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:StanPoetas

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

Creates spurious deletion requests, does not engage in discussions around them. Gikü (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I closed all the DRs as kept for not presenting a valid reason for deletion. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Also issued them a final-level warning for vandalism. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Gikü: speaking of their user talk page, you forgot to notify them with {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ as is mandated at the top of the page; I've done it for you Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:48, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm not writing here often, forgot the procedure; will do it! Gikü (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

:) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:54, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Already done I think that's enough for now. If same behaviors continue, next time it's a block. - Jmabel ! talk 22:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Michael Cornelius Zepter

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

New user creates spurious deletion requests. dllu (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

DR closed, warned the user. In case they don't desist, the batons of block are on the way. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 18:19, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Already done I think what Aafi did is enough. Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Deltaspace42

Deltaspace42 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user A user who received his autopatrol rights less than a month ago, yesterday closed more than a dozen deletion requests, mostly providing no reasoning beyond 'kept'. Please review their activity. Romano1981 (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Romano1981: please provide diffs. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 05:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Easily visible: , but okay: Romano1981 (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe that the reported user was exercising an implication of "per above", but then they could have just said that Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Calin Sebastian Catalin is an easy keep. Romania in that era had a very short duration of copyright for photos, all photos from Romania in that era are now PD. - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Surely many of these nominations could have been closed this way, but if you don't have to be an administrator to do this, demonstrate your experience and understanding of copyright issues, as well as explain your decision, then maybe such DRs can be closed by a bot? Romano1981 (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Romano1981, DRs should not be closed by a bot, otherwise this file Commons:Deletion requests/File:JP 日本 Japan 沖繩 OKINAWA 那霸 Naha Omoromachi Shintoshin 新都心 Naha Main Place 商場 Shopping Mall Tax Free Goods package January 2025 R12S 02.jpg would have been closed as kept. Please don't think that I just count Keep votes and close without reviewing the files myself. Deltaspace42 (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would certainly have blurred the larger images on the right side of the respective machines for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Food ticket vending machines in Yayoiken.jpg. @Deltaspace42: : did you zoom in on these to see how high-res they were before deciding they were de minimis? - Jmabel ! talk 06:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel, yes, I reviewed the files before closing the discussion. I believe de minimis can be applied for this file. So that you don't think that I close based only on existing votes, there was another file with similar vote Commons:Deletion requests/File:JP 日本 Japan 沖繩 OKINAWA 那霸 Naha Omoromachi Shintoshin 新都心 Naha Main Place 商場 Shopping Mall Tax Free Goods package January 2025 R12S 02.jpg, which I reviewed and came to the conclusion that de minimis cannot be applied to it. Deltaspace42 (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Deltaspace42: I think you got this one wrong. By the nature of de minimis is that it shouldn't be any harm to the overall image to blur that element, so when it's borderline (as this is), it's probably better to blur. If the de minimis argument was correct, no harm done. If the de minimis argument was wrong, problem solved. (I'll deal with the blur.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:34, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Done, but there seems to be a caching issue. See to bypass the cache; eventually it should "take." - Jmabel ! talk 17:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel my understanding of de minimis in this case is that if problematic images were blurred, the vending machines themselves would still be visible in good quality. Examples on COM:DM page do not have blurred areas, so I was under the impression that it's not critical to blur them. Also, when I zoom in on the images, they are not in good enough quality (if someone were to crop them out of the whole image). Deltaspace42 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schlafzimmer 14 1.jpg looks entirely correct. @Romano1981: what do you doubt about this? Third nomination of a twice-kept photo with no comprehensible new argument. - Jmabel ! talk 06:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Romano1981 (fixing ping for Jmabel) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

This is just among mass closings I've been asked to demonstrate. And you can find my doubts above. Romano1981 (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not looking through this entire laundry list. @Romano1981: is your objection just the lack of a clear enough closing rationale/ Or are there a significant number of these you think are actually bad decisions, in which case it would be much more useful if you would list those rather than everything he closed. - Jmabel ! talk 06:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate it, that you wrote so many complaints against me without even bothering to look into the matter. Fortunately, there are other administrators who have already started reviewing: Romano1981 (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

