Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Add links
Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
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
134, 133, 132, 131, 130, 129, 128, 127, 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
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
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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.
[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to request review of a large number of edits made by Barbardhacii, related accounts, and Hodaneeey76 concerning Dervish-related files.

Barbardhacii is currently indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of Girligaanshub. The issue is that the account appears to have systematically altered descriptions and categories of Dervish-related images to associate the subjects with a "Diiriye Guure", often describing individuals as his "loyalists", without providing sources for these claims. In several cases, existing references to the Dervishes/Daraawiish were removed or replaced in the process.

For example, within about ten minutes on 1 May 2025, Barbardhacii made the following edits:

File:Dervish Abdallah Sheri. 1909.jpg – added "Sultan Diiriye Guure loyalist". File:Ismail Mire, Shiikhyaale commander poet.jpg – added "Sultan Deria Gure loyalist". File:Scheual Abdi Dichter aus Ogaden.jpg – added "Former Sultan Diiriye Guure loyalist, then defector". File:Nuur And Brother Geele.png – added "Loyalists of Garad Deria Gure". File:Sultan Nuur 1896. Tuuyo Plain.jpg – added "Features Sultan Nur, a devout loyalist of Sultan Diiriye Guure". File:Cabdi dheere.jpg – added "loyalists of Sultan Deria Gure". File:XaajiSuudicropped2.png – added "Garad Diiriye Guure loyalist (left) and British empire loyalist (right)".

The account also created Category:Garad Diiriye Guure loyalists and populated it with Dervish-related people and material, later describing the category as "Loyalists of Sultan Deria Gure, the sixteenth garad of the Si'iid Harti or Shirshoore dynasty".

There also appears to be an earlier pattern of similar edits by Hodaneeey76, whose contributions stopped in November 2021. Many of these edits have therefore remained on Commons for several years. This user repeatedly added descriptions connecting Dervish-related photographs and subjects to Diiriye Guure, including:

File:The National Archives UK - CO 1069-11-7.jpg – added "Dhulbahante garesa" and "Darawiish sultanate of Diiriye Guure" on 1 November 2021. File:The National Archives UK - CO 1069-8-24.jpg – added "Darawiish sultanate of Diiriye Guure" on the same day. File:محمّد عبد اللّه حسن.jpg – added "the emir of Diiriye Guure, Abdi Karim". This is particularly concerning because the cited source The Warrior Mullah: The Horn Aflame (1990) by Ray Beachey explicitly identifies the subject as a son of Sayyid Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, rather than as an "emir of Diiriye Guure". File:The National Archives UK - CO 1069-8-36.jpg – added "of Diiriye Guure" on 5 November 2021, the user's final edit.

Hodaneeey76 made more than ten Diiriye Guure-related additions on 1 November 2021 alone. These are only representative examples from both users. The same or similar changes appear across a much larger number of Dervish-related files and categories. Some of these faulty additions have remained there for years, and have even been carried over into Wikipedia articles. For example, the Dhulbahante article currently captions the same image as "Abdikarim, son of the Dhulbahante Garad Diiriye Guure", despite the source identifying the person as a son of Sayyid Mohammed Abdullah Hassan.

