Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
128, 127, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Note

  • Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Uploads by Fabe56

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago58 comments12 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose restricting ability to upload

[edit]
Uploader blocked form uploading

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

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

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

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

How does the huge number of files get sorted out?

[edit]

I see two options, assuming lack of engagement:

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

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

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

What is available to help to solve this?

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is a highly useful query, @Rhododendrites, and beats my manual approach 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Harold Foppele

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Harold Foppele and socks are now globally locked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harold Foppele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have copyright and/or scope issues with almost all of his uploads. Their only uses seem to be in illustrating his writings on en.wikiversity, which have serious issues of their own. (Note his page-creation block on enwiki for repeatedly creating bad articles.) At this point, I think a complete block from uploading is needed unless he can display substantially better judgement and understanding of Commons policies.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think what can be agreed upon is that they either do not understand or choose not to understand the basic laws and principles of copyright, despite my strenuous attempts to advise them of this. I would provide diffs (here, enWiki and Wikversity), but there are too many. They are co-operative, friendly, but their actions do not demonstrate an understanding of our needs here, however often they are told what those needs are.
The AI 'whimsy' likely has a value on Wikiversity and nowhere else, so should be uploaded there and reside there. It has no generalised educational use, and is thus out of the general Commons scope. Where it is generated by others it is likely their copyright. Where generated by the uploader it is stated by knowledgeable editors to be only broadly rooted in facts, thus the educational value is speculative rather than authoritative. In neither case is it suitable to remain here. Wikiversity is the correct upload site for this material, but it must be correctly licenced there by the originator in order to upload it there, or their Doctrine of Fair Use must be met
On Wikiversity I have no issue with unusual AI (etc) generated non factual images because they may be used within the material on Wikiversity. I have an issue with their being on Commons, whose scope is educational and factual.
Uploads of images of people appears to have ceased, though File:Afbeelding van WhatsApp op 2025-10-09 om 14.24.30 c4fcdf06.jpg remains. I thought I had nominated it for SD previously and have done so now, on the simple basis that the uploader is unlikely to be the owner of the copyright
 Support I am minded towards this being a single, final, authoritative warning, with a possible limited term block on uploading to attract their concentration, requiring a commitment not to misuse Commons in any manner. Any future misuse should trigger an indefinite upload block. Also the images need to be removed from Commons correctly. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Support. I already gave him a final warning for copyright violations three days ago. Not understanding that we don't accept content newly uploaded to Pexels and Unsplash is a big red flag. CIR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment Please take into account that the person behind this account is 80 years of age. --Túrelio (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment Not yet confirmed, but there may also be some sockpuppetry involved - details at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Harold Foppele. Omphalographer (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment I've opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Atoms Artist Impression, as I think that these presumed AI graphics aren't legitimately used on Wikiversity, per wikiversity:Wikiversity:Verifiability. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I evaluated the situation, and it is clear that @Harold Foppele uploaded images that violated copyrights. I see @Jeff G.'s final warning, despite the warning he is continuing to defend himself by writing, "Hi, as you can see in the comments, this image is widly spread over the internet.".
To sum up, a block is definitely needed to make him take copyright rules seriously. According to his user page, I see that he is 80 years old, so I am refraining from an indefinite block.
I am blocking him for a month. If the SPI case were to become closed with CU confirmation, feel free to take further actions. Kadı Message 19:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Kadı: Perhaps that could be extended past the end of his wikibreak.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sameforyou

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

This user is a known sock-master/sockpuppeteer of Wikipedia, Truthfindervert. It seems they have started disrupting Wikimedia Commons. See them disrupting the following file by removing its description and uploading many croppings: File:The Sikh Empire according to contemporary maps and sources 1842~.png

Sockpuppet archive on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Truthfindervert/Archive

They have targetted other users' media uploads on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia articles in-order to push their changes on Wikipedia, although they are difficult to understand due to their strange usage of the English-languages. They tend to harrass other user (myself included), see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ficus_virens_tree_located_near_the_entrance_of_the_Rai_Bahadur_Kalyan_Singh_Charitable_Trust_in_Amritsar,_Punjab,_India,_8_April_2023.jpg&action=history

Their tell-tale sign is incomprehensible, gobbledygook edit summaries.They somehow also found a social-media account of mine last year and started harassing me on it as well. May this user be banned and the pages protected from them? MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@MaplesyrupSushi: I semi-protected the 2 files you linked above, but I can't see any mention of Sameforyou in the SPI you mention above. Yann (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yann - But it is clear they are the same person if you analyze their edit summaries and topic-interests. They have a very unique manner of writing in their edit summaries. I will submit a separate SPI if needed. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done. The user is now globally locked. Taivo (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Vanguard Man

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Vanguard Man (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) repeatedly removes speedy deletion templates from files without addressing the issues. JaydenChao (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The user also vandalized this report in Special:Diff/1176509132.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Jeff, it seems that Vanguard Man removed the warnings from their talk page. JaydenChao (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done. One week block for vandalism, plus I deleted speedily 3 uploads. Taivo (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Taivo: The user is aggressively removing warnings & notifications from his user talk page while blocked, which appears to be an abuse of TPA.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
None of the logos are own work as claimed. Barring the airport logos, I doubt any other would qualify as PD-text (I haven't checked all of them). Shaan SenguptaTalk 09:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done Blocked email & talk page use, blocked for a month. - Jmabel ! talk 19:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Ike777j

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:Ike777j (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has only inputted image in 2024 for Univah Pro and other compagnies. All images seems promotional and of unknown copyright status. An Administrator should review them.

