user to pay more attention on copyrights and media sources. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi i'm JET311, I'm sorry about this. Many of the pages are using old images. How do I bring images from DVIDS which is basically a defence image poster and post them so they don't get flagged. Many squadrons are getting new aircraft and I would like to keep wikipedia current but I dont want them taken down as copyright. PLease let me know what I should do thanks. 73.189.56.19 01:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for answering, JET311 (if you happened to write while logged out)! We have several tutorials and guidelines aimed at this very question.

1. Uploading works produced by US military people in exercise of their duties is fine. The US government states that these are in the public domain. There's a list of licensing tags for such US Gov works: COM:TAG United States.
2. Keep always in mind that you cannot say that something is your own work when it is not! While you can legally do that for public domain media, it's morally and educationally/encyclopaedically wrong. Naming your sources it always the right thing to do.
3. Uploading US government works amounts to in fact Commons:Uploading works by a third party.
4. So, if you take for example an F-35 image like File:VMFA-251F-35CNellis.jpg from DVIDS, you have to use the appropriate licensing tag, like for the USAF or the US Navy (or whatever branch is fitting). You must put the source link into the source field. I already fixed the File:VMFA-251F-35CNellis.jpg, so you can use that as pattern. Or you can look for similar images in articles on the English Wikipedia.
5. The US military image databases always offer a full-sized resolution in some download menu, as far as I'm aware. Don't download previews or similar in WEBP, look for the original JPEG or TIFF and take those. Please use as much from the original description as is sensible!

Those are the things to do. Now, about what you mustn't do:

1. The US government is peculiar in granting a blanket public domain authorisation for its media. But this is the rarer thing worldwide. Most other states don't do that. So, a e.g. French Dassault Rafale image can't usually be taken from French military sites.
2. If a service member is publishing images privately, e.g. on Facebook, then you can't surmise that these were taken in exercise of their duties. Thus, the service member retains a copyright to his shots.

For further reading:

• COM:Copyright rules by subject matter
• COM:Copyright rules by territory
• and of course, COM:Licensing.

Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

ICTYVTYC1261212012

• User: ICTYVTYC1261212012 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Univox Coily.jpg after final warning for doing so. Inappropriate username per COM:IU. Creating incorrect DRs.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a week, all uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Kontributor 2K

• User: Kontributor_2K (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Hello, please can I request an admin to look at User:Kontributor 2K's persistent failure to understand how to nominate a category for discussion. He simply removes all the images from a cat he does not like and then nominates it for speedy deletion. I have explained to him that the correct way to do it is to nominate it for discussion, and that in doing that he should not remove all the images before the discussion is held and resolved. The cat in question is Category:Crowns in heraldry by country, from which he removed about ten images back to Category:Crowns in heraldry. I have tried to have a collegiate discussion with him but to no avail.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, convenience links:

• User talk:Kontributor 2K#Category:Crowns in heraldry by country
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/11/Category:Crowns in heraldry by country

Tvpuppy (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

User:207.241.245.140 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user/204.210.149.11 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

• User: 207.241.245.140 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user/204.210.149.11 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

User is changing their IP for the sake of placing multiple votes. --Trade (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked both for a week. Taivo (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Lvova

What does that mean "Your name is becoming more and more a household word." [3] ? I don't understand this user's relentless pursuit, although we disagree on closing the photo nomination process in QIC. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

If their native language is Russian (as the username implies) and they used Google translate, it suggests that the original Russian expression would have been "имя нарицательное" which kind of means "famous but not necessarily in a good way"[4], sort of? Nakonana (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Strange place for Sebring to ask. So after one request he told me that it is boring to behave politely and then went here because decided to be offended by relentless pursuit (what?.. no, I understand the translation), and didn't notify me. The problem on QI was very similar, it's boring to notify.