For the most part, I haven't found much to disagree with their conclusions. The Sealand stamp seemed like a copyrighted object since I don't see any indication that people behind Sealand have put their works into the public domain and so I treated it as if it was from any British author. There was a close of a 1953 French photo in which the rationale was bad, but I'd have given the file more scrutiny to see if it was public domain in France. Abzeronow (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. And what about File:Starosta krośnieński Wincenty Karuga z chłopami z okolic Krosna Odrzańskiego.png? The file still has a false free license. Romano1981 (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-anon-70-EU}} is a plausible license for that photo, I disagree with RAN about PD-Poland, no evidence that this photograph was published without a copyright notice. So probably public domain in Poland as an anonymous photo, but restored by URAA since this entered the public domain after 1996. Abzeronow (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, for me, the problem is not about how many closings exactly are wrong now. I see a user with little to no understanding of copyright issues is taking on the task of closing DRs en masse, inexperiencedly selecting nominations where someone else has left a 'keep' vote. If tomorrow there are 20 or 50 such enthusiasts, the whole institution of deletion requests could be compromised. Romano1981 (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

While I agreed with the closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Юрий Васильевич Емельянов.jpg I don't think I would have closed it myself, but I may be overly cautious. Per COM:DR: "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial. If in doubt, don't do it."
There is, if I'm not mistaken, a bot or process that kinda expects DRs to be closed using delreqhandler. Deltaspace42 is doing it manually and typically closing with '''Kept''' instead of '''Kept:''' like delreqhandler does. This might cause issues. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz, I expect that placing {{delh}} and {{delf}} templates is enough for a bot to then archive the discussion, and it doesn't matter whether there is a colon symbol after Kept. At least it's how it works at CfD. Could you please clarify what issues you are talking about? Deltaspace42 (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Deltaspace42, I'm only repeating what Storkk told me in 2018: "Secondly, by convention DRs are closed either Kept or Deleted, which aids bots that do statistics." - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz, ok, but they didn't say anything about using colon after Kept. Deltaspace42 (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Deltaspace42, true, I apologize for my memory being so terrible at recalling details of conversations I had 8 years ago. But as Storkk referred to bots it's quite plausible the bot code will expect the exact output from DelReqHandler, which includes a colon. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I almost never use DelReqHandler. - Jmabel ! talk 00:14, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Deltaspace42: FWIW, I do think just "Kept" is usually a little too terse. "Kept by consensus", "Kept, no valid grounds for deletion", "Kept per [User]", "Kept, strictly de minimis", etc. would be better and, yes, as a non-admin you probably should be keeping away from closing DRs where there is a gray area about which way they go (e.g. a borderline de minimis case that could imaginably go either way). On the other hand: closing clear-cut cases is very welcome, especially with a clearly stated rationale. - Jmabel ! talk 00:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I've closed a number of requests since this discussion started, sticking to more obvious cases. I now write "Kept: per <reason>", though I want to point out that the procedure doesn't require writing the comment after Kept: "Add a line (----), then, on a new line, either Kept or Deleted, an optional comment, your signature..." (emphasis mine). Deltaspace42 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

In cases that don't have obvious consensus, e.g. where the only vote is a "weak keep" like this one, if you agree with keeping the file, it might be better for you to add a vote yourself than to close the DR. -Consigned (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

+1, and even as an admin this is what I do unless the discussion is quite stale. - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Deltaspace42: perhaps that should change in the guidelines (though it's difficult, because there are cases where that little is enough). Romano1981 is correct that what you were doing is not in line with usual practice. - Jmabel ! talk 20:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

~2026-20620-64

• User: ~2026-20620-64 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log • Abuse filter log)
• Reasons for reporting: NOTHERE.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done GPSLeo (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

