Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
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	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	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

^{Translate this page}

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.

Transplanted copy from User talk:Jameslwoodward, about myself

Latest comment: 3 days ago46 comments10 people in discussion

A Wikimedian began the discussion below on User talk:Jameslwoodward. I have the opinion that that page is not the best venue to talk about the alleged issues, hence I'm grafting the message here. Grand-Duc (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Begin of copy.

Grand-Duc (talk · contribs) He has been filing excessively disruptive deletion requests. I kindly ask that you have him cease this behavior at once.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8183 B747-346 JAL Japan Airlines(Reso'cha) NRT 09JUL01 (7026968593).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boeing 747-400 - JAL - JA8183 (5723644644).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8183 Reso`cha Boeing 747-346SR Japan Airlines (JAL) (8637493082).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boeing 747-346, Japan Airlines - JAL Reso`cha AN0309058.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8183 (8087571163).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8183 Reso`cha Boeing 747-346SR Japan Airlines (JAL) (8639157327).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boeing 747-346, Japan Airlines - JAL Reso`cha AN0344534.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8149 (aircraft)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8183 (aircraft) --Y.haruo (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Far from having him cease, I encourage him to continue. These are all copyright violations and must be deleted. As I have said many times, the rule on de minimis requires that the copyrighted work be unimportant enough so that an average reader will not notice if it is omitted. That is plainly and clearly not true in these cases.

If you continue to make unfounded accusations such as this, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

All of these are de minimis. I believe I have valid grounds for that conclusion, and I kindly ask that you refrain from directing personal attacks at me Y.haruo (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

So, it is all right for you to make unfounded personal accusations against Grand-Duc, but it is not all right for me to warn you that your behavior will lead to your being banned? . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I got the ping, so I hope I'm not bothering Jim by writing here too.

First of all, I'd like to know how you, @Y.haruo, come to the conclusion that my DR are "excessively disruptive". Judging by how often my argumentation convinces an admin to close them by deleting, I don't think that my interpretation of Commons' policies on which I base the DR are too far-fetched and disruptive. It's much more of quality-assurance work to better the repositories, isn't it?

Furthermore, I've read and re-read your Japanese posting of law texts and its English translation. I think that the basic intention of the law is to make it legitimate for people to engage in exchanges about hobbies on social network services (SNS) and fan communities, up to and including Otaku ways, also using fundamentally copyright protected works (like Pokémon sculptures or vehicle liveries). The inclusion of that "socially acceptable" wording points to such an interpretation, it being facilitating common communication.

But this media use is quite different from an image hosting service and media repository like Commons is. On social networks, any image is bound to slip into the oblivion of the unseen depths of old feeds after some time, whereas Commons is hosting images in curated archives. The visibility there and the influence, the encroachment upon third-party intellectual property, is much more pronounced than in some random SNS feed.

Trudging on such a borderline between copyvio and OK is hardly recommended in the light of COM:PRP. Unless an appellate court or the highest court of law of Japan (or any other country, for that matter) is interpreting and concretizing the law, we IMHO can't boldly assume that such imagery is OK to host here, not when the wording is still fuzzy (by including both "socially acceptable endeavours" and " legitimate interests of copyright holders"). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Wikimedia Foundation does not seek new restrictions. What you are doing effectively narrows the previously accepted scope of De minimis, and that constitutes a new restriction. How many of the administrators who deleted files actually understand this point? Moreover, I am aware that you have distorted the Commons guidance on De minimis and misrepresented Japanese law when filing your deletion requests. This is by no means quality‑assurance work. Y.haruo (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

End of copy.

@Y.haruo: Please elaborate on how I "have distorted the Commons guidance on De minimis" in your eyes; and what exactly constitutes a misrepresentation of Japanese law. Especially the first point is hard for me to understand, I don't see anything in the wording on COM:DM that I have distorted. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This would only be disruptive if they were closed as keep and Grand-Duc continued to nominate similar images. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You argued that the image does not qualify as de minimis because it is categorized according to Disney motifs, but that is not correct. File:Louvre at night centered.jpg is also categorized under Category:Louvre Pyramid at night, and yet it has never been considered problematic. Whether something is de minimis must be determined by examining the image itself, not by looking at its categories. Your statement — "COM:De minimis not applicable, image categorized according to Disney motifs." — is a distortion of the de minimis guidance. SeeCommons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8904 (aircraft), Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA873A (aircraft) in R2-D2 livery and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:C-GWSV (aircraft). Y.haruo (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Did you actually read Commons:De minimis#Guidelines? The sentence about categorisation is directly taken from the page you're saying I'm distorting. And, while I stayed quite short with "COM:De minimis not applicable, image categorized according to Disney motifs.", I meant to imply that the whole image impression was not covered by DM. If that was not concise and explanatory enough, then it's on me, but otherwise, the point still stands. The Louvre pyramid example is something maybe worth looking into, but you can't conclude, simply because nobody challenged the legitimacy of imagery within Category:Louvre Pyramid at night yet, the set is assuredly OK. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I certainly have read it. Although it has been in place since 2012, it is only a broad guideline and has not been applied as an operational basis for deletion. Claiming afterward that you “meant something different” does not strike me as a sincere or honest way to engage.

Moreover, in Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/07#Pokemon Jets deletion requests you stated that "a deletion from for instance JA8962 in Pokémon livery (that's the 747-400 example above) can be kept when it's from FRA and has to be deleted when it's made in Heathrow or Narita." This is an unfounded and factually incorrect view with no source whatsoever, expressed solely to strengthen your own position.

Disrupting discussions and making false statements are, of course, grounds for blocking. Y.haruo (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Actually, threatening people you're talking to with blocking because you believe disagreeing with you is making false statements and being disruptive is actually a way people have got blocked.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

What a selective reading you've done in that VPC thread, @Y.haruo... You're apparently conveniently glossing over the actual explanation for "a deletion from for instance JA8962 in Pokémon livery (that's the 747-400 example above) can be kept when it's from FRA and has to be deleted when it's made in Heathrow or Narita." (-> it's the combination of Commons' way of doing things: a principle akin to a Home state regulation, combined with COM:FOP Germany#Permanent, the BGH Aida Kussmund case & COM:FOP UK & COM:FOP Japan) and also the analysis that JMabel did ("All of this is complicated by the fact that the risk involved is not just the risk of legal penalties, but also a certain dedication to intellectual honesty. We certainly often refuse to host material where there is a near-zero chance that the rights-holders would ever sue, and the PCP makes it very clear that we intend to keep to that policy, not just do anything we think we can get away with.")

Are we perhaps operating around a language barrier? I dont see where I expressed to mean something different, with "COM:De minimis not applicable, image categorized according to Disney motifs" I only shortened the reasoning about the inapplicability of DM, perhaps too much. But the categorisation argument is still a centrepiece of the DR rationale. Wasn't that visible?

