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-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
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 |
104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- 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]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)
Collapsing bulk of early discussion, leaving initial problem statement visible
|
|---|
|
Propose restricting ability to upload
[edit] Uploader blocked form uploading
|
|---|
|
There appears historically to be no way of engaging with Fabe56.
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.
|
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
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)
How does the huge number of files get sorted out?
[edit]I see two options, assuming lack of engagement:
- We ignore them. 'disk space is cheap'(!)
- 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)
- Hopefully Fabe56 will do something. Otherwise, an indefinite block should be sent. Yann (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed! I am assuming worst case, though. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- They remain absent 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 05:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- They remain absent 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 05:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed! I am assuming worst case, though. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hopefully Fabe56 will do something. Otherwise, an indefinite block should be sent. Yann (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I have made some more small progress today. Unfortunately the progress is 100% manual. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 12:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I have made some more small progress today. Unfortunately the progress is 100% manual. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 12:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- That makes a great deal of sense 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 13:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- That is a highly useful query, @Rhododendrites, and beats my manual approach 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 15:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
User:Dabmasterars
[edit]Dabmasterars (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
The user created my user page Special:Diff/1179412068 something that many know that I don' want. I kindly ask an admin to sanction the user for vandalism, to delete my user page and to lock it so no other vandal can recreate it. Thanks. Günther Frager (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- I simply created a blank page with a correct template so your name isn't red. If that's against the rules, then I'm sorry and I will never repeat this again. This was done in good faith, I swear. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 13:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Dabmasterars Usually you shouldn't be editing or creating other people's userpages, it's their choice whether they have one or not. HurricaneZetaC 14:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Dabmasterars: How do you determine which users deserve to have their redlinked user pages created in such a way? How often do you do it? Why does your Edit Summary not reflect what you did? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- This was my first time creating/editing someone else's user page, I thought to add the reviewer template so that the user is automatically included in Category:Commons reviewers (which is, in my opinion, beneficial for Commons). That's why I only included the template and nothing else, so that the page is technically still blank and the user can insert whatever after the template. I apologize for not providing a meaningful summary.
- Edit: I also distinctly remember someone editing my Wikipedia user page to fix a paragraph not showing, which led me to believe that good faith edits are generally okay. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Also, there is literally zero reason for having a completely missing user page. At least with a reviewer template people can identify you better. Why you don't want anything is beyond me. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 05:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Belbury
[edit]- Belbury (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Over the last few days Belbury has requested deletion of my photo etc on here. Some have been here for years with anyone else noting a problem. He is requested deletion of photos for the reason he believes that are too large, not of quality and dupes. I feel he is harassing and targeting my work for no reason. Pat.s.baker62 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Pat.s.baker62: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Pat.s.baker62
[edit]- Pat.s.baker62 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Sure, let's boomerang discuss the user's wanton disregard of COM:OW and uploading of huge upscaled images to use Commons as a free webhost for commercial purposes, as well as failure to notify. The files are listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pat.s.baker62. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why a separate section for the report? It can be merged with the other one.
- (However, the few uploads I checked by Pat were not overwrites, but distinct separate files from the source files. But maybe I just happened to have clicked on the few non-overwriting ones.) Nakonana (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Nakonana: merged. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pat.s.baker62 are all new uploads, they're files where the user has taken a low resolution image from Commons, stretched it to be ten or twenty times larger, and uploaded it as a new file (eg. File:Malay Proa (boat).jpg is a blurry 3840×4242 pixel version of the 543×600 File:A Piratical Proa in Full Chase.jpg). They explained at the DR that they are doing this because they're writing for a print magazine that asks them to provide
links to usable picture of the proper size
, so the files need to be above a certain pixel size to be accepted. - These are redundant, misleading duplicate images that aren't of any use to the project. Pat.s.baker62 shouldn't be using Commons as free web host as part of their workflow for filing magazine articles.
- They'd also been overwriting other users' uploads with stretched versions in the past, but stopped in 2023 when Commons stopped unapproved users from overwriting other people's images. Most of those overwrites had already been reverted at the time, I undid the remaining instances earlier today. Belbury (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Well, sir, I'm not overwriting anything... I am uploading, larger good quality photos, etc and using the proper copywrites while I'm doing so to enhance the useablity of the photos.
- also: You can usually reuse photos from Wikimedia Commons freely, but you must follow the specific license shown on each file’s page, especially its attribution and “share‑alike” requirements.
- Content under open content licenses may be reused without any need to contact the licensor(s), but just keep in mind that:
- some licenses require that the original creator be attributed;
- some licenses require that the specific license be identified when reusing (including, in some cases, stating or linking to the terms of the license); and
- some licenses require that if you modify the work, your modifications must also be similarly freely licensed.
- Content in the public domain may not have a strict legal requirement of attribution (depending on the jurisdiction of content reuse), but attribution is recommended to give correct provenance. Pat.s.baker62 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- So, people can no longer use photos from wikemedia commons contra to what your the policy states Pat.s.baker62 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Done Pat.s.baker62 blocked for a week, and files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
How should we handle the user's remaining 122 uploads? They aren't duplicates, they're offsite PD images that the user stretched before uploading to Commons, for the sake of their magazine's pixel size requirement. Is there a template to flag them as needing replacement with the original sources, so that we aren't misleading users into briefly believing that we have a 5000px scan of something? {{Thumbnail}} isn't quite right for it, and only a few of them are {{AI upscaled}}. --Belbury (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Belbury: Perhaps we need a {{Upscale}} or something. Alice had two pills. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Or a toggle switch on {{Thumbnail}}, where the upload is larger than the source? I assume this is a very unusual case, though. Belbury (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- {{AI upscaled}}, assuming that is how the upscaling was done. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- No, only a few of their uploads are AI upscaled, and I've already flagged those. In the majority of cases the user has just given the images an uncomplicated, enormous resize in image editing software, to get it above their target pixel threshold.
