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.

User:Дементьева Роман

Дементьева Роман (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) new batch of copyvios after three long term blocks. Romano1981 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Good afternoon! I welcome the discussion, but I would like to point out that the files that have been removed by a group are official photographs of members of the Azerbaijani Parliament and were taken from the official website of the Azerbaijani Parliament. These individuals are public figures, and the website is owned by a government agency of a sovereign state. I have taken these actions in order to illustrate the encyclopedic articles about the members of the Azerbaijani Parliament. If my account is blocked for an extended period, it will prevent the project from expanding its horizons, as I often post my own photographs on various topics related to geography, culture, and sports. If there was an error with the official photographs of Azerbaijani Parliament members, it was unintentional and did not have any criminal nature. Дементьева Роман (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to note that the previous blockages occurred in 2019, when I was unclear about the conditions and rules for uploading photos to this project. For several years, I have diligently followed the project's requirements. The issue with the official photos of Azerbaijani parliament members can be resolved with the help of the entire user community. However, my personal requests to the Azerbaijani parliament regarding the right to use official photos of members with attribution to the official website have not been answered. Дементьева Роман (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Indef: you cannot think that an image's availability automatically confers on you the right to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 04:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, but we are talking about a government agency and its official website, where each deputy is represented by their own portrait. In my opinion, this is the most reliable and high-quality source of information for illustrating a person's page. Дементьева Роман (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I would like to add that it is allowed to use any photos from the President of Azerbaijan's website, and there are no restrictions from the project. The Milli Majlis of Azerbaijan is the highest representative body of the Republic, and its members are elected by popular vote. meclis.gov.az is the official website of this government body. When posting photos, I always include a link to the source and the copyright. Дементьева Роман (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Дементьева Роман: About that batch that now is nominated for speedy deletion. Website has "© Copyright 2020 by Milli Majlis" in the footer. There is no indication that the files are actually available under {{Cc-by-4.0}}. I am willing to grant the requests for speeedy deletion. Please provide the correct link; otherwise, I will delete the files. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 12:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Дементьева Роман: I see no exemption from copyright for that body's photographers at COM:Azerbaijan. Where may I find one?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I would  Support Whyiseverythingalreadyused here. It is very evident from the replies that the user in question has no understanding of copyright. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

So do I. After all these I see no chance the user will be able to understand what Commons is for and what Commons:Licensing means. Romano1981 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps after the standard offer.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The files have been deleted. Well, if the community considers this download group to be a violation of the rules, then I agree and apologize for my mistake. I will no longer work with other people's photos, although after reading the comments from some of my colleagues, I assume that I will become an unwanted person and even be expelled from this project. God wills it! Дементьева Роман (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Дементьева Роман: You were reported above because you had already "become an unwanted person". I  Support an indefinite block.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Everyone can make mistakes in their work, but not everyone is willing to admit them. I am not familiar with your anger towards my personality. Your demands are too harsh and lack explanation. I would like to believe in the humane principles of building cooperation in the project. Дементьева Роман (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Дементьева Роман: Your welcome message from 19:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC) stated "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content". Is that so difficult to understand?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Раз по-английски вы не понимаете, может быть, поймёте по-русски. Вам много лет говорят, что вы грубо нарушаете правила проекта, опирающиеся на законы о защите авторского права. И что же вы отвечаете? "Я хороший, фотографии хорошие, люди на них тоже хорошие и полезные". Что это, как не детский сад? Не понимаете, что от вас требуется, так не участвуйте в этом проекте. Romano1981 (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Добрый день! Не знаю почему Вы выбрали такой фон общения со мной, но я Вам отвечу с большим уважением и тоже по-русски. Мне много раз об этом не говорили. Блокировки были в 2019 году, на ранней стадии моего участия в проекте, их признаю и не оспаривал тогда и сейчас, ошибки совершал по незнанию. Данная ситуация сложилась по причине, которую я объяснил выше, действовал в интересах развития проекта, в целях иллюстрации депутатов азербайджанского парламента качественными фотографиями по примеру Государственной Думы Российской Федерации. Согласитесь, что, например, официальные фотографии депутатов ГД ФС РФ в основном берутся с официального сайта Государственной Думы РФ. Сообщество, в том числе в Вашем лице выявило мою оплошность и фотографии были удалены. Опять-таки спорить не буду и ошибку я признаю, извиняюсь за подобный неверный шаг. Мною загружено в проект огромное количество авторских фотографий и выполнено это всё бесплатно ради развития энциклопедических знаний, в том числе о моей родной стране. Считаю и обращаю внимание администраторов проекта, что Вам как коллеге не подобает так эмоционально и неуважительно разговаривать и объясняться с другими участниками. "Детский сад" в русском переносном лексическом значении обозначает "несерьёзное, неразумное, глупое поведение". Просматривается какой-то негативный взгляд и личная неприязнь ко мне или моей работе. Соглашусь, что Ваша работа направлена на защиту интересов сообщества и я её уважаю. Поэтом приношу Вам личные извинения за свою оплошность и обязуюсь больше не допускать загрузок чужих фотографий в проект, дабы исключить таких диалогов. Надеюсь на поддержку и понимание. Всего Вам доброго на благо общего дела! Дементьева Роман (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment: Since the user has not received any further blocks since 2019, I would like to see other admin opinions here. Thank you. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:33, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Jcb as previous blocking Admin. In case I wasn't clear enough earlier, I support an indefinite block of this user. Since agreement to the Berne Convention 4 June 1999 per COM:Azerbaijan, every photo taken in Azerbaijan has been copyrighted. We need permission from each and every photographer in order to host those photos here, or we consider them copyvios.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Дементьева Роман: There is nothing personal against you. But your repeated violations of Commons rules make difficult to believe that you really understand copyright, which is a fundamental principle of this project. I am willing to accept your apology, but is the last time. Any further violation will be met with a block. Please read (again if you already did it) COM:L/ru (yes, we have a complete version in Russian), and only upload images taken with your own camera/phone. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm with Yann here. If Дементьева Роман will stick to uploading only what is truly their own work, no objection to them staying on the site. It seems like they don't understand the copyright issues well enough to upload third-party works. (By the way, if anyone wants to translate COM:THIRD into more languages, that would be great!) - Jmabel ! talk 13:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and understanding! I accept the community's last warning with deep respect. I promise not to touch other people's photos or try to upload them to the project. I will only work with my own original photos because I am interested in them. Дементьева Роман (talk)

