Shortcuts:COM:AN/U •COM:ANU •COM:ANI

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.

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

@SLBedit: is persistently modifying the kits onS.L. Benfica kits. This incident and their previous activity seems to indicate a COM:OWN issue to me. I have reverted their edits several times, on each occasion leaving reasoning in my edit summary and also addressing it on their talk page. SLBedit has consistently refused to engage in discussion and their edit summarieshere andhere shows no sign of intending to do so. I cannot bothered, neither do I want, to be involved in an edit war with someone who is repeatedly ignoring guidelines. SLBedit seems to feel they have control over the page.As a side note, an account on the mainstream wiki with the exact same name has received several blocks/bans over this exact same issue of edit warring/page ownership etc. Obviously there is no definite proof they are the same user but the behaviour is strikingly similar.Anywho I've warned them that if they carried on I'd bring this here and now I have.

I'd greatly appreciate input/help on this matter. I am happy to discuss it and if needed change my opinion on it but I am yet to find any reason why there can be no logos and this seems to be the only way to get SLBedit to actual respond to me.REDMAN 2019 (talk)18:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@REDMAN 2019: Hi. Since 2015, they cannot be different users; they appear to be one person obstinately editing against consensus. Also,Special:Diff/1061475936 andSpecial:Diff/1089545062 actually illustrate what you are writing about.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ pleaseping ortalk to me🇺🇦17:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jeff G.: Thanks for the reply. I reckon this will need dealing with by an Admin since they aren't gonna listen.REDMAN 2019 (talk)17:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@REDMAN 2019: Of course; this is one of the Administrators' noticeboards, after all.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ pleaseping ortalk to me🇺🇦20:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@REDMAN 2019,Jeff G., andSLBedit:I gave this a few minutes, but I can't readily see what are the relevant differences here, partly because it seems the edits change the layout of the page so I can't do a quick visual comparison. Can someone be specific about exactly what have been at least some of the substantive disagreements here? -Jmabel !talk22:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: Of course. Basically it was originally a minor matter of should kit manufacturers logos i.e. Adidas, Nike etc, be included on the kit templates. SLBedit is opposed to their inclusion despite literally every other kit page on WikiCommons having them. Their reason for why they shouldn't be included has changed a few times, ranging from 'They are trademarked and can't be used on Commons' (they can), to they make the page look worse, and currently it seems to be simply 'I don't like/want them on the page'. This is what I can tell from the edit summaries at least as they won't answer any of the messages I've sent them. They have also removed an unrelated section on alternative kits but haven't provided any info why so far.

It's basically a matter of me saying, 'this is on every other page and the kit templates are not prohibited in any way'. I don't understand what the issue is with them being on the page and SLBedit is yet to provide any concrete reason as to why they can't either. I've been editing kits and kit pages on Commons for years and I have never one come across this kind of situation/opinion.

That, at least, is my side of it.REDMAN 2019 (talk)18:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Given that this appears to beSLBedit's sole activity (at least recently) on Commons, and that they refuse to engage and discuss, I'll block them from editingS.L. Benfica kits as a way to get their attention. I hope that will get them to come here and discuss the matter. -Jmabel !talk00:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why on earth are you adding trademarked logos to the kits? Why are you adding 10 kits per row, when they are overlapping Tools menu? You are NOT improving that page! Stop.SLBedit (talk)17:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@SLBedit: on the kits per row, you may be correct; that is going to depend on screen/window size, so not everyone will see the same thing, butREDMAN 2019, I have that problem viewing the page also, and you should probably defer to him on that point (or better yet, rebuild this using a technique that will take window width into account). But on the trademarked logos, SLBedit, you are definitely wrong (and I am speaking as an admin here): if a trademarked logo is part of the kit we should show it, as long as there is nocopyright problem. Many things can be trademarked that cannot be copyrighted. Other than marking the file page with{{Trademarked}}, that is not an issue for Commons. -Jmabel !talk19:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@SLBedit:,@Jmabel: which rows are not displaying properly for you guys? It's fine on my end but that may just be my screen size. Are the rows too wide and if so by how much and I can fix it. Thanks!REDMAN 2019 (talk)20:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@REDMAN 2019: Rows are too wide, probably by one kit. I have a width of 1920 and keep both sidebars active. I suspect that if you shrink your window to that width you can see the problem. -Jmabel !talk23:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@SLBedit: if you will agree to stop removing the logos, I will remove the block so that your account is not stigmatized. -Jmabel !talk23:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I won't remove them.SLBedit (talk)17:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

{{ad}] block was lifted a few days ago, issue seems resolved. -Jmabel !talk23:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• ~2025-32925-15(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user

This unregistered user has doing a lot of categorising work lately, and they have been causing couple problems.