- I'll just go with a {{Cleanup image}} with an explanatory note, and a suggestion to re-upload the original resolution version.Belbury (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh. While cleaning these files up, a discrepancy led me to an earlier account Pat.s.baker (talk · contributions · Statistics) that was asked back in 2021 to please stop uploading upscales of lower resolution images
. They stopped using that account a few weeks afterwards, and registered a new "Pat.s.baker62" account in January 2022, apparently in response to some leftover overwritten files from the first account being reverted. --Belbury (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done OK, that solves the problem. #2 blocked indef., old account warned again (x2). Yann (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
User:Dimensionofknowledge
[edit]User is repeatedly removing the deletion template from File:Und dann kam Punk Episode 181 mit Coco.jpg saying that the DR can be "closed as keep, as copyright was verified", when the DR hasn't been closed and the copyright situation is complex (it's a derivative podcast thumbnail). Belbury (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done Blocked for a week for edit-warring. Yann (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Baophucminh53G
[edit]Baophucminh53G - obvious sock of Đăng Đàn Cung/To.Minh.Duc.2826HS. ~2026-15874-94 (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- @~2026-15874-94: Reported at m:srg#Global lock for Baophucminh53G. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done Blocked, tagged, locked. --Lymantria (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
EN67 and Etoile Noire Strasbourg
[edit]- EN67 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
EN67 has uploaded twice the same logo, without any source and licensing. The files were deleted and he was warned by Ziv (talk · contribs). Etoile Noire Strasbourg uploaded it again today. EN67 and Etoile Noire Strasbourg are probably the same user : it's what he is saying on my talk page on frwiki. A Check User Request is on progress on frwiki. But here, the logo is still without source and licensing. Supertoff (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hello,
- I would like to clarify the situation.
- First, regarding the accounts mentioned: we are not a single person. We are several employees working for the same organization (the club). The person who made the first uploads is a colleague. I am his direct supervisor and I am now taking over the discussion because the situation seems to be turning unnecessarily problematic.
- Regarding the logo, there is also an important point: I am the author and creator of the logo used by the Etoile Noire de Strasbourg. The first version of the logo that appeared on Commons was uploaded without my copyright being properly indicated and without any explicit authorization from me as the author at the time.
- This is exactly what I am currently trying to clarify and regularize.
- For this reason, I have now uploaded the logo again on Wikimedia Commons, this time indicating the correct authorship and rights for the new version of the logo.
- This is not an edit war. I am simply trying to resolve a copyright situation concerning a work that I created and to ensure that everything is correctly handled according to the rules of Commons.
- I would therefore appreciate a clear and constructive response so that this matter can be resolved properly. Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- The Logo is not on commons... It is on frwiki. If you want resolve properly the problem, read the blue link on EN67 talk page. And read the informations when you are uploading files... All is already written in the help page. Supertoff (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hello,
- I am currently blocked on frwiki, which prevents me from correcting the situation myself. I would therefore ask to be unblocked so I can properly update the logo, as I am its author.
- the actual logo used on the page it taken form a page that doesn't exist anymore and that don't have the right to share the logo.
- Also, could you explain why the official registered name “Etoile Noire” cannot be used or reflected on the page?
