Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
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	125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

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

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~11
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• No permission since 6 October 2025: ~7
• No source since 6 October 2025: ~2
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-10: ~142

Other:

• Duplicates: ~5
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~0
• Other speedy deletions: ~11
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~18

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~32
• Interface admin: ~14
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~7
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
• Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
• It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User:名古屋グランパスファン

• 名古屋グランパスファン (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Through copyvio warnings, this user persistently upload same copyvio fire engine's images. Netora (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• The user claims they are the original contributor to both the website and here. We may want to look for someone who speaks ja to explain COM:CONSENT. GMG^talk 14:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Netora: next time, please inform the user on their talk page, that you reported them. I gave User final warning. Not only the fire engines were copied from the web, the other images from a website called https://www.homemate-research-ic.com. You can read japanese, please look at the other uploads. Thanks. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 14:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  In the COM:UD, this user insisted removed photos were his own work. Then I asked the proof of author and free licensing in the source website, but that isn't done yet.

  And this user uploaded new copyvio image copied from Google Street view; File:豊田市消防本部 中消防署.jpg. Unfortunately this user doesn't seem to understand commons policies. Netora (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Presumably should be blocked, but it would be a good thing if someone who can read and write Japanese did this. - Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

New Socks TA-2023 (Report October 6, 2025)

Hello, new socks have been discovered for the TA-2023 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) account again.

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

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

Gek-234 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

• Previous TA-2023 socks were previously restricted and globally blocked in the report dated May 22, 2024.

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

RrrHh123 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

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

Linclinc7373 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

• Please request that the above socks, which are restricted in Persian Wikipedia due to their association with the TA-2023 account, be globally blocked. thanks

CaesarIran (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: @Jeff G.: Hello dear friends, I have contacted you to investigate this issue.CaesarIran (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) as of this posting, only the first three have ever edited Commons. Each of the first three has exactly one upload, further editing of that one file, and no other action. Milad-OH's upload was deleted. Hossin hash's (same subject, possibly same photo shoot) there is no indication in Google Lens of it having been on the web before that upload. Gek-234's is the signature of that same person, not copyright-eligible.

So it looks to me like someone who is creating a new account for every action they take. As a result, I'm not sure what a block would accomplish, though I wouldn't oppose it. - Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

All of the usage for the first three accounts are also in 2024, so it's too far back for me to retrieve useful data for a range block. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done nothing to do here. - Jmabel ! talk 04:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

IonaSh

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

This user has been warned twice before on their talk page to stop removing information from files. They have been told that the proper avenue for disputing licenses is through deletion discussions, not arbitrarily removing license tags from files. Today, they again removed a license tag from a file and changed the authorship information despite previous warnings. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Final warned by Yann.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Christian Ferrer

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

This user deleted 16 of my uploads prior discussion or a standard deletion request. Admins are not supposed to mass-delete user-created files without prior review, unless the case is an unambiguous and obvious policy violation, which my files were not. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

As per the note on the top of this page, you need to notify them. I have done this for you but next time you need to do it. Bidgee (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

My apologies @Bidgee. I appreciate that, thank you. Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

These were clear misuses of {{PD-textlogo}} with complex shapes. (For example, one was an SVG copy of this design.) Speedy deletion was perfectly reasonable here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Castroonthemoon has still quite a laissez-faire attitude in regard to copyrights (and about the notion of derivatives), evidenced at least since Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Castroonthemoon. That's not good. Please assimilate the train of thought that everything is copyrighted unless proven, not assumed, otherwise (and follow PD-Gov statutes by the letter, so do not assume because some media has an official source that it will fall in a public domain status). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I have amended my thinking in regards to copyright, which is why I have focused on more simple, geometric files. I can tell you haven't actually looked at any of the files, given that every single .svg that was deleted was a vectorization of a file that was already on wikimedia commons, done through the {svg-available} or "other version" tag. As for the non-svg files, two that were deleted were released from copyright by the holder, and the infobox files are very clearly allowed simplified depictions. Castroonthemoon (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not true. The raster files are on enwiki under fair use (example of the file I linked above), not on Commons under free licenses. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I misspoke, my apologies. But this is the core root of the issue; I don't have the list of the files in front of me, as they were just deleted on a whim, without any community input. Deleting 16 files at once without proper procedure is still an overstep of administrative privilege. I can justify for each upload why they fall under TOO / are allowed on commons; and if they don't, I have no issue with uploading them locally - the original issue is that these deletions were carried out without community input. Castroonthemoon (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Nothing that I uploaded was a misuse of PD-textlogo. Your example actually demonstrates this point. The logo in question is a plain, flat, geometric depiction of a mountain with a sun behind it, with two circles, and text. There is no expressive detail/shading/individual artistic treatment, it's just shapes arranged symmetrically. Under COM:TOO, this falls well below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. It is a textbook example of what qualifies for PD-textlogo. Castroonthemoon (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Your sentence, There is no expressive detail/shading/individual artistic treatment, it's just shapes arranged symmetrically. Under COM:TOO, this falls well below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. is, in my opinion, again a selective and dangerous reading of COM:TOO. Its absoluteness makes it wrong. Near the top of the TOO page, you have the example of the GIMP logo - an example like en:File:Logo of the Movement for the Liberation of Peoples.png is certainly near the second step or between the second step and the full logo. Then, you apparently didn't take Commons:Threshold of originality#Map into consideration. Going by the filenames on your talk page of the files deleted by Christian, more than half of them have their design origins in countries marked as gray on this map, meaning "No information, assume not OK."