• Despite warning from @Achim55 yesterday, today they have continued creating new categories instead of moving them. SeeCategory:Hispano-Suiza HS.9 andCategory:Armed Forces of the Slovak State 1939-1944 for recent examples.
• Creating nonsense categories, such asCategory:Monica Bellucci right ear (I believe they are same IP user that created the other subcats inCategory:Women ears) andCategory:Sophie Marceau in 2026.
• Removing content from categories for no valid reason, e.g. seethis Village Pump thread about it or thisdiff.

It doesn't appear the user is engaging with others on their talk page, so hopefully they will engage here. Thanks.Tvpuppy (talk)20:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Offhand, I'd say that the creation ofCategory:Monica Bellucci right ear is enough to merit a block. -Jmabel !talk22:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's a whole category tree of related categories (Category:Women ears by name) that were created by IPs, presumably the same individual behind ~2025-32925-15. There's a discussion atCommons:Categories for discussion/2025/07/Category:Women ears that's been open for months without resolution.Marbletan (talk)14:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would also say that categories likeCategory:Collaborators with Axis occupation from Bretagne do not belong on Commons an we can not add a source for such statements. This is a job for Wikidata and Wikipedia not for Commons.GPSLeo (talk)23:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Comment, it appears the user is now using another temp account:

• ~2025-34477-45(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user.

Seethis diff for example. Thanks.Tvpuppy (talk)11:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. And

• ~2025-34392-70(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user

as well. --Achim55 (talk)12:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

~2025-34477-45 appears to be involved in vandalism:[1][2] --Minoa(talk)09:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Comment The[3] Product Safety and Integrity/Anti-abuse signals/User Info is currently displaying the following information:

• "Temporary accounts from all associated IPs: 6–10" and
• "An aggregate count of all temporary accounts from all IPs associated with this account"

--Ooligan (talk)20:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've closedCommons:Categories for discussion/2025/11/Category:Women ears by name and am in the process of upmerging. Besides any block, we should set up some filters or a bot to warn us in a timely manner if similar categories are created in the future. -Jmabel !talk20:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

For the record, just cleaning up the content from that one DR took me roughly an hour, and that was clearly not all the damage this user has done. Further, since I could not take the time to look at each individual file, some of these are doubtless now OVERCAT'd because (for example) if I moved something from a category about one of Audrey Hepburn's ears toCategory:Audrey Hepburn, I couldn't take the time to check whether it might already be (again, for example) inCategory:Audrey Hepburn in 1964. -Jmabel !talk21:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

On a "duck" basis, this is probably the same person who twice createdCategory:Audrey Hepburn with earrings, which I have taken the liberty of handling the same way. DittoCategory:Women with earrings by name, which had only one subcat. -Jmabel !talk21:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

~2025-34477-45 today createdCategory:Marina Aleksandrova smiling with closed mouths, and on the basis of that and the above, I am indef-blocking and reverting. -Jmabel !talk23:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ditto forCategory:Marina Aleksandrova smiling with teeth, and I will start a CfD forCategory:Marina Aleksandrova smiling, presumably the same person months ago. -Jmabel !talk00:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

We have 130 other categories of women smiling by name. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk)00:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nard the Bard: Feel more that free to add them to that CfD. I'm going to make a strong guess that many of those are due to this same sockpuppeteer. -Jmabel !talk00:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Or perhaps that "smiling" level is OK, which is why I went to a Cfd rather than be unilateral, but the with or without teeth part is absurd. -Jmabel !talk00:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• ~2025-34613-24(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user

That's the 2nd time that an account comes into over-categorisation -at least- on the topicSperlinga/Natoli, causing massive dirsuptions.The first time was on september 6th and 7th, by:

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

--Kontributor 2K (talk)15:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: I see you deleted the linked category, is this resolved? -Jmabel !talk00:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, we can't know if they are operating under a pseudo-IP now.Yann (talk)07:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: so when can we consider this section "done" and close it? -Jmabel !talk03:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, it's a fairly simple one butBeeblebrox is claiming to be an admin on the English Wikipedia but he is no longer one.[4] I asked him why this was so on his talk page[5] but his response indicates he is not interested in removing the userbox.

