Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1


  • 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. {{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.


  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Túrelio as deleting Admin for all of this user's previous contributions.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done: deleted and blocked rubin16 (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@rubin16: Thanks!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@rubin16: The user is block evading as Abdelkg (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done, thank you rubin16 (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@rubin16: Thanks again, and you're welcome!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@rubin16: The user is block evading as Abdelhaas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
✓ processed, thank you rubin16 (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@rubin16: Thanks yet again, and you're welcome!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Uploading non free files and using them across many wikisEdit

I don't know whether this is the right place to tell but still telling. This is about User Talk:Anketa Maharana. They uploaded 5 files from different websites which had no sign that proved they are licensed under CC. Then they used those files across many wikis in articles of the actresses in those languages. It requires someone with global rollback to undo their contributions so that when these files get deleted then the affected articles are not left without image. User:Ytoyoda has placed a tag on those images, so I wrote the same thing about rollback on their talk page but got no response. -- Parnaval (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have warned them which is probably the best thing at this stage. If they persist we can look at further measures Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Parnaval, Gbawden: They have also been editing as I reverted some changes and tagged all the remaining files as copyvios; background updates from Wikidata may take some time.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 08:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gbawden, Jeff G.: My main motive of raising this issue was not warning or deleting, I was mainly concerned that who will go across more than 20 wikis to add the image that previously existed there as CommonsDelinkerbot only removes deleted files, then those articles would be left without any image. -- Parnaval (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Parnaval: I bypassed most of that work by reverting a couple of changes at Wikidata. When I find warnable actions and copyvios, I act. I'm sorry if that wasn't your intent.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Oh no ! Why you saying sorry ? You did the right thing. I was just saying that I could have simply tagged all of them for copyvio but (I think) to revert those edits someone with something like global rollback is required, that's the reason I reported here -- Parnaval (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Parnaval: Thanks. Please understand that the reason 2 of those files were on >20 wikis is that they were on Wikidata and linked from there using Wikidata-related templates on most of those >20 wikis. So, changing 2 entries on Wikidata removed most of them. I replaced the rest.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gbawden: All of their uploads have been deleted as copyvios; they are NOTHERE.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Problems with ElcobbolaEdit

Dear administrators, good evening.

I'm the former user SandyShores03, and I'm writing you from a public connection because I'm worried about the way in which I have been judged by Elcobbola.

This is the situation: In late April of this year, 2021, my brother, who also had worked for this project with the account HefePine23 (talk · contribs), uploads a non-free picture of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, that even I admit myself that it was a very serious mistake from my brother, who should have examined better the picture in question and left it without uploading to Commons.

After this bad upload, Elcobbola, blocked my brother for license laundering and nominated for deletion that picture, in addition of all the works he uploaded. This is a sanction that, for my point of view, seems to be correct, and that in this case, Elcobbola has carried out his/her work correctly, since my brother had clearly committed an important infraction and clearly it is not possible to pretend to miss details like these.

My brother acknowledges (and I say this on his behalf) his mistake and, after that, he withdrew from Commons, something that I recommended to him to make clear that he had no intention of returning to the project and that he did not make these mistakes with bad faith.

But the problem begins when, some days after this situation, I (SandyShores03), after reviewing and learning about this problems and find links and websites and photographs which have more evidences for Public Domain, I decided to fix the problems of the pictures related with RMS Titanic and other famous ships of the early 20th century that were uploaded by my brother, with the intention of avoiding the massive deletion that would affect several wikis. After fix one of the files, Elcobbola blocked my account, declared it as a Sockpuppet of my retired brother's account and, in situ and without a discussion similar of created for my brother files, deleted automatically all my contributions which I uploaded during the last year, a situation which affected a lot of Wikis like Spanish, French, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, German or English Wikipedias, only for my IP adress is the same as the same used by my brother. This is because I live with my brother, but we were working separately. It is true that there were some times when we've worked together but no always. I see this an unfair decission by Elcobbola, an opinion that also has got the user Andy Dingley (talk · contribs), who left a message to Elcobbola in his talk page, a message that had never got any answer from Elcobbola.

I'm according with Andy Dingley that it is sure that I probably have uploaded some file that didn't have the correct procedures for license, and, if I'd commeted this error, I'm sorry for it. But, for the rest, those photos were taken originally by Robert Welch and some others were a JPG versions of Tiff photos uploaded from Royal Museums Greenwich Collections and another by Library of Congress. Another ones, were my own colourization work, like another photos which still alvailable in Commons and never were nomiated for deletion.