User:SecretName101 and Image Renaming

Bear with me, I don't edit Commons much, so my apologies if this isn't the correct venue. User:SecretName101 has been renaming/moving images to overly descriptive names. For example, they moved File:Coming Out After The Rain Delay (22207758).jpg to File:Green Bay Packers players (including Smith and Nall) reentering the field at Lambeau Field (Green Bay, WI) after rain delay of 08-28-03 preseason game, while Tennessee Titans players (including Volek; Schifino; Drumm; Calmus) stretch.jpg. There has been a few hundred of these over the last week. (see their move log). A great many of these, imo, are excessive and ridiculous, making it clunky and burdensome to use in articles. Is this acceptable naming conventions at Commons? And if not, how best is it rectified? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding such long descriptions to the file name if the current name is already descriptive would be clearly against the renaming guideline. If the original name is totally meaningless like in this case there is no rule how much information the new file name should contain. GPSLeo (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

That's true, but Commons:File naming#Concise certainly advises against file names like this. At 233 bytes, it's almost at the maximum possible filename length. Given there's only 14 images in the relevant category, I believe a shorter file name - absolutely no longer than File:Green Bay Packers players reentering the field at Lambeau Field after rain delay of 08-28-03 preseason game while Tennessee Titans players stretch.jpg - would be just as useful and less clunky. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007 My motivation for this is that was blocked from uploading any new files indefinitely, the sticking issue preventing my unblocking being that the blocking admin believes past uploaded files had insufficiently descriptive filenames. I was instructed by the blocking admin that file names must be highly specific, and that I must rename a significant number of existing files before an unblocking would even be considered.

The admin who imposed my block (being Pi.1415926535) insisted:

• files such as "Neponset River (53927241312).jpg" are impermissibly vague, and should be renamed to something highly descriptive like "Neponset River west from the Harvest River Bridge, March 2023"

The aforementioned admin also cited as impermissible file names such as:

• File:Ezekiel Elliott (51787125794).jpg
• File:Washington at Dallas Photo 62 (51786511091).jpg
• File:Harvard (53928486519).jpg
• File:Green Line Extension February 2019 (46462029445).jpg
• File:Green Line Extension Track Work, December 2018 (44579704700).jpg

The aforementioned admin has also contended that filenames such as "File:Albany-Rensselaer Station (47775488151).jpg" are not descriptive, and instead insists on names such as "File:West platform at Albany-Rensselaer station, April 2019.jpg"

Hence why I have taken the impression that hyper-specific titles are preferred by Pi.1415926535, and have wanted avoid Pi.1415926535 arguing my titles are still under-specific if I ever again appeal my block.

Relevant discussions:

• User talk:SecretName101/Archive 10#Upload restriction
• User talk:SecretName101/Archive 10#Your account has been blocked
• User talk:SecretName101/Archive 11#h-Unblock request (Jul 2025)-20250708212600.

SecretName101 (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@SecretName101, I saw that you moved pages with valid names to more descriptive where you were not the original uploader: , , , , . I don't think criterion 2 can be applied here.

I was instructed by the blocking admin that file names must be highly specific, and that I must rename a significant number of existing files before an unblocking would even be considered.

I believe they meant that you should rename the files where you were the original uploader under the criterion 1. Deltaspace42 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Deltaspace42 I have re-named thousands of which I am the original uploader, including other Green Bay Packers photos of Lambeau field which is what I was doing the day I re-titled this one in addition to those. But if under-specific types of names are a problem for files I uploaded, one would presume they would be a problem for any files uploaded by any user. SecretName101 (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@SecretName101, you can rename the files you didn't upload only if the renaming falls under the criteria 2 to 6. "More descriptive" is related to criterion 2, but it concerns only cases where names are too generic (only date, broad location, etc.). In this case there were exact names of people, so the file names were not ambiguous and the criterion 2 could not be applied here.

Let me remind you (from Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_not_be_renamed?):

A user repeatedly renaming files under invalid reasons can be stripped of the filemover privilege.

Deltaspace42 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I had been impressed that file names I renamed that only gave the name of a subject (such as a politician) and no further context were insufficiently titled. Again, I was going off of what I had been impressed with by admins, but am open to further guidance.

