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
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	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	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	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}

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

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~43
• Unfree Flickr files: ~1
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~2
• No license since 18 January 2026: ~28
• No permission since 18 January 2026: ~85
• No source since 18 January 2026: ~47
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2026-01: ~110

Other:

• Duplicates: ~19
• Advertisements/spam: ~53
• Personal photos/selfies: ~101
• Other speedy deletions: ~26
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~2
• Requests for unblock: ~7
• Undeletion requests: ~26

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~59
• Interface admin: ~20
• Technical: ~3
• 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 Manh2107 mass uploading files, falsely claiming as own work

Manh2107 (talk · contributions · Statistics) has been mass uploading files (nearly 180 so far) and falsely claiming them as their own work. They appear to be Russian district and municipal emblems and coats of arms. This may put them in the public domain under Russian copyright law, but one archive I found ([1]) suggests that some of these may be copyrighted. I left a couple messages on their talk page but I haven't gotten any response. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Totally outside my expertise, and I don't speak Russian, but it has been over 15 hours and nothing has been done. Could someone more qualified than I please take this on? - Jmabel ! talk 20:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

From a second look, from their profile, they may actually be Vietnamese. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The user still has not responded. I used Google translate to leave simple messages in Russian and Vietnamese. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Swapnil1101

Swapnil1101 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

• Falsely adding license reviewed tags. Revision #714467286, Revision #1097640972, Revision #1097961952, Revision #1097961819
• Falsely claiming own work when it clearly isn't.

File:Chinese Passport (HKSAR).svg

File:Chinese passport.svg

File:Indian 1 Rupee 2020 Reverse.jpg

File:Indian 1 Rupee 2020 Front.jpg

There are more.

• Recreating deletions.

User talk:Swapnil1101#CRPF Logo

The talk page is full of deletion notices. The user hasn't stopped creating military flags/insignia/logo on his computer and uploading them as if it is him who holds rights over it even after such DR. (Incase, someone isn't aware of what's wrong with Indian military symbols, plz see this DR.) I've only given links that I could see without much digging. There may be more. Ping to @Mdaniels5757 (DR), @Yann (false licence review) and @Abzeronow (recently involved). Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. False license review with someone else's name is a no-no. Yann (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Ccwwgd

• User: Ccwwgd (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Effectively called my advice "bullshit" and us "idiots" in Special:Diff/1149297231.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

RomeoSingh2010

• RomeoSingh2010 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues to upload clear copyvios even after last warning. Talk page full of deletion notices. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked for a month. Lets see if they get the message Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Gbawden, there is a need to delete other uploads as well. I don't think they are his own work. Even if they are, still COM:OOS. If you want I can nominate, or maybe you can carry it out without nom. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Bodyoaken

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

Hi, I think that Bodyoaken is a sock of Slowking4. Similar formatting, no real answer to requests, and mainly dumbing a huge number of paintings from Sotheby's and Christie's (cf. Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Slowking4). I would like a second opinion before blocking. I got no answer from the check-user contributors I asked. Yann (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Bodyoaken is Likely a new sock of Slowking4, together with 5 other accounts, based on CU info. Blocked and tagged. --Lymantria (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lymantria: I blocked Xsblackheart, a new account created today doing exactly the same thing. Could you check please? Yann (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. --Lymantria (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Johnj1995

• User: Johnj1995 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Made another invalid deletion request here after after notification of block warnings for that and a block.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

In response to this report, I will no longer make any edits to invalid deletion requests. Thank you. Johnj1995 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Johnj1995: Thank you. Also Special:Diff/1150419563.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Kumander Sator

Kumander Sator (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is uploading many out-of-scope, AI-generated, promotional files. JJP_Master (she/they) 04:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed for spam; uploads nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Deepak4444444

• Deepak4444444 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Despite warning by @Yann, the user continues to upload promotional images, adding false license reviews and source. Also, the images are digitally modified. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed for spam; uploads nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: New user Prabhuarumugam1985 (talk · contribs) appears to be re-uploading Deepak4444444's deleted files. Can you have a look? Marbletan (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Marbletan, blocked, tagged, and files deleted. The master: Ragul1223. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 17:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Wikiuser829