I can only see such a behaviour as too sloppy an attitude towards copyrights, so you should not be surprised if you get some uploads of you deleted on copyright grounds and there's even less reason to raise such a fuss when the circumstances point towards you being in the wrong.

You will have to put the time and effort in tracing logo designs back to the probable copyright holders and document the results for each and every future upload -and abstain from contributing a specific design if the results aren't up to the standards required here. Otherwise, you will likely run afoul of COM:L and COM:PRP again, which may result in blocks on your account. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Corroborating that what JMabel wrote below (we posted a few seconds apart at first): you should have gone to Christian with a list of 1 to 5 files at a time and asked him to enable a standard DR procedure. If you're having sound arguments that could allow a keeping, then I'd expect of every admin to honour such a request, undelete the file(s) and to put it in the DR queue. But making complains like here won't advance any redactional quality assurance and the files will stay deleted. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Castroonthemoon: you brought this to COM:ANU, not COM:AN. Normally, that would mean that your complaint is primarily about user behavior, not about how to get this particular action reversed, but I know you are not a super-active user on Commons so you may not have understood that. So let me ask: are you here to ask for disciplinary measures against Christian Ferrer? If so, I'm going to close this as "not done." There is nothing egregious here; at worst someone acting in good faith speedy-deleted some files that maybe weren't all copvios, but probably mostly were. That is not going to result in a disciplinary action.

On the other hand, if (despite where you raised this) you just want these file brought back for a proper DR, that's reasonable, and I would be willing to do that if I have a ready way to find the files in question. But, please, only pursue that if you really think there is a serious chance any of these are truly PD on one or another basis. Otherwise, this is going to be just a big(ger) waste of a lot of people's time.

Tentative list; if what you want is DRs, let me know whether this list looks correct to you:

• File:Platform the world anti imperialist platform.png
• File:WAP FLAG.png
• File:Sol Rojo Red Sun.png
• File:PROGRESEMOS.jpg
• File:Inkari Islam.png
• File:SCWP'23.png
• File:Harakat Hezbollah Al-Nujaba Infobox Flag.png
• File:Sabireen Movement Infobox Flag.svg
• File:Alianza Popular de Bolivia.svg
• File:Free Socialist Party Marxist-Leninists (Germany).svg
• File:Federation of Parties of the Mexican People.svg
• File:Workers League for the Reconstruction of the KPD.svg
• File:Baqir Brigade Infobox Flag.svg
• File:Left Opposition (Ukraine) Logo.svg
• File:Jordinian Democratic Peoples Party.svg
• File:Movement for the Liberation of Peoples.svg