Please let me ask you, Y.haruo: do you know some commentaries of or maybe court rulings about the Japanese DM law you've repeatedly quoted that speak about commercial usages of media produced under that statute? As written above, I think that the "socially accepted as legitimate and reasonable" does not cover commercial exploitations of imagery (besides those immanently happening on social networks). If I'm not mistaken, Japanese corporations and governmental bodies are actually quite strong against IP rights violations (examples: Sony and Nintendo using their might against game streamers, publishing houses having manga reading sites hosted abroad in e.g. Vietnam taken down, the ministry of agriculture, forestry and fishery fighting against "pirated" seeds and seedlings of Japanese-born crop varieties that are used in China and South Korea). This kind of politics present itself as reason to have a restrictive reading of "socially accepted as legitimate and reasonable".

That the Commons:De minimis#Guidelines allegedly hasn't been used as DR rationale in the 2010's is no reason to not do so currently. That idea is apparently quite convincing, most DR where I referred this guidelines actually ended in deletions (barring those still open). And last but not least: if you're making accusations like "[d]isrupting discussions and making false statements", you must be prepared to produce solid evidence for it, otherwise, it could easily appear like slander, I think. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You are diverting the discussion, but the fact remains that you have repeatedly made false statements about Japanese law, and the same happened in the deletion request. In that DR, you invoked the pre‑2020 version of the law from 2015 and claimed that “These character images cannot fulfil this ‘incidental’ clause, as they are objectively prejudicing the opportunity of their IP owners’ illustrations to potential customers wanting to illustrate the characters.”

In my response to that DR, I explained—citing the Agency for Cultural Affairs—that Commons has no such unreasonable requirement, and that the 2020 amendment clarified and expanded the scope of the provision.

Despite being aware of this, you continue to rely on the outdated statute and repeat unreasonable arguments based on it. This conduct clearly fails to represent current Japanese law accurately and serves to push the deletion discussion in your favor. I wonder how many people have been misled by your false statements. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANA B747-481D JA8964 Pocket Monsters (5314675945).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8964 B747-481D ANA All Nippon(Pokemon) HND 10JUL01 (7046345265).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8957 (aircraft), Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8965 (aircraft) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pokémon trains, Y.haruo (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Let's use your posting in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ANA_B747-481D_JA8964_Pocket_Monsters_(5314675945).jpg as base, OK?

You've posted what is apparently an excerpt of Japanese law (I'm a bit irritated by the "Copilot" part in the URL at the end, though. Copilot is Microsoft's AI system, can you guarantee that no hallucinations are included?).

Source posting of Japanese law text

::::::（付随対象著作物の利用）

第30条の2　写真の撮影、録音、録画、放送その他これらと同様に事物の影像又は音を複製し、又は複製を伴うことなく伝達する行為（以下この項において「複製伝達行為」という。）を行うに当たつて、その対象とする事物又は音（以下この項において「複製伝達対象事物等」という。）に付随して対象となる事物又は音（複製伝達対象事物等の一部を構成するものとして対象となる事物又は音を含む。以下この項において「付随対象事物等」という。）に係る著作物（当該複製伝達行為により作成され、又は伝達されるもの（以下この条において「作成伝達物」という。）のうち当該著作物の占める割合、当該作成伝達物における当該著作物の再製の精度その他の要素に照らし当該作成伝達物において当該著作物が軽微な構成部分となる場合における当該著作物に限る。以下この条において「付随対象著作物」という。）は、当該付随対象著作物の利用により利益を得る目的の有無、当該付随対象事物等の当該複製伝達対象事物等からの分離の困難性の程度、当該作成伝達物において当該付随対象著作物が果たす役割その他の要素に照らし正当な範囲内において、当該複製伝達行為に伴つて、いずれの方法によるかを問わず、利用することができる。ただし、当該付随対象著作物の種類及び用途並びに当該利用の態様に照らし著作権者の利益を不当に害することとなる場合は、この限りでない。

２　前項の規定により利用された付随対象著作物は、当該付随対象著作物に係る作成伝達物の利用に伴つて、いずれの方法によるかを問わず、利用することができる。ただし、当該付随対象著作物の種類及び用途並びに当該利用の態様に照らし著作権者の利益を不当に害することとなる場合は、この限りでない。著作権法

Google Translation of previous Japanese text

(Use of incidentally included copyrighted works)

Article 30-2 When performing an act of photographing, sound recording, video recording, broadcasting, or any other act of reproducing or transmitting—without reproduction—the images or sounds of objects (hereinafter referred to in this paragraph as an "act of reproduction or transmission"), a copyrighted work (limited to a copyrighted work that constitutes a minor component of the material created or transmitted through said act of reproduction or transmission—hereinafter referred to in this Article as the "created or transmitted material"—when considered in light of the proportion of the copyrighted work within said material, the precision of the reproduction of the copyrighted work within said material, and other factors; hereinafter referred to in this Article as an "incidentally included copyrighted work") that pertains to an object or sound (including an object or sound that forms a part of the object or sound that is the primary subject of said act; hereinafter referred to in this paragraph as an "incidentally included object or sound") which is incidentally included with the object or sound that is the primary subject of said act (hereinafter referred to in this paragraph as the "primary object or sound of reproduction or transmission") may be used in conjunction with said act of reproduction or transmission by any means, to the extent justified in light of whether there is a purpose of obtaining profit from the use of said incidentally included copyrighted work, the degree of difficulty in separating said incidentally included object or sound from said primary object or sound of reproduction or transmission, the role played by said incidentally included copyrighted work within said created or transmitted material, and other factors. Provided, however, that this shall not apply if such use would unreasonably prejudice the interests of the copyright owner in light of the type and purpose of said incidentally included copyrighted work and the manner of said use.

2 An incidentally included copyrighted work used pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph may be used in conjunction with the use of the created or transmitted material pertaining to said incidentally included copyrighted work, by any means. Provided, however, that this shall not apply if such use would unreasonably prejudice the interests of the copyright owner in light of the type and purpose of said incidentally included copyrighted work and the manner of said use.

In that translation, I do not see anything that is fundamentally different from what I said based upon older law revisions: this law says that a copyrighted element can be included when it constitutes a minor component of the material [...] —when considered in light of the proportion of the copyrighted work within said material, the precision of the reproduction of the copyrighted work within said material, and other factors; and [...]to the extent justified in light of whether there is a purpose of obtaining profit from the use of said incidentally included copyrighted work, the degree of difficulty in separating said incidentally included object or sound from said primary object or sound of reproduction or transmission, the role played by said incidentally included copyrighted work within said created or transmitted material, and other factors. Provided, however, that this shall not apply if such use would unreasonably prejudice the interests of the copyright owner in light of the type and purpose of said incidentally included copyrighted work and the manner of said use.