Nakonana gives the good answer on the question, I am not sure what to add. Probably I can mention that for me after that talk Sebring is a reason to take a rest from QI, because recently a lot of newcomers did some mess and I tried to manage it, so if I have someone who is bothering this process, it may be chaotic further, why not. I believed before that restless pursuit is not 3 messages and such decision, but now I have new horizons. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 08:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Lvova: The original issue was just that you closed consensual review of an image on Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list prematurely (less han 48 h after the last entry) and Sebring12Hrs reopened it - correctly IMO, but without an edit summary. In addition, I suppose that the explanations on Sebring12Hrs' talk page may be rather hard to understand. This may be due to language problems or may be it's just that I personally do not understand this. In the meantime someone moved the image back from CR to the general section where it got declined. This is rather odd and I wouldn't do anything like this ever, but the outcome looks o.k. to me. I would prefer reverting an image to "/Nomination" as long as it is not in CR yet (with an appropriate comment), i.e. if someone set it to "/Discuss" without a vote. Or I would just wait for 48 h after the last entry if the image can be promoted or declined or until 8 days of consensual review are over in all the other cases. Anyway, I don't see any reason for hot disputes and please do not feel offended and please also try to avoid wording that could be considered offensive. I see no convincing reason for administrative action or for staying away from Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list, but that is not really any of my business, of course. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Robert, if Sebring didn't understand the phrase, it doesn't mean that the language problem is on my side. I can understand that 'if smth is on CR let's wait more', but I explained my action in my edit, and he

- could make an edit summary,

- could move it from CR by himself

- could answer me normally on the request.

He didn't do anything of it because it is BORING (probably it's interesting to say that 3 phrases on his talk page is a relentless pursuit). This is the problem, it is too BORING for him to be polite. I didn't cancel his edit, did nothing to fight that it should be closed exactly in my chosen way. And even after his rudeness, I'm not an author of the request here; probably should, but I don't try to behave like this.

Also the original issue started when a person sent their image to CR when they should not (after they did this mistake for several times). I corrected it again and again, with pings and explanations, and this time didn't, just closed. I tried to work with the short descriptions of the rules on the page, I helped to find on QI talk page that the rules are broken in every language but English; Sebring did nothing to solve the problem, just behave in the comfortable way. So I'm strongly against your idea about 'you just misunderstood his action', but if my actions have no result but unpolite unreflecting cancelling, it is a good reason to quit. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 11:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The initial problem is that you marked a procedure as "decline" when it should have remained in "discuss" or "nomination" mode, since the last entry was less than 48 hours old. And regarding "could move it from CR by himself," well, I moved it back to "discuss" myself; I don't understand your complaints about me on my discussion page. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Moved back - do whatever you want, I am not surprised by this decision from you. Everything is explained. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 13:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Lvova: Once again, reopening the prematurely closed discussion was correct IMO, even though I agree that the action itself was suboptimal, because the edit summary was missing and because Sebring12Hrs failed to add at least a comment about reopening. However, moving an image back to the general section is very unusual, to say the least. There was even an opposing vote at the time, which means that the nominator could have rightfully requested moving it back to CR once again. So why not just wait until it is at least 48 hours after the last entry? If someone has images moved to CR without a prior vote, I recommend notifying the user who did it on their talk page that they should not do that anymore. Anyway, this is something that happens quite frequently. That said, staying calm and friendly is much better than strong wording (on both sides, by the way, at least in my opinion). This is just not worth it. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

And, by the way, if you reset something to "/Nomination" in the CR section it will be removed by the bot as well. This should be done only for inconclusive results after 8 days of consensual review. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Robert, I will not do it, I am not crazy, but understand the situation, please: if I will go now and will set /Discuss status randomly for several days in a row, what should you do? Probably you'll try to manage it, for example, mark it is as /Nomination again (or as /Decline, if it was a voice oppose). That's what happened.

I recommend notifying the user who did it on their talk page that they should not do that anymore - it is easy to check that I wrote to this user on QI page, I pinged, I wrote to his page, and did it recently probably for 5-10 people, also put the difference between /comment and /discuss on the visible place, and again, mentioned the problem with the rules even here now. I did everything (and during the whole last month I didn't get any messages against such decisions, it is absolutely not the first case), in a random moment got rudeness from the person who didn't, and after that I am not friendly?