Continued problematic uploads by Xqgieq

Xqgieq (talk · contribs) keeps uploading images from a serial killer fandom claiming they are Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, when in reality the fandom in question hasn't released them on that licence, and doesn't have the authority to do so anyway. Despite having all their images repeatedly tagged they keep uploading images with the sane issues and aren't communicating. FDW777 (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I asked for speedy deletion of the uploads while referring to this thread, for now. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done, files in question deleted and final warning to the user. That should be sufficient for now. Otherwise, please report it again here. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

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

The sock uploads File:Simon Stanghelle er en norsk musiker, innholdsskaper og aspirerende skuespiller fra Kristiansand. Han lager egne sanger, karakterer og videoer, og er interessert i film, humor og sceneopptreden. Han har gitt ut musikk under eget navn,.jpg which is a reupload of F10 File:Simon Stanghelle er skuespiller og Artist.jpg uploaded by master. Jonteemil (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Sockpuppet indef-blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 13:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Spam in deletion discussion

An unregistered user is spamming a bunch of unsigned votes at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Actor Waheed Murad 1964.jpg. I do not how to deal with this issue. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 19:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I just deleted the file and protected the nomination page. GPSLeo (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks – Howardcorn33 (💬) 19:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Upload of fantasy diagrams

Tinou21 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) keeps uploading fantasy election diagrams after several deletions. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Could have been at COM:ANV given the clear w:WP:NOTHERE, but fine. I've tagged all their live diagrams for speedy deletion. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

In addition, you must notify a user when making a report that involves them at any of our administrative noticeboards other than ANV, which is the one for vandalism. I'm doing it for you this time. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:21, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I did not know that, thank you! I will remember that the next time. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Tinou21 do you care to explain yourself? It would seem that 100% of your uploads have been fantasy election diagrams, and you have no other contributions. If you make further such uploads, expect your account to be blocked, probably indefinitely (no end-time to the block). - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Nord794ub

• User: Nord794ub (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning like File:2026 01 Carina IMG 20260118 000119.jpg.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

First of all, due to safety reasons i need to tell that i do not communicate with any ukranian propaganda, with any war criminals. A fully support the work for peace. I do not support any side of conflict. I support peaceful relations between countries. I recognise JeffG's flag as an element of art, not as political position. Elsewhere, due to safety reasons, i cannot communicate with this person.

After some decisions of the Wikimedia.Commons comunity i decided not to contradict with any warnings. If someone think that interiors of transport infrastucture in Moscow cannot be recognized other than "object of art"... I will not tilt at windmills. If some user threats with terms like "final warning" i prefer not to spend time in polemics. I think that i will limit my work in this project. Now i see that fight between knowledge and copyright servants become too strong. I suppose to contribute to this project mostly as source of images for Wikipedia pages in different languages. It is not a problem to upload media to local wikipedia project. But the world is interesting and perfect. I with my photoes want to deliver it's beauty worldwide, not only for one national project. And i ask community not to build walls between people, projects, etc. But help and correct errors. I want to believe that people around prefer goodwill against deportation. Nord794ub (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Uh. I wonder: wouldn't that sentence, i do not communicate with any ukranian propaganda, with any war criminals above entail a "special operation" aimed at excluding that poster? Seriously, cut this kind of crap. If you're active on Commons, Nord794ub, you must avoid falling victim to the actual nationalist and criminal propaganda originating from the Kremlin and its social media outlets. It is a indisputable fact that Putin is waging a war of aggression on Ukraine and that Russian troops committed by far much more war crimes (cf. en:Bucha massacre, executions of POW and probably the en:Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam) than Ukrainian soldiers did. Do not follow a false way of neutrality. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not submitting any "ukranian propaganda". I am not a "war criminal". I am not from Ukraine, and I have never been there, or Russia for that matter. However, I see on the news what Putin and the Kremlin have been doing to Ukraine and Ukrainians for the past four years, and I sympathize with Ukrainians, so I put little Unicode flags in my signature (that don't even show on my browser; and larger flags on my user page) in solidarity with them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Yann gave the OP a final warning about uploading copyvios 09:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC) in Special:Diff/868170559. While uploading File:2026 01 Carina IMG 20260118 000119.jpg 20:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC), the OP neglected to provide a license for the source image in that file. Didym tagged the file {{subst:dw-nsd}} 22:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC), and the OP continued to neglect a license for that source image for a week, so Krd deleted that file 04:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC). I reported above what I saw when I came upon the situation.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

