Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections
Shortcuts: COM:AN/B • COM:AN/P • COM:RFPP
|
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-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |||
133, 132, 131, 130, 129, 128, 127, 126, 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 |
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
| ||
Note
- For page protection requests, please state protection type, file name, and proposed protection time span. See also: Protection Policy.
- Before proposing a user be blocked, please familiarize yourself with the Commons' Blocking Policy.
- 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/B|thread=|reason=}}is available for this. - Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
Lower upload protection on File:QR_code_for_mobile_English_Wikipedia.svg
[edit]Please lower upload protection on this file, in order that I may overwrite it with the file File:English_Mobile_Wikipedia_QR_Code.svg, which fixes a technical issue with the QR code encoding, per [1]. The page has no history of vandalism and it's unclear to me why the upload permission was set to administrator-only. Eyesinthefire (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- Given that there is no longer a separate site for the mobile English Wikipedia, perhaps it would be more useful to substitute this for a different QR code altogether? Omphalographer (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same and proposed that for discussion on w:en:Talk:QR code (if nobody objects I'll try to do it tomorrow), but the existing EN Mobile Wikipedia file is still used in a lot of other language Wikipedia articles in which I don't know whether it would be appropriate to replace with a different link, but where it would be definitely appropriate for the time being to replace with an equivalent but more technically-accurate version. Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png?utm_source=commons.wikimedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail)
Comment, the page does have a history of vandalism (see page history or logs), particularly with vandals overwriting the image, before it was upload-protected in 2017 per this request here. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2026 (UTC)- Comment I would think that unprotected QR code images in an "anyone can edit" environment are a pretty high risk for hijacking. Do we have any sense of whether we've had problems with that? - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- Separate from what I missed that @Tvpuppy pointed out, there's been some vandalism of the header image at w:en:QR code, see at least [2]. None of the English Wikipedia articles that use this file are fully protected, leaving them vulnerable to this, but potentially in an easier-to-catch way than overwriting the file. Do you think, since it's harder to keep track of, the file should be kept fully overwrite protected? Eyesinthefire (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think any unprotection should probably be brief. Alternatively, would there be any real problem with uploading under a different file name and then we can merge it in? - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- It's already uploaded under a different name - File:English_Mobile_Wikipedia_QR_Code.svg is the fixed version. If that can be merged in, that would be excellent. What would be the forum for requesting that? Eyesinthefire (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Eyesinthefire: good, assuming it looks OK to me I'll bring it over.
- Probably the right thing to do would be to first ask on the file talk page of the target (possibly pinging the original uploader if they are still active, or anyone else with appropriate rights who has previously updated the file). If it doesn't get attention in a couple of days, then come to COM:AN or do more pinging. Quite possibly we should have a template and a maintenance category for this. @Abzeronow: this is more your sort of focus than mine, any thoughts? - Jmabel ! talk 02:51, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
- I would also agree unprotection should be brief if there is an overwrite. I can temporarily grant Eyesinthefire autopatroller so all we would have to do is lower to autopatroller protection. Abzeronow (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Abzeronow: I already did the overwrite on their behalf. My question was just about the paragraph that ends with my question: is there a "normal" way to request this? - Jmabel ! talk 04:15, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
- I would also agree unprotection should be brief if there is an overwrite. I can temporarily grant Eyesinthefire autopatroller so all we would have to do is lower to autopatroller protection. Abzeronow (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
- It's already uploaded under a different name - File:English_Mobile_Wikipedia_QR_Code.svg is the fixed version. If that can be merged in, that would be excellent. What would be the forum for requesting that? Eyesinthefire (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
- I think any unprotection should probably be brief. Alternatively, would there be any real problem with uploading under a different file name and then we can merge it in? - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- Separate from what I missed that @Tvpuppy pointed out, there's been some vandalism of the header image at w:en:QR code, see at least [2]. None of the English Wikipedia articles that use this file are fully protected, leaving them vulnerable to this, but potentially in an easier-to-catch way than overwriting the file. Do you think, since it's harder to keep track of, the file should be kept fully overwrite protected? Eyesinthefire (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa - persistent and prolific copyvio uploader for 14 years
[edit]Hi, I think it is time for a permanent block of of Gaia Octavia Agrippa - on the basis of persistent, repeated, continuous and prolific violations of copyright in her photo uploads. For 14 years, her user talk page is completely flooded with with very clear warnings of her blatant copyright violations - yet despite the multiple warnings - GOC point-blank refuses to respond to the warnings. The only warning she did respond to was of an image (copyrighted) uploaded by someone else (to which she cropped and then uploaded the cropped version).