When I was going to talk with Elcobbola about this, I couldn't open a discussion in my own talk page and another user's discussion pages to contact with Elcobbola.

Some time after, with an anonymous account, I'd added a request for my unblocking in my talk page, explaining the situation and the conditions that I claim for you as admins. And added that if you don't accept for my return, I'll accept it and I'll declare retired like my brother, but few time after that, Elcobbola reverted my nomimation for 2 times, and, without an answer that explain his actions, he protected forever my own talk page.

I known that this case won't require possibly the laws for write here, but I need an impartial point about this, because I'm a good faith person and I'm alvailable for talk friendly with another user for sort a problem out. And I think that I've been judged with a partial position from an administrator that, although he was doing his work, I think he didn't be open to talk and known more about this and proceed as appropriately as possible.

And, before conclussion, I leave here a message for Elcobbola: Elcobbola (talk · contribs), please, I know that you are doing your work but please, before block me again, review this and and reconsider at least restore my images and, if you prefer, open a talk page for deletion and let other users analyze the situation and rule their verdict. It is my only request that I ask for you and the rest of the adminis.
Please, consider it, I'm not my brother, and my only intention is improve the reliability and quality of Wikimedia projects, I trust your consideration and your empathy regarding this.

In conclussion, like I've left previously for Elcobbola, I don't care if the community of administrators of Commons declare that I'm not able to return to contribute with the project. I only want to looking for a more impartial and objective point of view about my case.

Cordial greetings for all.

--SandyShores03, with the anonymous account: 19:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

SandyShores03 is Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed to be related to HefePine23. As this is a {{Checkuserblock}}, pinging @Jameslwoodward:, @Krd:, @Magog the Ogre:, and @Trijnstel: to confirm. Technical evidence suggests the w:WP:LITTLEBROTHER excuse above is yet another of the user's innumerable untruths, but is not relevant as meatpuppetry is also an abusive use of multipole accounts. HefePine23 has a significant history of copyright violations and Flickrwashing. Despite a clear warning of the issue in October 2020, HefePine23 continued to upload random Titanic images to Flickr and to use Flickr to support purported CC claims. An admin, @DrKay:, pinged me 22. April 2021 notifying me of the same, and I blocked the account with the explicit notice that indefinite is not infinite and an affirmative acknowledgement that this practice is unacceptable was needed. Rather than engage or request unblocking, SandyShores03 emerged and began immediately uploading images with the same issues, same license laundering, and same lack of evidence. This is, frankly, not a difficult case; the utter obtuseness regarding copyright, Commons policy, and abuse of multiple accounts (see the unabashed acknowledgement of block evasion above) is astonishing. Эlcobbola talk 19:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
As has appeared at the top of my take page since 2013, "Comments that impugn or otherwise fail to be polite and to assume good faith will not receive a response." That you say, for example, "There is a cryptic comment about checkuser in the block log, but again, no linked discussion of this and I'm unaware that you have access to checkuser tools or their non-public results" to checkuser (!!!) tells us all we need to know about how informed your opinions are. Indeed, and further, that you do not assume good faith ("they didn't edit for a week, conveniently giving the DR long enough to run that it might be closable") and offer this sort shameless nonsense is ample demonstration of why no response was needed. Эlcobbola talk 03:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree. User is lying about his identity and persisting in obfuscation rather than reforming. This is not a particularly difficult call. RBI. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I do not care (and should not care) about the identities of the people behind the accounts. Per our clear policy on socking, alternate accounts are permissible. Accounts become socks if they are harmful and used for disruptive purposes. What these accounts have done is to upload valuable images, >100 years old. They have a clear value here and a plausible claim to PD because of age. If any do not meet PD, then that's a task where we have to check each one carefully and filter them out. There is no excuse here for blanket bulk deletions, from either account.
If there is any case to be made for "socking" since that (the IP making an unblock request was simply reverted, then excluded from the page) then that's a technical misdemeanour by a user who has been poorly treated, at most, and still doesn't pass into "disruptive" behaviour.
I would also question why you kept repeatedly ignoring requests for clarification here from an independent editor. If you hide behind, "Oh, the editors are being beastly to me" as an excuse to ignore legitimate questions over harmful deletions and bulk blocks justified by secret enquiries that can't be visible to other editors, then you need a thicker skin if you're to be an admin here. Let me make it plain: if you want to be able to block editors at whim for unchallengable, secret reasons, then we as editors demand that you will explain this on request. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, that is not correct. The reason that policy requires that a Wiki have more than one checkuser (or none) is that we can check each other. If two (or in this case three -- User:elcobbola,User:Magog the Ogre, and me -- checkusers confirm bad behavior, then in most cases we are not allowed to explain and are never required to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Then just what is the reason for the bulk deletions here? What is the justification for any use of checkuser? If these are DRs per copyright issues, then fair enough (they weren't DRed, they were simply deleted en masse), but that needs each one to be looked at separately. There was no socking here: any sharing of accounts / use of an alternate account was not disruptive, thus is no part of socking, thus did not justify a checkuser in the first place.
Saying afterwards "The Cabal supports me, for Secret Reasons" doesn't cut it. Fine, no-one else gets to see checkuser logs. But any checkuser should give an explanation as to what the disruptive socking was that justified this action - there has been nothing here. Also Elcobbola refuses to even respond to questions. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • After observing the comments and carefully reading each one of them, I appreciate the participation regarding my case.