FabioRomanoni multiple netcopyvios including using alternate accounts to upload netcopyvios

FabioRomanoni has dozens of uploads deleted for being taken from the internet and falsely claimed as own work, see his talk page for example. AmedeoRespighi, has also uploaded multiple netcopyvios, and is very obviously an alternate account of Fabio.

Both users have an interest in the city of Pavia in Italy and both upload images that they do not own as 'own work', with many of these having the same metadata indicating the same photo editor was used to edit the files (to obscure the original image when reverse searching). Recommend looking at deleted uploads of AmedeoRespighi and comparing them to File:Francesco Sforza, ducato d'oro, zecca di Pavia.jpg File:Presepio Ligneo (XV secolo).jpg and File:Pavia mappa (prima metà del XVIII secolo).jpg Traumnovelle (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Also reuploading files after they have been deleted Traumnovelle (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The account AmedeoRespighi has not edited since 6 December 2021 and is hence stale (log). I do bet, however, that FabioRomanoni could use an indefinite block from Commons. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, apparently the master is also stale. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

(yes, I get it, this is a damage control session) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the allegations made above. First, many of the uploads being discussed date back approximately five years or more. Given the time elapsed, I do not necessarily retain all original files, metadata or documentation relating to every upload from that period, nor can I always reconstruct with certainty the complete history of each file.

However, I object to the assumption that the use of image-editing software constitutes evidence that a file was copied from the Internet. It is entirely normal to perform post-processing on photographs, including cropping, colour correction, contrast adjustment and other improvements.

With regard to the map of Pavia specifically (File mappa (prima metà del XVIII secolo).jpg), I reject the claim that it was taken from the Internet and falsely presented as my own work. I still possess the original file, and a higher-resolution version of the same image was published years ago in one of my own scholarly works:

https://www.academia.edu/40218940/Il_Libro_dei_Censi_1315_del_Monastero_di_San_Pietro_in_Verzolo_di_Pavia

The publication is clearly attributed to me and predates the present discussion. If necessary, I am willing to provide additional evidence concerning the provenance of this specific image.

As for the other files mentioned, I would prefer that each case be evaluated individually and on the basis of concrete evidence. Given the age of some uploads, I cannot always verify or reconstruct every detail from memory alone.

I have contributed material relating to the history and cultural heritage of Pavia for many years. If mistakes were made in relation to particular files, they were not made with the intention of deceiving the Commons community, and I remain available to clarify any specific case where documentation is still available.

Thank you. FabioRomanoni (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I did not state those files were copyvios, rather they have the same photo editor as files uploaded by AmedeoRespighi which are copyvios. The inclusion of those files is that they are evidence that AmedeoRespighi is your account, an accusation you have ignored.

File:Gian galezzo pegione zecca di pavia.jpg is claimed as own work but this 2016 auction hosts the same image Traumnovelle (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: I directed the user here from Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/FabioRomanoni.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• dozens of uploads deleted

So list a few of them. Otherwise you're just handwaving.

Even posting a link: FabioRomanoni (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user would have been a help. AN/U isn't your private army, it's up to you to demonstrate some sort of case for action here.

Is the best evidence here Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by FabioRomanoni, which is seven years old?! Andy Dingley (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@FabioRomanoni: If you are routinely editing before uploading, you might consider using the approach I took at File:National Museum of the American Indian, New York - Addie John - Heron Necklace - 01.jpg, where I first uploaded the unedited photo and then overwrote that with the preferred version. It helps eliminate any confusion about the actual provenance. - Jmabel ! talk 02:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, Jmabel. I will keep it in mind for future uploads.

Regarding the broader concerns that have been raised, I can only say that some of the uploads being discussed date back many years. If mistakes were made at that time, they were certainly not intentional. However, for several years now I have uploaded many dozens of files that I personally photographed, created, or otherwise had the right to upload.