The significant details of her copyright violations:
- She repeatedly copies images directly from the official websites of the three service branches of the British Armed Forces - https://www.raf.mod.uk, https://www.army.mod.uk, and https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk (and their official sub-domains), along with official websites of the Ministry of Defence (and other UK government ministries and agencies) which are located directly on the UK government website at GOV.UK (and its many sub-domains). All of these official websites very clearly state that all material (including images, documents, videos, etc) is strictly CROWN COPYRIGHT.
- During her individual file uploads, she is falsely claiming all her images are officially licenced and released under the Open Government Licence (OGL). This is blatantly wrong. In respect of official images from the British Armed Forces (Royal Navy, British Army, Royal Air Force), and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) - the ONLY people authorised to licence under the OGL (or any other licence approved by the British government) is a specialist team within the MOD called Defence Imagery (https://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk) - which are available on their website, appropriately licenced, and made available for public use - under the terms of the OGL
I need to make it clear that all images on the Defence Imagery website are still protected by Crown Copyright. Most images on Defence Imagery are not licenced under OGL - only a small selection are OGL licenced. Other images are released under an official MOD 'Press' licence for registered print or broadcast journalists.
Not only is she uploading Crown Copyright image, the vast majority of personally identifiable people - and is a massive security risk.
I hope you permanently block Gaia Octavia Agrippa, because she has had multiple warnings for 14 years, and is making no attempt to comply with copyright status in her uploads. It is very tiresome checking her uploads and nominating for speedy deletions. Kind regards Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Gaia has uploaded a lot of good files as well. She is never blocked and even never warned. I warned her (and archived her user talkpage). Taivo (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- The files nominated for speedy deletion and deleted by Turelio should not have been eligible for speedy deletion under F1, which only applies to
[c]ontent [that] is a clear copyright violation, with evidence that no Commons-compatible licencing has been issued by the copyright holder. This 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.
At least some of the images in question (example, example; I was not able to check all the files before they were deleted) had it clearly stated on the bottomAll content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated
. That is evidence of Commons-compatible licencing per Commons:UK Open Government Licence. Militum professio scriniarii attempts to argue that the Ministry of Defence may be one of the branches of the UK government that is not obliged to issue content under the OGL, but the MoD is not on the list of exempt institutions on the OGL page linked above. Regardless, these are not blatant and unambiguous cases of copyright infringement; they are cases subject to debate over the applicability of the OGL to MoD images and thus not appropriate for speedy deletion. (As Andy Dingley pointed out, MPS appears confused about the difference between Crown Copyright and a Commons-compatible licence. - However, MPS should not be confused about the speedy deletion process this because I contested their effort earlier today to delete an image I uploaded by converting the speedy deletion nomination into a regular deletion request, and MPS edit-warred by twice restoring the speedy deletion template, which is not acceptable once speedy deletion has been properly contested (diff, diff), only stopping once they were reverted by Whyiseverythingalreadyused. I believe some if not all of the files deleted today by Turelio should be considered a contested deletion, undeleted and nominated with a deletion request since they are not unambiguous copyright violations. I would also ask Taivo to look more closely at the files and consider whether Gaia Octavia Agrippa needed a "final warning" for all of these uploads. (I am unfamiliar with her history and thus whether she has uploaded copyvios in the past, but I am quite sure that MPS has not properly analysed the Commons licencing status of the images nominated for speedy deletion today.)