Please note that the part about unreasonable prejudice is still present! Furthermore, Pokémon liveries on planes and trains are certainly not minor to the usual spotter images, except when one has e.g. captured an airport overview where a Pokémon Jet is indeed a background feature. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd refrain from using translation tools like Google when there is one site with the translation itself or this to compare, unless already acquired near-native Nihongo. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 07:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

From a rigorous reading of past deletion discussions, there's apparent hypocrisy amongst the deleting/keeping administration being in play here: the JA8578 taking off was kept (Jcb, Ellin Beltz, and Abzeronow in that order), retired and blocked users (Russavia in particular) having the deciding votes (Jdforrester), and this keeping of a JA8578 (Yann) was dishonoured by your (mis)interpretation (Ellywa), to name a few. Might add more discussions so everyone can notice historical inconsistency from the recent development; sensing a Western bias from a similar experience in a related Wikimedia project.

Would also note that Wikipedia articles across languages have been deprived of PokéJet images because of Großherzog's (and probably a few more's) recent requests here on Commons with these un-ceremonial deletions. Current version of the English (archived 2023). This shouldn't be ignored; so if there's no other alternative, the non-free use rationale template must be utilized on the already-stricken (through temporary undeletion) and what is left untouched. Good luck in what to put on all eight parameters; Großherzogs precedent might be disagreed upon by past administrators. I have been trying to put this JA8357 but unsure of the next step(s) to be given towards the photographer: upload to Commons or individual WP articles by (a heck number of) language(s). Side note, Bulbapedia has been extracting some of them from here before this row! a few were under CC0 (Public domain), how to explain being trumped by your allegations? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 07:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

"sensing a Western bias"

Hold on. What the fuck are you saying? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Language please, Whyiseverythingalreadyused. Because of some "precendent" applied just last year, much of the files in Commons have been deleted unceremonally; and this has affected many Wikipedia articles across different languages. Seems that the OP is trying to use the Copyright Law of Japan against at least one native-speaker trying to preserve. Thus, can make a comparison with an experience in Wiktionary when I tried to deal with a controversial administrator there in regards to what considers either a "native reading" or "irregular reading" to a Chinese character. We're being overwhelmed here! ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 09:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Poketalker: Thanks for the official law translation page, that's a nice resource worth adding to COM:Japan IMHO. It doesn't read much different from the translation above, though.

But please stop the nonsense of a Western bias (for what it's worth, politically, Japan is Western-aligned anyway as far as I'm aware) or that I aim to persevere against a native speaker. This is easily disproven as I already tried to raise more awareness from natives, see ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers#Information in copyright matters requested, "De minimis", to get the best possible fact-founded outcome. Any particular desire for Wikipedia illustrations is totally irrelevant in regard to copyright matters, though. There should be admins who're officiating both on Commons and EN-WP, so you could get in touch with them to (try to) have a selection transferred to EN under en:WP:NFCI / en:WP:NFCC, although I admit that it may be difficult to comply with en:WP:NFCC4 as a lot of Pokéjet images were sourced from Flickr. Simply bear this in mind: Commons:Derivative works#But how can we illustrate topics like Star Wars or Pokémon without pictures? with its first sentence, Admittedly, it may be difficult or even impossible to illustrate such articles. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am not aware of any legal precedent in which the depiction of an aircraft’s livery in a full‑view photograph has been found to violate copyright law. I also do not see any indication that Japanese copyright law diverges from international standards in this regard. Y.haruo (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unrelated and unwanted comment

:::::... and we're back

"German man declares war on the oppressed citizens of Japan" Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: Reading your last posting "... and we're back[...]" above, I get the feeling that you're at least approaching a case of en:Godwin's law and likely derailing the fact-based exchange that occurred until now. Would you be OK in removing this sub-thread from "...and we're back" and including any related answers, as it seemingly does not advance the discussion? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Grand-Duc: I'm not talking about Nazism or whatever

I was being sarcastic about the below quote

"Seems that the OP is trying to use the Copyright Law of Japan against at least one native-speaker trying to preserve" Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 23:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The point is "Being sarcastic" @Whyiseverythingalreadyused, "does not advance the discussion" or this project. -- Ooligan (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Even though the user’s own issue is currently being discussed here, he has submitted several new deletion requests. As usual, his claims are inconsistent with the current international standards for evaluating aircraft photography. However, this situation has revealed something new. I will explain this step by step. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:B-18007@PEK (20200403123859).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:B-18916.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:B-18007 (aircraft), Commons:Deletion requests/File:B-18007@PEK (20200403123859).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:China Airlines MD-11 (N489GX) departing Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:B-18916 (aircraft) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:B-18916 (aircraft),

Commons follows the principle of being a Free Content Repository, and the introduction of Commons:De minimis in 2008 shows that it has long adopted the policy that content is acceptable as long as it is freely reusable, even when it falls under de minimis. Moreover, aircraft photographs showing the full airframe have consistently been considered de minimis worldwide, even when painted designs appear in the frame. Naturally, no court cases can be found in which such photographs were judged to constitute copyright infringement.

However, he has repeatedly filed deletion requests that go far beyond actual copyright law and established practice, and he has continued to distort the de minimis Guidelines while making false claims. This is an attempt by someone dissatisfied with the current application of policy to force a change in that policy, and the rapid succession of deletion requests is clearly aimed at undermining Commons’ fundamental principles.

As with the URAA discussions, this is a matter that must be decided through proper community debate, and such deletion requests cannot be accepted. Please do not allow continued attacks on the official policy. Regarding this matter, Commons:Deletion requests states that ‘Deletion requests are not the place to attempt to change Commons policy, nor may requests be made simply to make a point. Any such requests may be speedily closed. Please use the Village Pump or the policy talk page if you wish to propose a change in policy.’--Y.haruo (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The sentence Commons follows the principle of being a Free Content Repository, and the introduction of Commons:De minimis in 2008 shows that it has long adopted the policy that content is acceptable as long as it is freely reusable, even when it falls under de minimis. is quite the red herring. Nothing in my actions hint at me not fully endorsing the project goals and respecting our guidelines and policies. Naturally, this also encompasses COM:De Minimis.

However, he has repeatedly filed deletion requests that go far beyond actual copyright law and established practice - well, the contents of Category:Pokémon related deletion requests/deleted (especially the pages having titles with airplane immatriculations, like JA***) show that there's not really an established practice in keeping such livery images (compare that with Category:Pokémon related deletion requests/kept).