In particular, when questions arise about specific files, I am happy to discuss them individually and provide evidence where available. For example, in the case of maps and illustrations from my own publications, I can often provide original files or point to the published source where the work appeared.

As for image editing, I appreciate the advice. In the future I will consider uploading the original version first and then overwriting it with the edited version, as this should help avoid any uncertainty regarding provenance. FabioRomanoni (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Banksulselbarmakassar

User: Banksulselbarmakassar (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reason for reporting: I don't know what to make of Special:Diff/1227868336/1227902358, read with Google Translate. These edits were IMO either made by an apparently helpless user misunderstanding the purpose of our help desk, a spambot or a kind of malicious advertiser. This report is mainly intended to gather some opinions about the case, thus I purposefully did not use the (currently red) user TP to notify them about the thread here. Possible outcomes may be ignoring the things after my revert, a REVDEL on privacy grounds, a block for spamming? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd say it's spam. Kind of similar to another spammer from a few days ago, but they were advertising a different PIN unblock service with a different phone number but also in Indonesian. Nakonana (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Their username gives it away because it has the name and location of the bank they are advertising: id:Bank Sulselbar [in the city of] Makassar. And their spamming is not limited to the help desk. Nakonana (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I was able to recognise a "Bank NAME" and the city name Makassar (the latter by having read en:Flight 714 to Sydney in my youth :-D) but I didn't get the advertising for such a somewhat dubious unblock service. OK, now I know what to do when I see similar postings through my watchpage. Thanks for your opinion, Nakonana! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, it's not that they're advertising for the bank; they're a scammer posing as the bank's helpdesk. This is a common spam pattern; it should be reverted on sight and the user blocked. Omphalographer (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Grand-Duc (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Galaec1214

• Galaec1214 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues to reuploading copyvios after final warning. Jonteemil (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Anybody who is regularly involved in Commons:Deletion requests will recognize this user as a regular who deploys highly motivated reasoning to achieve maximum inclusion of old photographs. I come here because one of his regular methods is now adding fictitious details to file pages to bolster the files' public domain status.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Kid, a Hat, a Mission (3660418135).jpg is where I first came across it. Here RAN asks ChatGPT to date the photo and then adds that information. I explain why this is not adequate.

• Commons:Deletion requests/Jekelfalussy Here he adds "circa 1920" dates to several photographs of several different people, and explains his methodology as follows: "You can always work out plus or minus 5 years, the age of a person in an image, and we generally know their birth and death dates." I once again explain that AI or guesswork is inadequate for dating a photo, especially when the public domain status of a photo hinges on an accurate date.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ahnert.jpg Here he dates a photo of another person, yet again, to "circa 1920". Turns out he is only wrong by 35-40 years. I let him know of his mistake, using somewhat stronger language.

• Since all the cases above, RAN has added fictitious, unsourced dates to photographs again and again. "Circa 1920" appears to be his go-to.

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AustrianAlien Here he has switched it up a bit by assuming, without evidence, that a photo was scanned from a family archive and uploaded by a family member.

As mentioned before, this is on top of the general wikilawyering behavior in discussions which he is extremely well known for. Overall, anyone on here who is interested in investigating the copyright status of files is likely to find RAN an extremely frustrating person to work with. I don't know what the solution to this is, but it needs to be made clear to him that his current pattern of conduct is disruptive. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: One thing that might help is if you don't proactively draw RAN's attention to your deletion requests, and employ a little healthy skepticism when he "fixes" files (let the deletion request run the full seven days). Phillipedison1891 (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Fabricating "proof" with ChatGPT to legitimate that a photograph would be in PD is a form of disruptive editing. RAN has been blocked indef for related behaviour at enwiki and wikidata. --Lymantria (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Phillipedison1891, WTF.
After Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Grey721 I decided to start courtesy pinging RAN when it seems likely (but not certain) that files are PD as I can't fix all these files by myself.
I simply AGF. Can AI please stop poisoning, like, EVERYTHING? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