- If applicable (I am unfamiliar if Commons does BOOMERANG sanctions), I believe that MPS should be warned or otherwise appropriately sanctioned for (1) abusing the speedy deletion process, (2) edit-warring over the contestation of a speedy deletion, and (3) failing to notify GOA of this discussion with a talk page notice as required at the top of this page. Thanks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971: thank you. I counter-propose that MPS be blocked for edit warring. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support block of MPS Everything I've ever seen from this editor has been framed in an attitude of arrogance, knowing better (both technical subjects and Wikimedia issues), edit-warring and a refusal to cooperate with other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Superior attitude and denial of the facts are also present in User talk:Militum professio scriniarii#File copyright status concerning File:Pakistan Air Force (PAF) C-130H Hercules, winner of the Concours d’Elegance Trophy at the 2025 Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT 2025), Gloucestershire, England, July 2025.jpg. I
Support a boomerang. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC) - Second ping to Túrelio and @Taivo to see if these files mentioned can be undeleted since it appears that the speedy deletion mechanism was abused by the nominator. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- I am not against undeletion. Significant doubt about deletion is created, so speedy deletion seems now incorrect. Taivo (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- If someone is undeleting, could they please use a permalink to this discussion in the undelete rationale so people can understand what happened here? - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'm back looking a day or so later. I see File:Pakistan Air Force (PAF) C-130H Hercules, winner of the Concours d’Elegance Trophy at the 2025 Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT 2025), Gloucestershire, England, July 2025.jpg is still deleted. @Taivo: is it only that file of which you say you are "not against undeletion"? Because you didn't delete it, Magog the Ogre did, so I'm not sure of the relevance of being "not against undeletion". I have not been following this whole thing super-closely, but if there are some files that were incorrectly deleted, either someone needs to make a list of them, or the admins who incorrectly deleted these need to take on the undeletion themselves, or someone needs to start a UDR. - Jmabel ! talk 05:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- My response at 13:23, 2 September 2026 applies for EVERY recently deleted file uploaded by Gaia. Taivo (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel, turelio did not respond on user talk despite being active elsewhere on the page so I will try to pull together all the file names for a UDR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- I am not against undeletion. Significant doubt about deletion is created, so speedy deletion seems now incorrect. Taivo (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- There is more deletion-related misbehaviour from Militum professio scriniarii that needs administrative attention: twice edit warring ([3], [4]) to remove a deletion discussion template from a file that is currently subject to a validly made deletion request. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- Unilaterally removing the deletion template as noted by Dclemens1971 here is obviously inappropriate, but it occurred before this discussion started, so I don't see it as a reason to take preemptive administrative action. - Jmabel ! talk 05:47, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- I think this is where we are:
- User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa has been warned, and on that side that is enough.
- There may be some files that should be undeleted, but there doesn't seem to be a clear list that I or another random admin can act on.
- I (and, it appears, others) strongly warn Militum professio scriniarii that at some point high-handedness can itself slide into being a reason for a block, and that the conduct described by [User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] in his post at 19:08, 3 September 2026 was absolutely inappropriate. I'm not going to block MPS for anything that has happened in the past, or for trying to get Gaia blocked, but if things like what Dclemens1971 pointed to happen again then a block will be in order.
- Jmabel ! talk 05:55, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
At least 95% of all images uploaded by User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa are blatant UNLICENCED copyright violations. She has uploaded many hundreds, possibly thousands of copyright violation images - she falsely claims that they are all released under the Open Government Licence - they are factually NOT released under ANY licence. The individual URL of the original source image displays NO LICENCE. The metadata for each image displays NO LICENCE. The homepage of the image source CLEARLY states all material is CROWN COPYRIGHT - and is NOT licenced under the OGL (or any other licence). What Commons editor fails to understand those are absolutely clear copyright violations.
Let me be clear - I am specifically referring copyright violations from the official domain of the Ministry of Defence - mod.uk and all sub-domains such as https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk, https://www.army.mod.uk, https://www.raf.mod.uk, and the vast majority of https://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk, along with the former https://www.mod.uk - which are all strictly unlicenced Crown Copyright. The ONLY images of the British Armed Forces images (and other media) on the mod.uk sub-domains which ARE made available under one of two specific licences are found within the Downloadable Imagery of the defenceimagery.mod.uk website. One those licences is the Open Government Licence (OGL) - which is free use, with specific terms such as attribution. It is very easy to see that Gaia Octavia Agrippa has falsely claimed OGL licencing - NONE have the required attribution (which is also grounds for deletion). The other MOD licence is the highly restrictive MOD Crown Copyright News / Editorial Licence - which is NOT free use, thus can NOT be used here on Commons. Ministry of Defence copyright and merchandising: information and documents gives very clear guidance on copyright and licencing.