To further foster my respect and endorsement of COM:DM, look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8956 (aircraft): Nota bene: I did not nominate the whole content of the category, as I think that images like File:AllNipponAirways B747-400 fukuoka 20040926111804.jpg are obviously totally fine and something like File:ANA B747-400D(JA8956) (4262892086).jpg or File:All Nippon Airways Boeing 747-400D Breidenstein-1.jpg is not having enough precision (angled views, not sideways) in showing copyrighted material, so a defence of De minimis is more likely to be successful. In my opinion, File:ANA B747-400D(JA8956) (5699289759).jpg (not included) sets a good borderline between "keepable" and "to be deleted".

This is an attempt by someone dissatisfied with the current application of policy to force a change in that policy, and the rapid succession of deletion requests is clearly aimed at undermining Commons’ fundamental principles. has the look and feel of a bad faith assumption. In fact, I assert that it is the complete opposite, I'm doing the things I do just because I deeply respect Commons’ fundamental principles, including the COM:Precautionary principle. As few if any at all other people have challenged such imagery in deletion requests, the sheer amount of DR I opened is the obvious outcome of having a huge stack of allegedly problematic images all over the place. It's simply the result of the relationship between available manpower and stock of possible copyright violations.

Your sentence Moreover, aircraft photographs showing the full airframe have consistently been considered de minimis worldwide, even when painted designs appear in the frame. Naturally, no court cases can be found in which such photographs were judged to constitute copyright infringement is easily negated (when using scientific standards, with a counterexample being sufficient to disprove a theorem). I assert that there's a technical similarity between a Pokémon livery on a plane and the Aida cruise ship livery with the Kissing lips (the amount of hull / airframe covered by artwork is by percentage similar or higher for the jets). As it stands, the cruise ship livery was subject in a German copyright court case which went to the highest court of law, the Bundesgerichtshof. And far from denying it protection or referring to the De minimis excuse, the court ruled that the work is protected, but could be depicted under the FOP statute; references: COM:FOP Germany#Permanent. With this, everything in your assumption is disproven, as there is a copyright court case known (and documented on Commons) about vehicle liveries in an industrialised country.

The policies / guidelines about COM:DM, COM:FOP, COM:PRP, COM:CSM and COM:CRT are already quite good as they are, there's no need for a change, only the specifics in CSM and CRT could and should be updated whenever new information gets known. In fact, the person who's unhappy by the situation appears to be you, Y.haruo, so it would be upon you to advocate for a more lenient view/interpretation of COM:DM et al., not upon me to work on any change in policies or guidelines. The issue certainly does not reside within myself. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comment There are areas (and this is one of them) where Commons has to weigh among conflicting goals, and whereas] we may at any given time have a more or less clear policy, we will always have outliers on both sides, probably even among the admins. On the one hand, we want to carve out strong, broad arguments for legitimate free use. On the other hand, we do not want to overstep and put ourselves or our reusers at risk of violating legitimate copyrights. There are downsides to being either too bold or too timid, and we are never going to all have exactly the same level of boldness.

Following up on that: I don't particularly see and administrative issue here, and would be inclined just to let the DRs play out. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the outputs, here is my further Comment as the request discussions are being stalled or in moratorium: this seems no longer a clash of Commons and differing countries' lawfare or that of West and (being-ruled-unfavorably) East, but tolerating such files for maybe future use. Those currently under the deletion request template will affect God knows how many Wikipedia articles and continuing on the path won't end well for (today's and future) photographers/uploaders here. Some of them have been slapped with the public domain template such as the B-18916 file. If Commons has no place for those, perhaps the Bulbagarden Archives is a safer bet than separate X-language Wikipedias for matching the latter's counterpart plus the non-free template (more time-consuming and potentially counterproductive than here); I'll have to contact my fellow POKéTalkers there regarding the recent and controversial deletions; who knows when the counterpart article will match or exceed in quality that of Wikipedias', tables and all. Is there even at least one for the related DisneyPlanes? The aviation community on WP has its own tolerance issue; many airline, fleet, and destination article being prone to misinformation due to lack of sources is just the tip of the iceberg. Already planned my future departure from the Wikimedia projects one-by-one because of what just happened a few months ago there...

On the derivative works page, LX revised that section back in 2007. Before that, the word "impossible" wasn't yet mentioned. So there must be more engagement and awareness to new uploaders: OK here or to other Wikimedia project? We've seen enough ignorance of the precautionary principle on their end, methinks. Much under the "deleted" category before Großherzog's starting 2025ish were not of PokéJets or otherwise lack of extra defense. It's time that Wikipedians interested join the remaining discussions while the files aren't yet acted upon.

And please, let more administrators past and present voice their opinion Y.haruo's interpretations before deciding on the critical next steps. The Japanese embassy notice still has yet to have a meaningful response as of this reply. How would we know a nominator doing similar is no different from someone like, a copyright troll? Domo, the first ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 05:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Poketalker: I'm a native English speaker, and I cannot make sense of even half of what you just wrote. Is there some language in which you can express yourself more clearly? If there is, could try rewriting this in that language? - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

"It's time that Wikipedians interested join the remaining discussions while the files aren't yet acted upon."

@Poketalker: beware of the curse of canvassing. It has taken down a great many before you. By the way, that hall of infamy includes the pain-in-the-ass co-founder of Wikipedia, who was permanently banned after calling for his Twitter base to hijack the consensus-making process in favour of a failing WikiProject that he had proposed. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 17:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Poketalker: As you've linked a Bulbapedia talk thread in Commons:Deletion requests/File:OSAKA ITAMI 26 OCTOBER 2002 ALL NIPPON BOEING 747-400 JA8964 (50633729578).jpg, I have kind of a technical advice. You will often see a chain of ciphers in parenthesis in the filenames, in the curent example, it's (50633729578). This is a telltale sign that the image in question has been sourced from Flickr, it's a Flickr ID that is Google-able. You'll find images that have been deleted here but may still be available on Flickr with that ID. So, if you're endeavouring in going the fair-use route, either on EN-WP or Bulbapedia, you can find illustrations still hosted on Flickr that were previously used on en:Pokémon Jet (refer to the CommonsDelinker entries in the page history) or cited in other DR.