Given the scale and apparent pattern of these edits, and the fact that some have remained in file descriptions for years, could an administrator or experienced editor review the contribution histories and determine whether the unsupported additions and associated categorisation should be mass-reverted or otherwise cleaned up? Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is someone picking this up? I'm very swamped, both here (in areas where I have expertise, which I don't have for this request) and IRL, and I can't take it up, but it looks pretty high priority. - Jmabel ! talk 22:19, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Jmabel: and thanks for the response! I had waited a few days without hearing anything and was beginning to wonder whether I had raised this at the wrong venue. I appreciate you drawing attention to it. No worries at all if you don't have the time or subject expertise to take it up. Hopefully someone familiar with this area can have a look. Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • @Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen: in the report, hiding an important link behind the link caption "related accounts" was probably not a good idea: it meant that anybody skimming this didn't see that some relevant analysis had already been done, unless they clicked through or went into edit mode. Please consider that if you are making similar reports in the future. - Jmabel ! talk 08:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I see now that Barbardhacii has now been globally locked over a year as a sock of Girligaanshub. I also see that when you started this discussion you did not inform Hodaneeey76, which you should have done, but I will do for you. t
Given that we know the likely puppetmaster this should not be so hard for someone to pick up. - Jmabel ! talk 08:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen and @Jmabel: Please see m:srg#Global lock for Hodaneeey76.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just following up on the cleanup aspect of this report. The unsupported Diiriye Guure-related descriptions and categories mentioned above still appear to be present on the affected files. Since there seem to be a substantial number of similar edits, would anyone be able to review the contributions and determine which should be reverted? Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Block review: Dabmasterars

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago11 comments9 people in discussion

I have indefinitely blocked Dabmasterars for cross-wiki abuse. Earlier this week, Dabmasterars was indefinitely blocked by English Wikipedia's ArbCom. Per Dabmasterars here, when they reached out to ArbCom for an explanation, they received the reply "The Committee has evidence of your activity off-wiki that has convinced us that your activity is focused on exposing others to pornographic materials rather than building an encyclopedia and providing education.". Commons does not have an equivalent body to ArbCom that is able to receive private evidence, so I have no way of knowing what that evidence is. However, as Commons is the host of the images that triggered the ArbCom block, I believe it counts as cross-wiki abuse. Additionally, their request to another user to post to EnWiki on Dabmasterars's behalf (same link) is also cross-wiki abuse.

As this is a highly unusual situation - and one taking place under the shadow of several broader conversations about pornographic images on Commons triggered by the recent request for comment by WMF Legal on Meta - I am putting this block to immediate peer review. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Strong oppose block. Firstly: What reason do we actually have to believe ArbCom’s block of Dabmasterars is even legitimate in the first place? What is their supposed evidence? How did they even connect this supposed off-wiki activity to Dabmasterars? We cannot review the evidence, therefore the charges cannot be proven and the fairness of the block cannot be ascertained. Secondly: Enwiki has chosen to give ArbCom functionally absolute authority, but that authority ends (or should end) at Enwiki. The block was not for uploading porn; it was for unspecified off-wiki activity. The block’s reasoning wasn’t fully provided, therefore it’s impossible to determine whether Dabmasterars is engaging in the alleged behavior that led to the block. With those facts in mind the only reason to block them was because of ArbCom’s original rationale, which shouldn’t apply to Commons. Thirdly: Dabmasterars is a productive contributor who is not disrupting Commons. As they were (supposedly) disrupting Enwiki and are blocked there, blocking them here is not going prevent any further disruption to Enwiki. Dronebogus (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Question What does «your activity off-wiki» have to do with anything. I have many off-wiki activities, I have just gone to the toilet, and it had nothing to do with building any sort of encyclopaedia nor was it about providing education. I sometimes expose people to things which are not educational. It is very possible that the block was warranted (although everything that I read about ArbCom sounds like something from 1984), but the wording is horrific. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 08:44, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
You aren’t allowed to know. Nobody is. Dronebogus (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I went and taken a look at that user's upload history. I thought I came across them before, they have uploaded those Super Forbidden Love images. The whole thing appears to be some sort of vendetta settling from some ArbCom member. This user has been active for about 1½ years and has contributed some good quality content here. In that light I will  Oppose the block, unless there is an evidence of anything that was done wrongly and maliciously. Uploading content that ArbCom deems inappropriate is neither of the two. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 08:57, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Oppose ArbCom is a Wikipedia thing, not a cross-wiki thing. This is not a Wikimedia legal ban (a 'SanFranBan'). They have no authority here.
I have no confidence in ArbCom. They have operated in the past to use their secrecy for its own purposes and to enable underhand actions, rather than as a necessary condition and protection for ArbCom's members. I've been persecuted by anon emails from ArbCom myself.
I do not support Dabmasterars' actions on Commons. I can imagine myself supporting their indef block here before long. But that has to come from Commons, and their visible actions here, not from these whispered lettres de cachet. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is a topic for the U4C or a global ban discussion. We can not block users based on decisions on other Wikis. GPSLeo (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done. Meanwhile, Dabmasterars was globally locked and promptly globally unlocked. He requested unblock. I unblocked Dabmasterars in Commons on condition, that he will not upload anything sexual or erotic. The condition can be lifted after 6 months through regular unblock request. I decided unblock, because Dabmasterars is not a porn-only user, he has good edits totally unrelated with erotica. Taivo (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I thank all of you for your input. Since I believe the ArbCom enWP block is also unwarranted, I would like to continue this conversation somewhere else (this time focused on unblocking me on enWP), though I'm not sure where this should be done. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 14:43, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd just like to add: even though Commons decided to delete the Super Forbidden Love images, I have no doubt that Dabmasterars uploaded them in good faith, intending to provide higher-quality images in a topic area where we already had images. I see no reason to doubt a claim like that from a reasonably long-term good contributor. - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Yann (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Strange uploads and deletion requests by User:Bioanthropologist1