 Support per Lymantria.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

•  Oppose I think this report is quite harsh. We should be conservative when dating pictures, but there is nothing extraordinary about evaluating the date from the age of the person depicted. This can be done without any AI. I fixed the dates, licenses, etc., and closed the DRs above. Yann (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's one thing to say that a photograph of an obviously young person was not taken when they were 70+ years old. It's quite another to say that you can definitively tell that a man is younger than 57 years old, in a 150x250 digital image, when copyright status is on the line. I wouldn't bring this up if I didn't feel like RAN has exhausted AGF several times over, over a period of years, across (as Lymantria pointed out) several wikiprojects. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  I changed a bit the date of this one (1920s instead of ca. 1920), but this guy is obviously younger than 56 years old. Saying otherwise is where I can't AGF. RAN is a valuable contributor with useful contributions. That's where you have to AGF. Yann (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Note: such controversies can often easily be resolved with a little bit of research. RAN could easily earn some trust back if he was more explicit about his reasoning and sources. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, Thanks for adding the source, but please do not remove the license. {{Orphan work}} is useful, but it can't replace it. We usually assume that old pictures were published around the time of creation, as leaving the photographer's custody constitutes publication. Yann (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Under the old U.S. standards, publication was a low enough threshold that I think that is a reasonable assumption for clearly professional work. It is not for amateur work, and unpublished amateur work with no known author would be copyrighted for 120 years after creation. Also, for very old work, if first publication was 1931-2002 (with all appropriate formalities), it can actually mean that an even older work is still copyrighted. So it's really inconvenient (but perfectly possible) if the first publication of a circa 1900 anonymous work (or of a somewhat newer work with a known author who died over 70 years ago) was online in the early years of the web. I realize this is slightly off topic, but only slightly: I'm pretty certain I've seen RAN repeatedly ignore that possibility in DR discussions. - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  I referred RAN to essay User:Alexis Jazz/Assuming worst case copyright 19:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC) in a COM:VPC section later archived to Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/08#122-year old U.S. photo. Willful ignorance of it is disruptive. Pinging @Alexis Jazz as essay author.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  It is always possible to find a worst case scenario, but it is not useful. What we need are realistic and useful criteria to decide uncertain cases. Yann (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Jmabel, and if something was published without permission from the rights holder it actually wasn't published. See Commons:Publication.
  Jeff G., that's an essay containing advice primarily aimed at re-users. I wouldn't say that ignoring my essay would be "disruptive" in and of itself. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  In a lot of cases where publication is decades after the fact, it is very hard to tell whether it qualifies as authorized or not. For example, when a personal photo album ends up in the hands of a GLAM, it is often very unclear whether publication of all or part of its content is authorized or not. Among other things, it can be very difficult to determine whether an heir who donates a physical album is legitimately the heir to the intellectual property, and I think that many GLAMs would not really put much effort into determining that, because their own publishing probably falls under fair use even if they don't have a secured copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 05:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been on the opposite end from him in a few deletion discussions and he was quite persistent but I can't say he was wrong; I wouldn't call it wikilawyering (well really a lot of the whole business of finding copyright-free images can be wikilaywering), and on several occasions he's managed to sway me to his side in such discussions. There are a lot of grey areas here. I find him to be quite skilled at finding obscure files that are properly free.

But for everyone's sake, he should not be using AI for this. It is poor at understanding the subject. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

When I said wikilawyering, what I had in mind as an example were his efforts to upload AI-"enhanced" photos of non-notable individuals, and his arguments to retain the same, for example here. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any lawyering there, RAN is correct that COM:AIIP was being misapplied. Where an AI-modified image links to its original version and is marked as having been edited by AI, it falls to a question of COM:SCOPE instead. Belbury (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury: he argues that such images have an educational use of "illustrating the flaws of AI", when that's clearly not the purpose for which he uploaded them. The wiki equivalent of a legal fiction. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal

RAN should not use AI/LLM to determine dates or identify pictures. RAN should be conservative when dates are not mentioned in the sources. RAN should add a license for the source country and for USA which take into account all parameters. Yann (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Note that in practice we often turn a blind eye to files that are PD in the source country but with unclear copyright status in the US. That isn't policy, but in practice it happens quite a bit and the WMF doesn't mind. In the case of RAN however turning a blind eye to anything doesn't seem wise at all. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:01, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• When dating files, RAN should not choose a single "circa" date and evaluate copyright status based on that. Rather, he should select a date range broad enough that there is no significant possibility that the date of the photo falls beyond that range, keeping with the language of COM:PCP.
• RAN should generally be more responsive to discussion and input from others, and should take care to avoid wikilawyering and battleground behavior. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  At this point I'd just prefer that they were indefinitely blocked from Commons. They create big messes then take exaggerated "I'm being attacked" poses. Classic. Bedivere (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't comment here. @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): you have nothing to add or still pondering on a comment? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• The problem is that when you present a cogent argument in Commons by citing outcomes from previous debates, citing WMF decisions, and citing US copyright case law precedents, you get accused of the vague English Wikipedia concept of wikilawyering, then wikilawyering becomes the crime, no matter what the original accusations were. Determining the age of someone in an image isn't "fabricating proof", it is using visual context and the year the person was born and the year the person has died to estimate the date of the image to plus or minus five years, giving a range of ten years. I think most people can estimate a person's age within 10 years if you have looked at enough photos where the age of the subject is known. This is the same way the Library of Congress performs the task, using birth and death record research and visual context at their Flickr Commons project to add dates and context to the Bain Collection. The time I disagreed with Phillipedison1891 was when they restored the incorrect date (the upload date) and I asked for moderation of that debate and the moderator agreed with me based on the evidence presented. I would have had no objection if Phillipedison1891 had widened the estimation, or pointed out visual clues I might have missed that pointed to an earlier or later date. Instead they restored a date we both agreed was not correct by about 100 years (the upload date). The images I work on are mostly "circa 1920" to "circa 1930" because I look for images of that date range to research, the same date range as the ones at the LOC Flickr Commons project. As pointed out previously, I have no objection to someone widening the estimation, or presenting evidence that the date needs to be adjusted by pointing out details that I may have missed, or finding another source of the image with a better estimate. When someone modified the date of my estimation by 5 years based on the model car in the image I had no objection. In several cases someone found the image reproduced in a newspaper so a "circa 1920" can now become "before 1925" if the newspaper was published in 1925. If anyone in the deletion debate points out where I am wrong based on better visual evidence, or can offer a more precise date based on their research, I will usually agree with them. If I comment on 10 images a day, that is about 3,650 images a year, and in 10 years 36,000 estimations where the closing person has mostly agreed with that estimation. Ultimately it is up to the closer to weigh the evidence and make a decision. --RAN (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Richard Arthur Norton: so you have nothing to say about your use of AI? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The AI to estimate the age of the subject, was used, I believe, a single time as an experiment, to see if it confirmed my estimate or came up with a different value. That AI was used was made clear on the image page, because I pasted in the complete rational used by the AI and attributed it to the AI, there was no deception involved. While AI created images are currently being deleted, I am not aware of any ban on using AI to describe/caption images, or provide any other context to images or identify unlabeled people in images. There are several projects online where AI was able to correctly identify unlabeled Civil War soldiers (https://photosleuth.org/) and in another unlabeled Holocaust victims/survivors (https://numberstonames.org/). --RAN (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Nope. In the case I linked:

1. Knowing the age of the subject would not have helped date the photo, since the subject was not identified. ChatGPT was asked to date the photo based on no information extrinsic to the photo, which was the entire problem.
2. I indeed "restored the incorect date" by mistake and then fixed my error, as explained in the discussion.
3. "I asked for moderation of that debate and the moderator agreed with me based on the evidence presented." I literally have no idea what you are talking about. The file was deleted, nobody "agreed with [you] based on the evidence presented", and more importantly there are no "moderators" on Commons.

Let this serve as an example should anyone ever want to know the source of my frustrations with this contributor. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@RAN: You have once again done exactly what I am talking about. I have changed the dating on that file to show you how it should be done. Notice that I have: 1. chosen a range of dates that includes every reasonable possibility, and 2. used the edit summary field to explain my methodology. "Circa 1955" implies a precision that just cannot be supported with evidence. Thankfully for this file the copyright status does not hinge on accurate dating. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You reject my assumption and then add your own assumption: "assuming this is an official photo", you are just making a different assumption than I am. I have a question for you, when you see the word "circa" what does it mean to you? Does it mean +/- 1 year, +/- 5 years, +/- 10 years? Maybe you are assigning a mathematically rigorous value that is not hard codded into "circa". --RAN (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

"You reject my assumption" What assumption? I don't see anything from you in the edit summary, the file talk page, or the deletion discussion. You just plopped in "circa 1955" without elaboration and called it good. I think most people seeing "circa 1955" would assume that it is precise within a couple of years. In the world of science, we assume that significant figures are... significant. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Certain uploads by en-WP blocked user

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

There was a recent ARBCOM-block on en-WP, see . This is their Commons-uploads , a quite specific genre, at least some are used on different WP:s, and per my understanding they're not illegal, though I would call this collection NSFW.

I mention this here so admins can consider if some sort of action, like deleting the not-in-use pics, would be a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I think anything that was widely published (postcards, newspaper articles) is ethically okay to keep. For stuff from archives it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: There is not enough information to do anything useful on Commons. Specially the reason for the block is not mentioned either on the user's talk page or on the log. Why was this user blocked? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, care to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

There are cases where ArbCom takes action without publicly disclosing the reason, if the matter is sensitive or private. Looking at this user's history, one can make an educated guess as to what that reason is. For me to name my guess explicitly, however, would itself be inappropriate and against policy on enwiki. Let the reader understand. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, you're not on enwiki (may not mean there's a big difference in policies). My own hypothesis is that it is related to adding a lot of the type of pictures under discussion in en-WP articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yann: Perusing their user talk page history, I see:

• sweeping things under the rug
• fascination with things penile or nudity and sexuality related, including Golden galaxy (which seems to be the effect of dumping wastewater out the side of a ship in outer space), Erection, Foreskin, and Childhood nudity
• Unconstructive editing
• creation of "Racist music (disambiguation)"

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

 CommentI don't like much when a user is blocked indef. without any information. All details do not need to be public, but at the very least, I would like a statement from ArbCom, so that other users know what this is about. Yann (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

For the interested, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Niño orinando (Boy urinating).webp. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This file is a copyright violation, now deleted. Yann (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I am renaming and checking the license of all files. I sent 2 warnings to this user. Yann (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, this is done. Yann (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Copyright violations from Reino de Bulgaria

• Reino de Bulgaria (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · deleted uploads · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