Back to the main thing, about On the derivative works page, LX revised that section back in 2007. Before that, the word "impossible" wasn't yet mentioned. Yes, "impossible" wasn't used, but the page before that inclusion read "Admittedly, it is difficult. You'll probably have to refrain from illustrating such Wikipedia articles. However, there is plenty of photo opportunities for many topics that do not violate third party copyrights." Advising to probably have to refrain to do something because of third-party copyrights is substantially the same as saying that it's impossible. Second thing: if you happen to know some other Wikimedia universe venues frequented by people interested in copyright matters and ideally knowledgeable in Japanese, name them here, please. I likely won't object to extending an invitation for participation similar to ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers#Information in copyright matters requested, "De minimis", I see some value in gathering more opinions. And the remainder of your rant doesn't really feel fitting to a copyright-based dispute, I have to concur there with Jmabel. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Probably have to refrain" is just a suggestion, otherwise it's just promoting a sort of self-censorship. Bulbapedia is ready to embrace these files regardless of the outcome(s), but I stress on retaining whatever Creative Commons licenses applied whether from Flickr or taken by uploaders themselves. Let's take this photo of JA8357 as a test case, shall we? It's been three years, but can continue correspondence with standard procedure in uploading to either here, a Wikipedia language(s) of choice, or Bulbagarden Archives. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 10:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Grand-Duc (talk · contribs) continues to repeat the same argument based on the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. However, as I stated at Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8183 B747-346 JAL Japan Airlines(Reso'cha) NRT 09JUL01 (7026968593).jpg, the Agency for Cultural Affairs’ explanation regarding Article 30‑2 of the Japanese Copyright Act clearly provides the following example of a use that does require permission from the copyright holder: “Selling stickers or similar goods made from photographs in which a manga character appears incidentally, in a manner that exploits the character’s customer‑attraction power, even though the character only appears as an incidental element to the main subject of the photograph.” In other words, merely photographing an aircraft does not constitute copyright infringement.

Furthermore, the Agency clearly stated that “whether the use conflicts with the copyright holder’s existing market, or interferes with the potential market for the work in the future, must ultimately be determined on a case‑by‑case basis by the courts.” As of today, there is not a single court decision in Japan holding that photographing an aircraft, with incidental inclusion of artwork or livery painted on the aircraft, constitutes copyright infringement.

This is in no way supportive of his claims; rather, it demonstrates that he continues to provide false explanations about Japanese copyright law. And despite this, he has offered neither correction nor apology. I therefore submit once again that his conduct constitutes repeated disruption of the discussion. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:CHINA AIRLINES A321-271NX B-18101 HND RJTT 08-OCT-2022 (52412820078).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:20220331 rokon jet of AIRDO JA607A left side at Tokyo international airport.png, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8149 (aircraft) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:OSAKA ITAMI 26 OCTOBER 2002 ALL NIPPON BOEING 747-400 JA8964 (50633729578).jpg. --Y.haruo (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Everything hinges upon the exact interpretation of the word "incidental". The very same Agency for Cultural Affairs offers a Q&A on their site (https://saiteiseido.bunka.go.jp/chosakuken_qa/) , only in Japanese, though. I accessed it with Chrome and the inbuilt Google Translate and read the following passage.

Japanese source, section 権利制限規定

カフェで友人の写真を撮ったところ、他人の描いた絵画が背景に小さく写ってしまいました。SNSなどで公開すると、著作権侵害でしょうか。

著作権侵害にはなりません。

　写真撮影等において、背景に著作物が写り込んでしまうことがありますが、著作権法では、いわゆる「写りこみ」についての例外規定が定められています（第３０条の２）。

　例えば、写真撮影の際にポスターやキャラクター等が写り込んだり、映像収録の際に意図せず音楽が録音される場合、また、スマートフォンの画面をスクリーンショットする行為など、日常生活等において一般的に行われる行為に伴う写り込みは認められています。

　なお、著作物等の利用が主たる目的の場合は、この規定は適用されないことは言うまでもありません。

Google translation

Q: I took a photo of a friend at a cafe, and a small piece of someone else's artwork appeared in the background. Would posting it on social media constitute copyright infringement?

A: This does not constitute copyright infringement.

While copyrighted works may sometimes appear in the background of photographs, the Copyright Act provides an exception for so-called "incidental inclusion" (Article 30-2).

For example, incidental inclusion of posters or characters in photographs, unintentional recording of music during video recording, or taking screenshots of smartphone screens are all permitted as part of everyday activities.

Needless to say, this provision does not apply if the primary purpose is the use of copyrighted works.

This is in line with the usual interpretation of incidental inclusion that is internationally widespread (maybe due to states basing their laws upon the Berne Convention), meaning that anything where a photographer claims "incidental inclusion" can't be part of the main motif, can't be included for effect, must be a background feature; in fact, that's more or less the guideline content of COM:DM.

You've repeatedly claimed that there are no court rulings about the article 30-2 specifically. This is certainly true. But what is a wrong conclusion is to deem everything that is neither explicitly described in the law nor covered by court judgements as allowed. Yes, there is that analysis by this Agency for Cultural Affairs. But even in their writings that contain the assumption of the lawfulness of “Selling stickers or similar goods made from photographs in which a manga character appears incidentally, in a manner that exploits the character’s customer‑attraction power, even though the character only appears as an incidental element to the main subject of the photograph.” still provides for the backdoor of “whether the use conflicts with the copyright holder’s existing market, or interferes with the potential market for the work in the future, must ultimately be determined on a case‑by‑case basis by the courts.” It shows for that the thoughts of whatever agency official may still be deemed wrong by judges.

And while I think it's pretty much standard for democratically constituted states to show for that everything is allowed that is not explicitly disallowed by law, in copyright matters, such laws first show for that everything using copyrighted material is disallowed pending authorisation from the copyright holders. Only then such laws go on in describing what kind of uses do not need previous authorisations from IP holders, like FOP statutes. Because the law first disallow everything, the standard of having everything allowed that is not explicitly forbidden can't be applied.

This is why I wrote that your conclusion that Japanese plane spotter photos are fit for Commons under any circumstances is too far-fetched. We're having a still unclear situation without much guidances by laws or courts and must therefore follow a restrictive approach in reading available statutes by ourselves as mandated by COM:PRP.

And: even deleting such material now is not too detrimental for Commons. People involved, including myself, tracked most of those DR with relevant (sub-)categories like category:Pokémon related deletion requests. So, if by lucky happenstance, a Japanese court rules in favour of the "incidental" interpretation of the Agency for Cultural Affairs, or if the National Diet makes for a FOP provision allowing vehicle liveries, such DR can immediately brought up to COM:UNDEL.