And I am open to further feedback on renaming and further guidance. SecretName101 (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@SecretName101, the following from Commons:File naming can be relevant to this discussion:

These file naming guidelines are designed to aid uploaders in selecting proper names for their files. It is important to note that while this page provides recommendations for creating suitable filenames, they are not intended to serve as standalone justification for renaming files. Rather, they should be interpreted in conjunction with the file renaming guideline, balancing the principles outlined here with the costs of renaming files. In general, the costs of renaming are significant, so Commons aims to provide stable filenames and renames are limited.

Deltaspace42 (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I will note that I had cited that very passage in previous block discussions, and was essentially told other concerns outweighed all of that language. Hence it was impressed on me that admins now hold priorities of renaming differently than a plain read of this passage should inform. I am now putting a pause on any file renames until I get clearer pictures of what is expected of me to do going forward. SecretName101 (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Common sense dictates that File:Green Bay Packers players (including Smith and Nall) reentering the field at Lambeau Field (Green Bay, WI) after rain delay of 08-28-03 preseason game, while Tennessee Titans players (including Volek; Schifino; Drumm; Calmus) stretch.jpg is excessive. We have image descriptions, categories, and metadata to provide these details. Taking this one for example File:Green Bay Packers and Tennessee Titans players at Lambeau Field after a rain delay during a 2003 preseason game.jpg, is still long but at least manageable. I think you took feedback and made it extreme. There's no need for excessively long titles, again, that example the title is almost as long as the description. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

SecretName101, I am baffled how you took my instructions to mean you should use extremely long filenames. The purpose of a file name, as detailed in Commons:File naming, is to briefly identify what the file shows and distinguish it from other files (particularly those that might be in the same category or search result.) That can almost always be done while remaining concise - if you look at my uploads, almost all are between 30 and 70 characters, yet they detail the exact subject and distinguish each file from every other file on Commons.

In the examples you give of the Neponset River and Albany-Rensselaer names, the original file names only identified the broad subject (the river and the station), thus failing to distinguish from other files of that subject. It only took a few extra words to distinguish the specific aspect (view from a specific bridge, and a certain platform at the station) that the file was showing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

" the original file names only identified the broad subject (the river and the station), thus failing to distinguish from other files of that subject"

How is it baffling that would might presume you would hold the same that a photo of an athlete should further distinguish from other files of that athlete by detailing what sports match they were playing in? Or that a photo of a sports event should further distinguish from other photos of the event by naming the athletes photographed? If a specific train station is still a "broad subject", how is an athlete not similarly a broad subject?

But I also agree that file names should be shorter than that. I just took the instructions I had been given to likely frown on file names that leave out information like what athletes are photographed. I agree that the suggested alternate that Gonzo gave is one that I would prefer, but believed that admins would still hold it to be insufficiently detailed. And I myself had previously raised the point Gonzo fan2007 does about descriptions, categories, and meta-data making files findable without highly-descriptive titles, only for that point (when I raised it) to be rebuffed as wrong.

SecretName101 (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the whole 'descriptive file name' policy is stupid. We have categories and descriptions for that. These excessively long file names will not work on certain systems. The file name in question is only a dozen characters off exceeding the 255 character limit for systemd and when you account for folder name in paths it will exceed the default limits for Windows. I have yet to see a convincing reason why descriptive file names are useful when we have categories and descriptions. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: It is useful to be able to look at someone's contribution page and have some idea what they are working on. (Especially, it is useful to be able to go through your own contributions and quickly re-find something you worked on 3 hours ago.) It is nice to be able to click on "Barack Obama official portrait.jpg" and be reasonably sure it will not be an NSFW file; much harder to be sure about DSC98523704.jpg. It is certainly far more likely that a well-named, poorly categorized, poorly described file uploaded by a newbie will end up decently described and categorized than one named "S50-67-08". It is useful to be able to tell from filenames that certain files form a sequence. It is useful to be able to download files and already have them sanely named. I could go on. - Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough that is one use. I still see benefits in original file names in some instances, as they can tell you how the file was generated. I still don't think overly long file names (anything over 100 characters is excessive) as helpful at all and do more harm due to being incompatible with certain systems. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Jmabel

Self-report. At Special:Diff/1206404027, Romano1981 states that I "wrote so many complaints against [them] without even bothering to look into the matter." I am not asking for any action against Romano1981, I am not even asking for an apology, but I am asking to be exonerated, because I believe I did nothing of the sort. And, unless explicitly addressed, I will stay out of this thread once I have stated my case once. Romano1981 is more than welcome to comment here. (Didn't want to derail the original discussion, which is why I am addressing this here, not on that thread.)