- Thank you. Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Etoile Noire Strasbourg: The name used above at 10:02 is best expressed as fr:Fichier:Étoile noire de Strasbourg 2021.png. The permission there fr:Template:Marque déposée invokes fair use and does not allow copying to Commons. See also COM:FAIR. We would need free permission as explained at VRT or VRT/fr. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk · contribs) And what don't you understand on french file import page when it is written : Conditions pour importer un fichier / Fichier dont vous êtes l'auteur (excepté les logos, voir plus bas) Supertoff (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Donc, comment changer ce logo si je ne peux pas mettre de logo?? je suis l'auteur, le logo n'est pas à jour. il ya donc un problème. Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- https://etoile-noire.fr/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/cropped-logo-3D-retro-etoile-noire-270x270.png
- le lien de notre logo sur la page officielle du club. Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- If the French Wikipedia accepts fair use, then the problem is solved for Commons. It simply shouldn't be transferred to Commons anymore. Alternatively, the copyright holder send permission to COM:VRT. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 10:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Please unblock me so that I can upload on FrWiki. the matter is done and I don't want to have to exchange with @Supertoff Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Etoile Noire Strasbourg: Supertoff is the blocking Admin on frwiki, it is they who need convincing. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Etoile Noire Strasbourg: EN67 is not blocked on frwiki except on fr:Étoile noire (hockey sur glace). He can upload files. It is why I blocked him partially. And as said Ziv, the problem is solved here. Supertoff (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Etoile Noire Strasbourg, i deleted now File:LOGO Etoile noire OFFICIEL ROND.png. Deleted files can be restored after obtaining permission from the copyright holder. Further details, as mentioned above, can be found at COM:VRT. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 12:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Etoile Noire Strasbourg: EN67 is not blocked on frwiki except on fr:Étoile noire (hockey sur glace). He can upload files. It is why I blocked him partially. And as said Ziv, the problem is solved here. Supertoff (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Etoile Noire Strasbourg: Supertoff is the blocking Admin on frwiki, it is they who need convincing. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Please unblock me so that I can upload on FrWiki. the matter is done and I don't want to have to exchange with @Supertoff Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Donc, comment changer ce logo si je ne peux pas mettre de logo?? je suis l'auteur, le logo n'est pas à jour. il ya donc un problème. Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- The Logo is not on commons... It is on frwiki. If you want resolve properly the problem, read the blue link on EN67 talk page. And read the informations when you are uploading files... All is already written in the help page. Supertoff (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- (Since the above went a bit off track) @Etoile Noire Strasbourg: if you hold the copyright to File:LOGO Etoile noire OFFICIEL ROND.png and you want the file restored here on Commons, there are basically two ways to do this. (1) The club website can be explicit about the specific free license offered and about any expected attribution. Once the site says that, come back here and the file can be undeleted. (2) You can follow the procedure at COM:VRT (in English) or COM:VRT/fr (in French) to generate a release that clarifies the license and email it as explained there. Expect some (entirely confidential) correspondence back and forth, in order to establish that you are who you say you are. Once that is complete to the satisfaction of the VRT, they should undelete the file. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Problème avec supertoff
[edit]Bonjour, @Supertoff Tu n'es pas détenteur de la marque et de l'entreprise Etoile Noire. Nous entrons maintenant, puisque tu le dis, dans une guerre d'édition que tu as déclenchée en voulant avoir le contrôle sur notre page Wikipédia… Nous sommes détenteurs de la vérité et des véritables informations sur l'entreprise qui est la nôtre. Vous êtes en train de diffamer l'image de notre marque.
Vous n'êtes pas le roi de la plateforme ni le patron !
Aux dernières nouvelles, si nous décidons de modifier le logo ou de modifier la description de notre entreprise, nous avons le droit.
Je comprends que maîtriser toutes les pages Wikipédia est votre seule activité, mais à un moment donné, si vous vous présentez comme un dictateur qui décide de tout, ça ne peut pas marcher.
Vos informations sont fausses, même le titre de la page est faux. Il va donc falloir nous laisser éditer notre page comme bon nous semble. Merci pour votre compréhension.
Cordialement,
Etoile Noire Strasbourg EN67 (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @EN67: Bonjour, En quoi, ceci concerne Wikimedia Commons ? Yann (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yann: does en:WP:OWN have a French analog? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, here: fr:Wikipédia:Appropriation d'un article. Yann (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, Google Translate says this amounts to appropriation of the French Wikipedia article on their ice hockey club, and objecting to their blockage there for what amounts to meatpuppetry, while the upper section revolves around resisting hints to use VRT. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann: est-ce que le fait d'être traité de dictateur est autorisé sur commons ? Supertoff (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Supertoff: No, that is unacceptable. You are protecting your project, as you were elected to do. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann: est-ce que le fait d'être traité de dictateur est autorisé sur commons ? Supertoff (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, Google Translate says this amounts to appropriation of the French Wikipedia article on their ice hockey club, and objecting to their blockage there for what amounts to meatpuppetry, while the upper section revolves around resisting hints to use VRT. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, here: fr:Wikipédia:Appropriation d'un article. Yann (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yann: does en:WP:OWN have a French analog? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done I blocked Etoile Noire Strasbourg indef. for socking, and warned EN67. Any other excess of language should lead to a block. Yann (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann: how is having two people from the same organization "socking", especially if they are open about it? - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- This would be OK if 1. they are in good standing, 2. if one account doesn't come to the rescue of the other one when accusing of breaking Commons policies (or Wikipedia for that matter), 3. they disclose the other account on their user page. Yann (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- And as Supertoff and Jeff G. said, EN67's message may be a reason for blocking in itself. Yann (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann: how is having two people from the same organization "socking", especially if they are open about it? - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Google.m%SikhEmpire-noindex
[edit]- Google.m%SikhEmpire-noindex (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
This brand new user has gone on a spree of nominating Category:Maps of the Sikh Empire for discussion (twice), and seemingly random maps of the Sikh Empire for deletion. Their rationales are written in hardly comprehensible language (the user probably does not have English as native language and might be using a translation machine), which do not really boil down to valid Commons:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. They vaguely mention inaccuracies or neutrality issues, even though Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view is not a valid reason for deletion. Seems to me they have some opposition to the Sikh Empire in general, although I'm not sure; but if so, this is going nowhere. How should we deal with this? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Nederlandse Leeuw: I agree with you, and reverted the edits I could, as well as warning the user. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Nederlandse Leeuw: You're welcome. Escalated to m:srg#Global lock for Google.m%SikhEmpire-noindex. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Liberaltarian12345
[edit]Repeated uploads of fantasy election apportionment diagrams. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- A better solution to prevent that from happening is to contact the person at https://parliamentdiagram.toolforge.org and tell them to make it so that i can download the images as PNG's off the site directly, rather than needing to upload them to Wikimedia to do so. Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Liberaltarian12345: how exactly is a technical issue with a tool responsible for you uploading out-of-scope content? - Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Because if I could download it off of there directly, then I would not have to upload it to Wikimedia. It is my only option to get the images for use. Unless there is also a way for me to immediately delete them after i get them off of Wikimedia as well Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- The fact that you have some non-WMF-related project you are working on does not entitle you to upload nonsense to Commons. You are more than welcome to approach the people who created the tool and to ask if they will either modify it for you to do what you want, or you can fork the project at GitHub and modify it to your needs, but you don't get to more-or-less vandalize our website for your convenience.