- Jmabel ! talk 05:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• Hello, as per it have been said by others, this was a speedy deletion done in good faith and, I think, in line with our policies. In my daily check of unpatrolled Special:NewFiles I found one logo with {{PD-textlogo}} while it was clear to me that it was way above the threshold of originality. Therefore I though this logo met the criteria F1 of Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion, so I used Visual Change to perform that deletion and I found among the other uploads of Castroonthemoon several other logos that I thought obvious that there were also above the threshold of originality. I deleted those selected logos (not all the uploads of Castroonthemoon) after to have openend them and checked on each of them the sources and license tags provided. I have close a lot of DRs and it was pretty clear to me that those files, as clear copyright violations, would not survive a formal DRs, so speedy deletions were justified in my point of view. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
• And to comment on what Jmabel suggested above (undeletion of some files and formal DRs), while this suggestion looks reasonable at first view and I thank Jmabel for suggesting as always smart/compromise solutions, I am not in favor of undeletions. I usualy never undelete files that I deleted on copyright grounds (unless the copyright issue is resolved), even if it is kindly asked on my talk page, even if the undeletion is temporary, and even if it is a request by another administrator. There is a process for that, this is com:UDR. As I think those deletions were fully justified, hence my speedy deletions, formal DR(s) would be a lost of time. I will not unedeted those files and I disagree that they are undeleted, but if another administrator decide to undete them I will not cry scandal or "misuse of the adm. tools", I will simply disagree with that and that undeletion [i.e. reinstallation of potential copyright violations] will be done under the responsability of that administrator, not mine. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  I do agree that COM:UDR is the right place to discuss about that. I don't see user/admin problem her. -- Geagea (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. Bedivere (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  • The problem with that here is that for at least some of these files (I did not look at all of them) it appears that Christian Ferrer posted on Castroonthemoon's talk page only after deletion, so Castroonthemoon had no timely chance to look at the files to determine which (if any) the thought were possibly salvageable, nor can he easily make that judgement now, because he can't see the files. - Jmabel ! talk 13:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Yes that's the principle of speedy deletions, we indeed don't ask the opinion(s) of the uploader(s). Hence the utility to have elections for to be administrators who are supposedly trusted enough for that kind of decision. I will probably not comment further, I apologize in advance if either someone else make a comment and that I don't answer, but I clearly said my point and I stick to my position. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

    But there's still the option to challenge a speedy deletion when a regular user nominates files for speedy deletion, because admins don't react instantly to the nomination and therefore an uploader might be able to see the deletion nomination on their watchlist before the deletion actually happens. It might not be much time to react, but there's usually still at least a few minutes or hours between nomination and deletion in which the uploader could challenge it. Nakonana (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  • (Cross-posted) Also, COM:SPEEDY#F1 specifically "does not apply whenever there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research or a plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality." Certainly that possibility exists for at least some of these. - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I checked all files. Speedy deletion was appropriate most of them, except File:Free Socialist Party Marxist-Leninists (Germany).svg which is quite simple, and certainly simple enough for PD-textlogo in USA and in Germany. File:Jordinian Democratic Peoples Party.svg and File:Inkari Islam.png are borderline, and may be in the public domain or not depending on which law we use. Yann (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Busy ATM, but to respond, and just to reiterate, I have no problems with re-uploading the files should they fit within language specific wiki rules; I am not complaining that my files got deleted, the issue is that I was not able to contest these deletions. Given what you said about no action being taken, obviously the best route forward is opening the DR's. I have more to write but I didn't want to just disappear from this discussion. Castroonthemoon (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I never recommend to re-upload deleted content, best to take it to Commons:Undeletion requests if you dispute a deletion. Bidgee (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

re-uploading on language specific wiki's, not back to commons Castroonthemoon (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done no admin action called for. - Jmabel ! talk 14:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

User:地球のとも

• 地球のとも (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

After receiving copyvio warnings, this user didn't stop uploading copyvio photos. Netora (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a week and deleted all remaining contributions speedily as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Desertstorm1000

User:Desertstorm1000 was indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia (by me as I am an admin there) and has decided, instead of appealing their block there, to try to appeal it here for some reason - see User talk:Desertstorm1000. That would just be odd, but they've also decided to harass me on my Commons user talk page. Note that they have no contributions here other than this. Appears to be 'not here to help improve Commons', I believe. - The Bushranger (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Luca.ramos1

• Luca.ramos1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Luca Ramos Ponzo100000 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Luca Ramos Ponzo10000 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Luca Ramos Ponzo1000 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Luca Ramos Ponzo100 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Luca Ramos Ponzo10 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

User:Luca.ramos1 is using this alternative account to (re)create multiple photos that had been deleted as copyright violation. 0x0a (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I blocked the sock, deleted all files, and warned the main account, who wasn't formally warned. Yann (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: plus User:Luca Ramos Ponzo10 and User:Luca Ramos Ponzo100. --0x0a (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

plus User:Luca Ramos Ponzo100000 and User:Luca Ramos Ponzo10000. --0x0a (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done All blocked, and all files deleted. Main account also blocked, as they are not getting the message. Yann (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Yann!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Trougnouf