For further clarification, I am NOT claiming any copyright violation of images from the GOV.uk UK Government website. Those are all released under the Open Government Licence V3 (though I don't know when that was instigated). Nor am I referring Flickr sites used by various UK Government departments (there is considerable inconsistent licencing on those), the same with other social media sites. IF I have accidentally tagged any of those for copyvio - I freely apologise.
Finally, those of you who are sniping at me - I guess you are just perfect, and never made a single mistake! Please - keep it civil and respectful. Again, I freely and publicly apologise for my sometimes stubborn or heated behaviour - my prescription medication sometimes makes me drowsy and grumpy - I'm truly SORRY. 🙏 Thanks, kind regards, Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- Allow me to answer individual comments.
- @Taivo: - I have obviously not checked every single upload of GOA, so it is impossible for me to support or not your claim she has also uploaded 'good' images. I freely accept in good faith your opinion. However, before you archived her talk page, she had received tons of clear warnings for copyright violation - going back FOURTEEN YEARS! More than 95% of those were deleted without any contesting, and again, I can't comment if those uploads were interspersed with 'good' uploads. However, every one of her newest uploads is a blatant violation of copyright, together with with a fake claim of OGL - without any attribution. The actual source for each individual image contains NO licence, the 'homepage' of the source image (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk, https://www.army.mod.uk, of https://www.raf.mod.uk) clearly states Crown Copyright, and NO licence, and the metadata (extended view) for each image clearly failed to state a licence. This is irrefutable evidence of copyright violation! Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971: - "
[c]ontent [that] is a clear copyright violation, with evidence that no Commons-compatible licencing has been issued by the copyright holder.
" - this is exactly what happened each time GOA copied directly from the https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk, https://www.army.mod.uk, or https://www.raf.mod.uk websites. The ORIGINAL source for those images contained NO licence (individually), their homepage also contains NO licence. - "
This 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.
" - I totally agree, and I appreciate your work to find Suraya Marshall and Harv Smyth. However, I wonder why GOA was not able to find these. Crucially though, the ORIGINAL (high resolution) UNLICENCED images from the Royal Air Force website (same for Royal Navy and British Army websites) are still copyvios - therefore speedy deleting. The correct method is to copy the low resolution images directly from their page on theGOV.ukwebsite, make a fresh upload here on Commons, tag with {{OGL3}} (or whichever OGL iteration was in force at the time the page was originally created - Wayback Machine is helpful for this), and critically, apply the correct ATTRIBUTION to the OGL. GOA systematically failed to provide attribution. I don't recall the full details of consequences to apply attribution when required, if GOA (or any other uploader) occasionally misses applying attribution, I personally am happy to edit to include the appropriate attribution to the image. However, GOA is an extremely experienced editor - she should know in her sleep the importance of correct attribution - yet she repeatedly and consistently fails. - Regarding Commons:UK Open Government Licence, the absence of the Ministry of Defence from any 'exemption list' means nothing. That page, whilst well-meaning, is fundamentally 'original research'. The Ministry of Defence copyright and licence requirements on GOV.uk states blanket Crown Copyright, with in-house individual select licences]. The https://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk clearly states in its 'Copyright' tab (it's a pop-up, so impossible to provide direct URL) that ALL MOD content is copyright - only SELECT images are released under one of two specific licences.
I trust this is helpful. When there is zero EVIDENCE of a licence on the original source website (Royal Navy, British Army, Royal Air Force, or Defence Imagery), or it's specific image metadata - that is clearly a blatant copyright violation. IF a low-resoulution of the identical image appears on the OGL-licenced GOV.uk website (including sub-domains of GOV.uk) - the GOV.uk OGL is NOT transferrable to the high-resolution images on the MOD.uk websites.In general, Crown copyright material [hosted by the MOD] which has not been made available under the OGL or the MOD Crown Copyright News / Editorial Licence, cannot be re-used or reproduced for any other purpose, unless permission has been granted to you in writing by DIPR. This permission, which is not necessarily guaranteed, will take the form of a written copyright licence from DIPR, and may involve a charge.
- As for the comment regarding not knowing the difference between 'copyright' and 'licence' - I think I have clearly demonstrated very clear knowledge of the difference. I am saddened by your thoughts. As for the Harriet Harris issue - I still can't find any appropriate free licence. I did kindly ask you to provide evidence of licence (or point me to the source of licence if no URL exists); sadly, you failed to provide such evidence. I think we should both realise our own behaviours were not very kind - I freely apologise for my part. I gave up because I was tired of searching for its licence, and will assume good faith that you are correct.