Lastly: Y.haruo, your allegation of my postings in those DR being disruptions have been refuted by at least two figures of authority above (Jameslwoodward ["So, it is all right for you to make unfounded personal accusations against Grand-Duc[...]?"] and Jmabel ["I don't particularly see and administrative issue here, and would be inclined just to let the DRs play out."]). At the very last, this clearly shows an absence of a need for apologies. It's a simple clash of opposing opinions, opinions that are both founded upon officially authored texts. Available machine translation tools are IMO good enough to provide people without innate knowledge of Japanese approximately the same understanding of the laws as these laws do for the general population of Japan, so clearly stating the reliance on them should not be detrimental to the participation in such discussions. BTW, expanding on that point: what's the language standard for legal statutes in Japan? How many different Kanji can they use; where do legal texts get placed on the en:Kanji Kentei scale? Can you falsify the conjecture that Google Translate is suitable for reading Japanese laws? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

First, the Q&A issued by the Agency for Cultural Affairs that you cited concerns incidental inclusion in everyday situations such as cafés. It affirms that incidental capture occurring in ordinary daily activities is permissible. It does not concern aircraft photography. Moreover, under Japanese law, there is absolutely no doctrine by which an aircraft containing copyrighted artwork becomes a “copyrighted work” as a whole merely because it is photographed.

Copyright law differs substantially across jurisdictions—terms of protection, freedom of panorama, and even the scope of de minimis use vary widely. In particular, countries with freedom of panorama and those without it rely on fundamentally different legal structures; in some jurisdictions, de minimis functions as a partial substitute for freedom of panorama. Your argument is no different from claiming that, because Mexico has a post‑mortem term of 100 years, other countries must extend their terms in the same way.

Furthermore, the Agency for Cultural Affairs explicitly listed the following as an example requiring the copyright holder’s permission: “Selling stickers or similar goods made from photographs in which a manga character appears incidentally, in a manner that exploits the character’s customer‑attraction power, even though the character only appears as an incidental element to the main subject of the photograph.”

This demonstrates that the Agency’s example concerns a very specific situation—one in which the commercial attraction of a copyrighted character is being exploited—and does not apply to ordinary photography such as photographing an aircraft. No reasonable person other than you would interpret this as making aircraft photography illegal.

Copyright Act Article 30‑2 was introduced in 2012 and expanded in 2020. Yet, despite the enormous number of aircraft photographs taken and published since then—including the image you submitted for deletion—there has not been a single court decision in the past fourteen years holding that photographing an aircraft containing copyrighted artwork or livery constitutes copyright infringement. This clearly demonstrates that such photography is not illegal, and unless the law is amended, it will remain lawful. Unlike the case of manufacturing stickers or similar commercial goods, there is an abundance of real‑world examples of lawful aircraft photography.

For all these reasons, it is evident that this situation does not fall under Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. No one accepts original, unsupported interpretations without citations. Please stop spreading your own forced and distorted interpretation of Japanese law. It is hindering the discussion. Y.haruo (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

There are points where users can be sanctioned for continuing to create DRs for works that the community has already decided should be kept. There are points where users can be sanctioned for interjecting their complaints into every situation, whether or not they're relevant. There might even be situations that a user's comments on a subject are so distant from reality that they might be sanctioned for bringing them up. However discussing photos of Pokemon on airplane liveries as if they may be copyright infringements, and frankly in what sense Commons accepts these photos given that crops of them used in some circumstances will be copyright infringements, is not something that we're going to sanction someone for. Stop saying things like "Please stop spreading your own forced and distorted interpretation of Japanese law." and accept that he won't be the sole or final arbitrator. If you have something to reply to his arguments, say it; if you believe you've made your case and there's nothing new in his arguments, don't say anything. But stop making this personal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Y.haruo, about making aircraft photography illegal and photographing an aircraft containing copyrighted artwork or livery constitutes copyright infringement. I never ever claimed that the photography of fancy vehicle liveries is unlawful. I'm not even claiming that showing off such imagery is inherently unlawful. But what I claim is that the licensing of such imagery with free licenses may easily encroach upon third-party IP rights in a way that makes such photos unsuitable for Commons. They can lawfully stay on private homepages, on Flickr or other photo sharing sites, on SNS - but those usually rely either upon pure US law (notably fair use and other US peculiarities) or don't claim to grant unlimited commercial usability. The enormous number of aircraft photographs taken and published since then is usually found on such sites (planespotters.net, Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram...) that do not hold the promise of re-usability. Any user is mandated to only grant the necessary rights on their photography that the site operator needs to provide its services. That is a lesser intrusion into third-party rights than granting a free license is. Commons operates under stricter rules than e.g. Instagram, which show for that lots of media can't be hosted here. BTW, past DR weren't only about aircraft liveries, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:JR train in Lupin III livery.jpg or Commons:Deletion requests/Files under Category:Lupin III 2015-07-12. Those DR with deleted media exemplify again that usually caution (also towards potential media users that rely upon our collections) will prevail and a deletion ensues. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes. What is important here is not only that these photos are legal for Commons to host, but that they are legal for anyone to reuse as they see fit (within the bounds of the photo's license). It is not at all clear that this is the case for these photos of these aircraft - in particular, it is very likely that these photos cannot be reused for commercial purposes. Omphalographer (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would like to clarify my position regarding aircraft photographs that contain copyrighted characters or special liveries.

The issue here is not whether such photographs are lawful to take or publish — they clearly are.

The issue is how Commons treats “de minimis” elements under a free license.

Under Japanese copyright law (Article 30‑2, both the 2012 introduction and the 2020 amendment), incidental and minor inclusion of copyrighted artwork is permitted, but the enlargement or extraction of those copyrighted elements is not permitted. This distinction is essential.

Commons already adopts exactly the same distinction.

The template used on files such as:

File: ANA B747‑481D JA8964 Pocket Monsters (5314675945).jpg

explicitly states:

“One or more elements in this file are protected by copyright.

You must not use the copyrighted elements in a way that requires permission.”

This means that Commons allows the photograph as a whole, but does not allow the copyrighted characters to be reused, extracted, or enlarged under the free license.

In other words, Commons itself acknowledges that the free license does not extend to the copyrighted character portions of the image.

Therefore, the concern that “free licenses inherently allow third‑party copyrighted characters to be reused” is not accurate.

Commons has already solved this problem by limiting the scope of the free license through the warning template.

The free license applies to the photograph, not to the copyrighted artwork incidentally included within it.

This approach is fully consistent with Article 30‑2 of Japanese copyright law:

Incidental inclusion → permitted

Extraction or enlargement of the copyrighted character → not permitted

Commons’ own template enforces the same boundary.

For this reason, photographs of aircraft liveries or vehicle decorations that contain copyrighted characters do not violate the “international free license safety” requirement, because the free license does not grant permission to reuse the copyrighted character itself.

It only grants permission to reuse the photograph within the limits defined by the template.

In short:

Japanese law and Commons policy are aligned.

The de minimis template ensures that the free license does not extend to the copyrighted character portions, and therefore these photographs are acceptable on Commons. Y.haruo (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The amount of repetition in the above has become absurd.