1. I literally do not see anywhere I made a complaint against this user. I wrote the following addressed to them;
   • With reference to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schlafzimmer 14 1.jpg, what do you doubt about this? Third nomination of a twice-kept photo with no comprehensible new argument.
   • (In general) Is your objection just the lack of a clear enough closing rationale[s]? Or are there a significant number of these you think are actually bad decisions, in which case it would be much more useful if you would list those rather than everything he closed.

   The former is a straightforward question, not a complaint. The latter is an effort to clarify what their issue is, and a suggestion that if it is about substance rather than process, it would be more useful to list only the DRs which they believe were substantively wrong.

2. without even bothering to look into the matter: they gave a list of 23 cases. I looked at three of them more or less at random, found that two of the three were correctly decided and the third was mildly problematic (a borderline case about de minimis where I would have blurred the element in question), and figured that rather than look at 20 more I would ask for a clarification of the complaint (see above).

If other admins think I did this wrong, I would genuinely like to know that. If they they think this was appropriate of me, I would also like to know that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I don't think you did anything wrong here. I understand Romano1981's concerns about the DR closures, but their response you linked in the diff wasn't very helpful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I also don't think you did anything wrong here. Thank you for having the courage to self-report.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Romano1981: could you please clarify what "many complaints" means for you? If necessary, fall back to another tongue you're more confident in using (you're using the Cyrillic script on your talk page). As far as I can tell: there are literally no signs of complaints authored by JMabel and directed at you and even less "many of them", and there are some follow-up questions, perhaps with a really slight critical undertone, but well within the realms of polite and purposeful communication. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

That "wrote so many complaints" comment was confusing for me as well. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel kudos for self reporting, but I don't see any issues with your conduct. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk — Preceding undated comment was added at 01:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Jmabel did nothing wrong; the other user should be warned against casting aspersions Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Lorgia99

Lorgia99 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) I've deleted File:Lorenz Jakob Lollokauster.png as a hoax. (My apologies that this means non-admins won't be able to see it to weigh in.) Unless I'm wrong about that being a hoax, I believe this user should be indef-blocked on a NOTHERE basis.

See also closely related recent history of en:Lake Maggiore massacres (I know it's a different wiki, but it is part of the same apparent hoax). Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I feel hoax here, and I blocked Lorgia indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel, Taivo, the non-admins have another chance to see it: File:Lorenz Jakob Lollokauster.jpg uploaded by WSEULO (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions).
I had tagged the original following a report on Commons:Help desk (revision 1208807412) by @Squawk7700.
Just filed w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WSEULO. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Achim55 called for an indef of WSEULO back in December 2025: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ryad Idrissi.jpg. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Indef-blocked WSEULO. Deleted File:Lorenz Jakob Lollokauster.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Houtyuhn