I am a bit concerned that someone with elevated rights on Commons is making material misrepresentations of themselves of Commons. I initially thought it might be because he had forgotten about the userbox, but the response tends to indicate otherwise. Could I please have this reviewed? Thank you. -Chris.sherlock2 (talk)21:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Diff for the response isSpecial:Diff/1119038198.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ pleaseping ortalk to me🇺🇦22:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I removed the user boxin this edit, citing WMF's ToU §4 in the edit summary. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk)22:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I consider the issue now addressed. -Chris.sherlock2 (talk)23:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Who cares who is admin on en? ;) If it was a big issue another user could have addressed it, but it seems that part of the problem is that is was coming from you. :(Isderion (talk)22:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It shouldn’t matter who it came from. I have only been polite and respectful in my message. And many people do care about misrepresentation when the person has elevated rights on Commons, even if you do not care :) The WMF, for instance, cares under Wikimedia Terms of Use §4 – "[...misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity[...]". -Chris.sherlock2 (talk)23:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Chris.sherlock2: you are walking on thin ice. You promised to not pester Beeblebrox anymore and Beeblebrox said to you the same. I thought about blocking you, but decided at moment not to. Your next conversation with Beeblebrox can result a block.Taivo (talk)11:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, but my report resulted in his user page being edited by an admin. You are in no way in the right for telling me this. At least one admin agreed with me, so I am not in any way in any danger of being blocked. I have done nothing wrong, I have not been rude, uncivil, nor have I done anything in any way out of policy.

Your threats are absolutely not in any way convincing, and I will take it up on the admins noticeboard should you make similar threats in future. I suggest you think very carefully about how you threaten someone and any admin action you take against me.

If you think you can unilaterally threaten me, you’ve got another think coming, and I would suggestyou are on thin ice with your tone.

Should you have blocked me for this, or should you do so in future, I will vigorously defend myself and ask for your actions to be reviewed, -Chris.sherlock2 (talk)14:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's the responsibility of any user to bring violations of the terms of use to account, and it looks like a number of users and admins agree with the original point being made. Your response to Chris seems very aggressive and unnecessary given this has at no stage gone beyond a simple, courteous conversation,COM:GTA suggests "You are expected to enact the community's consensus" and "You are expected to consult with other admins if you are unsure about an action" -- it appears you did neither of these things before going all the way to threatening blocking, which should be a last resort.Orderinchaos (talk)15:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I had just seen that Beebs had made a claim he was an admin, which he is no longer. It was a one-line, courteous query to ask why he was still claiming to be this. It was more a bringing to his attention that he hadn’t removed his use box, which he might have forgotten about. His response made me realise he didn’t intend to remove it, and as he pinged another admin, I asked them for advise and they suggested I report it here.

To say I was ”pestering” Beeblebrox is a gross mischaracterising, and I have followed the adviseof an admin I know and respect.

As I say this matter is now resolved, and I have no real urge to communicate with Beeblebrox further. However, I reserve the right to communicate with them for things such as this. Say, for example, I happen upon a file that needs deletion review, I would be well within my rights to submit it, and this would necessitate a message. That would not be in any way harassment nor would I be in violation of any policy. -Chris.sherlock2 (talk)15:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• There is seldom anything more petty and senseless than policing up other user's talk pages, especially those who are not currently active on the project. Consider that Bb had not been an en admin for months now and nobody here seemed to notice or care. Presumably, if these goings on hadn't gone on, then everyone would have just as happily carried on not noticing or caring. The situation would have been different if the user had been pulling out their status on en as some kind of badge to win points in a debate, or had literally done anything at all on Commons since you so contritely pledged to stop interacting with them.
  Scoring some interpersonal technicality does not excuse users from the expectation that they will make a good faith effort to exercise the emotional intelligence of a house plant or greater if possible.GMG^talk16:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  You’ve certainly interpreted a lot into a single sentence. You also have an axe to grind against me from your Wikipedia days. All I did was ask him why he still claimed to be an admin on the English Wikipedia. As I say, this issue is now resolved, and I carried out what was advised of me by another admin. -Chris.sherlock2 (talk)17:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I haven't the faintest idea who you are.GMG^talk18:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I was Ta bu shi da yu on Wikipedia. I’m sure you voted to ban me. If I am misremembering, then I apologise.