• Wikiuser829 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Persistent copyright infringement issues, even deliberately removing the author's watermark; I suggest all photos claiming to be their own work should be carefully reviewed. 0x0a (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Bedivere deleting files en masse without valid speedy deletion tag solely to punish LTA

Bedivere has been speedily deleting a huge number of film logos, which were frequently COM:INUSE and do not qualify for copyright protection per COM:TOO, under the invalid rationale W:WP:DENY. This is apparently all because some particularly disruptive LTA on Spanish Wikipedia uploaded these. (See User talk:Bedivere#Why are you purging tons and tons of simple-geometry logos with the rationale “DENY”?) Deleting innocuous files without discussion in an attempt to punish/un-person the uploader is unacceptable and has disrupted numerous wikis using these files. I don’t know what prompted this but it’s a serious overreach of administrative authority. Dronebogus (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

DENY is actually a EN-WP essay, so at least a step below guidelines and policies. But we have the guideline COM:Vandalism, where the first sentence reads "Vandalism" refers to actions taken with the deliberate intention of harming the site rather than improving it[...]. The log of one of the deleted files is evidence that the uploader is actually globally locked, not only blocked (a noticeable difference per m:Global locks vs m:Global blocks), so the evaluation as that uploader being a harmful individual is quite evident. So, seeing their contributions as "harming the site" is not far-fetched. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

People can always reupload some or all of the deleted files if they genuinely need them. In most cases, these files are free and can be safely kept. However, retaining them simply because they appear innocuous or are freely licensed completely misses the point of the deletion.

Deletion, while a last resort, is the most decisive measure available: it serves to deny the troll who uploaded the files any form of recognition or reward. Prolonging this discussion only plays into the hands of this problematic user turning us into their laughing stock.

The globally locked LTA has repeatedly used multiple accounts to evade blocks here and elsewhere. Keeping their uploads solely on the grounds that they are freely licensed only reinforces and encourages this behavior. The issue is not the intrinsic value of the files themselves, but the principle of not rewarding block evasion or disruptive conduct.

Retaining these uploads legitimize their actions and validate the idea that Commons can be exploited as a tool for disruption (we should not be allowing that, even if the deletion reason logged is vague or seems like it). Anyone who legitimately needs these logos is free to reupload them, provided they are indeed freely licensed, but they should not be restored.

If we continue to debate the merits of every individual file uploaded by this user, we are granting them exactly the attention they seek. I strongly encourage those who require these specific logos for legitimate purposes to reupload them independently and move on. Bedivere (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bedivere: given that the uploader is not the rights-holder, couldn't we just suppress their account name in the file history and edit history? Or does that somehow not meet the goal? - Jmabel ! talk 04:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Deleting the files en masse is also giving them negative attention. I didn’t even know this troll existed until you did this. Now you’re broadcasting their existence and disruption to the entire Wikimedia ecosystem while creating an even bigger mess in the process and shifting the responsibility of cleaning it up onto everyone else. The best way to deny recognition is to ignore them when they aren’t directly engaged in trolling. The second best way would have been reuploading and replacing everything yourself. Dronebogus (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Dronebogus in this message, we've been dealing with this situation for three years without any improvement, while the LTA exploits every weakness in the bureaucracy. We can clearly see this here: only one user has stopped everything, and now he perceives it as "negative". I wonder if we should also invite the LTA into the conversation and suddenly everyone agrees to a deal. If the LTA is already been banned globally, why do we have to keep the door open? The LTA should resolve his problem at the Meta level first, and then we can discuss the issue about his uploads. I'm honestly disappointed; I don't know why I'm even fighting against these block evasions here. Taichi (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

That’s a very long non-explanation of why deleting tons of in-use, non-problematic files and thereby drawing attention to the LTA is in any way reminding the situation. Dronebogus (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

While I dislike deletion of all images from Marrovi and Jorse García (the main accounts) solely for these reasons, I also don't support the evasion blocks they've made and will likely make again and must to consider that they brought it on themselves. I contacted them personally to see how I can help with their situation without further ruining anything and what they can do while blocked, but if they don't respond and refuse help, there's nothing I can do. Reviewing every image from all accounts created by the same user (at least the main ones) would take considerably more time and be tedious than deleting them all, even though it would negatively impact other projects and their legitimate uses (like this one and this other one). We would have to check every image they uploaded to see if it could be restored. If someone is willing to do that, perfect. I've saved certain images (and all their information) from here on the Wayback Machine before they were deleted (like this one, whose current source doesn't exist, but there's a snapshot from 2020, since I believe the images should be visible, but not used unless appropriate), but I don't want to invest my time saving everything uploaded by users who have been blocked on new accounts, especially if they don't let themselves be helped. Lenis Felipe (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