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I'd like to call some attention to a pattern of strange behavior by this user involving uploads and deletion requests. Based on what I see at Special:Log/User:Bioanthropologist1, the majority of this user's uploads have been deleted, almost all at their own request, typically with a rationale claiming that the image is a duplicate, that it is inaccurate, or that it contains copyright violations. A few recent examples are:

Noticing legitimate problems with one's own uploads and addressing them is commendable. But that doesn't seem to be what's going on here - these deletion requests are becoming unreasonably frequent, to the point of becoming disruptive. If this user's uploads are actually inaccurate or copyvios as often as implied by these DRs, I'd question whether any of their uploads have any value. And if that isn't the case, what's up with the constant DRs? Omphalographer (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Bioanthropologist1 has made 7 edits to Commons since being informed of this discussion, and has not weighed in. I'd like to give them a chance to reply before this moves forward, but they need to actually take that chance. - Jmabel ! talk 14:55, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have noticed that too. At the very least, I think that a reminder that the more appropriate template {{SD|G7}} applies to self-uploads made within the past seven days, or at the very least a request to consolidate the files into one single deletion request, is appropriate. ForeverFlying (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I apologize for being disruptive - that was absolutely not my intent and I apologize for the trouble caused. I would like to delete all of the contributions/ uploads that I have made. Is there a way to do that that is efficient for all of you and not work intensive or troublesome? Thank you! Bioanthropologist1 (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Bioanthropologist1 If you want to retire from the Wikipedia project and want all of your uploads to get removed, why do you keep on uploading new version to your existing files? In my opinion, all of this user's upload consist of composite of various images and I hardly can imagine that this is useful on any Wiki project, hence I tend to  Delete all of them. ChemSim (Talk) ping me pls 12:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cateres1331

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Cateres1331 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has been repeatedly uploading sexualizing images of women that have been altered using artificial intelligence. The user was blocked indefinitely on eswiki for vandalism-only account. --Ovruni (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Shaan SenguptaTalk 05:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

"A user nominating my images for move"

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Please I want to report a situation here that has been going on for a while now. There’s a particular user on this Wikimedia project that has been either nominating my images for deletion and file name changes to suit her own cultural identity. Even after requesting the name to be changed to the original after she disrupted the file by making the request she has gone ahead to make the request again. I feel genuinely harrassed at this point. Going through her edit history, I see users have previously raised concerns in an ANI regarding persistent vandalism on pages rewriting them to suit her own cultural identity. She recently filed for name change here and proceeded to add my image to gele page despite this file description being an Ichafu.