  Characterising my single query to Beeblebrox as “scoring some interpersonal technicality” and of “policing up other people’s user pages” could also be seen as not exercising the “emotional intelligence of a house plant or greater”, and not really conducive to a rational discussion. :-) -Chris.sherlock2 (talk)18:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Maybe you need some introspection if your automatic reaction to others is that you must surely have some sordid history and they're out to get you. Leave the user alone or I'll block you myself for harassment.GMG^talk18:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I’ve not harassed them in any way. What would your period of block be, incidentally? -Chris.sherlock2 (talk)19:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  P.S. given the issue has been resolved, and Beeblebrox says he is inactive, I don’t have any reason to communicate further with him. I made one query to him about an inaccurate userbox, which he has admitted was in error, he didn’t change it, but at the same time pinged an admin. That admin suggested I take this here (in other words, limiting my direct interaction with Beeblebrox). Beeblebrox’s response to me was noted, another admin removed the userbox due to being a violation of the WMF terms, and I thanked them and said I believed the issue was resolved.

  You then noted something about me having the emotional intelligence of a house plant (I’m assuming you were making a sardonic attempt at humour, but comparing one to a houseplant has never, in my experience, helped discussions progress productively). I have no need to communicate with Beeblebrox any more, and the only reason I have done so was in this thread, but as the issue is now resolved and an admin took action, I don’t see the need to respond to him any more. Thus, you need not worry about blocking me and I will continue my work on extensively contributing photos to commons. Something I doubt a houseplant would be able to do :-) -Chris.sherlock2 (talk)19:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• This appeared on my Watchlist. Interesting topic indeed. Question@Chris.sherlock2: considering you'reblocked on Wikipedia "per self-disclosure to the committee", could you please confirm whether you had any dispute with Beeblebrox on your previous account?Yacàwotçã (talk)17:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  No, in fact I didn’t. Though Beebs, whilst part of ArbCom, did decide to extensively comment about myself on a Wikipedia attack site. In fact, a lot of people did, but he was the only ArnCom member who did so. He got into a lot of hot water for disclosing personal information he gained through ArbCom and was suspended, so he has form.

  Look, I’ve explained that I asked him why he was still claiming to be a Wikipedia admin, it was a single sentence. He then insulted me with a fairly horrendous personal attack, and pinged another admin. I then asked that admin for advise and they advised me to take this up here, which I did. From my perspective, Beeblebrox has been granted elevated rights on Commons, and after his abusive comment I just followed through on what was suggested to me.

  The userbox has now been removed, and the issue is resolved. I’ve not asked for him to be blocked or sanctioned, only that it seems strange to me that he would materially misrepresent his status on Commons. Initially I had thought, in good faith, that it was an oversight, but his response wasn’t to make a correction, it was just a torrent of abuse. Another admin has now removed the userbox, pointing out it is against WMF terms.

  I’ve neither abused Beeblebrox, nor swore at him, nor accused him of doing anything nefarious, I merely enquired about why he made a claim that is no longer true. I wish Beeblebrox well, as I have said a number of times. -Chris.sherlock2 (talk)18:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I forgot to remove a userbox... I'll admit that, crime of the century, I'm sure, given that I've been almost totally inactive and wasn't otherwise pretending to be an admin.

  One does have to wonder why Mr. Sherlock is apparently obsessing over the content of the userpage of an inactive user who he has previously promised to leave alone. I don't check in here very often, so it's annoying to say the least to find that when I do, this person is being a pest again.

  This fake victim playing and equivocating is extremely tedious. I would again ask only thatthis user leave me alone and find something else to obsess over.Beeblebrox (talk)18:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  No, it wasn’t a crime and I never said anything of the sort. I merely asked you why you were claiming to be an admin. In fact, I thought it was an oversight. But instead of correcting it, you decided to unleash a torrent of abuse and you didn’t correct the userbox so someone else did it for you. It wasn’t an unreasonable thing to have asked you. Also, I’m in no way obsessed with you. As you have pointed out yourself, I’ve not said a single thing to you in over 4 months. I wish you well, Beeblebrox and I’m sorry you have taken such umbrage from me asking why you didn’t update your userbox. -Chris.sherlock2 (talk)18:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I made a tiny mistake. And guess what, I didn't correct it becauseyou are the one that brought it up and you need to back off from your obsessive behavior. Your denials ring hollow when you arestill bringing up things from years ago that havenothing whatsoever to do with Commons. Just leave me the hell alone, that is all I have asked of you, and you already promised to do so.Beeblebrox (talk)19:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Beebs, I was asked a specific question about my relationship with you on Wikipedia. I answered it, which was that I didn’t have any disputes with you. I didn’t bring it up. The issue is now addressed. It’s over. Peace. :-) -Chris.sherlock2 (talk)19:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  It was over before you started it. There was noactual problem here except your own behavior, it's sad and alarming that you can't see that.Beeblebrox (talk)19:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I think this discussion can be closed by now.Almost 50 messages only here. Come on... I'm sure there are more useful things to do on Commons. Best regards to all,Yacàwotçã (talk)19:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.Yacàwotçã (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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