This user has been uploading a large quantity of probable copyright violations, most of them being eligible for speedy deletion under F5. I went and tagged most of them back in February, almost all of which they've since recreated (see their talk page), all after a final warning from Taivo. I think some administrative intervention here is now necessary. (I'm not as familiar with Commons, so please let me know if anything I'm doing is out of process.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Reino de Bulgaria. Yann (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and lock-evasion

The following users are Sockpuppets and lock-evasions of User:Didicher/User:Supermohi. The person behind these accounts is abusing Wikimedia-projects (mainly dewiki) since 2005 (POV-pushing, harassment, doxing, sockpuppetry, incivility/insults, account-sharing, see de:Benutzer:NDG/SG-A)

• Didicher (talk · contribs)
• Wienerschmäh (talk · contribs)
• Ungereimt (talk · contribs)

Please consider to block them, most of them were inactive for years but it is possible that the accounts might be reactivated. In the past, some of the CU-confirmed socks were also blocked here, even with zero edits. Thank you NDG (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done @NDG: What is the master account? Yann (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: That would be de:user:Supermohi. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc @Yann Supermohi was the most prominent account at the time when sock puppetry and account sharing with 3 other LTAs was at its peak. The original account was Didicher NDG (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done All tagged: Category:Sockpuppets of Didicher. Yann (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Andrés Fernandi

Andrés Fernandi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
If you understand Asturian (or at least Spanish) please have a look at this user. I don't quite understand w:ast:Skincarlismu and machine translation is sketchy for Asturian. I'm worried this is possibly promoting racism. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: FWIW: I 'm a pretty strong non-native Spanish-speaker. I can more or less read Asturian, but have no specific knowledge of the dialect/language. The article looks quite under-referenced (at least by en-wiki standards) and I'd say almost certainly written by someone on the political right (though it doesn't appear to be written by a member of the faction, unless they were writing surprisingly neutrally for someone so engaged). But I don't think it is any more biased than plenty of articles in various Wikipedias about relatively small political and quasi-political factions. I'd probably write similarly about a Marxist faction. It describes their ideology as «ultranacionalistes, racistes y contrarrevolucionarios», which would only be a positive to someone who shared those views.

As for Commons issues: File:Skincarlistes cuelgamuros.jpg and File:Carlistes skinheads.jpg appear to be duplicates. Above all: if File:Comunicau skinetu.jpg is really "own work", including the text, then apparently the user is within the faction, and that could be an issue on several counts. - Jmabel ! talk 04:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Reminds me of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexcarusoalqaeda.png. There could be scary people around here. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Tagged one file, and deleted another as copyright violation (copied from X). As for all extremist groups, it is very doubtful that we would ever get a permission from the copyright holder. Yann (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Dmitro vl

Dmitro vl (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dmitro vl (Diff ~1229886542)

Machine translation: "The files listed on this server are verified and used to provide information on Wikipedia. They should not be deleted. If you think otherwise, we can meet, and law enforcement officers will be with us."
Surely Bing botched the translation. Let's try Google translate instead: "The files listed on this server are verified and used to provide information on Wikipedia. It should not be deleted. If you think otherwise, we can meet, we will be accompanied by law enforcement officers."

Yandex! Of course Yandex. Yandex is Russian. They probably understand the language of their neighbor!

"The files that are listed on this server are verified and used to provide information to Wikipedia. It should not be deleted. If you think otherwise, we can meet with law enforcement officers."

Oh noes! @Ahonc: I hope Bing and Google and Yandex all botched the translation. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

He suggests meet: you, he and police, if you disagree that files should not be deleted.--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

That looks like a threat.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Needs to be indeffed for legal threats, obviously. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I think, as usual, they should be given the chance to withdraw the legal threat: Special:Diff/1230458855. - Jmabel ! talk 04:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I gave them another chance and some links in Special:Diff/1230689032.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

They have withdrawn the legal threat here. Nakonana (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

User:ProtoplasmaKid

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

• At Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Amelia Fuentes Marin this user replaced the actual license with {{FoP-Mexico}} for many files, for example File:Fragmento del Mural La historia de la Justicia en México de la SCJN (Luis Nishizawa) 2.jpg (Diff ~1229081445).
• They also moved many of the files while the DR is still open which can cause problems when the DR is eventually closed. For example File:Fragmento del mural La Historia de la Justicia en México (Rafael Cauduro, 2009).jpg.
• I performed a bunch of rollbacks and added the FoP template correctly.

We all make mistakes, so I explained the issue with their edits on their talk page and asked ProtoplasmaKid to add all the new filenames to the DR. Their response was that there is no need to consult anyone because the matter has already been resolved. Yeah, it's partially resolved, because I cleaned up after you.
At this point they decided to ghost me. When asked again they said Hi, I've decided not to continue this discussion—it's World Cup time. One would expect better from an eswiki crat. But alas. They still haven't added the new filenames to the DR and don't seem to understand the mess they created. Please remove their filemover right. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

No entiendo (desde inicio) cual es el problema aquí. Pero vamos por partes.

1. Una usuaria que ha tomado unas fotos espectaculares las dona para ser subidas en Commons. En México la ley permite subir artworks. Siempre y cuando sea en un espacio público como es el edificio de la Corte Mexicana.

2. A solicitud de la usuaria original en un correo electrónico cambié el nombre del autor de uno de los autores de los murales en el cual tuvo un error.

3. Para evitar la eliminación, cambié el template correspondiente de FOP-Mexico.

4. Cree una categoría específica para los murales y trasladé los archivos. Todas las acciones anteriormente descritas no incumplen ninguna regla.

5. Como le dije en la discusión, estoy tomando un tiempo para mi estos días por la Copa del Mundo, tiempo de calidad que ha sido interrumpido por el escalamiento innecesario de un asunto meramente administrativo. ¿Qué de malo hay en eso y en mi experiencia y habilidades como voluntario y como admin? Yo esperaría también otro tipo de comportamiento de un usuario experto, de hecho, en las comunicaciones de Alexis no hay maneras básicas ni hay evidencia de espíritu colaborativo y colegial, un asunto importante para mi de acuerdo a mi formación cultural y mi contexto. El usuario tiene un tono que no es adecuado para mi y en el que me siento exhortado de manera intimidante. El amenazarme con poner este aviso es un ejemplo.

Se sabe que en los proyectos Wikimedia no hay fecha de entrega ni plazos forzosos. Pude haber contestado hoy o mañana o en un año. A eso el usuario le llama "ghosting", ¿de verdad?.

Finalmente el usuario busca castigarme, proponiéndome que me quiten los derechos de filemover, una propuesta fuera de toda proporcion. A mi me preocupa seriamente que los usuarios autodenominados expertos o que hacen acciones que involucran el trabajo de los demás, tengan como solución castigar a otros. Eso no abona a la buena fe en lo absoluto. ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

"Threatening me with putting up this notice is an example. It’s well known that in Wikimedia projects there are no deadlines or forced schedules. I could have responded today, tomorrow, or in a year. The user calls that “ghosting,” really?" (machine translation)
No, you ghosted me by your own admission. When I asked you again (after waiting two days) to please respond you said "I've decided not to continue this discussion". From that I gather you weren't planning to ever respond if I hadn't reminded you. If you were busy you could have simply said you'd get back to me later this week. If something was lost in translation and you meant something else I apologize for that.
The photos were taken somewhere indoors, and they are photos of 2D works. That could be FoP, but it's never a clear-cut case of FoP. The source country was not clearly indicated, only by category on a portion of the files, which I overlooked.
Commons:File renaming states "Files with copyright issues should NOT be renamed until copyright issues are resolved. There is no reason to rename a file if it is going to be deleted on copyright grounds." and I explained to you this can cause problems when the DR is closed, depending on the outcome and the tool (if any) that is used to close the request. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Desde inicio no deseé establecer una discusión con usted porque me parece tiempo valioso invertido en algo que está muy claro. A eso me refiero, no a ignorarlo ni a no dar importancia a su petición. Y sigo pensando lo mismo. He estado entrado intermitentemente sólo a subir fotos para disfrutar el tiempo allá afuera y sus notificaciones me hacen volver.

2. Comprendo la confusión inicial con lo que aquí señala usted, pero la excepción de ley en México es clara y someterlo a interpretación es algo que usted está haciendo, no la ley en si misma. En todo caso este último mensaje confirma que usted inició la consulta por falta de información y no porque sea un asunto no permitido, es decir no hay problemas por derecho de autor más que para usted. La usuaria tomó fotos en un espacio público y la ley en el país permite reproducir, yo le dije directamente a la usuaria que podía hacer lo que hizo. No hay más. Puedo entender que es el FoP es más bien negativo a la reproducción en casi todos los países y que por eso usted pensó que los archivos no podía subirse. Eso es comprensible, pero usted hace sospechas adicionales como en este caso a una foto que subió la usuaria en cuestión con su nombre y con su cuenta. Si usted observa la metadata de esa foto y de esta otra corresponde a la misma cámara que usa Amelia, misma que yo observé en sus manos. No comprendo por qué usted le ha indicado a la usuaria que demuestre el origen de la foto.

3. Quiero insistir que yo no observé falta alguna en la subida de las fotos, por eso con confianza y con la petición de la persona decidí renombrar. En todo caso que yo haya cometido un error de falta a la política, me parece francamente fuera de proporción que usted venga a este tablón con una actitud punitiva a pedir que me saquen los permisos. Como usted debe saber, somos una comunidad que tiene el pode enmendar las cosas como un principio, no cómo una excepción. Todos cometemos errores, pero la diferencia es la intención detrás de ellos. En mis acciones no hay ninguna intención ofensiva o disruptiva. Usted, al no encontrar eco en su actitud de hacer las cosas a su manera y a sus tiempos, quiere dar a entender que mis acciones son negativas. No lo son, nunca lo han sido en todos estos años que he estado aquí. Saludos, ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)