For you it's also easier to give me an advice or decide that my English is so bad, but not to check that you're talking about what has already done. I did something for a month and noone said a word against. If you support his idea, why didn't you come and tell me - let's do it in another way? I am not against another way, but if something has already done, it is not normal just to cancel without any comment; okay, he could not see my edit summary, so I showed it, and what I got? Why I am punished with advices when I tried to communicate? Because I am not friendly enough to the user who told me that communication is boring? Hey, even now he tries to make a conflict bigger, as far as we're talking with you, and he just doesn't understand and continues to revert, even when he knows that it is not a neutral action during a conflict (and again, I am not surprised); I do nothing with it, but do you believe that I am the one who needs an advice here?

Anyway, if you try to stop something - I do nothing bad that can be stopped, I literally wrote that I don't want to do anything after such attitude. We can discuss what to do with the initial problem with random newcomers actions, but why here (and I am not sure if I want to discuss exactly now). Анастасия Львова^ru/en 14:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I've notified Lvova of this discussion. Geoffroi 01:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sebring12Hrs: That should have been done by you per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes sorry, thanks. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Blatant violation of COM:NPLT

Here -- Zimbonte (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

IMO yet it's not a legal threat. However, if it's true what they claim, it might indeed be a mess if "our version" is used for official papers, as it's quite different than the (assumed) real version see [5]. --Túrelio (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

If a file from a Wikimedia project is used outside Wikimedia projects, the "mess" lies with the person using it. For sure not with Wikimedia projects, as per Commons:General disclaimer.

Also, in heraldry, there's no “real version” of a coat of arms purely in terms of stylistic rendering. A coat of arms is defined by its blazon (the textual description found in the decree granting the arms). As a textual description, it allows almost every stylistic interpretation. For example, if a blazon reads "azure, a lion rampant or", then any golden/yellow lion rampant is acceptable, and any shade of blue is acceptable.

A coat of arms itself is not a logo; therefore, from a stylistic standpoint, there is no such thing as an “exact” coat of arms. Nor does the version adopted by a public body have any sort of precedence: any drawing that correctly follows the blazon constitutes a “valid” version of the arms.

That said, it's pretty clear that a municipal administration may adopt (for its own activities and sponsorships) its own proprietary design of the coat of arms, protected by copyright, which in certain respects functions as a logo. The administration may impose and regulate its use, for instance by publishing an informational page on its website, an official visual identity manual, or other regulations. However, this applies solely to the activities of the municipal administration; Wikimedia projects don't fall within this scope.

Moreover, under Italian law, the official drawings of coats of arms (those used by institutions) are considered "intangible assets" of the institution itself and therefore cannot be released under a fully free license, as their use for commercial purposes is prohibited (#11). This makes them incompatible with Wikimedia Commons - and btw, there's still plenty of such images here, uncorrectly licensed, that should be deleted at once.

In short, if a coat of arms complies with its official blazon (that is, with the textual description), there is no urgency for replacement, the claim should therefore be rejected and of course there's no room to evoke any legal threat. -Zimbonte (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Ingvarooo

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

Continued to upload copyright infringing photo despite being warned by multiple users. 0x0a (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thecameraman arras

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

I deleted all of their uploads CSD F10 (they're all made-up flags accompanied by personal essays in the file pages). IMO, it's clear that they're NOTHERE, and they've already been blocked as such on EnWiki, but since each time I deleted their files, they left a wall of text on my user talk page, I figure I'm too involved to block them. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed as clearly NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I've requested a global lock as well so he doesn't move to another wiki. Geoffroi 21:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

User:BOKOBA veroly

This user has uploaded photos that are clearly not his own as own pictures. Examples: File:Présentation en.jpg, File:Excellent.jpg

I was one of the organizers of the event and do not know him. He does not respond to inquiries on his discussion page, even though he edited a Wikipedia project yesterday [6]. Given his discussion page in this project, I think administrators should take a look at this user. Stepro (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Ice743

User:Ice743 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
User constantly modifying the licenses on flag or emblem files: latest example.
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)