I ask you to block the user@Laurel Lodged: for numerous wars of edits in theCategory:Protestant churches by country:1,2,3 & etc. In theCategory:Protestant church buildings by country should be categorized as "Protestant church buildings", not "Protestant churches".Ыфь77 (talk)14:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You two again. Both blocked six months.Bedivere (talk)14:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I fear this is the only way to stop the two from warring. I am amazed this is still ongoing. -Chris.sherlock2 (talk)15:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

On this topic, we can agree. It's crazy that every time I do check in here, these two are at it again.Beeblebrox (talk)18:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.Bedivere (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Correr123(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user This user uploadedFile:Loopy.jpg which is marked as a possibly free (but fair use) file on enwiki. I nominated it for deletion since it might be unfree, and if it isn't the request would create some sort of consensus on whether it is free or not. The user removed the deletion tag on the page three times and is screaming in all caps on their talk page in response to my message telling them not to remove the tag. They were also previously blocked on eswiki for similar behavior.HurricaneZeta (talk)16:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Was partially blocked from the file namespace as I was placing this request - can close now, I guessHurricaneZeta (talk)16:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done Partial block from the file namespace, to encourage them to participate at DR. @HurricaneZeta, while I think they got the message this time, in the future you can use {{subst:Dont remove delete}} for the warning so that there's a translation.AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk)16:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Arslan7a7 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·edit filter log ·block user ·block log)

Uploading copyrighted materials again. Previously reported here inin March 2025.—Paper9oll(🔔 •📝)07:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done All files deleted. I blocked indefinitely; although this is only their second block, their edits are spread out in a way that they may not be affected by (or even notice) a shorter block. No more prejudice against unblocking than there would be with a typical second block.Pi.1415926535 (talk)07:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

User continued to copy non-free internet images despite receiving warnings.0x0a (talk)07:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done. User is warned and all uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Next time block.Taivo (talk)08:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This user was already warned before, so I blocked them for one week. All files deleted.Yann (talk)08:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• BPKEVIN01(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user

User has been copying non-free internet images since the last block.0x0a (talk)07:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done Blocked 1 month. All uploads deleted except one text logo.Pi.1415926535 (talk)08:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Kjw01150(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user

Repeated copyright violations. Keeps uploading copyvios and mass switching articles on Wikipedia to use them afterwards; considering they'll almost certainly get deleted it's creating burdens for other people.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)15:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Grapesurgeon, Done.KadıMessage21:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as NL wiki Checkuser, I can testify thatA'dam222222(talk ·contributions ·Statistics ·Recent activity ·block log ·User rights log ·uploads ·Global account information) (assign permissions) andKoengerritsma44(talk ·contributions ·Statistics ·Recent activity ·block log ·User rights log ·uploads ·Global account information) (assign permissions) are verified sockpuppets of eachother. When the first account got blocked at NL (for yet another sockpuppet), the second account took over the serial copyvio uploads. I think an indef block for both accounts would be a good idea.Jcb (talk)11:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Question I blocked Koengerritsma44 for socking, and warned A'dam222222. Was there a previous account on Commons?Yann (talk)11:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, as far as we know it began with A'dam222222. We identified another sock, but that one has no edits at Commons.Jcb (talk)11:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

No sleepers found here. --Lymantria (talk)14:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

This user was released from indef block bythat request.But soon from releasing block, this user uploaded mass copyvio game logos and those files removed.In the releasing request oath,

活動の限定: 当面、記事の加筆と自身で撮影した写真（CC BY-SA 4.0で提供）のみに限定し、コモンズへのアップロード活動を再開します。

(Translated and highlighted by me) Activity Limitation: For the time being, the activity is limited in just editing article anduploading self-shooted photo with CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

But this user's activity since releasing is only uploading other source's files. There are no photos taking by this user. This gap is clearly contrary to the oath.Additionally, the oath is composed by highly sophisticated sentences and probably generated by LLM.^[1]

Overall these points, the oath is a falsehood for our community to break the indef block at any cost. Regretfully we cannot trust again this user.Netora (talk)03:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