None of them needed to be deleted. The whole point of the mass deletion seems punitive, or at least like a scorched-earth attempt to stop their disruption. Dronebogus (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

No one has responded to my question above beginning, "given that the uploader is not the rights-holder…" - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Comment There was a community discussion years ago regarding this topic, in which the ultimatium was that deleting files because they are an LTA is not a valid reason for deletion. Unless there are other concerns besides that, these files should be restored. 1989 (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• No. Many admins, including I, delete files by LTA with DENY. These files can be reuploaded by users in good standing. Yann (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  So you are aware and even voted in this discussion and proceed to do them anyway? That’s not a good sign. Your views do not overrule community consensus. 1989 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yann, I’ve told you this before but you frequently act more like the nanny of Commons than a neutral enforcer of rules and consensus, particularly in regard to deletion. While obviously you’re not the only admin with this issue (see the rest of this discussion) that doesn’t justify your doing it. Dronebogus (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• You don't have to deal what repeated LTAs. The best way to deter some of them is “block and nuke”. Otherwise, they just create an account, upload some files, get blocked, and they start again with a new account. Yann (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  In this case, it wasn’t just "block and nuke". The account that did most of the uploads was blocked in October 2024, then way later, the same blocking admin out of nowhere deletes all the files that account uploaded with the reason being one word and linked to an essay on Wikipedia, not established policy on Commons. You or them have yet to explain why deleting hundreds of COM:INUSE files was a great idea, especially with the solution by the both of you is for folks who aren’t administrators to pick up the pieces. This is unacceptable, and I can see why the community voted against this. 1989 (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  I think maybe a few admins need to be banned from deletion decisions from now on. Dronebogus (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This kind of questioning "Is block/ban evasion/sockpuppetry on..." has a significant flaw: it gives the misleading impression that the issue is whether having an account blocked (or banned), or sock puppetry should lead to the deletion of all uploaded content. However, it actually intends to ask whether alternative accounts used to circumvent a block (or ban) should have all their uploaded content deleted. At a glance, many who hold the opposing view likely mistake the question for the first interpretation. 0x0a (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@0x0a: this seems to be a distinction without a difference. What would be a case where one of these would apply, and the other would not? (Clearly we don't automatically delete all uploads previously uploaded by an account that has now been blocked, if that is the intended distinction; in what other case would this be a difference?) - Jmabel ! talk 07:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel See the first comment there? One might mistake it for: "Is being blocked, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry on its own a valid reason to delete media or reject a request for undeletion?" Folks opposed deleting all (previous) uploads by user's only account, or their master account. While Yann was referring to content created by user through sock puppet accounts after their master account had been blocked or banned. The timing of when a file was created is crucial. 0x0a (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC) (@Jmabel updated 05:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC))

@0x0a: if by "the first comment there" you mean Dronebogus's original post, no, I cannot imagine how it could be read that way. If you meant something else, could you please indicate what particular comment you are talking about (a diff, or "such-and-such's post at such-and such time", assuming you mean something in the present discussion)? - Jmabel ! talk 19:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@0x0a: now that you've clarified your reference, I see. But still, I think there is very little chance that the bulk of the "oppose" votes shared this misconception. - Jmabel ! talk 23:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Kontributor_2K and User:Jmabel – repeated disruptive editing, misrepresentation of licensing, and false deletion nomination of File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Bosnian_royal_family.png

Both User:Kontributor_2K and User:Jmabel have shown a clear pattern of disruptive editing and attempted misrepresentation of licensing and content scope on Commons, particularly regarding this file and the related deletion discussion.