I personally thank Elcobbola for, even if it is, having exposed the situation from his position as checkuser, and with a more objective point of view, which was I needed to be at peace. I also thank the checkuser Jameslwoodward for his participation and presentation of details that I and my brother and colleague, HefePine23, were unaware of because we are mere amateur users (that is, we've only been in the project for 1 year and there have been things that we've been able to go unnoticed). I also thank the rollbacker and patroller Andy Dingley for his participation and clarification of the subject and for supporting the evidence that my images were almost all of the public domain (although I've made mistakes when placing the license on Flickr, which I apologize myself personally and with all my soul).

As I have said before, my intention was to know better the way in which events were carried out, something that had not happened at the time and that had initially puzzled me.

Before concluding, I understand the distrust of the chekusers, but it is true what I am saying that I am HefePine23's brother, and I regret not having initially seen that the collaboration of users from the same family nucleus was not allowed either.

Although it is frowned upon, I swear to God and my family that I didn't carry out my actions with the aim of vandalizing and damaging Wikipedia or other Wiki projects, quite the contrary.

As I stated at the time I opened this discussion, I declare myself, like my brother, totally retired not only from Commons, but also from the rest of Wiki projects, and I assure that you will never see me here again except as in quality of reader / visitor to consult and carry out some research for a personal project.

I regret my mistakes and my ignorance, as well as having given the feeling of being a criminal and a vandal.

All kind regards and thank you very much for your participation.

Until forever.

--SandyShores03 (talk · contribs). With the anonymous account 10:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC).

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Deleting a large number of files which are not obvious copyvios, and without a proper DR is not OK. I suggest undeleting them and opening a proper DR based on evidence. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Elcobbola: would you please consider undoing your deletions of non-obvious copyvios, per above? @SandyShores03 I'm sorry but I have to agree; you have a history of copyright violations and the fact that you continue to try to wiggle out of accountability tells me you're not a good fit here. Alternatively, if you're willing to take the L and promise not to do it again, I'm sure we could find a mentor for you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs)
    "[N]on-obvious copyvios" doesn't parse; a file uploaded through license laundering is defined by policy to be a copyright violation (COM:CSD#F6: "Content uploaded via license laundering techniques is a copyright violation"). Further, per COM:EVID, "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate [...] that the file is in the public domain" (underline added) and "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain." (underline added) I would be happy to restore any file for which the policy required appropriate evidence is provided. I don't see that any has yet been offered. "The picture is 100 years old so I uploaded it to Flickr as public domain" is not adequate, and the significant discussion (which Yann above suggested and supported, by the way) led to the use of 120 years for unknown authors, which is the claim for the vast majority of these. Early 1910s + 120 = Early 2030s. We need evidence; we're getting truthiness. Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Dear Magog the Ogre, I'm sorry for my errors but I'n not to tell the lie that I'm the same person that my brother. I'm sorry for that.

However, I'm willing to take the L, like you told before, and I promise that, not only not do it again, also ask you or the user that you consider for my mentor for check the procedure. If this is possible I whish it.

Moreover, my best and important whish is that my own colourization works and the clearly public domain pictures could be recovered. I don't care that after that a deletion request will be opened, but I prefer that they would be recovered. Also, I promise you and all Wiki admins that I'm going to try change.

Best regards for all.

--SandyShores03 (talk · contribs), with the anonymous account 18:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Dear @Elcobbola, I regret not having previously seen the information posted before responded to Magog the Ogre, and I apologize for being slow to reply here, as I have been busy with personal matters.