This page is not the place to debate the detailed points being raised here. At this point, is anyone still seeking administrative action in this matter? If so, precisely what administrative action? - Jmabel ! talk 23:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would like to clarify that I have already suggested moving this discussion to a more appropriate venue so that this page does not turn into a debate forum. With that in mind, may I ask whether your past assessment—that there was no particular administrative issue here—might need to be reconsidered? Y.haruo (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

As information, I just posted Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Report about contents in COM:DM Japan and concerning deletion requests about fancy vehicle liveries. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Grand-Duc:I would like to ask you two points. First, have you voluntarily accepted the statement in Commons:Deletion requests that says: ‘Deletion requests are not the place to attempt to change Commons policy, nor may requests be made simply to make a point. Any such requests may be speedily closed. Please use the Village Pump or the policy talk page if you wish to propose a change in policy’?

Second, you have not copied the relevant parts of the discussion held here to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Are we expected to start over and explain everything again from the beginning?” Y.haruo (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't understand the point about me allegedly aiming at a policy change. The DR I opened are only in application of existing rules (meaning both Commons guidelines and policies), there's nothing new within them. The reference material I evoked (depending on the actual case, it'll be e.g. COM:FOP Japan, COM:DM Japan, COM:TOYS, Commons:Derivative works#But how can we illustrate topics like Star Wars or Pokémon without pictures?) is already established. If anything, I'm proposing or asking for a stringent application of said pre-existing rules - with notable success, as evidenced by the amount of DR that ended with deletions.

As I see it, it is actually you, Y.haruo, who's advocating for rule changes that would allow the keeping of material challenged in those DR, meaning, by your own words, you are to convince the community.

About the second question: sorry if I missed some parts important to you in my VPC thread. I thought that I took the relevant parts over (the Japanese Copyright Act, the PDF pages 24-28 from https://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/chosakuken/hokaisei/r02_hokaisei/pdf/93688501_01.pdf), but I may have overlooked something. What would be missing that makes the situation less understandable in your opinion? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

LoveKnowlege

Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

LoveKnowlege (talk · contribs) uploaded lots of nude photos on Flickr and then these photos were get deleted rapidly. I found some of their photos are flickr-washing and requesting deletion by using google lens, however some photos are refused to searched by google lens per lens' regulations. E.g. File:Stocking nude.jpg , could some sysop be noticed Lemonaka (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Note if you are looking into these: NSFW. - Jmabel ! talk 06:23, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I deleted most recent uploads due to failed license review: source link is dead. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Taivo: Thanks! @Lemonaka: See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stocking nude.jpg. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:09, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

IMO this user should be blocked for incompetence (uploading files indiscriminately without checking licenses) and not being here to build an educational media repository (seemingly just using Commons as a personal porn repository). Their files are nonetheless largely in scope (albeit likely unintentionally) and should all be checked for license validity individually rather than being speedied en masse. Dronebogus (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

User746382010

Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

User: User746382010 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:GabbyWindey2022.png after final warning for doing so.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not done What admin action do you expect against a stale account (Last active on July 7, 2022). Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Shaan Sengupta: I expected blockage, as escalation from this archived section. I was alerted by Special:Diff/1260703991 by Sahaib 18:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I saw that report when I visited the TP. The user would have been blocked if there was a new report in July 2022, but this is now stale for 4 years, so I don't think a block is needed. If they come back and continue, there will certainly be a block. What can be done now is the file be deleted per No permission. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Giovanni Mosa

Latest comment: 5 days ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Giovanni Mosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Is this acceptable behaviour? Commons:Deletion_requests/2026/08/16#File:SL_Pendeltåg_ER1.webp Tekannan (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think you're talking about them removing the templates?[1][2]

I have found the images, have marked them as copyvio. I think the user should be perm-blocked. Bidgee (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I didn't notice that the user removed the templates. My question was regarding the statement "I'm Warning You!". Tekannan (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

issue about notification, now resolved

@Tekannan: you do not seem to have notified Giovanni Mosa that there is a discussion about them here; it is possible that you did and I'm missing it because they have a habit of repeatedly deleting things from their user talk page. If you did not already to this, please do so. - Jmabel ! talk 23:35, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Giovanni Mosa Sorry! I forgot to notify you about this discussion. Tekannan (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Tekannan, it is very clearly mentioned on the top of this page that you need to notify the user on their talk page. That is what Jmabel meant, I have done it for you this time. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! First time on this page! Tekannan (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done Indeffed. I was going for a shorter block but there are just two many issues, removing DR/SD noms, uploading nonsense/promo, harassing users, removing talk page warnings without acting on them, etc. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 01:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Now globally locked by SHB2000. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Excellent news - thanks for the update. Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:48, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Gpytd and disruptive behaviour over deletions

Latest comment: 5 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Gpytd (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Yutraw (talk · contribs)
~2026-44709-59 (talk · contribs)
Tib779 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

A rapid resolution to the DRs (and any others raised on their other uploads) would be useful

They're doing that oddly increasingly common thing of a DR not being actioned quickly enough, so they're starting to repost DRs and delete parts of the original file page. This is not a constructive way forwards.

I'd request a block, except they're clearly just socking anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Andy Dingley: Are you not allowed to make a case at COM:RFCU? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Quack, quack, quack. Is there any need for that?

Simplest thing is to just resolve the DRs. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Andy Dingley: There could be sleepers. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:24, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Strange behavior

Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Renamed user 606310837b27a45335251daa73d3a7fe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Locket Lulis 2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Locket Lulis 2 (talk · contributions · Statistics) had the account Locket Lulis (talk · contributions · Statistics), where they requested a vanishing request to create the new account just four days later. I'm not sure whether this violates any policy, so I'm bringing it up here. The edits seem fine to me, and I only discovered this after searching for the name to confirm it, in order to request the user autopatrol status… Yacàwotçã (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I decided to stop using it, but then I regretted it and decided to go back; I didn't know I would have a problem. Locket Lulis 2 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

From meta:Account vanishing: Like the English Wikipedia, most other Wikimedia projects tolerate the "vanishing" of users who wish to leave permanently. Vanishing is not a right or guarantee but rather a courtesy extended to valued contributors who wish to leave. Note that: "permanently".