- You stated "I am quite sure that MPS has not properly analysed the Commons licencing status of the images nominated for speedy deletion today". I inform you that you are very wrong - I physically checked each image individually for the OGL (as claimed by AOG) on their original source webpage, their 'homepage', and critically, their metadata (the MOD encodes the actual full URL of their chosen licence within their metadata before adding it to their Downloadable Imagery section of their website). Where no evidence of licence was found, only then did I tag Speedy Deletion for blatant copyright violation. If you check my contributions, you will see clear time delays between one SD nom and another (the only exception to time delays is for extracted or cropped images, which all use the same original source). If you want to aim your "not properly analysed", you should look at the contributions of another person in this discussion. I don't want to name them - I don't want to fan the flames.
- Finally, regarding Gaia Octavia Agrippa, if you kindly check her talk page, and importantly, tap on 'view history' - you will see that for at least 14 years, she has repeatedly been warned by many different people about copyright violations from Speedy delete nominations - she totally fails to defend such nominations, nor warnings. Total 'radio silence'! Only one time did she respond - that was when she uploaded a cropped image previously uploaded by someone else. Both images were still deleted. Please take care, best regards, Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- I find your walls of text unconvincing for this reason: you appeared to go indiscriminately through every image that GOA had touched, including one that I had I uploaded originally and that GOA had merely edited, and nominate them for deletion. In the case of the image I uploaded, you were transparently wrong in your speedy deletion rationale (
because UK government works are all protected by Crown Copyright - even on their official YT channel
, which entirely neglected the fact that the image was released under a compatible licence), and that makes me (and others) reasonably believe that you may have committed similar errors of analysis in the many, many other files you nominated in that spree of speedy deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)- To whom it may concern: while parsing this discussion here, I got attracted to a DR mentioned above (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boeing 747 in Kandara Airport.jpg). The answers there authored by Militum professio scriniarii show evidence for overhaste and an overlooking of facts. So, JMabel above would be on the point with "I (and, it appears, others) strongly warn Militum professio scriniarii that at some point high-handedness can itself slide into being a reason for a block". I won't deny expertise in military imagery matters (having encountered MPS in sound rename requests before), but please, @Militum professio scriniarii: always mind your language and check whether you may possibly be in the wrong in discussions! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- I find your walls of text unconvincing for this reason: you appeared to go indiscriminately through every image that GOA had touched, including one that I had I uploaded originally and that GOA had merely edited, and nominate them for deletion. In the case of the image I uploaded, you were transparently wrong in your speedy deletion rationale (
Cá hồi sushi
[edit]- Cá hồi sushi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Tuanh97 sock. Kim Nito (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- The images uploaded by Cá hồi sushi are very similar to the deleted images from Sipboi. Administrator, please take a look at the deleted images from Sipboi. You will clearly see the similarities. Kim Nito (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- Warning: NSFW content in those uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- Partly done. I've blocked them. I'm guessing the uploads should all be deleted, but I leave it to someone else to follow that up. - Jmabel ! talk 20:00, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
_C-130H_Hercules,_winner_of_the_Concours_d%E2%80%99Elegance_Trophy_at_the_2025_Royal_International_Air_Tattoo_(RIAT_2025),_Gloucestershire,_England,_July_2025.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Boeing_747_in_Kandara_Airport.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1265605756){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Boeing_747_in_Kandara_Airport.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1271842770){kind=link}
Please semi-protect my talk for a bit
[edit]Koavf (talk · contribs). Too much vandalism lately. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:54, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
Proposing block for an obvious Nazi username (violates COM:Usernames) Shocksingularity (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- I disagree on the notion of "obvious Nazi username". The possible or probable political allusion would tend more towards an embellishment of the Red Army, as the Reichstag building in 1945 was already quite damaged and not apt to be taken as Nazi symbol. Much more symbolism is to be had in the raising of the hammer-and-sickle flag on the Reichstag roof during the battle for Berlin, it's a well known (staged) iconic photo.
- That said, that nick may very well still be unwanted per COM:IU. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
User:Goal Time UPL
[edit]Goal Time UPL (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) The user uploaded many internet images without permissions, and didn't react to copyright violation notes on their user page. CennoxX (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2026 (UTC)