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
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: ~52
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-10: ~277

Other:

• Duplicates: ~187
• Advertisements/spam: ~9
• Personal photos/selfies: ~6
• Other speedy deletions: ~24
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~4
• Undeletion requests: ~11

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~31
• Interface admin: ~16
• 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.

Edit warring by FunkMonk insisting that thousands of videos of birds are videos of paleontology

I don't know if there's a better place to take this and if you think there is this could be moved there. I already talked with the user on the talk page with no success.

FunkMonk is edit warring at the Category:Videos of dinosaurs I created, insisting that

• the 3,806 videos of birds like ducks, geese etc all belong into the Videos of paleontology category (and by extension the Paleontology and Videos of Earth sciences cat) despite that this is factually false and despite that this renders the category useless / just pollutes it
• that all videos anyhow depicting a dinosaur, including a music video and old fantasy films, are videos of the science of paleontology, the scientific study of the life of the past, mainly but not exclusively through the study of fossils (earlier I had copied the subset of videos that actually are about paleontology into that Category:Videos of paleontology; there could also be a subcat like 'Videos of dinosaur paleontology' for example)

Prototyperspective (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• A single revert is not "edit-warring", and you're the only one who keeps reverting. Dinosaurs are generally categorised as a palaeontological subject, as they are on Wikipedia itself[1], there is no logical reason why they shouldn't be here too. Everyone knows birds are dinosaurs, but everyone also knows what most people mean when they say dinosaur. No need to be counter-productively pedantic. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  You reverted twice. The Wikipedia category may need fixing too and is no good reason to introduce this inaccuracy to here. Additionally, there is little use of Wikipedia deepcategory views unlike on Commons where pollution categories like Paleontology or Earth sciences with thousands of bird videos helps nobody and is inappropriate. Dinosaurs are a paleontological subject, but not currently living birds and neither are music videos or videos of old fantasy films videos of paleontology. This is not counterproductive, it's caring about accuracy instead of slowly letting the categories fade into meaninglessness and usefulness as well as making sure Commons categories are useful and show what they claim to show etc. I think you're being pedantic on insisting on this change when it's simply factually false which should be the end of the story. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Birds are dinosaurs. Get over it. If you want to fix the categorization here, then set up some sort of structure with 'archaic dinosaurs' separate from 'dinosauria' Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Birds are not dinosaurs. Birds are believed to be biologically related to dinosaurs, but that doesn't make them equivalent to dinosaurs, especially not for purposes of categorization. (There's more of a phylogenetic basis for describing birds as a type of reptile, but that isn't a useful description for purposes of categorization either.) Omphalographer (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not going to make a fuss about categorization, but birds are descendants of theropod dinosaurs, and by modern biological standards, that puts them in the clade of Dinosauria and thus they are dinosaurs. It's a definition, and definitions are always going to be debatable, but biologists define groups of living things by clades, and clade Aves (birds) is a subset of clade Dinosauria (dinosaurs). And birds are more closely related to T. rex than T. rex is to Triceratops; it's only recency bias that has us lump T. rex and Triceratops together and exclude the emu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Birds are dinosaurs. Get over it. Are you referring to me? You may want to reread because I'm totally fine with birds being dinosaurs. Or are you saying it's okay to remove the categorization of videos of birds flying being videos of paleontology? It's somewhat unclear. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Class Aves being in claude Dinosauria does not mean that "Birds are dinosaurs" in any useful or meaningful linguistic way. The term "dinosaur" was specifically constructed to refer to diverse groups of long extinct species, and that is still the word is still generally used for. To classify living birds within "paleontology" is simply wrong per what en:w:Paleontology means. The relationship of any existing species of birds to dinosaurs is much more distant than the relationship of living people to Homo habalis - and we do so not categorize living people, even though we're fellow Hominini. I think most educated people are aware that birds and dinosaurs are significantly related, if one feels that this fact needs to be more widely known, categorizing living birds as "paleontology" is not a useful way to do so. I don't know if the intent was to be edgy or provocative, if so see Commons:Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Do a Google search or Google Books search on "non-avian dinosaurs". It's a reasonably common phrase. Why is grouping birds in with their 100 million year old ancestors, just like we do with mammals, not useful? It is productive to understand that the dinosaurs did not just go extinct and the mammals took over, instead the dinosaurs are still one of the more prominent groups of creatures on the planet.

Category:Humans is a redirect to Category:Homo sapiens, which is a member of Category:Hominidae. What's in that category is partial, but if you keep digging, it includes categories like Category:Politicians of Argentina, and thus File:Aníbal Fernández, Security Minister.jpg is categorized as Hominidae. And frankly, humans are always an exception.