While en-wiki policy is not necessarily Commons policy, the English Wikipedia is the origin of the "vanishing" idea, and the "nutshell" description at the top of en:Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing says, the user is expected to permanently leave the project, emphasis theirs. Also It is not intended as a temporary measure… "Vanishing" differs from a clean start…

Jmabel ! talk 23:53, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unblock request

Latest comment: 1 day ago10 comments10 people in discussion

In 2023 I was blocked indefinitely for my repeated incivility[3], In 2025 A.Savin randomly unblocked me, From 2025-now I took a year away from WMF to focus on my health, mental wellbeing, family and life,

It doesn't sit right with me that A.Savin randomly unblocks me and I get to edit freely here again so I'd like to ask the community for their input; mainly should the block stand or not?,

Having taken the year away I've realised that my incivility, comments, language and tone towards people had been unacceptable for a very long time and it's a miracle I've not been blocked 10 years sooner!, My core problem is I get angry and frustrated far too easily however that is not a justification for any of my comments and I really should have nipped it in the bud a long time ago!,

During 2025, I came to the realisation that I was a hair width away from being blocked on 3 separate projects and therefore begun to realise my incivility was much more of a problem than I genuinely realised and that I seriously needed to change that, If any newbie today made any one of the comments I've previously made they would be blocked without a second thought so why should it be any different for me?

Life is much different now and I've since had a new outlook on life, I'm not proud of the comments I've made and I know I can't undo the damage and hurt I've caused however I can try and be a better person for the future and without being soppy I'd rather be remembered as the "bus-mad guy who contributed here" as opposed to "the incivil a-hole who told everyone to FO", I would like to think it's not too late to change that, I very much know my past idiocy meant I was on borrowed time on WMF and that things really needed to change,

I'll get frustrated from time to time however I won't be telling anyone to FO nor will I be making stupid/snide/idiotic/rhetoric/incivil and quite frankly disgraceful comments or comments such as this,

I apologise for the comments I've previously made and If possible would like a second chance?, I appreciate these are just words and that actions speak louder than words, As I said I very much have no intention of being that nasty vile person I was pre 2025, (I also remember someone (Floq?) on Enwiki telling me that "You really have used your last FO" and that too has stuck with me ever since),

Thank you for reading,

Thanks

Dave // –Davey2010^Talk 18:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support unblock. Never a vandal, never caused long-lasting damage. If this turns out to be insincere (I hope not), reblocks are easy enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support unblock. Thanks Davey, that's a very honest apology. Yann (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support unblock. I agree with Andy and Yann. Abzeronow (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support per above. Bedivere (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support per above. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Neutral I saw A.Savin unblocking you, I did not protest and nothing bad happened in Commons, but I looked your block log in simple Wikipedia and your last, 6-month-long block expired only 6 months ago. Let's hope, that this will not repeat. Taivo (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support 1989 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support -- Ooligan (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support Another chance should be given after a two-year block. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:越前太郎

Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

越前太郎 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

After releasing from short block, this user restarted uploading copyvio photos. Netora (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done blocked for one month. Won't oppose an extension if someone wants it. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 15:08, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Block request for User:Sagarsq

Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User: Sagarsq (talk · contribs)

Reason: Persistent upload of copyrighted non-free logos under falsified "own work" / CC-Zero claims despite multiple warnings.

Details & Evidence: User:Sagarsq has a long-standing pattern of uploading copyrighted cricket team and league logos under invalid free licenses. They have repeatedly ignored formal warnings posted on their user talk page by multiple users and administrators over two years.

All of their previous copyright violations have now been deleted, except for their most recent upload which is currently tagged for copyvio:

File:Amsterdam Flames.png (Tagged for Copyvio - official Facebook logo)

Deleted Copyvios/Invalid License Uploads:

File:Dublin Guardians logo.png (Deleted)
File:Belfast Wolves logo.png (Deleted)
File:Champions T20 Cup.png (Deleted)
File:Lions cricket.jpg (Deleted)
File:Stallions cricket.jpg (Deleted)
File:Bordercricket.png (Deleted)
File:APL2024.png (Deleted)
File:KCL-Logo.png (Deleted)
File:CSAT20.png (Deleted)
File:CSA-Provincial-T20-Challenge.png (Deleted)
File:Easterncape.png (Deleted)

Given that 11+ of their uploads have already been removed for copyright infringement and they continue the same practice, an administrative block is requested to prevent further non-free uploads. Thank you. Ravana ^TALK 02:56, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Already done blocked for 2 weeks by Nux. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 15:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Alltid.rakbladsvalsen

Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Involved: Alltid.rakbladsvalsen (talk · contribs)

This user is a serial copyvio uploader. He had also the gut to screengrab a rip of Google Street View imagery. He must be stopped, immediately, even if his last upload was on August 12. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:12, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Kindly also check if File:Bukit Indah Park - 9 Hole Mini Golf Course.jpg is indeed taken from one of the photos at https://udisc.com/courses/bukit-indah-roundabout-2j6Q/photos. I can't check because the login prompt blocks me and exiting the prompt sends me back to the top. (a Login-Wall essentially as worse as a paywall). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JWilz12345: you might want to consider using en:Mozilla Firefox in combination with en:NoScript and en:uBlock Origin for tasks where some data provider is nudging you towards some actions. With this software, I did not run into any "log-in wall" and could indeed confirm that File:Bukit Indah Park - 9 Hole Mini Golf Course.jpg is found on the web in the photo gallery you linked. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I forgot to mention: this combination (Firefox + NoScript + uBlock Origin) is also a proficient ad-blocker on Android devices (can't speak about iOS). Since Chrome removed the technology ("manifest V2") upon which uBlock Origin relies, Firefox is the only browser I know that promises to support that API while not being built on the en:Chromium project. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done blocked for a month (this is their first block). - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Ігор Березанець

Latest comment: 3 hours ago7 comments5 people in discussion

This user has been re-uploading images to Commons that were already on the site claiming them as "Own work", and re-licensing them from CC BY-SA 4.0 to CC0 1.0. I believe the user should either get warned or banned. I'd also propose deleting all their uploads tagged as own work under the precautionary principle and double checking the rest of uploads.

Here what I've gotten from around 10 minutes of reverse image searching.

It's moon (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@It's moon: You can simply tagg them with {{Duplicate}}. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 02:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

But the tagging as duplicates doesn't deal with the objective dishonesty in claiming other people's works as own and its concomitance of licensing fraud. I don't know if simply warning could be enough, as such behaviour is REALLY detrimental to Commons. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the dismissal of this as an issue really bothers me. This person is engaging in clear-cut dishonesty; any person should know better than this. A block would be appropriate here. Aplucas0703 (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am certain my previous answer was misunderstood because it was too brief. There is no reason not to use the duplicate tag, given that the files mentioned here are all currently in use on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Why shouldn't they be replaced with the correct upload—whether via script or manually, by someone editing the articles to swap in the correct filename? At the same time, there is nothing to prevent issuing a warning to the user or imposing a one-week block, which is the standard procedure for a first offense. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 12:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Because then we have to identify every single upload by the user and find the original, which may not even be possible, when its very obvious all of these uploads have issues. Aplucas0703 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support deleting all the uploads and leaving redirects to the real files uploaded by real users. Should at very least warn the person to not do this again, maybe a short block is needed. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply