Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
Latest comment: 20 minutes ago by LuvsMG481 in topic Cedar cones

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-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.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
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
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
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
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
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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.

Uploads by Fabe56

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago84 comments15 people in discussion

Fabe56 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

I happened upon a very large number of uploads by Fabe56, and became intrigued. I was looking at File:05Puffing Billy Novem 2011 (6317817690).jpg, and, setting the date aside, saw it as a minor child privacy issue, so dug further. In November 2011 that child was circa six years old. Today, at circa 20, that exact problem has evaporated. Even at date of upload at circa 18, that problem was borderline. I hasten to say that Fabe56 is very unlikely to be the person who uploaded the picture to Flickr. This is not about child privacy as you will see when you read on.

I investigated other files uploaded by Fabe56. I found that they seem to have started to acquire files from Flickr in 2023 in bulk. They use #flickr2commons. An example is File:Bored (53152633849).jpg by a different Flickr contributor from the prior file. Scanning through a subset of their uploads I found many different files on many different topics, with the issues including:

  • The great majority of the files are not used anywhere (certainly those I have sample checked)
  • I could find none actually created as originals by Fabe56
  • They are uploaded from properly licenced files contributed to Flickr by multiple uploaders
  • Many have filenames that have no value in identifying then, likely scraped uncritically from Flickr with those names
  • Some are placed in categories. One example is Category:While42 SF No 10 which appear to have no value (again created by Fabe56), a subcat of a hierarchy created in isolation, the top level cat being Category:While42. http://while42.org may be the organisation associated with this, but what use is this to Commons? I was led down this rabbit hole by File:DSC 7555 (13052613053).jpg. This is but one such rabbit hole
  • I do not believe the files, almost certainly the great majority of the huge number, meet Commons:Project scope; I suggest that there is no educational value

I consulted Túrelio as an experienced admin here, at User talk:Túrelio § An enormous cache of personal pictures and received the advice that has led me here.

In this diff I asked Fabe56 "Your activity is immense. I see you have been here a long time, long enough to amass a significant picture archive. I am curious so have a question for you. How are the great majority of the files congruent with COM:SCOPE, please?" so far without reply, though they have been active since I asked the question.

My feeling is that Fabe56's uploads have been to create an enormous hoard of pictures for personal use without the ability to justify them against our project scope. With, currently, 202,108 uploads performed by Fabe56 this is well beyond my ability to even consider handling. Thus I am here to alert those who may have a toolkit to look at this and to require a rationale from Fabe56 for this enormous project they have been working on. I believe AN/U will get an answer even if I will not, and I know that admins here will know how to handle this. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Collapsing bulk of early discussion, leaving initial problem statement visible
 Comment Scope can be tricky; unless those out-of-scope files are either uncategorized, misleadingly categorized, or part of an agenda that is one or another way harmful to Commons, I'm a lot less concerned with borderline out-of-scope files than with copyvios. (@Timtrent I can't tell from your characterization above whether there is a major problem here with bad categorization/not-categorization or not. The Category:While42 photos do look like a lot of files of something of no obvious importance, but they don't seem to be clogging any categories that a normal user would care about.)
I would certainly not be concerned that [t]great majority of the files are not used anywhere: the majority of files on Commons are not used in other Wikimedia projects. The majority of my own uploads are not used in other Wikimedia projects, even though most of them are solidly in Commons scope. The majority of uploads from the Seattle Public Library, ditto. - Jmabel ! talk 00:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel This is exactly why I have asked the question. I agree that in/out of scope is difficult I am interested to see the answers fromm thosee who wish to answer, I know I do not have the competence to resolve this in my mind yet. Thank you for your answer.
I do think there are serious naming and categorisation issues creating huge limitations of usefulness, thus impacting scope (if it cannot be found, even if in scope, does that render it out of scope?).
This feels mightily above my pay grade ($0.00 as for all of us!)
I won't thank everyone who answers, and certainly have no intent of bludgeoning the discussion, assuming more folk do answer! But those who do, please take my thanks as read. Whatever is determined, Commons will be improved. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Timtrent reported a recurring issue with Fabe56's pattern of contributions, namely lots of our of scope Flickr imports and a disregard towards IP rights. This is shown by:
- Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 38#Block request for User:Fabe56 (May 2024)
- User talk:Fabe56/Archive/2025#Apparent laziness while importing from Flickr (August 2025)
-Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 42#User:Fabe56 (November 2025)
This is exacerbated by a complete absence of communication: Fabe56 did not engage in any exchange when contacted or notified about these problems. In my opinion, this behaviour can easily described as "spamming images" now, and thus indeed constituting a problem for Commons, as there's no curating activity at all. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am inclined to block them from uploading until they acknowledge this is a serious issue and make substantial headway in cleaning up their mess. Almost every upload lacks a useful filename, description, and/or categorization. Many are also out of scope or copyvios. They upload so many duplicates that their last 500 deleted files only go back five weeks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Pi.1415926535 I find this approach interesting, though it may simply stop ongoing activity without creating their desire to clear up the mess left in their wake.
I have no issue at all with well curated, well named, properly licenced, non copyvio, in scope uploads, even in great volume. I take issue with those outside those boundaries (which I acknowledge may be more restrictive than Commons boundaries, and are my personal preference). 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to force mass uploaders to clean up their messes after they're made. I'm of the opinion that stopping the disruption is still better than letting it continue. It's a perennial issue; I think as a community we will need to set and enforce stricter rules about mass uploads so that we don't get to the point where a user has tens or hundreds of thousands of uncurated uploads. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Absolute agreement with that. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
A lot of the images in Category:While42 SF No 10 have a Rackspace logo in them so I searched for that and it turns out we have wiki articles in several languages on Rackspace Technology, I guess that makes them in scope? Though, I do find it problematic that due to the addition of hidden categories images like File:Bored (53152633849).jpg aren't even listed in maintenance categories like Category:Media needing categories even though they are clearly in need of having non-hidden categories added to them. This really makes them nearly impossible to find even for those who are generally willing to work through uncategorized files. Nakonana (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Nakonana It looks as if some, maybe all, in that category were taken at a Rackspace event. However, using that cat as an example, by no means all of these files are useful, let alone identified.
I think the broader picture is more important that one category which I plucked at random form an overabundance of mundanity.
"Why is this user uploading an extraordinary number of files with no obvious driver to do so, and are they valid actions?" 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
As best I can tell, While42 is a small engineering club. One of their club events was held at a Rackspace office, but that doesn't mean that Rackspace's notability "rubs off" on While42 by simple association. Omphalographer (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Comment I've processed hundreds of valid file rename requests from this user, and I've seen them doing category work as well, so they're definitely currating the images they upload. The user looks to be a native French speaker, so perhaps another French speaker is needed to communicate with them regarding any issues or problems with their contributions. Geoffroi 04:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you that information. I have left them the following message below the AN/U notice:
    It is extremely important that you take part in the discussion at the location linked to directly in the notice I am replying to.
    It does not matter if your first language is not English. You may contribute to it in French.
    Please use a machine traalsation system such as https://translate.google.com if you are unable to read what is written there,
    I do not write French, bt am using that method to talk to you. It produces language which is understable even if imperfect.
    ------
    Il est extrêmement important que vous participiez à la discussion à l'endroit indiqué dans le message auquel je réponds.
    Peu importe si l'anglais n'est pas votre langue maternelle. Vous pouvez y contribuer en français.
    Si vous ne parvenez pas à lire le texte, veuillez utiliser un système de traduction automatique comme https://translate.google.com.
    Je ne parle pas français, mais j'utilise ce moyen pour communiquer avec vous. Il produit un langage compréhensible, même s'il est imparfai.
    While this is imperfect, and while the AN/U notification is itself translatable into French, it should help. I am also seeking to attract their attention with this: @Fabe56: . We are looking for a good solution to this rather than a block. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
    If Fabe56 begins to engage in this discussion here and if that happens to be in French, then Yann who was involved in November '25 and also myself are able to use French, too. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Either it is coincidence, or the fact of this discussion existing appears to have had the effect of their ceasing contributions at all on the date of the first posting. I have not analysed their contribution window. The time of their last activity for 29 January may be their normal close down time, but they have not restarted.
    I impute no motive whatsoever for their hiatus, and feel it is more than likely to be real life intervening based on prior history.
    @Grand-Duc Whatever dialogue you are able to engage them in to bring them here, or for then to give an explanation elsewhere would be valuable. I started this to discover what is happening and to ask for guidance for them, not to punish them. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Propose restricting ability to upload

[edit]
Uploader blocked form uploading

There appears historically to be no way of engaging with Fabe56.

  • They read their user talk page, and flag sections for archive manually, whcih signifies that that have read the material, but they appear to have no interest in dialogue.
  • It is reasonable to assume that they are able to find and use machine translation where they do not have sufficient ability to understand Eglish,

Thus we need to attract their attention in order to seek to resolve the mass uncritical uploading of files. Until they enter into a dialogue that reaches a satisfactory conclusion, something that may be set by consensus, I propose a block on at least the use of mass upload tools, and, if consensus here decides, a block on uploads. These blocks may have a different duration.

 Comment I blocked Fabe56 from uploading files for 3 months. Hopefully they will get the message. Further block can be sent whenever needed. Yann (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

How does the huge number of files get sorted out?

[edit]

I see two options, assuming lack of engagement:

  1. We ignore them. 'disk space is cheap'(!)
  2. We start quietly nominating batches for deletion.

Thoughts would be appreciated. Is there an admin action that can be implemented to handle the obvious candidates unilaterally without a DR, for example? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hopefully Fabe56 will do something. Otherwise, an indefinite block should be sent. Yann (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Indeed! I am assuming worst case, though. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why would you assume that when someone clearly stated that they have seen Fabe56 curating their uploads[1]? Nakonana (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think a plan needs to be formulated. They have been absent from Commons since 29 January and everywhere else since 30 January 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
They remain absent 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 05:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello,
Sorry, I didn't have access to the Internet. I will try to revert all my contributions to Wikimedia Commons. It will take time for sure, but it seems to be the best solution, as I don't want to offend anyone.
I personnaly really regret that collaboration is not really an integral part of this project, but that fine no worries ;-)
Sorry again. Fabe56 (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Fabe56 Collaboration is a two way street. You are meant to act collegially with uploads, and not simply blast them here uncritically. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Fabe56 On 18 February you said I will try to revert all my contributions to Wikimedia Commons. It will take time for sure, but it seems to be the best solution, as I don't want to offend anyone., however, you have edited here since that time - Special:Contributions/Fabe56 - and I cannot see any indication that you have started the process of the massive clear up. Instead it seems you are carrying on almost as though nothing is happening, except that you are blocked from uploading files.
With precision, please, what is your plan and what is your timetable? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Timtrent,
I feel foolish, but once again, I apologize for completely misunderstanding the issue. I thought it only concerned my uploads...
I didn't realize that other contributions were also causing problems. I am therefore stopping my contributions here as of now, this being my last one.
Please remember that I am a volunteer and doing this to improve and not destroyed the project. I have no idea how I am going to proceed and how I will manage my time for those tasks. So how long it will take me to undo ALL my contributions: probably years, with 387,223 edits, which means at least 1 minute per edit to undo.
Keep in mind this is not pleasant and motivating to destroy works that I (wrongly but sincerally) thought were valuable.
Thank you. Fabe56 (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Fabe56 This discussion is about your enormous quantity of uploads, uploaded uncritically en masse.
I agree. When I checked you has 202,108 uploads. Some of these will be of genuine benefit to Wikimedia Commons. However, it appears that the great majority have been uploaded mechanically, with no evidence of thought about why they have been chosen, and no useful categorisation afterwards. I accept that you uploaded them in good faith, believing that you were enhancing the project. The real outcome is that you have created a large logistical challenge, both for yourself and for others.
I suggest that there may be tools only accessible to administrators to assist with clearing the enormous pile, and that you ask for administrative help. This is especially important, since only administrators can delete files
Let me look at four recent examples taken from yur upload log om 28 January 2026:
None is COM:INUSE, none has a useful filename, none is categorised.
Yes, it is likely to feel disheartening. I can do nothing about that. It is disheartening to have had to bring the matter here. I tried to engage with you on your user talk page to save the need to come here, but here we are, and you are blocked from uploading. I recognise that this all disrupts your hobby, but solving the problem is part of that hobby.
So I ask you again, With precision, please, what is your plan and what is your timetable? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Fabe56 You are active on Wikidata, and have been for several days, despite needing to contribute here, to this discussion. You will have seen the pings. As time passes without your providing input into methodology removal of files my own good faith is starting to decay. I am concluding that you have no plan, no timetable. Convince me, convince us that you are going to contribute here, please.
Yann removed your ability to upload files here. That is a very simple block, and is to prevent further abuses of uploading privileges. Lack of engagement with solving this self created problem may result in wider blocks (0.9 probability).
Continuing with editing other projects without a positive contribution here would be easy to construe as a lack of interest in helping clear up behind yourself. Please do not bury your head in the sand. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am drawing the conclusion from their user page that Fabe56 has withdrawn from Commons, and will not assist in any way with the cleanup. I draw no inference from their user talk page; their habit is to archive 100% periodically.
It is now up to the rest of us to clean house. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have left a message at User talk:Fabe56 § I think you may have retired from Commons for the moment which I hope will encourage them to continue here, and in the hope of ameliorating their stress assuming that has arisen from here.
I hope we will have their input to the formulation of a plan to seek to identify and compartmentalise those to retain from those to remove. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Recent DRs have lowered the vast nukes of files by a couple of hundred. This has menat real work for a number of people. I feel we need an administrative approach to purging many of these files. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have made some more small progress today. Unfortunately the progress is 100% manual. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is more (manual) progress. The uploader appears to have returned and is, form time to time, making some endeavours to solve the mess. Unfortunately I see no progress from them in eliminating the uncritical uploads. I do see some attempts at categorisation, but the greater part I have seen so far of the uploads are pretty much streams of private pictures. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Depressingly the progress is slow. What would be ideal would be for @Fabe56 to join in and nominate teaches of files for deletion. Instead they are corralling some files in categories which appear to be unhelpful in solving the mess. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

What is available to help to solve this?

[edit]

We have a major difficulty expressed by Fabe56 in the segment above. They seem to be ready and willing to solve this issue that they have created, but express doubts on their ability do do so, and in a timely manner. I have paraphrased. If I need correction I am happy to receive it.

The idea of creating DRs for (say) 100 at a time means an enormous number of DRs and a lot of work for a lot of people, coupled with "DR Fatigue" for the community. I have seen admins perform bulk deletes before. @Yann: : As the blocking admin I wonder if you have thoughts on how they may be assisted by one or more admins to get rid of the files that meet any of the conditions for removal, including:

  • Named with names that are insufficiently descriptive to allow them to be retrieved and used
  • Not sorted into any categorisation scheme that is of use to Commons
  • Not COM:INUSE in any valid and meaningful way
  • Duplicates or near duplicates of each other
  • in some manner 'out of scope' for Commons
  • Form part of a personal picture library, something that Commons may not be used for

It is likely that some of the >200,000 uploads will be useful to Commons even if they fail one of more of these suggested conditions for removal. I am unsure that time will be well spent by trying to determine that. obviously I am just asking Yann as blocking admin. I do not seek to restrict this conversation to them alone. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

If some of these should be batch DRs (files with clearly parallel reasons to be deleted), it is pretty easy to use VFC to set up a batch DR. More or less, the process is:
  • If they are in a given category, or can be found with a given search, you use that category/search to launch VFC. Note that is is fine if not everything in the category/search should be DR'd: within VFC, you can be selective.
  • In VFC, set your action to "Nominate for deletion"
  • I think the rest of it is pretty obvious.
Similarly, if a search will find files that can be batch-categorized, Cat-a-lot is very useful for that.
Not being in use is not a reason for any action; it is just that being in use is a reason to keep almost anything that is not CSAM, a copyright violation, or unacceptable AI-generated content.
Presumably those should help whittle things down to something more tractable. Obviously, bad names and duplicates typically have to be dealt with one by one (the only major exception being that if there is a pattern of renaming, admins have a tool for that).
- Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
There are 202,108 files. I have made a trivial start. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fabe56 See the current last discussion on the page. This is just 24 files and will take years. I use VFC. This is a batch DR. It is easy to do the first few. Then you have to scroll south and wait for the screen to fill. DRs take a finite time. So this DR is an example of the futility of this approach.
Maybe I should try all 202,108 in one go (not a serious suggestion, I have no intention of doing something so patently disruptive). This will take a task force to solve. I do not believe DRs to be the way to go here. That was my first and likely last on this set of uploads. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
If there is no search that easily finds them, and the only way you can find them is to go through the user uploads, you can use Cat-a-Lot to stick a maintenance category on them, then use VFC to nominate them for deletion (and then, ideally, strip the maintenance category). But I sure do wish that the selection methods for our various tools were coded separately from the actions they take, so we could mix and match. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I suspect someone who knows how can write a query to achieve it. It's not that there's any rush, except it would be good to tidy this up more than somewhat while we're all still alive(!).
Even if the query split them into maintenance cats containing 100 or so each (based on sane criteria) that would make the task possible, albeit imperfect. Doing any of this manually is where madness lies. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 02:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Timtrent: In past years, I have used one temp category Category:Jefftemp to assist categorizing files found with searches and whatnot, and then nominated them from there to subsections of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jefftemp. Doing it directly from the searches could be cleaner; good luck with that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jeff G. I agree, but I do not have the IT literacy myself to create any form of search. Nor, yet, do we have agreed criteria to try to ensure we do not destroy a useful resource while removing files that are not useful to Commons. Some of my bulleted items in this section look to be likely criteria, others of them need to be modified or discarded. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The uploads are so numerous it's hard to actually evaluate at what rate the files are in scope, categorized, and named. It's worth noting Fabe56 isn't even in the top 50 most prolific uploaders here, and categorization for any batch that doesn't come with structured data is a persistent problem we could use better guidelines for. Certainly I'd like to see tighter restrictions on f2c and some auditing of new users' transfers so we avoid getting to this point.
If issues truly run through all of their uploads, I don't know that actually tagging and listing all of them at DR is reasonable, and can probably be handled through some other avenue. But I don't know that it's true that they run through all of their uploads. Here's what I'd like to know: Fabe56 could you provide an estimate for what % of uploads you think are categorized, the % that likely have a useful name, and the % that are likely in-scope? If you agree you may have gone overboard with some of the uploads, would you like some time to go back through them? I don't see a need to just delete everything if you think many/most are fine, or if you want some time to investigate. Since they're transferred from Flickr, I suspect just evaluating account-by-account rather than file-by-file may be the most efficient approach, then you can say "yes files transferred from this account are probably out of scope" or "files transferred from this account are useful and I'll work on categorizing/renaming". — Rhododendrites talk |  02:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Rhododendrites Your approach seems eminently reasonable. It also makes sure that Fabe56 does not feel the enormity of the task, since your thinking lightens the load significantly. Since they have been active on Wikidata this morning I have every hope that they will have seen your ping and will wish to start engaging with this process. I know they will wish to have their uploading block removed, and I know they uploaded in good faith, believing their actions to be positive. I continue to assume their good faith, and I have faith in them. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello,
It would be nice to stop using words that I haven't used. I respect the authorities and the decisions made here, I have never contested them, I have never fought against these choices!
I never express the wish to have my uploading block removed. It's not up to me to decide.
@Rhododendrites, I was working on categorization, modifying and renaming my uploads, but I was also asked to stop all my edits. I am well aware that I cannot manage everything on my own, but many editors also help me refine them, etc. That's what I liked about Commons, the fact that we helped each other to improve the information collected.
Anyway, I'm sorry to leave such a mess, but I really don't want to fight. I don't have the energy for that right now.
Goodbye. Fabe56 (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Fabe56 You are perfectly entitled to categorise. The only edits you are precvented from making are uoploads
To be clear, your message is capable of being interpreted as "I am walking away from the mess, do whatever you like." Is that your intention? If it is not, please state your intention. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • I have opened a dialogue with KylieTastic on their Commons talk page. I have chosen not to ping them and distract them. I've asked them about the formulation of useful queries to seek to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. They hope, but cannot promise, to look at this over the weekend. There is, of course, no deadline.
We need a consensus on what to remove and what to keep, and I am not yet sure what that consensus might be, nor, quite, how to reach it. We need to assume that the uploader will not help.. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Question However, see this diff, whcih may make life simpler. However, are user requests not time limited based upon upload date? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Possibly part of a strategy for moving this forward: have a bot tag all of Fabe56's uploads with a template that indicates that it needs (1) name review, (2) category review, (3) description review. Make sure the template is designed to facilitate batch removals of any one of those independent of the other. So if the template were, for example, {{Fabe56 uploads needing review|name=1|category=1|description=1}}, it would be easy using VFC and regular expressions to remove "name=1" and "category=1" from all Fabe56 uploads in Category:While42 SF No 10 (since I believe these now have acceptable names). The 3 resulting (large) maintenance categories of what needs each kind of review would be much more tractable than working directly from Special:ListFiles/Fabe56.

This would help prevent different people who are working on this from redundantly checking the same files. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

That makes a great deal of sense 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment I have created a discussion on the underlying issues at Commons:Village pump/Technical § Exploratory: Handling the uploading of images better to which I hope there will be many contributions 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

From the linked diff above and the responses here, I get the sense that Fabe56 does not intend to fix any of this, which is disappointing, but also I can empathize with their frustration at the prospect of such a large task. Given it's so much faster to copy from Flickr en masse than to do the hard work of evaluating, describing, naming, and categorizing each photo, that puts us in a tough spot. We should have higher standards for use of bulk uploading tools IMO, but for now, from a damage control perspective, here's one possible approach (similar to what I suggested Fabe56 could do): I created a quarry query here that groups their uploads by most frequent category in order to try to take a Flickr stream-level view of the issues. Presumably poorly named files and out of scope files would often be grouped by such categories, and it seems more efficient rather than scroll through uploads in reverse chronological order. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

That is a highly useful query, @Rhododendrites, and beats my manual approach 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
User:~2026-16139-88 appears to be related cuz of bulk edits I think that they are not innocent because of a pattern Gladcape2013 (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Journey_to_Midway_Island_(5548529782).jpg&oldid=1183303241 Gladcape2013 (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Gladcape2013 I have pinged you on a request for checkuser. You may file these yourself with ease. Thank you for this information. Others will investigate and reach a conclusion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree that there is a serious problem here. I'm not sure I'd agree with what the serious problem is. DS (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Pinging @~2026-16139-88 and reminding others that if a COM:AN/U discussion expands to include the conduct of more users, those users should be notified. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Would Gladcape2013 or someone please explain to me what, if anything, about User:~2026-16139-88's they find problematic? I sampled a few, and they looked like good edits to me, by someone apparently knowledgeable and probably close to the subject depicted in these Flickr-sourced photos. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Some people are very angry that some other people are uploading too many images without properly adding them to categories, and have decided that all such images should be deleted. Or... something. DS (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@DragonflySixtyseven Anger? No. I raised the issue over this one uploader because I see uncritical bulk uploading by scraping entire photo streams from any source to be against the ethos of Commons, and have been working in my way to seek to contain this. Anger has no place here.
I see the need to create a preventative solution to this for all uploads for the future and well as a corrective solution. Corrective action is arduous, and interferes with everything else here. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
theyre good edits Gladcape2013 (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

~2026-16139-88's pov

[edit]

Commenting here on Jmabel request/notification:

  1. Preliminary note: I didn't recognize neither User:Fabe56 nor User:Timtrent until I found several good photos of birds affected by Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Midway Journey III (see also this comment), so I don't know any backstory (if existing).
  2. From my point of view, (many, or most of) Fabe56's uploads are problematic due to their mass (several thousands) combined with low-quality descriptions, meaningless filenames (often), and rather generic categorization, and because of the high portion of out-of-scope private/personal photos (as pointed out above: unidentified, or identifiable but non-notable people).
  3. From my point of view, Timtrent's latest deletion requests (ca. 50 requests with identical wording) are problematic due to the mass of affected files (thousands), of which not less than 500 (example 1, 2) are obviously useful/in-scope (apart from serial filenames, for the time being). The requests are also problematic because of their undifferentiated, weak justification. And they include some errors (uploads by unrelated users). Timtrent's modus operandi pretty much looks like blind "revenge activism", or alike, and actually doubles the problem (clean-up needed under pressure of time: mainly for other users, including admins).
  4. This case reminds me of the Winterysteppe/Artix Kreiger/Tyler ser Noche complex (yes, years ago!), and of similar cases. – A better solution (than mass DR) would be to create and fill a maintenance category like Category:Files uploaded by Fabe56 (review needed) – I'm sure this could be done by experienced users with database queries and scripts (cf similar suggestions above) – plus Category:Files uploaded by Fabe56 (checked), Category:Files uploaded by Fabe56 (bad filenames), Category:Files uploaded by Fabe56 (potentially delete) etc.
  5. Additional note: I tend to ignore User:Gladcape2013, whose 11th action on Commons was to post a weird suspicion on the admins' noticeboard, and otherwise doesn't seem to be an active user.

Cheers ~2026-16139-88 (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

May you kindly please apologize because I am very active Gladcape2013 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Gladcape2013: you're not in any sort of trouble, so no need to defend yourself. Please, you and 2026-16139-88, let's not get into some silly tit-for-tat here. But you said above that 2026-16139-88 was "not innocent because of a pattern". May I take it that your later "theyre good edits" means that you are withdrawing that "not innocent" remark, and that you don't have a problem with their edits, and we can drop this side issue of ~2026-16139-88's conduct and get back to the main matter at hand? - Jmabel ! talk 01:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
yes Gladcape2013 (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The problem

[edit]

This problem requires accurate definition. I tried to do this way up in the thread. I do not think I did that particularly well. The participation of others, perhaps especially those with lengthy experience here, will be welcomed. Once consensus exists on what the problem is, and also whether that is a problem we wish to solve, we can move forwards into agreeing a route. My suggestion for those with lengthy experience is not worded to exclude those with small or limited experience. New eyes on an established ecosystem can create great insight. And, in forming a consensus, new eyes have an absolute equal right to say what they think. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Above, I made some suggestions:
  • Named with names that are insufficiently descriptive to allow them to be retrieved and used
  • Not sorted into any categorisation scheme that is of use to Commons
  • Not COM:INUSE in any valid and meaningful way
  • Duplicates or near duplicates of each other
  • in some manner 'out of scope' for Commons
  • Form part of a personal picture library, something that Commons may not be used for
I believe we need to decide whether any or these are something which we can vary or adopt and form a consensus over what to do about these, both in this specific case and extrapolate that towards an overall policy, nothing that policy is forced in a different forum.
I do not think that these bullets are ready yet to turn into proposals. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
While my description of the problem would have some overlap with Timtrent's, I believe that his description has the wrong thrust. The problem is that we have a large number of files that Fabe56 uploaded without curating them, either in terms of scope or in terms of name/description/categorization. The ones that are out of scope (or duplicates or copyvios, though few are) should, of course be deleted. The rest need (belated) curation in terms of name/description/categorization.
A secondary problem is that the only way we can readily find the files in question is Special:ListFiles/Fabe56, which is not suited to the purpose: sorted by upload date rather than in any useful order, and no way when looking at it to identify either what has already been curated, what may currently be nominated for deletion, and what may already have survived a prior DR (for other than procedural reasons; DRs closed for procedural reasons have no bearing on whether the file is worth keeping). I believe this can largely be addressed with maintenance categories, but this section is supposed to be for defining the problem, not proposing a solution.
COM:INUSE has almost nothing to do with the matter, except that it is a reason not to delete something we might otherwise delete for being out of scope. If we deleted files for not being in use by sister projects, we would delete 80-90% of Commons content, probably including some featured images and media. Forming "part of a personal picture library" is not relevant: whether the particular file is in scope is relevant. If some random person has a photo album of a trip to the Nepal or even just San Francisco, the pictures of eating lunch with their friends are going to be mainly out of scope, but it doesn't make their pictures of buildings or the countryside any less valuable than anyone else's.
The San Francisco and Nepal examples are not arbitrary: there have been a series of DRs that were roughly as indiscriminate as the uploads, where some quite clearly in-scope photos of both of these were nominated for deletion. And that constitutes a third problem: overreaction. As far as I can tell, Fabe56's indiscriminate uploads present a moderately serious but not particularly urgent problem. The waste of several terabytes of storage is real, but it is also water under the bridge: since "deletion" is soft deletion, we aren't getting that back. If it looked like there were a large number of incorrectly licensed files, or copyvios, that could be a pretty urgent problem, but I see no sign of that: the only copyright issues I've seen are the usual issues of limited freedom of panorama that we encounter in almost every mass upload to Commons. Similarly if there were some large body of material here that was objectionable for some reason (promoting fascism; inaccurate maps; etc.) that would have some urgency I see no sign of that. The main issue is a large number of files (in scope and otherwise) that almost no non-editor is going to find because they have meaningless names, no useful categorization, and no usefully searchable description. We need to take out the trash and polish the jewels, but neither of those tasks is an emergency. - Jmabel ! talk 22:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

A possible approach

[edit]

A possible approach to managing this situation. This is by no means a comprehensive solution, but I think it would be likely to prevent duplication of work, and could begin to step things forward.

  1. I'd really like to start by closing at least the bulk of the large current DRs of Fabe56's uploads.
    • For every DR that is basically a ton of photos of unidentifiable people at a meeting of a non-notable tech group, and does not seem to contain other content, close these as delete.
    • For other DRs of images that truly represent one thing—e.g. a particular motorcycle race—try to find some editor who knows the subject well enough to say whether this event is Commons-level notable or not, whether it's a "keep all", "keep a couple", or "delete", and trust their determination.
    • For the more heterogeneous DRs, do a procedural close as keep, probably don't even bother with {{Kept}} on the talk pages of the kept files, and expect to DR a fair amount of this content, but in a more manageable way. (If anyone does not get what problem I am addressing here, see the remarks from myself (Jmabel), Ziv, DragonflySixtyseven, and Ooligan toward the bottom of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Sylvain Kalache Flickr stream with bad file names, in dialogue with Timtrent.)
  2. Also on that same DR, near the bottom, DragonflySixtyseven has remarked on some already-deleted content that probably was deleted erroneously and should be restored. I leave it to them to expand on that.
  3. Create a template and maintenance categories to make sure we don't duplicate work here. I'll expand on that later.
  4. Anyone who wants can add appropriate categories, names, descriptions, etc. to photos that seem to them to be worth keeping. I gather several people are already doing that. Similarly, there are also cases where adding a category is a good preliminary to a DR: e.g. the now-deleted Category:Slideshare office warming party 2011.
  5. Start doing DRs of groups of images that will almost certainly stand or fall together, or at least where the farthest from that might be "delete most of these, but keep a couple."

Assuming people think this is sane, I'll expand on the template and maintenance categories later, probably somewhere between 12 and 24 hours from now. - Jmabel ! talk 04:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

On their talk page I have assured @Jmabel that I am in broad agreement. Any differences of opinion will be and are minor. I have also assured them that I am bound, willingly, by consensus, and that I will open no further DRs in this matter except by consensus.
I believe their approach to be valid. The current DRs may be closed in any appropriate manner and closed as soon as sensible. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

So here's my idea for template/category support. Create a Template:Uploads review. (I'm deliberately not making this specific to Fabe56 because we could use this same approach for other problematic batch uploads.) Have a bot stick it on 100% of Fabe56's uploads. If no parameters are set, it would place a message on each file page along the following lines:

If no parameters are set, it would go in the following maintenance categories:

Setting any of the corresponding template parameters to a non-empty string means the relevant category would be skipped, as well as removing or striking through the relevant word in the first sentence of the template display.

If "delete" is set, it would go in

and not in any of the other categories.

My own feeling is that in many cases categories will be the most useful thing to add. Once files are decently categorized, someone could (for example) do a search such as 'deepcat:"Alcatraz Island" incategory:"Upload review - needs filename check"' to find uploads about Alcatraz Island that still need filename work.

I would hope that in many cases tools such as COM:VFC will allow a lot of cleanup to be done on a batch basis.

Pinging @Fabe56 here, in case they have any issue with this. Also, Fabe56, I hope you will actively participate in the cleanup process, especially categorization.

And of course suggestions from anyone else are welcome, too, including "no, I've got this completely different way I want to do this."

Timtrent has suggested we look into how to head off problems like this in the future long before the point where we are trying to clean up tens or hundreds of thousand files. I agree entirely, but I think we need to solve the immediate problem first, then address that one. - Jmabel ! talk 19:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jmabel,
I never stop (except during few days I thought all my edit were problematic) improving Wikimedia Commons from Categorizing, Geolocating etc. Since few days many renaming proposal has been refected, so I may not put a lot of effort there since it's really time consuming and I really feel I'm annoying with them, but for the other part, no issue to report!
Thanks. Fabe56 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Support this approach as a good starting point. @Fabe56 I think I have understood that you created this with goodwill and with good intent. Please continue to work with goodwill and good intent to help by being part of the solution. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel Apart from Fabe56's continued corrective work here, for which I thank them and ask them to continue, I see no particular appetite at present from admins and 'ordinary' users here to solve this specific issue nor to solve the more general issue of well intentioned but indiscriminate uploads. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:17, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've contributed to the point of saying how I'd approach it if I wanted to "drive", but as I said, I don't see this as a higher priority than other uncurated or poorly curated content. I spend about an hour a day (often more) curating content I can improve, and I consider it an important task, but I focus largely on content related to the Pacific Northwest and Alaska (and to a lesser extent a few cities I know well elsewhere in the world) where I know I'm bringing more than an average person would. - Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel Indeed, it is not a higher priority than other material. It is simply an example of what has been allowed to transpire over several years. No criticism of you was meant, and I am certain you did not feel criticised.
I think the issue is the enormity of the task of correction. Perhaps Commons should accept the status quo obtaining over historical uploads and concentrate on minimising the future issues of other good faith but mistaken uploaders? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

More of Alex Neman's problematic uploads

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago40 comments17 people in discussion

Hi admins, can we please delete more of the following. Yann and I dealt with this with Yann blocking Alex Neman Indefinitely and upon appeal the block was shortened by Taivo for three months. I was viewing this just to see what needed to be tidied up and saw a spam of Alex Neman's rear view photos.

I'll put it as a gallery

This has been an ongoing issue with Alex Neman, and it has not been limited to this project. He has been blocked as a sockpuppet and banned on the English Wikipedia. Quite frankly I don't think the reduced block of three months was justified, this has been an ongoing issue as cited on the previous ANI report by Jeff G. and also continued block evasion on the EnWp. Either he is to be banned indefinitely because it is clear he has competence issues. A large number of them were very unlikely he asked consent from the women he pictured. I've also requested for speedy deletion for these uploads FYI.

This has taken me hours to do up, I hope this helps. Put yourself in your partner's shoes (i can't because i'm single, and never dated, and don't wish to anytime soon). --LuvsMG481 (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@LuvsMG481: Do I understand correctly that you created a separate DR for each of these, rather than a mass DR? If so, why? Are there some of these that present significantly different issues than others? They look pretty parallel to me. - Jmabel ! talk 05:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey Jmabel. I'm not very sure how to do these 'mass deletion' requests nor never done them before. Thats why i brought it here for you guys to sort out. I'm new to this Wiki, so I'm trying to learn the ropes. I apologise but I figured it would be easier otherwise if we do a regular DR request it would take ages, if not months. I don't know a lot of the templates here, and would love to have some assistance with these --LuvsMG481 (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've created Commons:Deletion requests/Files on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems for you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
No worries The Squirrel Conspiracy. But to be fair, the 'creepshot' is only one aspect, he has been warned time and time again about these issues hence why I wanted these nominated plus based on past complaints as well and Neman's past blocks. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@LuvsMG481:
  1. Assuming "'creepshot' is only one aspect" refers to the DR, you can raise other issues there as well.
  2. I take it you are pursuing something other than just a DR, though, or you would not be here at COM:AN/U. Is there something you are bringing up here that you consider new, and that you thing Taivo may not have taken into consideration? If so, could you please be specific about that. Otherwise, I think that rather than extend the block, anything would more likely be a matter of setting conditions on the user's conduct after they are allowed to return and, again, if that's the case please spell out what you'd be looking for someone to impose.
  3. As for creating a mass DR: this would probably have been pretty easy with VFC. If you are likely to do anything similar in the future, that is a tool you should probably learn to use.
- Jmabel ! talk 06:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
True and thats why I think i would like to have autopatrol rights to enable for these :). Regardless, we will wait for Yann to handle this, because he dealt with a similar story last time. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@LuvsMG481: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
All good Jeff G., this was discussed already. I'm just doing what I can to clean up Wikimedia commons and ensure its a proper free respiratory system, thats why we are here! Also Jmabel sent me the instructions, so we are all good. Can we all focus on the issue at hand please, not on my inability to use mass deletion, we are wasting time here otherwise, when we have an issue with Neman's which is ongoing for the last 2-3 years. Thank you --LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@LuvsMG481: I have been aware of Neman's inappropriate behavior for over three years. I think indef is much more appropriate than a mere three months.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Jeff G.. I think we should do a community proposal on whether we should indef Alex Neman or should we keep the three months. I'm not sure how to do it mate, would you be kind enough to do it for me, or show me how to do it please --LuvsMG481 (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@LuvsMG481: A !votes subsection below would do the job.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry to tell you this Andy Dingley, but he's not gonna apologise and fix his errors. He promised to stop block evasion on EnWp but then was discovered by an admin using an IP to evade his block. Then we have more bullshit, pretend to be retired when he was blocked using an IP, which led to page being protected, more block evasion using IPs. This is literal proof that he's not going to keep his promises. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Indef Alex Neman (!votes)

[edit]
  •  Support, obviously per above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Oppose Current 3-month-length block is enough. Actually rear views of women is not the worst we can see in Commons. In small quantity, they have even educational value. Taivo (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Strong support, honestly not just these weird images. I have explained it in the above, with block evasion, uncredible promises, numerous complaints from other users across wikis (he's banned and indeffed on Enwp). This behaviour needs to be curbed. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Oppose Those don't look like creepshots to me: 1. some photos were taken with a flash, which the photographed person surely would have noticed, so the photos were not taken without the subjects knowledge; 2. some were taken with the subjects facing a wall, which means they were posing for the photo I front of a neutral background; 3. all / most of the photos show the subject standing still (even in busy surroundings), which also indicates that they were posing for the photo.
    The photos do have educational value in that they show different hairstyles. There appears to be an issue with duplicates, though, so maybe the uploader can commit to not upload so many duplicates in the future.
    As for conduct on other wikis, it can be relevant for assessment here, but generally speaking, people are not getting blocked on Commons just because they were blocked on another wiki project. The issue of sockpuppetry has been brought up, but I wonder whether the user was actually socking in on Commons, or whether the socking only occurred elsewhere. I also have to wonder whether the user has engaged in the reported problematic behavior after they already had been blocked for said behavior at least once? Or is this report just about the uploads the user had made before they got blocked? Nakonana (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Initially Nakonana mate, it was about the images, but that is now not a priority. The priority now I think is the sockpuppeting behaviour. If the images don't get deleted after this, its ok, which i mainly reported, but I think the socking is the major concern and in violation of Commons policies. Happy to discuss it on my talkpage or email, whichever suits --LuvsMG481 (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey Cutlass, the issue is no longer with the pictures, we are now talking about his socking behaviour. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
When did he sock on Commons? The ranges mentioned haven't been active since the block. CutlassCiera 15:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'll let Pi.1415926535 answer this. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't see any block evasion, but LOUTSOCKing is still socking even if they're not blocked here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Oppose. Per above. Thankfully we have someone specialized in consensual rear views of women Yacàwotçã (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Oppose per above. I don't think indef is suitable in this case. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Oppose for now, but if they do revert back to their old behaviour after their 3-month block expires then it should be an indef. //shb (t • c) 12:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Neutral for socking and generally unhelpful behavior, but on the other hand I and many others use their automobile photos. Getting blocked elsewhere (en.wp) did not make them change their behavior in either place, see sockpuppet investigations. Sadly, I do not think Alex Neman has any interest in being a positive contributor to the Commons. Open to change if they are able to communicate clearly and meaningfully about changing. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah and I have viewed that you have dealt with Neman in the past. He's not going to listen and very soon users like OSX are going to give up and quit uploading or editing Wikipedia or Wikimedia and next he's going to spam replace images on the english wikipedia with low quality duds LuvsMG481 (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
And you are an undeclared alternate account of EurovisionNim (not sure why; you were never blocked for bad behavior) so something about rocks while in a glass house. I think you should just come clean, it will be much better than pretending to be someone else which will likely come with eventual sanctions. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 16:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't have to declare here. In fact... this is a completely seperate account (yes location same sure, but anyone from WA as to speak can have the same mirrored behaviour). Anything EnWP remains on EnWP (unless the behaviour repeats, like in Neman's case), anything Commons remains on Commons (so the account in question the last block on Commons was in 2016). I'm doing so well as to speak. In fact my behaviour on Commons as to speak has been exemplar and so far my block log has remained clean and i'm helping people so much with backlog activities. How can you be sure its not the account in question. Before making such accusations please refer to [this policy (although we are on Commons)]. Same policy, whatnot. Sable232 is brainwashing everyone pretty much. I have autopatrolled rights in one month, so i am doing well i suppose. Enjoy. LuvsMG481 (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I do not really see the point in lying about who you are; as far as I know your EurovisionNim account never had any real problems and you could use it freely. And just so you know, the serial number of your Canon EOS 200D II (015070011963) is visible in the EXIF data of your photos. FYI, there is also a subsection called [Wikipedia:Clean_start#Returning_to_previous_articles_and_topics BADCLEANSTART]. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 18:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
No thanks, I'm happy with the account i'm using. I'm not breaking any Wikimedia Commons policies as far as i'm concerned. If I was blocked here however, I would not have created this account. In terms of the EurovisionNim account you are so obsessed with, it had several blocks from 2014-2016 for behaviour-related issues if you read the block log. These behaviours aren't repeated and figured this clean-start with the new account was the way to go. I'm not required to continue using the concerned account if i do not wish. In fact, i'm going to continue uploading content which is educationally useful and do not wish to engage in this discussion any further and revert vandalism, categorise images etc. as this is what we are here to do. Simply put, the account in question is not accessible and hacked. This is why the new account and to start again fresh and work my way to being the best Wikimedian here. LuvsMG481 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Tvlufryjrvyjjryifmytvmu

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Copyright violations after warning. — Tarkoff / 18:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Blocked for a week, files already deleted. Yann (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yann, please be aware of the COM:IU violation, too.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jeff G.: Sorry, but I don't get it. This is probably a thrown-away account, but the account name is not IMO against policy. Or am I missing something? Yann (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yann: See COM:IU#Confusing usernames. --Lymantria (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done I have never blocked—until now—someone for this reason, but OK. Yann (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Duplicate accounts uploading duplicate images

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I don't know if this is just a silly competence issue or deliberate behaviour (e.g. from an earlier blocked editor), but these two accounts are obviously the same person and the only edits by both of them so far have been to upload two identical images, of which the second one has an unnecessary watermark: [2], [3]. Potentially complicating issue is the fact that the exact same image appeared in another non-Wiki web page ([4]) posted on the same day as the first upload (25 March), with no attribution linking either one to the other, so I can't tell if this may even be a copyvio.

Maybe someone with better investigation skills can judge what's going with these images and the dual accounts? Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

PS: I should also mention that an anonymous editor is also edit-warring on the English Wiki to add these images to a couple of articles so far, see here and here, which further adds to the fishiness. R Prazeres (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would like to keep these photos and make a collage out of them to illustrate AI photo editing hallucination. But they are definitely a copyright violation. I will block the second account and warn the first one. GPSLeo (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Martín Andariego

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Comment I don't see copyright violations uploaded after the last warning on 1 January 2026. Yann (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yann: Sorry, the new notifications were for old uploads.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Bruh skibidi dop dop yes yes (obvious sock)

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Soumava2002 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

User has been repeatedly uploading non-free logos and copyrighted images.

Despite multiple warnings (including a final warning), the user continues to: - Upload non-free logos as own work - Re-upload previously deleted content (G4) - Ignore copyright policy

No response has been made on their talk page.

This appears to be a pattern of persistent copyright violations.

Requesting admin attention. JaydenChao (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JaydenChao: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above. I also warned them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done Blocked for 3 months (2nd block). All copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Removing authorship

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Iaroslav79 removes the ajusted author from the file [5][6]. Apparently (mistakenly) he thinks that this will somehow help save the file in the project. Initially the authorship was established a year ago by Kaganer. Source for this author, for example, post at verified page of Committee for State Control, Use, and Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments - a structural subdivision of the Government of St. Petersburg: "Главный дом, вид со стороны сада. Фотограф М.А. Величко. 1940 год". Please return the author's attribution or delete the file so as not to infringe the copyright of Velichko's (died in 1986) heirs. Insider (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Insider: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above. Pings are not enough.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Insider (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
As I have already explained twice, neither the photographer nor the date of this photograph has been reliably established. The VK website referenced by the user “Insider” is not a credible source. The attribution to Velichko is a guess. What evidence is there that the user “Kaganer” has conducted serious historical research regarding this photograph? Is there a scientific article or book that identifies the photographer and the date of the photograph? I am referring to a book by a local historian Горбатенко С. Б. "Петергофская дорога: Историко-архитектурный путеводитель", which is cited in the main article, and that lists the date as the 1910s and does not name an author. Iaroslav79 (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, this book doesn't contain any photos with attribution. Insider (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Да, я думаю, что провел тогда иконографический анализ, раз решил вмешаться.
С. Б. Горбатенко в издании 2022 года уточнил атрибуцию фото, указав что это "фото первой трети XX века". Сюда попадают и 1910-е, и 1930-е. Но в его книге, действительно, авторство фотографий не указано, т.к. точная атрибуция авторства в задачи этого издания и не входит. В этом отношении, музейные и архивные публикации всегда точнее, и, соответственно, должны считаться более надежными источниками.
Далее, когда мы полагаемся на публикацию "ВКонтакте", мы доверяем не площадке, а публикатору - в данном случае, КГИОП СПб. Утверждать иное - это передергивание. Тем не менее, в таких публикациях сотрудники часто бывают достаточно небрежны, и сами часто опираются на сетевые ошибки (в чем я их неоднократно поправлял).
Однако вот тут мы видим уже непосредственно публикацию КГИОП, и в ней рядом опубликовано как обсуждаемое фото (авторство не указано), так и фото, сделанное Величко в 1940 (авторство указано). Очевидна разница.
В Госкаталоге есть целая серя фото из фондов ГМИ СПб, в которую обсуждаемое фото очень хорошо ложится. Пример. Они датируются 1910-ми (под вопросом).
Исходя из этого, я считаю, что это я в прошлый раз ошибся, и сейчас более корректно датировать эти фото 1910-ми годами, а авторство Величко считать маловероятным. И @Iaroslav79 в данном случае прав.
----
Summary in English: I'm  Support @Iaroslav79 's opinion now. This was my mistake in past. --Kaganer (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Хорошо, Павел, суть понял, запрос на COM:AN можно закрывать. Но на Госкаталог в этом вопоросе полагаться не стоит, ошибки там массовые, это фото там вообще 1960-х-1970-х годов и сделано в Стрельне. Я уже написал в КГИОП СПб посмотрим что они ответят. Insider (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Да, КГИОП СПб подтвердил что это техническая ошибка. Insider (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

COM:INUSE not a suicide pact?

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago13 comments8 people in discussion

Hello, I am a relatively inexperienced contributor and would appreciate some clarification regarding Commons policy. A file I uploaded (File:Unconscience learning.png) was recently deleted following a deletion request. The file wass in use on another Wikimedia project:

From my understanding of the guideline at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#in_use files that are in use on other Wikimedia projects are generally considered in scope, even if they may appear to lack educational value or be of poor quality. However, in discussion with the deleting administrator, I was told that COM:INUSE “is not a suicide pact” and that the file was considered “AI-generated nonsense,” which seems to conflict with my reading of the guideline. I may be misunderstanding the policy, so I would kindly ask: How should COM:INUSE be interpreted in cases like this? To what extent can perceived quality or usefulness override “in use” status? Is deletion in such a case consistent with current Commons policy? Additionally, since the file is still needed on Wikibooks, I have temporarily uploaded it locally there. I am unsure whether this is the intended approach in such situations, or whether files like this are still expected to be hosted on Commons. For context, the discussion can be found here: [7] Thank you in advance for helping me better understand how this policy is applied in practice. Kind regards, BeeBringer (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The file in question is File:Unconscience learning.png, now at b:nl:Bestand:Unconscience learning.png. It is egregiously bad quality, with a monkey hanging in midair, and was used only for decorative purposes - it was not being used to illustrate anything. Commons is not obligated to become a webhost for garbage just because a local wiki is allowing garbage. The file can be hosted there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
For clarity (also for others reading this discussion), I would like to further explain how the image is being used on Wikibooks, as it may have been interpreted as purely decorative.
The image is intended to illustrate the concept of “unconscious learning” in a metaphorical way. The monkey represents instinctive, unconscious behavior, while the human child represents conscious awareness awakening. Their interaction symbolizes how learning can emerge naturally through observation and exposure, without deliberate instruction.
There is also a broader symbolic tradition in which monkeys are used to represent the untrained or unconscious mind, which reinforces the intended meaning of the image in this context.
While the image is not a literal or technical diagram, its purpose is to support conceptual understanding in an intuitive and associative way. This aligns with the accompanying text, which focuses on learning through experience rather than structured teaching.
Given that, I would like to better understand where the line is drawn between:
metaphorical/interpretive illustration, and
purely decorative use
This distinction seems important for correctly applying COM.
Kind regards, BeeBringer (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
As an additional question for clarification:
Is it correct to understand that part of the reasoning behind COM:INUSE is that sister projects are generally better positioned to assess the educational relevance of a file within their own context?
In other words, that Commons typically defers to the editorial judgment of the project where the file is actively used, rather than independently evaluating whether the content is meaningful or illustrative?
I would appreciate any clarification on this point, as it seems central to how the guideline is intended to be applied. BeeBringer (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
The in use policy has the important point that the file has to be "legitimately in use". We for example delete spam that was added to Wikipedia articles instantly after upload. In cases where it is not typical spam with bad intention, but poor contributions to other projects, this is more difficult. If there are projects without proper patrolling of edits, we have a problem. GPSLeo (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you all for the clarification and for taking the time to respond.
I understand better now that “in use” is interpreted as “legitimately in use,” and that this includes an assessment from the Commons side as well, rather than fully deferring to the sister project.
Given this, I think it might be helpful if the COM:INUSE guideline page could be clarified further, as it was not immediately clear to me as a newer contributor that usage on a sister project does not necessarily mean the file will be accepted on Commons.
For now, I will continue working with the file locally on Wikibooks, where the content and its intended meaning can be discussed with contributors familiar with the material. I have also taken the feedback into account and already created an improved version of the illustration there.
Since Wikibooks currently refers contributors to Commons for media files, I will also raise the question there whether this guidance should be nuanced, given that not all files considered useful are necessarily accepted on Commons so it is better to upload it locally to preserve the integrity of a wikibook.
Thank you again for your time and explanations.
Kind regards,
BeeBringer (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
COM:INUSE does not have a caveat "legitimately in use" - that's a different section, COM:NOTUSED. COM:INUSE is very clear: It does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. And later, in the "Discussion" section, it's reiterated: However, as indicated above, a file that is used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational, so a poor-quality file that remains in use is not eligible for deletion even if a better-quality file covering the same subject later becomes available. This novel view that Commons can override projects on COM:SCOPE has no basis in policy (at this time). -Consigned (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello Consigned and others, thank you for the continued discussion and clarification.
After reviewing both the COM:INUSE guideline and the arguments presented here, I would like to address a remaining inconsistency that seems important for clarity and transparency.
The wording of COM:INUSE is quite explicit: files that are in use on a Wikimedia project are considered in scope, even if they are of poor quality or appear to lack educational value. It also explicitly states that Commons does not override other projects’ judgment on what is educational when a file is in use in good faith.
However, in practice, a different standard appears to be applied.
In this case, and also in other discussions such as [8] administrators/contributors are clearly making an independent qualitative judgment about whether the usage is “valid,” “meaningful,” or “legitimate,” and are overriding the fact that the file is in use on a sister project.
This effectively introduces an additional, unwritten criterion: that usage must meet a certain subjective standard as assessed by Commons, rather than by the project where the file is actually used.
That raises a fundamental question about policy vs. practice:
If Commons in practice reserves the right to override sister projects on the basis of perceived quality or usefulness, then COM:INUSE as currently written does not accurately describe how decisions are made.
I am not arguing here about whether a specific file should or should not be kept. Rather, I am concerned with consistency and transparency:
Should contributors understand COM:INUSE as:
  1. a strict rule that defers to actual usage on sister projects, or
  2. a guideline that is effectively subordinate to a Commons-side evaluation of the quality and legitimacy of that usage?
At the moment, the policy text strongly suggests (1), while the actual application appears closer to (2).
If (2) reflects the intended or accepted practice, then it would seem important to explicitly document this, so contributors—especially newer ones—are not misled by the current wording.
Without that clarity, there is a real risk of inconsistent expectations between Commons and sister projects, which may affect contributor trust and cross-project integrity.
Thank you for considering this point.
Kind regards, BeeBringer (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Based on this discussion I made a propopsal to change the description of the COM:INUSE policy here With kind regards, BeeBringer (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
AI-generated images are fairly unpopular on Commons (and on a number of other wiki projects). They are "useful" to illustrate the capabilities of AI, but when used for illustrating anything other than AI itself then Commons often treats them as AI-slop. See COM:AI. The conflict between COM:INUSE and Commons' stance on AI-generated images is a topic of regular debates on Commons. Tbh, I cannot imagine that nlwiki is welcoming AI-generated images; I know for sure that enwiki and ruwiki are against such images. Nakonana (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
And this is part of the reason why files get gratuitously uploaded to projects instead of to Commons; because even if they're entirely legal and in use, some administrator may come along and just delete them. They shouldn't have to upload them locally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Assuming it was properly licensed, the file should not have been deleted. COM:INUSE exists precisely to prevent Commons from overruling other projects in this way. —Mx. Granger (talk  · contribs) 02:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
We kind of have a recursive logic hole here, I think. When one reads wikibooks:Wikibooks:Media, which is their official guideline, a clear reference and deference to Commons' policy can be found: Freely licensed or public domain media must be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia's shared media repository. Wikimedia Commons limits the scope of files that can be uploaded. So, I understand that it iss indeed, to break the recursive logic loop, more or less up to us to actually make redactional decisions for Wikibooks and to limit AI slop, for instance. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

សុត្តន្ត_សិរីហ្វុង

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Per the DR, that does not appear to be a copyright violation, though it is a false claim of "own work." - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done. The shown file was not a copyvio, but the user still uploaded copyvios after warnings and even block, so I reblocked him/her for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Taivo: Thanks. I'm sorry I picked the wrong filename to use above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

ROHINGYA BRUCE LEE

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
✓ Done. I warned the user. Currently block is not needed. Taivo (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Potential sockpuppet User:Nguyen.Bao.Anh.9321

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that some of User:Nguyen.Bao.Anh.9321's rename requests do not comply with renaming guidelines and they are identical to those of blocked sockpuppets: User:Alouette99I and User:Ferdimma9A. For example, see [9], [10]. Deltaspace42 (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Blocked and tagged, together with other sock Tikoniv4977. --Lymantria (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

TMX Marketing

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

  • I did a speedy keep on both of their DRs. Hopefully they will understand and not do this sort of thing again.
  • Account name still could be a problem (and certainly would be on en-wiki if they try to edit there), but I leave it to someone else to decide. - Jmabel ! talk 03:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I feel, that the user will not come back. If this is untrue, (s)he can be blocked. Taivo (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Flag editwars

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I blocked Westlinda06 (talk · contribs) for editwarring, but I wonder if other editors should be blocked as well. Other concerned users are at least ErrrrrWhat (talk · contribs) and MarsFerz (talk · contribs). Yann (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

If the other two were edit warring with Westlinda then I'd say no need to block them because they were going against someone who does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia per the enwiki block reasoning and their numerous reverted edits in other wiki projects. Nakonana (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I see that they are probably separate cases.
MarsFerz has not been active since 23 March (since their last block?) but pretty much all their edits on enwiki were reverted, mostly as vandalism, so if they come back and engage in the same behavior, they should probably be blocked. Nakonana (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
ErrrrrWhat seemingly tried to undo whatever Westlinda and MarsFerz were doing and since the latter two's edits were found to be problematic I'd say that ErrrrrWhat was at least acting in good faith (and maybe just fixed actual vandalism). Nakonana (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Likely block evasion

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:Soumava2002 was recently blocked for repeated copyright violations, mainly involving political logos and flags uploaded as "own work".

A new account, User:William Debraj.M, has begun uploading very similar content shortly after the block. The uploads show the same pattern: political party logos/flags with likely copyright issues.

Both accounts uploaded files related to the same entities (e.g. CPI, JLKM, BGPM), including closely matching filenames such as "Flag of JLKM" (png vs jpg).

Given the strong similarity in subject matter, upload pattern, and timing, this appears to be a continuation of the same behavior.

Requesting admin review. JaydenChao (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Blocked indef. as well as DebrajMJ. All copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Tag team in Commons:Village pump/Copyright#FoP in Bangladesh

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems a certain party is using the tag team method to build consensus on a patently wrong proposal. Some users are clearly using AI to comment and are making personal attacks. Is there anything to do about it? thanks — Kaim (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:R162A 1 Train

[edit]
Latest comment: 13 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Through some warnings, this user didn't stop uploading copyvio images including obvious unfree animation character and game images. Netora (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Netora: You don't seem to have notified them of this discussion on their user page, as is required. I will do it for you. - Jmabel ! talk 21:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please block the next spammer

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Miniliu

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Miniliu (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Ovruni: Did you not see "Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this." above? I notified them for you, this time.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I blocked her for a week, all contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cedar cones

[edit]
Latest comment: 20 minutes ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Cedar cones (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

I haven't looked closely but this looks like a problem account. I went to their user page after looking at their slightly odd reverted edit on User:Adamant1, and found a "Template editor given" section. First reaction: "Hmm, must be an experienced editor whose path I've somehow never crossed." Second reaction: "Who gave that to them?" Check page history: they wrote that on their own user page.

Account appears to be about 24 hours old, active here and ru-wiki. No objection if someone just decides "vandal" and blocks them without a hearing, but for now I will notify them on their talk page and give them a chance to explain. - Jmabel ! talk 17:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Comment I just reverted this account twice. The third time will be a block. Yann (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yann  Support block after yet another bizarre edit. HurricaneZetaC 19:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done Blocked for a month, clearly not OK. Yann (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Note that the reason for their ruwiki block is block evasion, this is someone's sock account. Though, I don't know whether they've been been disruptive on Commons with their previous account. The ruwiki block log doesn't mention whose sock this is. Nakonana (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Unless cross-wiki behaviour (i.e. same behaviour) anything on the ruwiki normally does not apply here. LuvsMG481 (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Moved from User talk:Cedar cones
@Jmabel ! there are a lot of constructive edits and few non-constructive edits in my contribution, but why did you call it a problematic account? Firstly, I installed a template editor on my personal page, and secondly, this is not a problematic account! Cedar cones (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Cedar cones: Lying about the rights you have like in Special:Diff/1190783977 is a problem.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=1191066324"