We arevery low on active admins who can read Japanese at this point, and I hesitate to act where I really cannot examine any of the evidence first-hand.@Taivo: you seem to be the one who made the decision to unblock, so could you have a look at this? -Jmabel !talk03:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Crappy. He appeared to use a sock puppet account사랑이란 무엇인가 (talk ·contribs) toblank out his talk page and highly likely to use LLM to assist with hisinitial request(detected with Gemini 3 Pro). --0x0a (talk)08:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done? I reblocked the user indefinitely and deleted speedily one logo. I will look some other uploads for license review.Taivo (talk)13:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• YJN-11 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·edit filter log ·block user ·block log)

As I was exploring this place a bit and going throughSpecial:RecentChanges, I stumbled acrossFile:CRONICAS DE NAVIDAD - PELICULA.webm which is obviously a copyright violaton. Looking at the user'supload list, it seems they have uploaded more than 90 files with dubious source and license tags. Since there are so many files, I'm not sure where to go with this, so I'm putting it here.ChildrenWillListen (talk)06:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done. I warned the user. All his/her contributions are deleted.Taivo (talk)13:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

Repeated upload of fantasy election diagrams.Tpe.g5.stan (talk)09:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done 3 months, by colleague The Squirrel Conspiracy. --Túrelio (talk)14:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

none ofthese file user own world all are Iranian sports club official logo. Please delete all and block account because user 've already received warning. Thanks,[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk)07:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done. I warned the user and mass deleted all his/her uploads as copyvios.Taivo (talk)13:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Over the past few days, @DB SBRP 15:

• edited another user’s talk page message (courtesy ping @Filker123), which Ireverted with a warning in the edit summary;
• reverted my revert, i.e. restoring his edit to another user’s message;
• edited one of my talk page messages (by removing it and then restoring it in edited form, for some reason), whereupon Ileft a warning on his talk page; and finally,
• reverted that, i.e. removed my talk page message (and thenrestored it and thenremoved it again for some reason), beforeleaving a message on my talk page.

While this is all mildly amusing, I don’t think it’s an appropriate way to behave on Commons.Lucas Werkmeister (talk)22:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Lucas Werkmeister: When you report a user on this page, you are supposed to notify them on their talk page. I will do that for you this time. -Jmabel !talk05:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you! I guess it felt kinda pointless given what he’d done to my last talk page message just a few hours earlier ^^ but I pinged him, so I hope you’ll believe me I wasn’t maliciously trying to hide the report.Lucas Werkmeister (talk)12:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

(To clarify what I maybe phrased a bit confusingly above: The main reason I didn’t leave a talk page message was just that I missed the bullet point near the top of the page saying that I was supposed to do it; otherwise I still would’ve done it regardless of how pointless it felt. And I guess I also assumed that there was no “multi-step process” on the basis that there didn’t seem to be a gadget for facilitating it, unlike e.g. deletion request where I trust the gadget to update all the needed pages for me. But still, I should’ve followed the process, my bad.)Lucas Werkmeister (talk)13:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done After a strange interference of a temporary account on their talk page, I did a CU check and found that this account isConfirmed evading lock ofLeft page. Indeffed. --Lymantria (talk)20:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Great, thank you :)Lucas Werkmeister (talk)23:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• "aritucal007"(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user

Hi ,please blocked indefinitely,this user is a sockpuppet in English Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%22Articalwr%22)CambourAPPUSA3989 (talk)14:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done as a precaution - only here to promote themselves.@CambourAPPUSA3989: You linked to a WP account - do you have any evidence of another Commons account?

Gbawden (talk)15:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This one:"ucb12"(talk ·contributions ·Statistics ·Recent activity ·block log ·User rights log ·uploads ·Global account information) (assign permissions).Yann (talk)15:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pinging@Gbawden,@Yann: look (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_%22Articalwr%22) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_%22Articalwr%22)CambourAPPUSA3989 (talk)20:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please block. User not making constructive edits, just nomination things for deletion randomly.RAN (talk)04:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done Blocked the account, protected the files they've been nominating.Pi.1415926535 (talk)05:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Block evasion. We should consider restrictions on what new accounts can do. I am sure there are more than below. Most already blocked. --RAN (talk)21:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• User:~2025-36927-86
• User:~2025-36580-27
• User:~2025-34613-24
• User:~2025-32925-15
• User:~2025-34392-70
• User:~2025-34477-4

• Commons administrators
• Commons community