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

User:Houtyuhn is causing absolute chaos with aircraft image categories, they are not heeding advice given to them. My contribs highlight the problems. The move of Category:Military aircraft registered in the United Kingdom is very problematic, it is long established and the category would need to be edited in over 2,000 articles. The user is editing faster than I can correct. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Please accept my sincere apologies for the disruption and the extra workload caused by my recent edits. I have immediately stopped all category moves.My intention was to improve the category structure, but I now realize that I underestimated the impact on established categories (such as "Military aircraft registered in the United Kingdom") and failed to seek consensus beforehand.I would like to learn the correct procedures to avoid such issues in the future. I will ensure that any major changes are proposed and discussed on the talk pages first. I am sorry for the chaos caused and hope we can discuss how to properly manage these categories together. Houtyuhn (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The categorisation system for aircraft images has been established for many years, it does not need 'managing', all that needs to be done is to ensure that images are placed in the most appropriate category, the vast majority are already. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Subject: Response regarding aircraft categorisation (XS235 and others)Hi Nimbus227,Thank you for your patience and for pointing out the issues. I have stopped all category moves immediately to avoid further disruption.I realize that my recent edits, especially removing aircraft like XS235, XV814, and XW626 from the "Military aircraft registered in the United Kingdom" category, have caused confusion. My professional rationale was that these are scientific research aircraft operated by institutes (like RAE), rather than combat-ready military assets.However, I now understand that within the Commons structure:Military Serials: Because they carry military serial numbers, they are systematically linked to the military parent categories.Refine, don't Remove: I should have proposed a specific sub-category (e.g., Research aircraft of the United Kingdom) instead of simply removing the parent category, which broke the search path.l point-of-view (NPOV) for future descriptions.I would like to help fix these errors. Best regards, Houtyuhn (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Can an admin please revert this serious move please? I don't believe I have the ability to undo it. There may be other similar moves, I am checking back through the user's contribs. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for moving Category:Military aircraft registered in the United Kingdom. I now realize that adding '/Government' to the title not only broke the naming convention but also caused a massive technical burden for over 2,000 pages. I was trying to be more precise but clearly lacked understanding of the system impact. I will not perform any more moves and am waiting for an admin to revert this safely. Houtyuhn (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I realize I cannot undo this move myself because of the existing redirect and the sheer volume of images involved. I request an administrator to revert the move and delete the incorrect redirect. I will not make any further attempts to fix it manually to avoid more edit conflicts. Houtyuhn (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

My intention was to make the images more accessible (easier to find by registration). However, I now see that my 'convenience' caused technical redundancy and violated the COM:CAT policy on over-categorization. Houtyuhn (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

This category move also needs to be reverted, much too specific and uses an ampersand. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge the issue with the Comet category move as well. My intention was to include the RAE and simultaneously correct the ampersand to "and" per naming conventions. However, I now see that this move was unnecessary and created further disruption. I fully support a complete revert of all my category moves today to restore the established structure. I will wait for an administrator to handle this safely and will not make any further manual changes. I am sorry for the anxiety and extra work this has caused. Houtyuhn (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:De Havilland Comet of British Airways should be deleted, the Comet was not operated by British Airways, the category gives the impression that they did. The single image of an aircraft in that category is in a fictional hybrid BOAC/British Airways colour scheme and was used by apprentices as a ground trainer. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

"Regarding G-APDT, I am fully aware of its role as a ground trainer. My intention in creating the category was based on its visual appearance (livery) to help users identify the aircraft they see in photos. However, I now understand that using '...of British Airways' is historically inaccurate for the database. I will defer to the standard classification and avoid creating categories based solely on livery in the future." Houtyuhn (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like to clarify once more: I am fully aware that British Airways never operated the Comet, and that aircraft like G-APDT served only as ground trainers. The creation of these categories was purely from a visual and livery-based perspective, intended to help users identify the aircraft as they appear in photos. However, I now recognize that this approach conflicts with the Commons' historical and operational classification standards and can mislead the public into believing these were operational fleet members. I accept the removal of these livery-based categories. My apologies for the confusion caused by this difference in classification logic. Houtyuhn (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Houtyuhn: Are you using an AI language model to perform edits on Commons? If so, please stop. We would also prefer that you use your own words to reply in this discussion, rather than using an AI model. Omphalographer (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I checked the first three paragraphs of responses here, all indicating 100% AI generated. Another problem, that I have not so far corrected, is the insertion of random text and web links in the description area of images uploaded by others, an example here. Baffling, in time I will remove them unless a mass rollback can achieve this. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

And if your own words are in a different language, that is fine. We can deal better with Chinese written by a human than with English written by a machine. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of text here. Is there a remaining task (or tasks) for an admin, and if so what? - Jmabel ! talk 20:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, yes.

1. Please revert the move of Category:Military aircraft registered in the United Kingdom back to this revision. It should re-populate with 2,400 images.
   • Anyone can revert the text. Nothing here tells me what content to populate it with (though it sounds, below, like you say you know how to do it yourself: I presume the move of content is something that anyone (not an admin) can do with Cat-a-Lot? - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Please delete Category:De Havilland Comet of British Airways
   • Can't do that without knowing what to do with its content. - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Please revert the move of Category:De Havilland DH.106 Comet (Royal Air Force) back to this revision.
   • Similarly to #1.