File:Igbo woman wearing uweobi, ichafu and Jioji wrappers.jpg Ifybekee (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Ifybekee: Are you referring to user Dolpina, who nominated the linked file for renaming; or Grand-Duc, who nominated the same file for deletion? Do not make us guess. Please name the relevant individual when reporting them on ANU. And furthermore please notify them of the ANU report on their talk page. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
As I never saw the OP before their message here, I surmise I'm not addressed by their report. And if by any chance, I'm still to be included in the complaint, I'm obviously aware of this thread, so no need to notify me. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I’m referring to user Dolpina. Please I’m sorry for not including the name before, I am quite new here and not an experienced editor Ifybekee (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for clearing it up now. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 20:16, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have notified Dolpina. Ifybekee (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I also forgot to mention that she went ahead and added it to gele page on Wikipedia which is distinct from Ichafu. Ifybekee (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment See also [1]. Yann (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
While we do need to address whether Dolpina has made inappropriate renaming requests, the question of where the photo has been used on any Wikipedia is really not a Commons issue. That needs to be argued on the Wikipedia in question, not here. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikihounding and targeted deletion-tagging by User:ChemSim

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago13 comments9 people in discussion

Relevant files and pages:

Policy basis: Commons:Harassment (Wikihounding) and Disruptive behavior

Description of conduct: I am requesting administrator intervention regarding a pattern of targeted cross-wiki scrutiny and wikihounding by User:ChemSim.

Following an editorial disagreement and move-to-draft on the English Wikipedia article w:Draft:Potassium molybdate on 22 September 2026, User:ChemSim has followed my account activity over to Wikimedia Commons to systematically target unrelated contributions:

  1. Targeting of recent scientific asset: ChemSim targeted and nominated File:POTASSIUM_MOLYBDATE.png (an original 3D coordination render created for the draft article based on published crystallographic literature) for deletion under speedy criteria, without engaging on provenance or allowing standard clarification under {{PD-chem}} / own-work licensing.
  2. Scrutiny of unrelated historical uploads: Demonstrating a clear pattern of examining past contributions to find deletion targets, ChemSim navigated to an 11-year-old museum aircraft photograph I took and uploaded (File:Air-Sp-Airector.jpg) and attempted to have the image removed from Commons and stripped from the article where it had stably resided for over a decade.

Following an editor across Wikimedia projects to scrutinize unrelated files uploaded years earlier—having nothing to do with the chemistry topic at hand—serves no legitimate maintenance purpose and meets the definition of Wikihounding ("the singling out of one or more editors... with the apparent intent of irritating, demoralizing, or intimidating them").

Requested outcome: 1. A formal administrative warning to User:ChemSim to discontinue following my upload history and targeting unrelated media assets. 2. Administrative review of the deletion actions and tags placed on File:POTASSIUM_MOLYBDATE.png and File:Air-Sp-Airector.jpg.

Thank you for your time and review. Lvwarren (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

  • Well, if you've been caught publishing alleged (probably AI-made) nonsense, then it's no wonder that the remainder of your contributions get scrutinised too. Commons and the licensing is a lot about trust, and if that trust gets lost, consequences will follow. The argumentation in Commons:Deletion requests/File:POTASSIUM MOLYBDATE.png is sound and inevitably lead to the deletion, furthermore, Chem Sim is, by his own accord (he's using male word forms on his German userpage), a chemist. The deletion was not founded upon licensing issues, but upon factual inaccuracies, removing the needed educational usefulness, see COM:EDUSE. You did not defend the data.
About Commons:Deletion requests/File:Air-Sp-Airector.jpg: it's such a consequence of warranted scrutiny. There are no indicators of it being a fully legitimate upload (such one would usually be larger and have EXIF data intact). As the file is small and lacks metadata, we, the community, cannot ascertain the chain of custody before the upload. A deletion request is a standard quality assurance measure, fully independent of the time the file is hosted here.
You may want to reconsider your complaint, as far as I can tell (from a standard user point), there's nothing wrong with ChemSim's actions. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
"we, the community, cannot ascertain the chain of custody before the upload."
This is not a court of law. We have no such requirement. We have no requirement that images have EXIF data, nor that they are greater than some minimum size. What we do have as policy is COM:AGF which requires us to take uploaders at their word, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. A small image file is emphatically not any such evidence. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
There's no formal requirement to have EXIF present, yes, but it is a valid expectation to see them when doubts arise.
AGF, "Assume Good Faith", can only be done when there's a baseline of trust. The single difference to other, real-life trust requirements that AGF mandates is to grant a kind of trust unconditionally on the first meeting. It does not preclude a sceptical scrutiny later on, when there are reasons. Here, such reasons are present.
The OP uploaded a file that was demonstrably against Commons' aims (promoting falsehoods instead of knowledge, and no defence of having made a honest mistake was provided). So, we unequivocally can't trust them unconditionally anymore. Compound that with the upload of a small file without EXIF which pixel dimensions are quite similar to images used on blogs or similar web publications, and pfffftt - reasons for more scrutiny appear, under the banner of COM:PRP. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
similar to
You're seriously suggesting that an image be deleted for being similar to something else?
Here's the same aircraft, at the same tradeshow: http://www.flying-directory.com/popup_info.php?action=aircraft&id=57702 This is as similar as we could get, yet that counts for nothing as they're not the same image.
images used on blogs or similar web publications
So which of the several image search engines was it that showed you where this image was sourced from? Because surely you mean that you have found another pre-existing copy of this, rather than just casting aspersions at the uploader? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • @Lvwarren First of all, create a user page to claim this account. Otherwise, your trustworthiness can be questioned. Second, I did not nominate File:POTASSIUM MOLYBDATE.png for deletion, but User:Marbletan did, questioning the factualy accurarcy of this AI-generated nonsense. Others like User:DMacks, User:Dronebogus and User:Issac I Navarro agreed on this by voting for deletion of that file. As User:Grand-Duc has already mentioned, I'm a chemist in real life and working within the Commons:WikiProject Chemistry for several years now. That's why I always have an eye on newly uploaded, chemistry-related stuff. Sometime, I randomly check the upload history of new users who have uploaded chemistry material for factual accurary and quality aspects. Since I'm an admin here on Commons as well, I have to look after COM:COPYVIO issues and a bunch of other stuff as well. File:Air-Sp-Airector.jpg was certainly not taken by you because all common mobile phone cameras or other cameras would add EXIF metadata to images. In addition, the 489×223 px format is very uncommon as well. No camera will use such a strange resoltion to generate images. If you have the original photo of this file, please upload it instead. Cropped version can be created afterwards. Best, ChemSim (Talk) ping me pls 10:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
First of all, create a user page to claim this account. Otherwise, your trustworthiness can be questioned.
That is a sheer COM:NPA. No, we do not impugn the trustworthiness of uploaders on the (flimsy!) basis of whether they've created a user page. Anonymity is supported on this site and you do not get to question that, least of all in the midst of a series of DRs. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
(aside) @ChemSim: as an admin, you should certainly know that except for some edge cases (e.g. well-known person using their real name), whether a user creates a user page is their prerogative. Failing to do so does not make them untrustworthy. - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Undisclosed paid editing / socking accusation against BieniekS

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all. The below was referred to requests for checkuser, however all of the accounts listed except for BieniekS are either stale or never registered on Commons. As such, I'm moving it here so that admins can take a look using behavioral evidence and decide if anything needs to be done.

* BieniekS (talk • contribs • Luxo • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log)

Rationale, discussion and results

Reason:

where he was complaining that his Wikipedia articles "were attacked and without an explanation delated.(sic!)"

But as you see above: That was by no means all and and they have continued their global activities unhindered ever since, promoting the person and work of Bienek.

I see many "paid contributions as a violation of the m:Terms of use" made by obviously single purpose accounts using sock puppets without no sheer limits. This is my first CU case, but I couldn't stand these findings without noticing. Since the recent uploads were here on the commons I posted this case here. --Emha (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

user:A.Savin

[edit]
Latest comment: 14 minutes ago8 comments5 people in discussion

We know each other for a long time, the user is regularly rude towards me, but usually it had no sense to mention; this time he absolutely crossed the borders - the reason, the reaction. I'm asking for a topic ban for this user - not to write me on my talk page and not comment any my action even in an edit description anymore. I believe that Commons will survive if my small and rare mistakes will be corrected silently or by other people. And if he will continue to do something like this with others, I hope it will be useful to document that he can be like that. Анастасия Львоваru/en/de 17:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The user is notified. Анастасия Львоваru/en/de 17:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Was ist das Problem? Achso, Sie haben abermals Commons-Regeln verletzt, allen voran COM:OVERCAT, und hatten teilweise die Kategorie "Ships in Bremerhaven" dort hinzugefügt, wo gar keine Schiffe dargestellt sind. Und nun fühlen Sie sich beleidigt, dass ich die Edits zurückgesetzt und Ihnen eine Verwarnung geschickt habe. Ja nee, klar. --A.Savin 17:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
abermals Commons-Regeln verletzt. Genau deswegen frage ich nach einem Topic Ban. Vielen Dank für die Demonstrationen. Анастасия Львоваru/en/de 18:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • The problem is the hostility of your response. The OP moved a photo of a ship to an appropriate subcategory for ships. This was a good edit. You reverted them, also issued a vandalism warning. That is a hostile act and should not be taken unless the editor is clearly a vandal.
At most, you have a difference of opinion with this editor. On the evidence so far there is one edit where I would support your reversion, but in a batch of edits about a harbour it's not unreasonable if one is accidentally moved to a ships category when there is no ship present in that one. Editors are all fallible. This is not vandalism and it is not acceptable admin behaviour for you to treat it as such.
This is also typical behaviour for you, and has been so for a very long time. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
+1. And support proposal for A.Savin to stay off of Lvova's user talk page. I'm not sure the "not commenting" in an edit description can entirely be enforced (and I wouldn't want to discourage A.Savin from using edit summaries), but certainly it is reasonable to ask him refrain in edit summaries from any suggestion of bad intent in the edits by Lvova or any established editor. A.Savin, if you really think Lvova or any other user is editing with bad intent, you can feel free to bring it here to COM:ANU, but please don't do so frivolously or out of pique. - Jmabel ! talk 14:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Support. I was the victim of Alexander's uncivil personal attack and dismissal of my evidence in this edit 08:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC). For background, my report was technically correct, as I had previously given @Kürschner a final warning for uploading coypright violations in this edit 16:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC). Copyright violations endanger Commons, the WMF, and both internal and external reusers. I brought Commons:Civility over from English Wikipedia in this edit 10:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC) and refined it for use on Commons; others helped, and it is now policy. I just warned him.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well, seriously, you are accusing me of calling someone's incorrect edit vandalism because in your opinion that was actually a good-faith edit; but on the other hand you are talking of this particular Kürschner's upload as a copyvio by purpose, despite the fact that it is pretty obvious that this was a mistake too and you are accusing a clearly benevolent regular of nothing lesser than a copyright violation? And myself of supporting copyvios? Even you yourself don't know exactly, LOL... Maybe you should, just like in that famous joke about two Jewish guys naked in a bathhouse, seriously consider to "either remove your cross necklace or put your underpants on" ;-) --A.Savin 18:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Spartaz

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Less than an hour after I wrote at the top of a thread in which Spartaz was involved, "would people please refrain from commenting on what they consider to be other users' prudery or, on the other hand, moral degeneracy, and stick to the policy matter at hand and what is good for the site, and why?", Spartaz doubled down on the remark that had me say that in the first place. I'd at least like some admin other than myself to also give them get a clear message to knock this off. - Jmabel ! talk 15:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: I warned them, I hope that helps.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
But no action is taken about a comment equating a reasonable position from me to being the same level of bigotry as Russian anti-lgbti+ laws or Taliban repression of women? Spartaz (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=1282579403"