Over the past several days, the users have repeatedly:

• Undone categorization edits with no technical justification
• Manipulated discussion layout to hide replies or alter context
• Reverted key source field wording without prior discussion
• Repeatedly pushed unfounded claims about licensing or ownership
• Avoided substantive discussion, replacing it with superficial edits
• Attempted to influence the deletion process through misleading arguments
• Coordinated interventions that misrepresent the file’s status

Specific examples include:

• Radiant Crowns category repeatedly removed and re-added (see file history)
• Source field reversions without discussion: here
• Discussion manipulation diffs:

 * diff1
 * diff2

• Repeatedly supported deletion claims without verifying licensing sources
• Invented or misrepresented sourcing information without discussion or uploader consent
• Added misleading templates and comments implying the file was a hoax or mislicensed
• Reverted constructive edits to categories and source fields, sometimes in coordination
• Attempted to falsify, dismiss, or overwrite community consensus by re-adding deletion rationale after prior discussion
• Removed file-related entries on other Wikimedia projects as “hoax” (as acknowledged in the deletion discussion), which was later cited in support of a hoax claim, while the licensing and sourcing issues on Commons remained unresolved — Preceding unsigned comment added by InOrIsTr (talk • contribs) 06:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This pattern demonstrates coordinated disruptive behavior by both users, aimed at misrepresenting the file's status and forcing deletion. Commons policy (e.g., COM:EDUSE, COM:HOUND) explicitly discourages repeated unwanted interventions, especially when they aim to mislead or mischaracterize content or licensing.

I have attempted to engage constructively with both editors, but the behavior persists. InOrIsTr (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe my edits on that DR speak for themselves. I don't have a strong opinion on whether the file should be deleted or kept (though I am certain that the current name is problematic). I've been trying to keep things on track in a contentions DR. Pretty funny being attacked for trying to be a neutral facilitator.

If InOrIsTr thinks my edits there and my sole edit on the file page itself are a problem, I would say the user either they don't understand the nature of this site, have an axe to grind, or both. I would ask people to consider a boomerang here. I have nothing further to say; I will not be editing further on this AN/U thread unless I am directly addressed with a question. - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Although Jmabel only made a single edit to the file page itself, that edit involved modifying the licensing/source information (diff), which is the core issue under discussion. The concern is not the quantity of edits, but the impact of the licensing change combined with coordination in the deletion discussion. Other high-impact reversions and discussion manipulations were performed by Kontributor_2K. This demonstrates that the reported concern focuses on pattern of coordinated disruptive actions and critical licensing misrepresentation, not minor or neutral edits. InOrIsTr (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Both of the "discussion manipulation diffs" seem appropriate. The comments that were moved were inserted in the middle of someone else's comments in a way that could break the intended flow of that someone else and did obscure (at best) the attribution of the first part of those comments by breaking the signature connection to them. DMacks (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The main concern remains the pattern of coordinated disruptive edits and misrepresentation of licensing:

• User:Jmabel made a single high-impact edit to the licensing/source field, which directly affects content use and deletion rationale.
• User:Kontributor_2K repeatedly reverted categorization and source fields, and manipulated discussion layout to influence deletion.

While minor issues of comment flow are noted, the policy concern under COM:EDUSE and COM:HOUND focuses on repeated interventions that misrepresent content or licensing. InOrIsTr (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Boomerang OP definition of vexatious report. Single purpose account with w:wp:CIR issues forum-shopping because they aren’t winning a deletion debate. I’m not sure if they should be temp blocked or warned because they’re new or indefinitely blocked because they’re refusing to get the point and have no productive edits. Dronebogus (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

For the record: this is not a single-purpose account but a global account, with Commons activity beginning last year. The report is based on specific diffs and documented licensing changes, not on disagreement with a deletion outcome or any form of “forum shopping”. I will not engage with ad hominem characterizations. InOrIsTr (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I have indeffed OP as NOTHERE. Given the cross-wiki hoaxing and the behavioral issues, I don't think a short block would be sufficient. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Got "pywikibot.exceptions.APIError: abusefilter-disallowed: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed"

Hi, uploading my photos to Wikimedia Commons through the Pywikibot wrapper and got

pywikibot.exceptions.APIError: abusefilter-disallowed: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: 0 copyvios [abusefilter: {'id': '162', 'description': '0 copyvios', 'actions': ['disallow']};

filekey: 1cdxm08zchxo.omxryt.46252.webp;
sessionkey: 1cdxm08zchxo.omxryt.46252.webp;
servedby: mw-api-ext.codfw.main-b68dfc86c-nf4hv;