   So, please, exactly what admin actions are needed? I still can't work it out. - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I can restore the first category to images it was removed from, thanks. Nimbus227 (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, regarding the AI-generated reply, I want to be honest: I did use tools to help write my previous English reply. This wasn't to shirk responsibility or be perfunctory, but because my foreign language skills are limited, I was very worried that language errors would prevent me from accurately explaining my intentions to Nimbus227 or the administrator, potentially causing further misunderstandings. I intended to use tools to make communication smoother and the tone more precise, but I now realize that this has made people feel I lacked sincerity, for which I sincerely apologize. Houtyuhn (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Houtyuhn: okay, tell us, what do you define as a "tool"? I ask this because certain softwares rely on LLM output, even if they do not appear to be LLMs

Think Grammarly Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Their last reply was also 100% AI-generated. It appears that their English language ability falls short of COM:CIR which redirects to the Wikipedia competence is required guideline. The nutshell summary is apt Sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. They create work that others have to clean up. Nimbus227 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Sippaat6

Also editing under: ~2026-26796-95. User blanked DR targeting their uploads, then proceeds to come to my talk page accusing me of national discrimination. User has not communicated within the DR in question. TansoShoshen (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment: the reported user refuses to respond; it's been 18 hours Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Uploads deleted, user indef'd. Thanks for reporting this. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! TansoShoshen (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Exceu6

Exceu6 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user has made an unsourced change to the map on the Mali War . When I attempted to discuss with them on their talk page, they accused me of being someone sympathetic to Russia and that you are bs, blatant personal attack's against me This is not an acceptable way to treat another user. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

On 30 April 2026, JNIM claimed to have captured the Malian army base in Hombori, releasing video footage that Reuters verified as showing the local barracks

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/kremlin-says-russian-forces-will-stay-mali-to-fight-extremism-2026-04-30/

Nice try, ivan lol Exceu6 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The content dispute is secondary to your personal attacks against me, such as in this very thread. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Yup. @Exceu6: knock it off, discuss the substantive issue, not the person. If you continue in an ad hominem mode, I will block you. - Jmabel ! talk 20:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

ok lets do peace and stop fighting over silly things Exceu6 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment @Exceu6, ok lets do peace and stop fighting over silly things is a a bit rich coming from someone who doesn't seem to understand that commons expects it's contributors to be CIVIL at all times. (for the record, you're the one who's not being peaceful.  endorse a NOTHERE bock, I think 3 months to a year seems about right, unless we want to indef off the bat. Either way's a good block. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 06:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

 Support block starting from 3 months; if Exceu6 abuses their talk page (e.g. to insult Commons), it can be converted to an indef without TPA Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 10:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

CVBM5622222222222222321w53693h2ui1b3hbubuw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) looks like they might be a sock. Bidgee (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

In that case I support an indef against both accounts without TPA Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I've stricken my prior block recomendation, and belive the sock should be indefed without TPA and main should get at least a year, if not indef, no TPA. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed both accounts for sockpuppetry/NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Reaction - Spurzem

Should i accept this kind of reaction for my contributions? Thanks for advice. Carolus (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

(translated) "This rapid deletion announcement by the probably self-proclaimed legal enforcer Carolus is an outrage of unparalleled proportions! "
SMH - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Carolus to answer the retorical question: No. As to Spurzem's conduct, if you have an issue with the deletion of a file, take it up on Requests for undeletion, NOT with personal attacks the tagging editors talk page. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:55, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: file wasn't deleted, and probably won't be. Spurzem's failure to use {{Permission pending}} led to Carolus marking it as a copyvio. - Jmabel ! talk 01:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Honest truth seeker

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

All uploads are part of a spam campaign for ctcjaipur.com (Spamcheck) that has reached here, Wikidata, and the English Wikipedia. I'll be requesting a global block but if an admin sees this in the meantime, a local block would be helpful and the uploads need deleting. Thanks, Harry Mitchell (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell  Done, indeffed and cleared up. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 10:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

"Truth seeker" lol Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations by User:Depuyjeremias

BEGIN moved from COM:VP - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I suspect User:Depuyjeremias may have uploaded one or more copyrighted images. See this example, which is a screenshot from a Youtube video with a "Standard YouTube license". Worse, if you go to about the 10 minutes mark, you can see the actual image in question and an "All rights reserved" notice that was cropped out. The user also has a number of questionable (seemingly AI-generated) edits on Wikipedia, and I wouldn't be surprised if their contributions here were similarly problematic.