This user is waging an edit war despite ongoing discussion and, pardon me, good arguments. I would appreciate it if an experienced administrator could take a look at this to help de-escalate the situation. Thank you. Lukas Beck (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Neutral. Looking at the photo, the color of the sky shows that the sun is quite low and there is so a kind of lighting diffusion in all the image, therefore it looks indeed to the begining of the golden hour to me as stated by Trougnouf in his user page. That being said I'm neutral because I'm not a huge fan of personal photos sorted in general categories. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Please note that while the discussion so far has only been about one image, there are other images from the user that were categorized as golden hour, and I can't even begin to see anything "golden" in them. For example: File:Låddejåhkå river along the Nordkalottruta in Padjelanta National Park (DSCF1398).jpg or File:Reindeer skull in Pärlälvens fjällurskog (DSCF2138).jpg Lukas Beck (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Christian Ferrer: Note that this photo is valuable enough to have been used on the Persian Wikipedia ( fa:کوله‌گردی ). I see your point nonetheless, the vast majority of the pictures I post are not so personal and I would appreciate for the type-of-light categories I add to remain. --Trougnouf (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• @L. Beck: when reporting someone usually we give a notification to the concerned user, no problem this time I did it. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you Lukas Beck (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Note that Lukas Beck performed the first and last golden hour related edit on File:A couple of backpackers posing during a hike along the Kungsleden in Sarek National Park (DSCF2728).jpg. They now removed the golden hour category on File:Tarraätno river in Pärlälvens fjällurskog (DSCF2364-DSCF2381).jpg, which was also taken during golden hour, without reaching a consensus here. I meticulously check the pictures I take to categorize whether they were taken during golden hour, civil twilight, nautical twilight, and astronomical twilight based on the sun angle, it makes a noticeable difference in lighting (even when taking pictures of outdoor objects and when the sun is not fully visible) and I would appreciate not having Lukas Beck or anyone else subjectively delete this data. --Trougnouf (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly sympathetic to your work on Commons. Many of your shots are truly excellent. That's beyond question. But I can only repeat myself. The golden hour isn't a time of day in the traditional sense. It can't be compared to sunrise or sunset, or to the twilight phases. Rather, like the blue hour, it has a poetic value for the photographer. And if the sky is cloudy, as is clearly evident in your pictures, the golden hour simply isn't visible in the images. It would be wrong to categorize these images as such. Please note that I have already written this to you on your discussion page. Lukas Beck (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lukas Beck: I have no idea why you think the "golden hour" requires a cloudless sky. Do you have any authoritative source for that claim, or is it just your personal opinion? - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I may have expressed myself a bit unclearly. Perhaps more clearly: In these photos, the phenomenon of the golden hour is not visible, presumably due to the cloud cover. I wouldn't generalize that a cloudy sky can't also represent the golden hour. Lukas Beck (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I am noticing that Lukas Beck has been removing more of the golden hour categories (than I can keep track of) from my pictures. Once again I am asking that they refrain from doing so unless a consensus is reached here that validates their activity (and regardless, not to unilaterally assess and delete my work on a given picture without discussing it and reaching a consensus first, since their contribution is obviously not consented to), and that they please undo their removal and restore my work. I haven't been contributing as much lately and I really don't want all my time and energy spent on Wikimedia Commons to be spent tracking down and restoring my work which was taken down according to a user's opinion and arguing over meaningless details.