As for what it says, yes, it is true that there were images in which I forgot to place the link of the original page and put the necessary evidence, but I think that if the images were recovered and they allowed me to return with my account to Commons I'm sure that, with the help of a mentor like Magog the Ogre proposed, I could get results within 2 weeks. Of course, if I did not find anything, I would nominate those images for deletion myself, no problem for that. However, due to the fact that it was deleted, I have to recheck the original links of several of the photographs, so I commented on a period of more or less 2 weeks.

In addition, I would like to present here the cases of images where I had indicated all the best I could regarding their original origin and their author in the cases that were known:

  • The first, the one in this diagram (uploaded in my first account; because later I created a secondary account specifically for Titanic and her sister ships interiors and passengers), originally created and published on Deviantart, by Michael C. Brady.

Certainly, before uploading it, I modified it so that only the ship in question would appear. A short time later, the author asked me if I could put his name so that it would be verified that he was the creator. I replied that of course, and, to make sure if he preferred to delete the Commons image, I asked him, to which he replied via e-mail and, in case you don't believe me, and it is obvious and indisputable that is it, I quote here the answer that the author had sent me at November 27th, 2020:

Hi SandyShores03 (sic. I don't prefer to show here my real name, which he had written this mail),

Thanks for writing back to me! I did the drawings back in 2012 and wanted them to be available for free online - just so long as my name was attached. (...) Don't worry about removing the images that won't be necessary. So long as my name is attached like this «By Michael C. Brady» it should be fine.

Thanks and I hope you are keeping safe and well

It is possible, also, that I had put bad the license of the file, but if you allow me to return with my account, and knowing the author's position, I will can fix the problems of this file.

  • The second, is about some files of the Bedford Lemere and Company Collection, the most of them alvailable for all in the Royal Museums Greenwich Collection. Some of this photos were uploaded by Fae some years ago, but as TIFF versions. I had uploaded as JPG versions. Another of these photos, although we don't have here a TIFF version, there also in RMG's Collection. Here the photos that I said:
    1) With TIFF in Commons: I, II, III and IV. Also, I uploaded a JPG version of this file, but with direct form to Commons, not Flickr, and it was also deleted. I know that we have currently a JPG version, but cropped and with low quality. I think that, if you allow me return to the project, I can upload it as a better version.
    2) Without TIFF in Commons but also from RMG's Collection: I and II
    3) Not in RMG's Collection but taken by Bedford Lemere and Co.: only this (I think that I put in this that was taken by Robert Welch, but after, a member of Encyclopedia Titanica's group told me that it was from Bedford Lemere and Co. If this is restore, I'll change the name and put the correct info).
  • The third, and most important, for files of White Star Line and Harland and Wolff Collection, alvailable at the National Museums Northern Ireland. The 96-97% of they were taken by Robert John Welch, official photographer of the shipyard, who died in 1936.

I think that they are the most importants before here in Commons we have another photos of him, not published by myself or by my brother and are here for some years. Now, here the links:
1)Robert Welch's photos: I, II (with this I think that I forgot to put the original link, but I can find and put it if this file is restored), III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII (this is the original upload, which I'd taken from Pinterest, but if this is recovered, I will upload the original version and link), XVIII, IX and XX (with this, is a colured version created by myself. If I can re-upload as my own work, better, but an Encyclopedia Titanica's member and friend told me that Welch had taken the original picture. Furthermore, I didn't found the original at NMNI's Collection).
2)Photos of White Star Line Collection, alvailable also at NMNI's gallery: I and II.

  • And for conclussion, these files, which are cropped versions and original black and white version in one of the cases, and coloured in two of the cases, of files that already existing in Commons.

Now, the cases:

I) Images coloured by myself: 1.Colourized SS Imperator, a version of this, from the Library of Congress.
2.Ss Vaterland-Leviathan_in_colour, created as a coloured version of this. I took this photo from Commons and I'd colourized with Pic Monkey.

II) Original black and white versions: RMS Olympic Radio 1913, the original of this. I took it from the version uploaded in 26 August 2009, at 7:07 P.M. and I'd restored a little bit with Pic Monkey.

III) Cropped versions: 1.First Class Cabin C-64, cropped version of this. (Also, I see that another user cropped this photo after Elcobbola deleted my version. If mine is recovered, please, revert this to it's original version)
2.Titanic B-52-54-56 Parlor Suites Private Deck, cropped and restored version of this. (And also, modified after mine was deleted. If my version is recovered, please, revert this as it's original version).
3.RMS Titanic in Belfast 1912, retouched and cropped a little bit by myself. I took the photograph from this, alvailable in Commons since 2016.