Sorry, I don't have the bandwidth/time to figure out the correct process to correct issues like this, so I am just lazily posting here. Next time I will try to read the documentation and do something myself.

Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
END moved from COM:VP - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@CommonsKiwi: instead of using external links for file pages, you could use wikilinks (e.g. File:Reluctance vs Induction force.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reluctance_vs_Induction_force.png point to the same destination)

Just do the colon trick ([[:File:Reluctance vs Induction force.png]]) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

On that note, I have nominated the file you specifically mentioned for speedy deletion as an obvious copyright violation; thank you Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! As you probably surmised, I couldn't figure out how to prevent displaying the image. CommonsKiwi (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@CommonsKiwi, putting a colon in front of the filename prevents it from being displayed. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 01:19, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, got it, Thanks! CommonsKiwi (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

:)

(that trick works for categories too) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:19, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

:) CommonsKiwi (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

There is still quite a bit in Special:ListFiles/Depuyjeremias, does someone want to look into this? (Doesn't need to be an admin). - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Alptugsezgin

Alptugsezgin (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
Had already collected various copyvio warnings. Turns out they collected more warnings plus a 1-day block from @Túrelio as Aksaalp and they reuploaded their AI-landscapes using the new account.
Request for an appropriate action considering the actions on the alternate account. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

How about a long-term abuse designation? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any uploads in or very near May from Special:Log/upload/Alptugsezgin, but I did find this

From Special:Log/upload/Aksaalp, Aksaalp started uploading a stream of images at 7:12 on 10 April (UTC, 24 hours); at the time, Alptugsezgin's final upload was at 20:53, 9 April

Aksaalp would upload until 8:19 on the same day, after which Alptugsezgin made its first upload since that on 23:31, 14 April (its stream of images ended at 11:11, 17 April, and it hasn't uploaded since)

Following that, Aksaalp simultaneously uploaded many images, all deleted, at 8:37, 5 May; it was blocked at 5:24, 6 May as a sockpuppet

Of Alptugsezgin's live files, the vast majority are regional maps of Turkey and the one exception is an image, marked with {{CC0}}, of engineers working on a water pump Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment One more warning to Alptugsezgin. Yann (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused, LTA designations are not given out lightly, and are only given if a sockmaster can be contained via abusefilter, when the LTA tag is given based on the filter number. (LTA 257 is special:AbuseFilter/257 and special:AbuseFilter/257a. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 19:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

That last (narrow definition of LTA) is news to me as a 15+ year admin! @Alachuckthebuck: is there some way I could/should have known this? Also, is there some page that should be linked from the entry "LTA" in Commons:Editor's index to Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 19:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: en:WP:LTA, perhaps?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: doesn't seem to correspond to what Whyiseverythingalreadyused wrote about abuse filters. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Barefootboy2005

Misplaced post moved from Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Barefootboy2005 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user Barefootboy2005 has an inappropriate name. Infinite blocking of inappropriate images and photos. File:Male barefooter walking on a forest path.jpg, File:Male barefooter walking on a forest path (41543).jpg, File:Male barefooter letting his feet rest on a patch of moss (20628).jpg, File:Male barefooter letting his feet rest on a patch of moss (87448).jpg, File:Bare feet of a male on top of a blanket.jpg, File:Male barefooter letting his feet rest on a patch of moss.jpg Sifold (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I cannot see any relevant issue here. No action needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm completely missing what would be inappropriate about the username. @Sifold: can you elaborate? - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Files are a little odd, but not obviously out of scope. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)