- At a quick look, I believe parliamentarch with that does most of the work. It has a command-line interface, and appears to turn out SVG files (as strings). Shouldn't be hard to build a tool of your own around that, and it is pretty trivial with any of a number of free tools (ImageMagick, GraphicsMagick, GIMP) to turn an SVG into a PNG, if that is what you really want. - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Because if I could download it off of there directly, then I would not have to upload it to Wikimedia. It is my only option to get the images for use. Unless there is also a way for me to immediately delete them after i get them off of Wikimedia as well Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Liberaltarian12345: how exactly is a technical issue with a tool responsible for you uploading out-of-scope content? - Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
User:Henrydat and "199.7.158.234"
[edit]- It seems that user:Henrydat often uses it to attack anyone who can't agree with him. "Bố thằng điên lảm nhảm lắm thế 199.7.158.234 (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)" (from Vietnamese: "F* you, why are you rambling so much?"). IP 199.7.158.234. Henrydat is currently under suspicion within the Vietnamese Wikimedia community for frequently submitting false reports to other members, such as DDC and Nguyentrongphu, in order to block their IP addresses. This has caused significant problems for unrelated users. His recent edits all attempt to erase information about Vietnamese history in a worse way. Unfortunately, too many members of the Vietnamese wiki community are IP-blocked and unable to speak up, while those who are not blocked live outside Vietnam and cannot read Vietnamese. Here, I am only reporting what the Vietnamese wiki community has mentioned and not offending anyone. (JeanFousrou52 (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC))
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC) Socking: User:Dad-wikimasters
[edit]I suspect User:Dad-wikimasters2003 may be a sockpuppet of User:Dad-wikimasters. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dad-wikimasters/Archive.
These accounts are only potentially the same individual as User:KostyaMasterpiece, despite the similarity in behavior on the English Wikipedia (another link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KostyaMasterpiece). The English Wikipedia account creation dates are the following:
- In mid 2021, KostyaMasterpiece was created
- In early to mid 2022, socking starts by KostyaMasterpiece
- In late 2023, Dad-wikimasters was created
- In late 2024, User:Kostya-Artist2005 was created
- In late 2025, Dad-wikimasters2003 was created
Besides this, on Commons only, User:Dad-wikimasters2003 has uploaded text to speech recordings, copyvios, tried to create someone else's userpage, and engaged in potential harassment ⁅1⁆ ⁅2⁆ ⁅3⁆ ⁅4⁆. - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 23:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
- Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 02:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done An English Wikipedia sock block is enough for me to block as a sock here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- And should File:Russian Word Pronunciation is Malyy.oga (which I replaced with File:Ru-малый.ogg) also be deleted? - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 21:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Now that it's no longer in use, yes. Done. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- And should File:Russian Word Pronunciation is Malyy.oga (which I replaced with File:Ru-малый.ogg) also be deleted? - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 21:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Alexbarbershop
[edit]Open letter: I was temporarily banned for “not categorizing” my commons image uploads properly but a quick glance at my uploads will reveal this is false/obsequious.
CC: stewards, others via electronic mail.
Good Morning Wikimedia,
I have been banned temporarily by an administrative user (an excellent content contributor but a highly toxic moderator) who I respect and has contributed meaningful work to the commons but whose administrative practices have degraded to tyrannical. This sort of thing is entirely tolerated by Wikimedia’s paid staff and admins and I want you to examine this more seriously.
The real reason for this ban is that Pi.1415926535 improperly removed this extremely rare image, the only one in existence online of a ware and brookfield street railway trolley which is exempted from copyright by §303 of the us copyright act, which I called him on and to which this admin responded putatively.
Actually I have contributed so much for so long to wikipedia and more recently commons at my own expense that I don’t understand how I have to answer to these mid-tier admins or why anybody not actually employed by wikipedia.
Please forward this to the appropriate administrative department as I cannot and will not expend any further energy acting as my own defense attorney for contributions that are eminently unproblematic.
This moderator should not be banned as they have made valuable contributions but they should be chastised for extensive misuse of punitive authority for matters of preference completely unrelated to copyright or terms of use.
Tolerance of this type of moderation has stunted and limited the amount of quality public use content on commons and the number and quality of editors as many skilled editors are undoubtedly chased away due to the toxic moderation culture at wikipedia.
It is bad enough that our work product is not compensated for, something that we choose to disregard in furtherance of human knowledge and Wikimedia’s broader mission aims, but giving away our labor for free should certainly not be in an environment less pleasant and more hostile than an actual workplace. My father, a retired former editor for Pearson National Evaluation Systems (a textbook firm) would never have put up with a workplace environment this toxic or hostile, even if paid.
Unless the sole mission of wikipedia is to provide training data for AI, the foundation will probably regret failing to heed this advice, as I am going to assume this email will be ultimately read and shrugged off like so many others not from donors. I was a donor before I contributed, but you may find soon that I am neither. You will never know what articles and high quality regional photographs will be forever absent from commons and the other wiki sites.
Now multiply that by thousands of lost editors and millions of lost edits and uploads for non-copyright reasons and you will understand the true cost of administration laissez faire that has thrived for too long at this organization.
But I guess none of that counts for squat if the donations keep pouring in, as they will until somebody clones the entire site and builds a site with monetized, copyrighted editing.
If you want to keep me around after my newspapers.com membership expires next year you will promote me to unpaid administrative status (which I will not use but will shield me from bs like this) and examine the moderator incentive structure and consider experimenting with paid moderation.
Saludos Cordiales,
User:Alexbarbershop ~2026-16131-27 (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Not done Alexbarbershop is not blocked, and was never blocked on Commons. Yann (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Alexbarbershop (talk · contribs) is blocked in Commons temporarily, but edits from temporary accounts cannot be used as unblock request. You must log in and request in your user talkpage. Taivo (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
@Alexbarbershop: I've added a block notice to your talk page, mainly to give you a clear place to appeal your block. I would point out that the block was for incorrect licensing, which you do not even mention above.
The block is not particularly long, it only has a week to go. I personally would recommend that you just wait it out and do other things right now, because it's probably not worth the hassle to try to get it lifted, but that is, of course, your choice. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Thanks for adding the block notice, that was my mistake.
- My block was for repeated use of incorrect licenses and no/poor categorization after multiple warnings. For example, his most recent uploads (prior to corrects by myself and others):
- File:Conway Electric Trolley at Dewolfe Shoe Factory on July 4th.jpg: License not valid in the US, generic url source (where I am unable to find the file), overly broad categories ("Trolleys" and "Trams") with no specific categories, and author and date claims with no source
- File:Former Ukiah Depot Ukiah CA.jpg: Overly broad category ("Depots") with no specific categories, false claim in description (there are no plans to bring SMART service to Ukiah)
- File:Conway Electric Street Railway Stock.png: Obviously false date that does not match the source, license not valid in the US, overly broad category ("Stock") with no specific categories
- File:Reading Line Bee Line Locomotive with Norfolk Southern East Deerfield MA.jpg: Overly broad category with no specific categories, description that misses a key fact
- File:Location of the South Deerfield Boston & Maine Depot.jpg: No categories
- File:Ware Trol.png: Reupload of file deleted at DR. Three invalid licenses (PD-US-expired lacking evidence, PD-old-70 not valid for US works, PD-US-unpublished not valid for post-1906 works), uselessly vague source, false claim in description (we have another photo of the same system), overly vague category ("Trolleys"), missing the actual category for the system
- File:Boott Cotton Mills by JL Parker (NPS).jpg: Overly vague category ("National parks"), completely invalid category (Category:US National Park Road), attribution to a person not listed at the source and whose existence I am unable to verify
- This is a combination of basic issues that should not require multiple warnings, plus a concerning pattern of claims that seem to have been simply made up. (That pattern is also evident on enwiki, where his recent creation of en:Conway Electric Street Railway included several false and unverifiable claims.) Given the multiple warnings I left, I don't think a two-week block is overly punitive. The only uploads by Alexbarbershop that I've deleted myself have been inappropriate AI upscales of existing files, duplicates (redirected), and the reupload of the above file, all of which are routine administrative tasks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
CarolaGarella
[edit]- User: CarolaGarella (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Detto-Mariano-in-studio-2002.jpg after final warning for doing so.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done Blocked for a week, one more file deleted. Yann (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
User:Incall again
[edit]Incall (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Previous request: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_120#User:Incall. A 'hat collector', happily accepting extended rights granted to him by the administrators, but repeatedly demonstrating a lack of understanding of the copyright principles, which have been pointed out to him. Used to struggle with understanding YouTube licensing, demonstrated extremely poor English proficiency, waged an edit war, removing speedy deletion templates (here), and made unfounded accusations of vandalism (here). Repeatedly uploaded files with inconsistent PD rationale, grounding his suggestions on the life terms of unknown authors. Time goes by, the user has received now image reviewer rights, but how does he demonstrate his supposed skills? Okay, he still goes on with the same false PD rationale in his own uploads (here), but let's see how he reviews the licenses of other users' ones? Example: the map under review clearly is under cc-zero as per it's source, but our reviewer is unstoppable: first, he tags the file for the speedy deletion, then, despite the obvious objections of the uploader, leaves a so-called "last warning" on the uploader's talk page and continues to accuse him of false licensing. I suggest that all administrators who granted extended rights to an inexperienced and at the same time aggressive user so hastily, now evaluate the benefit or harm to Commons from this user having these rights. Komarof (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- I won’t even comment on this. First you say that my English is bad, then you bring up a topic that was archived a year ago, and then you present only one new accusation. So I want to know: what exactly do you want from me? (A brief answer without unnecessary accusations) 😐 Incall talk 10:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Можно было поговорить изначально, просто на моей странице обсуждения. Больше я не буду участвовать в данном диалоге. Incall talk 10:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Nina07011960
[edit]- User: Nina07011960 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading of ten more files after four blocks for doing so per Special:Diff/308787196/1181750459. The user appears to be unwilling to follow (or incapable of following) copyright law.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Not done I don't see any contributions by this user, not even deleted contributions, in the last 5 years. The diff you indicate shows two warnings, one from 2018, the other recent. Being recently given a warning message about very old uploads (which is all that your diff shows) is not normally a reason to block an account. - Jmabel ! talk 01:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Milan Szymon Szulc
[edit]User has repeatedly demanded that @Verdy p fulfill their requests to change various Unicode-related files, also demanded Autopatrol rights when questioned by @Abzeronow over at Commons:Requests for rights#Milan Szymon Szulc. applecuckoo (he/him) 01:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Milan Szymon Szulc (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - Jmabel ! talk 01:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/~2026-16585-73
[edit]- ~2026-16585-73 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - Personal attack page and vandalism.
~2026-16676-12 (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- What copy wikipedia Administrators copy user only and vandalism Copy Wikipedia Administrators name vandalism 1, Wikipedia Administrators name vandalism 2 and Copy Wikipedia Administrators name vandalism 3, please click blocked global lock at personal attack page and vandalism, thank you. ~2026-16676-12 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Already done globally locked. - Jmabel ! talk 05:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)- Also indef-blocked ~2026-16692-60 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information), same story. - Jmabel ! talk 05:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Fortunato2601
[edit]- User: Fortunato2601 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klebs1 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
The account in question is a dummy account of a user banned (Romaburuno) by ptwiki ([2]) for fakery and LTA (Long Term Access), as well as uploading images with inappropriate licenses to this project. Klebs1 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Klebs1: Romaburuno never logged in here, where LTA means Long Term Abuser. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done. I deleted speedily most uploads as copyright violations. Currently that's enough. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
This user made mass DR nomination of files what uploaded by @User:Vahan Kochar, claiming what these are not "own works", due to photo from Andranik and Vahan Kochar's collection template.
There's one problem: Vahan Kochar is copyright holder and uploader of this photos on commons, so he can claim photos as a own works and put that template on the files. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Assuming that Vahan Kochar is who he claims to be, I suggest that at least some of the images nominated for deletion might not be own work because they are way too old for that, for example File:Hagop SEMERDJIAN Studio PHEBUS Paris 1922 à 1949 ETSEV.tif, even though they might be his father's work. I cannot understand why you report Komarof instead of discussing this issue elsewhere, e.g. in the DRs or on Komarof's personal talk page, where you should have notified the user about this report. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Vahan Kochar inherited copyrights of them by his father, so only father's photos cannot be own works. But instead of just fixing incorrect claiming Komarof just want delete them, so he should be warned for DR misusing. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Robert Flogaus-Faust: You cannot, but I can. This appears to be a kind of retaliation request after my assessment of the numerous mostly meaningless comments that this inexperienced user tries to leave under almost every nomination I start. E.g., just look at this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Արա Վրույր.tif: Not to mention this is clearly a scanned clipping from some publication, this user is trying to claim that this photograph was taken by a person who was born a year after the death of the person depicted. Now, regarding the Vahan Kochar's uploads, I carefully examined all the descriptions he provided when uploading files. There are three description options. Here they are: Author:Andranik Kochar, Author:Vahan Kochar, and this one: photo from Andranik and Vahan Kochar's collection. Moreover, in the titles of some photos he even honestly indicated the real author, as here: Studio PHEBUS Paris. From these I conclude that Mr. Kochar, without wanting to deceive anyone, simply decided that he had the right to publish images taken by other photographers, on the grounds that copies of them were stored in his collection. I have nominated for deletion only these images from the third group (and not all of them, but the most questionable ones). That's it. Komarof (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Komarof you should also see the files' history: on this one tag what photographer is Andranik Kochar was added upon image upload.
- On another one same situation as on above image and Studio PHEBUS looks to be place where depicted person was worked, not an actual copyright owner. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Adding a certain group of images to Category:Photographs by Andranik Kochar does not qualify as a claim of authorship. For example, Mr. Vahan Kochar added to this same category the following files: File:Հովհաննես Քյուրքչյանց.jpg, File:Արամ Վրույր.tif. These people died in 1903 and 1924, while Mr. Andranik Kochar was born in 1919. Their descriptions, in turn, are explicit: photo from Andranik and Vahan Kochar's collection. Komarof (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Files with suspicious claim of authorship in that category are minority, you should just fix incorrect claim instead of attempting delete various others. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Adding a certain group of images to Category:Photographs by Andranik Kochar does not qualify as a claim of authorship. For example, Mr. Vahan Kochar added to this same category the following files: File:Հովհաննես Քյուրքչյանց.jpg, File:Արամ Վրույր.tif. These people died in 1903 and 1924, while Mr. Andranik Kochar was born in 1919. Their descriptions, in turn, are explicit: photo from Andranik and Vahan Kochar's collection. Komarof (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- @SomeFancyUsername: 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🇺🇦 16:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
This user's talk page shows that they have been persistently uploading copyrighted files, which have all been deleted, for several months now. They were apparently warned about this as far back as September of last year, and do not show any signs of stopping. SilviaASH (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- This was after Ziv final warned them in September. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done. I blocked the user for a week. Copyvios are deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
More of Alex Neman's problematic uploads
[edit]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
_01.jpg)
_02.jpg)
.jpg)
_03.jpg)
_01.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_02.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
_01.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&oldid=1183303241){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
#/media/Fichier:%C3%89toile_noire_de_Strasbourg_2021.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @LuvsMG481:
- Assuming "'creepshot' is only one aspect" refers to the DR, you can raise other issues there as well.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- @LuvsMG481: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @LuvsMG481: A !votes subsection below would do the job. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @LuvsMG481: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- @LuvsMG481:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I would want to see some comment from @Alex Neman: before commenting further (with an unblock for this purpose, if necessary). Do they understand the problem here? Are they willing to avoid that in the future? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
Indef Alex Neman (!votes)
[edit]
Support, obviously per above. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)- 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)
- 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)
- Support Looking through the enwiki SPI, I find that the ranges 158.140.167.0/25 and 158.140.171.0/25 have been active on Commons for the last three years, with >1,000 combined edits that are all behavioral matches to Alex Neman. Temporary accounts on those ranges, also with behavioral matches, have been active within the last several months. I see two registered accounts that also made edits on Commons: New Alex Neman (active July 2010) and Alexuploader2017 (active December 2017). @Nakonana: This means that Alex Neman has been socking on Commons for 15 years, with near-constant socking for the most recent several years. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Support, per Pi.1415926535. --Kadı Message 20:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per Taivo. CutlassCiera 14:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- When did he sock on Commons? The ranges mentioned haven't been active since the block. CutlassCiera 15:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'll let Pi.1415926535 answer this. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- When did he sock on Commons? The ranges mentioned haven't been active since the block. CutlassCiera 15:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
User:Tenam2
[edit]Hello, as I can see in my watchlist, Tenam2 is asking for renaming in French a lot of files in Italian which don't need to be renamed, because Aosta Valley is an Italian region where both Italian and French are the official languages. All the files concern the Aosta Valley area. He has a long history on the Italian wikipedia of pushing French language instead of Italian. He was already been warned to not change names of my files (and others' ones) without reason (1, 2); in response to my request, he asked for changes to even more files than usual. I don't think it is a constructive way of contribute.
_-_stazione_ferroviaria_-_fabbricato_viaggiatori_lato_strada.jpg&curid=28324763&diff=1182802654&oldid=1182587147){kind=link}
What is really wired is also that he seems follow my files, following edits of user:Arbalete and edit them just after Arbalete. With Arbalete, I'm discussing in those days about categories he is creating. After my disagreement with Arbalete —whom I had also asked not to change the names of my files — Tenam2 began deliberately requesting the changing of the names of my files. The situation is very unpleasant for me; I feel like I'm targeted. Una tantum (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Talk with Tenam2: User_talk:Tenam2#Rinomina_file_POV
- Talks with Arbalete: User_talk:Arbalete#Rinomina_file and User_talk:Arbalete#Category:Nus_train_station_-_Station_building. Una tantum (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hello, I would like to clarify the situation from my point of view, because two distinct and separate actions are being conflated.
- The files I renamed on 17 March were renamed only as translations (Italian > French). At that time, I understood, based on an existing discussion that this was allowed. After that point, I did not touch those files again.
- The files I renamed afterwards, i.e. today, were not renamed as translations, but to improve clarity and consistency of file names, in particularr e.g. providing with a clearer identification of subject, place, and viewpoint, harmonisation according to a descriptive and neutral naming convention.
- This is exactly what I explained on my user talk page: "stazione di Verrès" is ambiguous and far less clear to me than "Verrès (AO) - gare ferroviaire - vue côté rue", since it specifies the province (AO = Aosta Valley, Verrès being not a major city at all and is not known outside this region) in which Verrès is located, the type of building ("stazione" may not be a train station in Italian) and the side the photo was taken from. This is the sole reason why I renamed that file. In one case I even left "abc1", which is an extension I read on other discussions that Una tantum prefers to keep in his/her file names, even if I don't know whether this is allowed in file names.
- Other examples: this file name has a typo (Rhemes ND > Rhêmes-Notre-Dame), and this file name is completely useless, but my renaming proposals were bulk deleted.
- These renames were content-neutral, descriptive, and intended solely to improve the nomenclature, not to promote any language over another.
- This is not a personal attack. It is purely coincidental that the files concerned belong to the same author: they were renamed because their names were unclear or non-descriptive, not because of who had uploaded them.
- I am not following any user. I work on Aosta Valley related content, and we're familiar with this user.
- Aosta Valley is a region where Italian and French are both official languages on an equal legal footing. Renaming files in French for places and subjects located in that region aiming to improve their names is therefore legitimate and neutral, and fully consistent with local toponymy and official usage. About my supposed "long history on the Italian wikipedia of pushing French language instead of Italian", examples should be cited, elsewhere this remains an empty accusation, apart from being totally vague.
- If there is disagreement on a specific rename, I'm open to discussing it calmly and on a case-by-case basis. However, presenting this work as harassment or targeting is IMO a misunderstanding of both my actions and my intentions.
- Thank you. Tenam2 (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Is this normal? A common, clear and harmonized naming convention should be followed and promoted. "Nus (AO) - maison communale" (in French) or "Nus (AO) - municipio" (in Italian) correspond to such criteria, but "municipio di Nus abc2" is less clear imho. Files on wikimedia common are common, we're not on anyone's private photo archive. --Tenam2 (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
"stazione di Verrès" is ambiguous and far less clear to me than "Verrès (AO) - gare ferroviaire - vue côté rue"
— why did you translate the file name when all you wanted to do was to have a clearer identification of the subject?- We also don't require file names to be perfect; it's fine if the file name is "good enough". From that point of view "stazione di Verrè" is a pretty clear file name. I for one wouldn't have a clue what the "AO" is supposed to mean in the file name you chose.
and this file name is completely useless
— how is this file name "useless"? The file shows the Donnas power plant and the file name translates literally to "hydroelectric company Donnas" (Sied Donnas = Società Idroelettrica di Donnas (SIED)). How is that useless? Why would it be OK for you to use abbreviations like "AO" but not for them to use abbreviations like "Sied"?Renaming files in French for places and subjects located in that region aiming to improve their names is therefore legitimate and neutral
— renaming files to translate the file names is explicitly against the renaming policy, see COM:FRNOT.Is this normal?
We usually honor the file names an uploader chooses, unless the file name qualifies for one of the renaming criteria listed at COM:FNC. And regarding the criterion on harmonizing, beware that a file can be in several categories and harmonizing it according to the file naming scheme in one category might disharmonize its file name in another category's naming scheme. Furthermore, it could disharmonize the file name from the uploader's other uploads (e.g. I like to include dates in my file names, but your chosen file naming scheme for above category would disrupt my file naming scheme because your suggestion does not include a date). Nakonana (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)- Hello and thank you for the detailed explanations. You helped me understand where my interpretation was wrong, and I appreciate the time taken to point to the relevant policies.
- I would however like to clarify a few points, both factually and in terms of intent:
- What I find unfortunate is that this could not have been explained by Una tantum, calmly and with policy references (as Nakoana has done here), before opening an ANI. I did not engage in any edit war, I did not revert any file, and I acted according to two different criteria which I explained trensparently on my talk page. I also received accusations (language pushing, targeting) with no proof. Had wikimedia policy been cited clearly at the outset, the situation would most likely not have escalated, specially because with Una tantum we are familiar and even had the chance to meet in real life and exchange about our common passion as wikipedians.
- I clearly understood and accepted that translating file names is not allowed, even in a bilingual or officially multilingual region, and after the first objection was raised on my talk page I stopped translating file names. My mistake was to assume that using French to make names clearer from my perspective was acceptable, given that French is an official language in the Aosta Valley and that I am personally more precise in French. That assumption was incorrect under wikimedia policy and I acknowledge it.
- Regarding Sied Donnas: while I now accept that this may be "good enough" as you say (though what is the criteria?) for some users, I still find it problematic from clarity that understanding it requires external knowledge (that me e.g. as a native Aosta Valley person did not have at all) or a Google search especially when the expansion ("Società Idroelettrica di Donnas") is not mentioned anywhere on the file page itself if I'm not mistaken. That said I understand now that Commons does not require file names to be maximally explicit, only "good enough", and that uploader conventions deserve deference, though this lack of clear naming criteria is a bit weird to me and would like to know your opinion (and of more users involved).
- about the choice to add "(AO)", it was based on a prior discussion with Arbalete (link already provided), which led me to believe that adding the provincial abbreviation was acceptable.
- To ensure I have correctly understood the rules and to avoid any future ANI: this rename does infringe Commons rules? Please confirm that this understanding is correct.
- I want to reiterate clearly: I did not target any uploader. The files happened to be by the same author, most probably because they concern the same geographic area I work on. I have no aim of pushing French instead of Italian. I have long contributed in multilingual contexts, including Italian Wikipedia since approximately 10 years. once again myy actions were guided by what I mistakenly believed to be acceptable harmonisation and clarification practices.
- I have learned from this exchange. My intention is that this clarification may also be useful for others working on Aosta Valley related content, like @Arbalete and @Pilaz, where bilingualism can easily lead to misunderstandings about what is locally legitimate versus what is globally allowed on Wikimedia Commons.
- Tenam2 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
_-_stazione_ferroviaria_-_fabbricato_viaggiatori_lato_strada.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1181561502){kind=link}
User:Xemsomenh
[edit]- User: Xemsomenh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reason:Uploading multiple files that are potentially against the policy. MinhVN1863 (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- MinhVN1863. Please provide diffs for evidence - LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- MinhVN1863 - I've notified the user for you. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- @MinhVN1863, @LuvsMG481: I indefinitely blocked Xemsomenh and deleted all of their uploads. Done. Kadı Message 12:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- @MinhVN1863, @LuvsMG481: I indefinitely blocked Xemsomenh and deleted all of their uploads.
User: Midnightazu
[edit]- Midnightazu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
New user has uploaded a dozen or so school and sports logos, almost all of which are complex enough to qualify for copyright protection. They have been labelled CC-BY-4.0, which is very unlikely to be correct. I started to tag them for SD/F1, but realised that it's a bit bitey and harrassy to swamp them with lots of copyvio notices; it's also a waste of everybody's time as I think the logos are going to need mass deletion anyway. • a frantic turtle 🐢 13:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Similar case with this file, it is licenced under CC-BY-SA 3.0 but on the website it says copyrighted. This does not fall into the category of SD/F1 but it should be checked if user tagged as own work, if he did change it to the URL of the school. I'm not too much of an expert but I think logos from memory are ineligible for copyright if they serve simple design, and school logos may be copyrighted but if we delete them, then we should delete logos like Scotch College one. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- A Frantic Turtle. You are meant to notify the user. I've done it for you --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