And that's all.

I won't comment on anything else about the rest of the images that I uploaded, although some of those are my own work because I colored them myself, but it is true that I didn't put the original link, so I prefer to leave them without uploading or requesting their recovery until that I manage to locate the original pages (that I have all cataloged in favorites).

I hope now I can help. Again I regret not having consulted an expert before.

I appreciate your prompt response and best regards for all.

--SandyShores03 (talk · contribs), with the anonymous account 16:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Time for final warnings and indefinite blocks?Edit

When seeking to block a new user, Boons1k (talk · contribs), is 13 minutes between a "first warning" and a week's block long enough, or should admins wait the full 15 minutes?

Elcobbola, would you care to explain your actions here? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As you appear unaware of our software's ability to track edit history:
COM:BP says "For blocks based on disruptive behaviour, such as vandalism, repeated copyright violations and manual promotional activities, ensure that the user has been appropriately warned" (bold in original). As of the 09:34, 24 April 2021 block, the following notices/warnings had been issued: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Blocks are preventative not punitive, and there was every reason to believe a block was needed to stop the upload of copyvios and prompt, finally, consultation of our policies. Boons1k could have, of course, requested unblock at any time. If you have a policy cite that more than 13 minutes from the first notice to the block, by all means provide it. Otherwise, the lack of even an alleged policy breach here is telling; I, and other admins, are not bound by your fanciful personal concoctions or delusions. Our policies and guidelines can be found here. Эlcobbola talk 03:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll ignore the pejorative snipe at me, and your obtuse misunderstanding of the issue here, and point it out more clearly: Boons1k is a new editor here, with a handful of uploads and no interaction with other editors. They have made mistakes here in uploading non-free content, and we know that is a perennially complicated issue where most new editors do make mistakes. It doesn't even appear to be at all deliberate (we've left some of their uploads undeleted, as they're OK) and it doesn't appear there's any problem with their uploads, other than the rights issue.
Yet you have turned this into an opportunity to get a new editor blanked and blocked. Hooray. Serious admin bizniz.
You have acted so reasonably here: you have issued "three warnings". What a terrible editor they must be, to have ignored "all three strikes". No. This is nonsense. You issued those three warnings, and the resultant block, effectively simultaneously. This is not a progression of warnings, intended to explain the issue (which is indeed something we have to observe), it's just vindictively hunting for any editor you can get a block onto. If you don't understand the problem with that, you shouldn't be an admin here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 Not done I've taken a look at Boons1k's uploads (I'm native RU speaker), and I agree they are all highly likely to be copyvio. Nothing wrong with the warnings and the block. --A.Savin 13:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I deleted last remaining uploads of Boons1k as copyvios. Case closed. Taivo (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


The user is only engaged in uploading copyright images on commons. Has been warned but still uploading. Thank you.Run n Fly (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done - blocked and deleted contributions, thank you rubin16 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Venus Isabelle PalermoEdit

  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done rubin16 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16: Thanks!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