That said the issue seems to be including all the fantasy and living dinosaur stuff into paleontology, which is not helpful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

One has to pay attention to the exact wording. Prosfilaes said "Do a Google search or Google Books search on 'non-avian dinosaurs'." @Omphalographer said "Birds are not dinosaurs." Both have it true in a certain way. Birds ARE (biologically) dinosaurs, but the common language has it that "dinosaur", those killed of by the Cretaceous extinction event, actually means "non-avian dinosaur". The scientific imperfection in our category system here stems from the common language use, it's as @Infrogmation said: "Class Aves being in claude Dinosauria does not mean that "Birds are dinosaurs" in any useful or meaningful linguistic way."

I think that, as written below, putting Aves material of living organism in paleontology categories is wrong. On Wikipedias, there are two different category trees for organisms in parallel: one using scientific, binomial names and one using common names if available. Something similar could be a broader solution here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

And as I said, "Birds are dinosaurs" is useful, by removing the idea that the dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Jurassic and instead conveying that many groups of many animals went extinct, and that certain groups of dinosaurs and mammals survived the mass extinctions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

"Birds are dinosaurs" is useful, by removing the idea that the dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Jurassic and instead conveying that many groups of many animals went extinct, and that certain groups of dinosaurs and mammals survived the mass extinctions

While that may be true, it's not the job of categories to convey that message. Categories are there to help users find images. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Categories exist to help people find content. Someone searching the category dinosaur is not looking for a goose. Let's not miss the forest for the trees here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Precisely. To quote Jmabel from another recent thread: Commons categorization isn't mainly about ontology, it's about helping people find things. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify: this originally was not about whether birds are dinosaurs and I don't really care about the question – it's whether (any/all) videos of living birds belong into the (Videos of) paleontology category.

Don't care whether this is solved by removing the birds subcategory or basically by removing the Videos of paleontology cat on the Videos of dinosaur cat where the subset of videos directly in that cat that are about paleontology directly copied into the Videos of paleontology cat (already did this). I think if birds are widely accepted to scientifically be dinosaurs, then the subcat does belong into it. Especially if other cats are also structured like it which makes sense.

In that case, the aforementioned issues could be solved by having a separate category Category:Non-avian dinosaurs which may be a needed or good cat to have anyway. Non-avian dinosaurs is a common accurate term. (Btw, note that there aren't just ordinary people searching files by colloquial associations among the Commons users.) Furthermore, again not all videos depicting dinosaurs such as 1920s films showing some are videos of paleontology so I still don't think it should be set on the entire cat even if the Aves subcat is removed; and there could be a subcat for these videos (containing e.g. videos from a natural history museum, showing fossils and explaining current paleontological knowledge about some dinosaurs and interviewing some paleontologist) which does have the cat set. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this reminder. Yes - paleontology is "the scientific study of the life of the past". It isn't specific to dinosaurs (however one may define those), but a video depicting modern-day species like birds is not "of paleontology" in any sense. Omphalographer (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Abidahnaf008

Abidahnaf008 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) This user keeps uploading copyrighted photos from the internet. Please see their talk page, it is full of deletion notices.

Apart from File:Syed Nazrul Islam in 1970.png, all of their recent uploads were also taken from the internet. I have tagged several for speedy deletion. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান  Done, copyvios deleted and user blocked for one week. Could be indefed if this behaviour persists. Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

NOHNIME

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

Exhibitionism-only account Dronebogus (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, VOA, NOT HERE. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Mahaveer Indra

• User: Mahaveer Indra (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: continued copyvios uploading like File:PMJDY Logo.png and File:Bhim app logo.svg after three blocks for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. Other files were old, but File:Life Insurance Corporation of India logo.svg (from [2]) was uploaded on 18 September 2025. Yann (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Wycliffe Kipkirui

• User: Wycliffe Kipkirui (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

I am bringing this here because there is a file that was uploaded under a fraudulent license, but because an earlier version of it was deleted, administrator access is be needed to view the previously uploaded file and determine that the image was not properly licensed. This photo of Hassan Omar Hassan was uploaded on 4 October by Wycliffe Kipkirui with a date of creation on 4 October as "own work." The same day, an IP (likely loutsocking) responded to a query on Wycliffe Kipkirui's en-wiki talk page that I'm his personal photographer. so this is my work. and yes i took the picture today. However, an identical photo was uploaded earlier this year by 1OutstandingSeason (talk · contribs) and deleted by Explicit on 25 September following a deletion discussion. Since the photo was identical, that would mean Wycliffe Kipkirui's statement and own work claim are invalid. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, exactly the same file. I blocked 1OutstandingSeason and I will block Wycliffe as well. Also I deleted the file in question. Taivo (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Chainsawbot

• User: Chainsawbot (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Unauthorized bot. Malforming and making DRs without evidence.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 15:46, 6 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)