I actually left Lukas Beck's latest reversal on the initial picture and added starting a discussion about this edit war in my todo list (which means it probably would never have gotten done) because I did not wish to devote my time and energy to it but Lukas Beck forced my hand by starting this discussion so here I am arguing, and on User_talk:Trougnouf#File:A_couple_of_backpackers_posing_during_a_hike_along_the_Kungsleden_in_Sarek_National_Park_(DSCF2728).jpg calculating precise angles, and now I guess they are tracking and taking down my work and I feel a bit harassed and worried for my contributions, and I really would much rather be devoting my energy to something else happier and more productive. Please stop and undo your destruction. --Trougnouf (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It makes sense to have this debate. It is not intended to discredit you or your work. It is meant to create a consensus and provide security for future edits. I have explained my point of view. It is reflected in what is stated in Wikipedia articles about the golden hour, and with that, I believe I can justify my changes objectively. By the way: There were just a handful of changes that I made to your images. So let's not pretend that I undermined hours of work on your part. That is not an accurate representation of the situation, and I will not accept that accusation. Lukas Beck (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how many changes you've made and I have no way to know how many and on which of my images without going through your contribution history between two indefinite periods (since you've continued your deletion work even after starting this discussion) and trying to recognize my files in the lot. That is problematic. And your list of Special:Contributions/L._Beck is quite huge, making it seemingly really difficult for anyone (especially someone who is not you) to revert them. --Trougnouf (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Since these are files you uploaded, all of my changes (as I said, about a handful) should be visible in your watchlist. There, you can, of course, easily track all the changes. However, please don't undo my changes; after all, there's no golden hour to be seen on these. ;-) Lukas Beck (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

User:NoOnEtHeMaStA

NoOnEtHeMaStA (talk · contribs) is making some bizarre and wrong edits and moves. I don't know if it's vandalism, a malfunctioning bot, or incompetence. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Koavf: you did not notify the user that you started this thread. I will do so for you, but surely you have been on Commons long enough that you should know to do that. - Jmabel ! talk 22:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@NoOnEtHeMaStA: You moved Category:Node.js to Creator:Node.js. I've fixed it back. This was definitely wrong, and could have had some very confusing results. If you make similar moves in the future your account is likely to be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

User:August 2025 indef'd

Just for the record: I've indef-blocked the recently created account August 2025 (talk · contribs) after detecting that nearly all their edits were racist-vandalism: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], including the creation of Template:NIGGA. --Túrelio (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmm... Less than month ago I blocked July2806 (talk · contribs), but they do not seem related. Taivo (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

follow-up

Today I've indef'd Niggggga National Park (talk · contribs), which was created minutes ago and is likely a follow-up account to August 2025. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

H2v5o68z

• User: H2v5o68z (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning for doing so, and repeated removal of said warning.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not see recent copyvios. The only deleted upload after July was deleted as duplicate, not as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Jeff G. has been keeping warning me for photoes I uploaded 2 years ago due to ignorance of COM:FOP UAE. I actually nominated these photoes for deletion myself after his first warning. After that, he started warning me not to nominate deletions for copyvio speedy deletion. He is trying to threaten me.H2v5o68z (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

1Veertje notified the user of the unacceptability of uploading copyvios like File:Shin Ramyun.jpg in Special:Diff/92274502 11:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC), multiple name changes ago and after the welcome bot notified them of such initially. A1Cafel asked them "Please do not remove valid warning templates from your talk page, except while archiving" in Special:Diff/844413046 03:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC). They kept doing both. I asked the user "please stop signing your speedy deletion requests" in Special:Diff/1030352974 11:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC) in response to Special:Diff/1030253480, which caused Yann's incomplete edits Special:Diff/1030303103 and Special:Permalink/1030303106 (which I then had to fix) because the script Yann uses does not check the sanity of the right curly braces and does not expect signatures which contain them. I'm sorry I misinterpreted the logs (which I would not have had to look at if they did not remove valid warnings) and wrote "final warning" above instead of "many warnings".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/92274502 was 12 years ago man. It was not intentionally uploaded to violate copyright. There are no logo violations from me for at least 10 years. Those files you warned me are all two years old. In addition, they are conversials. Many were kept after community discussionCommons:Deletion requests/File:Dubai Marina 1.jpg. And I haven't uploaded any UAE photoes for two years. H2v5o68z (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The DR from 12 years ago was a derivative work upload: a photo of a popular brand of noodles, which has packaging that is copyright protected. Since then two other users made the same mistake actually. File:Shin Ramyun.jpg needed to be deleted, but just because the file wasn't acceptable for Commons does not make it unacceptable behavior to upload it, just hopefully something they hopefully learned from. Cursory look into recent uploads look good. Vera ^(talk) 15:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

user: "tastefulphoto"

Oddly named user (who puts quotes in a username?) whose sole purpose here is exhibitionism. Dronebogus (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

79.50.89.214

@Taivo: More LTA sock rename requests. Geoffroi 18:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• For other admins, this is a sock ip of GMatteotti. Geoffroi 19:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)