The photo is for the Category:Calligraphy of the Ottoman Empire that I made in Turkey - I believe it is in public domain. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Vitaly Zdanevich: I'm guessing it is just a false positive; if you convert it to a JPEG and upload that, it should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 19:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

But I want to upload webp, to save the storage of Wikimedia Foundation and to reduce the traffic for users, see

https://marcrphoto.wordpress.com/2025/01/06/webp-vs-jpg-which-format-is-killing-your-sites-load-speed-and-space/

and

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/webp_study quote We observed that the average WebP file size is 25%-34% smaller compared to JPEG file size at equivalent SSIM index

while avif is still unavailable though browsers already supports it Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Vitaly Zdanevich: If you want to upload webp, how come you uploaded a PNG? (There is no way you could have triggered that filter with any other MIME type.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think I tried to upload png? In my original message I have `filekey: 1cdxm08zchxo.omxryt.46252.webp` Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I checked this image with `file` command on Linux and got

RIFF (little-endian) data, Web/P image, EXIF metadata, ICC profile, 3023+1x4031+1

Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Vitaly Zdanevich: I'm not an expert on the filtering system, but part of the test in Abuse Filter 162 is file_mime == "image/png". All the tests are ANDed, so there is no way around that test. I don't know how that would have applied to a file that does not contain a PNG, but as I'm sure you know WEBP is a bit of a "baggy monster" and might have a PNG within it. If there is possibly some tech problem here, that would probably be a question for COM:Village pump/Technical.

Keep in mind: we have enough storage that, on our end, for anything other than lengthy videos and the like, file size barely matters. Also, whatever you upload, almost all users are actually downloading thumbnails (usually well under 30,000 pixels altogether per downloaded file), not the original file, so the stored file size and format do not really matter a lot for efficiency of downloads. - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

But still webp uploading should work :( Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

RichardBi0129

• User: RichardBi0129 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued incomplete DR creation like Special:Diff/1151726404 after final warning for doing so. Not responding to concerns on user talk page.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Jeff G.: that diff seems to link to nothing. Maybe something already deleted? - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, I deleted that. CIR may be used, but there is no real malicious behaviour. Yann (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: How about Special:Permalink/1151726416, filling three different tracking categories?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Warning sent: Special:Diff/1152054769. I think that is what is best to do at this time. If they continue to make badly constructed DR nominations after that, then something more will be in order. - Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks. Time will tell.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Here we go: Special:Permalink/1152427202.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess the charitable interpretation here is serious CIR, combined with bulletproof bullheadedness. I'll skip the less charitable interpretations. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

MamiBurak

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

Continues to upload out of scope files after warning by Yann three days ago. Jonteemil (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done 3-month block. All uploads are already deleted.

I don't consider it likely that they will be any better behaved on return, but I figure nothing here was quite malicious enough to make the first block an indef-block. - Jmabel ! talk 20:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Adelaideuser

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

This is not my home wiki, I'm not very familiar with your rules, please be kind.

Adelaideuser has uploaded a lot of images of various bishops saying they are Own Work and releasing them as CC0. All of which can easily be found online and come from various newspaper sites and licensing agencies. I've been nominating them for deletion, but see that they did this back in the middle of last year too, having a couple of dozen deleted then. They now have a new trick: uploading a challenged image into ChatGPT and asking it to produce a barely different derivative work, then uploading that and claiming that, since it is the work of an AI, it is ineligible for copyright protection.

I posit that this is a deliberate misreading of US copyright law and is gaming Commons' rules. With those two strikes (repeat behaviour and now the ChatGPT ruse) I request administrative attention. • a frantic turtle 🐢 16:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Most files deleted, and the rest is Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Adelaideuser. Final warning sent. Next time block. Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @A Frantic Turtle.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Shark2272

• Shark2272 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User continues modifying licenses on various flags, emblems, coats of arms: diff., diff., diff., etc., or even the author field (diff.), although this has already been discussed on admins' board about the Flag of the state of Maine license.
Furthermore, it's likely that Ice743 and Shark2272 are one and same person, since both acted in the same way, and both came to my talk page to discuss about the said Flag of the state of Maine: Ice743 (nov. 2025), Shark2272 (dec. 2025).
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Shark2272 is Confirmed to Ice743, as is America63. I blocked both for abusing multiple accounts (block evasion). --Lymantria (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)