E4024 againEdit

  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


  • User: Flaspec (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log
  • Reasons for reporting: Flaspec is deliberately misattributing the sources of the maps. First, they uploaded copies of the maps that I uploaded and described them as Extracted directly from [image of one of the sources](which is a lie, as I extracted them from the original sources, combined them, updated the names, etc). When I saw that, I asked for advice on what to do (without naming anyone). King of Hearts was kind enough to point out the fact that I could correct the attribution, which I did without making a fuss.[8][9][10] Unfortunately, Flaspec restored their misattribution, accused me of removing the original source, and added more baseless POV to the source section.[11][12][13] Furthermore, their edit on File:CIA WorldFactBook-Political world.svg which is described as "CIA World Factbook Political World Map" also doesn't make sense. Instead of uploading the new CIA map (since the map is marked as updateable), they changed a tiny part of the old map (the only part that is of interest to them) and left the date and everything else. So now, we have a CIA (supposedly from 2015) that doesn't look like the original (here's the 2017 pdf of the original). I'm not that familiar with Commons' policies, but this does not look right to me. Your advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
First of all, my advice is for you to calm yourself down. Secondly, the file you uploaded is based on an outdated webarchive version, mine is based on the latest version from the CIA website (hence I repeat: do not remove the original source). I noticed how you keep censoring people into adapting the older version of the map just because it does not cater to far-right sahrawi nationalism.[14] Care you to explain? --Flaspec (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: 1) Their maps are copies of mine, which in turn are derivatives of various maps (anyone with a minimum of knowledge and interest in the subject would notice). 2) After looking at this discussion that they've had with an IP (who's been stalking me), it is clear that this is was done intentionally, and since they are throwing all kind of accusations around, I would also like to draw your attention to a lesson in cross-wiki POV pushing (written in Moroccan Arabic. I will gladly ping an admin from the ar.wp who would confirm the translation) that Flaspec gave to EdDakhla (I'm 100% confident that they are behind the IP). Here, Flaspec told them exactly how to target all the Wikis (except the en.wp and es.wp, because according to them, those two are "difficult" and full of so and so), and following their own advice, they uploaded File:MAR orthographic.svg 2 days later and added it to 45 wikis in one sitting (replacing all the stable maps in the process). M.Bitton (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment I'm the one who is stalking you or are you the one who's been stalking every Moroccan editor ever to come into existence? (As you did with Flaspec on Libya Orthographic Projection and EdDakhla and some of their IP's). Otherwise, there is no other way of you knowing about the discussion I had with Flaspec (simply to give a much-needed warning about you) unless you were stalking me (which you obviously are) because I never pinged you, and neither did anybody else. Please, don't accuse others of things you are just (of not more) of being guilty of. We all know about your strong Algerian and Polisario nationalism, its clear as day. 17:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Blocked LTA. M.Bitton (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Warning sign Warning @M.Bitton, stop accusing everyone, this discussion is about the CIA map so do not change the subject. Please answer my question above for this conversation to move forward. Thank you. --Flaspec (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: Since you started the accusations, I have every right to point out the lesson in cross-wiki POV pushing that you gave to others and the fact that you followed your own advice and added your POV map to 45 wikis in one go. M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@M.Bitton This is Commons not Wikipedia, you should learn the difference. Answer my question please! --Flaspec (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Stop pinging me, I'm not interested in what you have to say me and I certainly do not answer questions coming from you of all people, the editor who used Commons to give others a lesson in cross-wiki POV pushing and who added their POV map to 45 wikis in one go. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Matthew RonaldsEdit

User:Matthew Ronalds is engaged in uploading copyright images after repeated warnings. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • ✓ Blocked for a week & nuked. --- FitIndia Talk 17:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Special fans EditzEdit

User:Special fans Editz is engaged in uploading copyright images after repeated warnings. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Indefed by @Elcobbola rubin16 (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Mateus2019 & Admin MultichillEdit

Multichill (talk · contribs) This guy mobs me. He revoked my file mover rights with the reason that I have had not followed the file rename guidelines and that I have been performed a personal attack. This is not true in my perspective. By the way, everyone is free to express themselves. He thinks, that I am stupid. This is allowed to do that by Dutch/German law. Also, I am allowed to express my thoughts here as I am a citizen of Germany. In addition, I am allowed to react harsh, after he was not willing to reply to a specific issue regarding renaming a SINGLE file.(diff) A personal attack is also not a valid reason to revoke user roles. As I am being badly mobbed since 2009 in my job, I have learned to intervene in an early stage. Please stop this kiddo and undo the role change. I would like to work on in peace with as little frustration possible. Stay healthy @all, --Mateus2019 (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

For background User_talk:Mateus2019#Renaming_15_year_old_uploads & User_talk:Multichill#Machtsmisbruik. Multichill (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As I see it then it is not Multichill that is calling Mateus2019 stupid. It is the other way around. Also COM:FR says that "Uploaders often have schemas naming their files; moving files might break them.... Commons aims to provide stable filenames as there might be external file clients and file moving involves significant human and computing resources. Thus renaming should be used with caution." So I agree with Multichill that the main rule is do not rename files unless there is a good reason to do so. --MGA73 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Good removal of FR privilege. Mateus2019 should familiarize themselves with FR #4. If FR #2 and #4 conflict with each other, #4 should prevail. pandakekok9 06:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


Flowerrenmar45 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - spam-only account, obvious evasion of Limpiadomaryrose9 (talk · contribs) (Renmar Arnejo). See also w:bcl:Special:Redirect/logid/39924 and w:ceb:Special:Redirect/logid/10589609. —Hasley 16:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ezarateesteban 17:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


LokkLamora (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Can anyone patrol/verify the user's contributions license for uploading photos from Russian government as {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} is valid or not. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Run n Fly The corresponding entry is present on the footer of the government website. --LokkLamora (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@LokkLamora: Thanks for pointing that attribution. Everything is Okay then. Run n Fly (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)