Pierre cb (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Several warnings sent, most files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Hurricanehink

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hurricanehink (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Being mean.~2026-14610-86 (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Rangeblocked the TA for block evasion, semi-protected User talk:Hurricanehink for a month. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

SHRI RAMDAYAL SINGH SOCIAL WORKER and ~2026-13508-78

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jeff G.: I see one edit on 1 March 2026, and nothing after that. Do I miss anything? Yann (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK, I blocked the IP. Yann (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Potentially inappropriate use of file mover bit by Yacàwotçã

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago18 comments9 people in discussion

Hello. I'd like to report both a file move performed by Yacàwotçã, which I believe should be brought up for attention here. Timeline is as follows:

  1. On 6 March Yacàwotçã uploaded File:March 2026 malicious script screenshot.jpg under the name File:Woodpecker10.jpg. The image in itself is a screenshot of a page that was suppressed, which is already inappropriate in itself; however, the filename "Woodpecker10.jpg" was also a file that was mass added to pages on Meta as part of automated edits during the March 2026 user script incident. Since all of the edits are still visible, and this image held that file name, all of the edits are showing this file, making this highly visible in these edits, which is even more inappropriate.
  2. On 7 March, the file was moved to the name "March 2026 malicious script screenshot.jpg", and the redirect "Woodpecker10.jpg" was subsequently deleted by Revi C. under G2.
  3. Despite all of this, on 8 March, Yacàwotçã moved the file and back again to recreate the redirect. The given rationale by Yacàwotçã for this was FR1 for the first move and FR2 for the second move. Since the move back to "March 2026 malicious script screenshot.jpg" happened one minute after the first move, it would be reasonable to assume that the move was done to re-create the redirect, rather than to create a name that actually describes the file ("woodpecker" isn't a description of the image).

I consider this overall inappropriate use of file mover rights and would like to bring this up for discussion. As for any conclusion to this I leave to the Commons community. EPIC (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The name was initially chosen because it was the one of the inexistent image used by the attack and therefore how it might become known. The moves were made following the existing criteria. Respectfully, Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and just adding: it wasn't suppressed, just deleted. @EPIC, please correct yourself. Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
The page was deleted regularly at first and was later suppressed. EPIC (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh, sure, I don't speak Russian so I thought the log there was a deletion log, not a block one. Perhaps a DR should be opened in this case, but I surely wasn't expecting an AN topic due to a supposed "inappropriate use" of the FM rights, which I certainly disagree with. Nothing inappropriate here, wouldn't be much different if I simply re-created the redirect. Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
The script is malicious and therefore dangerous to our users and their systems. That it is currently embedded in an image but readily OCR-able from that image is immaterial. It should not be here, period. Please delete it forthwith, in all incarnations.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
The question is whether its spread can be stopped: the script is readily available on Reddit and the Wayback Machine. So what exactly would we achieve by deleting it here? It would just be a bit of a "out of sight out of mind" case, but not an actual "the script is gone for good" case. Nakonana (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
+1. For the record, part of the code is available here (RS?). I couldn't find the Reddit post where the code is supposedly available, and the Wayback Machine archive has been deleted, but not archive.today's (and I don't see them deleting it after they were—justifiably—expelled from enwiki). Yacàwotçã (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
The Wayback Machine archive is still there. Not sure whether I should post the link here though. The reddit thread is also still there, although the full script in that thread might only be available via the posted Wayback Machine link. However, there's also a post with an analysis of what the script does, and that analysis provides at least some snippets of the script. Nakonana (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Jeff here, but will allow time for a few others to weigh in. We should not be hosting malicious scripts.- Jmabel ! talk 20:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment I blurred the script, and have hidden the old file. Yann (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Question: if what we have is basically a screenshot (in a very broad sense, given its shape) of code, how is that in scope any more than anything else that is essentially text? - Jmabel ! talk 01:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel I don't think an ANU thread is the best place to hash out if we should host the malicious code that caused the harm last week. (Sidebar: though a blurred copy almost certainly should be deleted as all it does us no good, and should only be kept if INUSE elsewhere) That should probably be an VPC or VPP thread. As to any possible sanctions for the file moves, I'm inclined to give a warning to check logs more carefully in the future and call it there. Thank you to Epic for bringing this to our attention. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Alachuckthebuck: agreed. Is there any admin who thinks the complaint about Yacàwotçã's conduct has merit? My take is that even if the moves may not have been ones we would all agree with, nothing here amounts to inappropriate use of filemover rights. Pretty much everyone with this right is going to make at least the occasional controversial file move, and I see nothing particularly egregious here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, I don't see any admin issue here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I do not know for certain if this is allowed, please advise @Jmabel or @Pi.1415926535. I protected the file for recreation. Imho there is no need for mating woodpeckers or other jokes with this file name. For more information: en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-03-10/Special report and meta:Wikimedia Foundation/Product and Technology/Product Safety and Integrity/March 2026 User Script Incident. Ellywa (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Ellywa: Is there any reason to think File:Woodpecker10.jpg is more likely to be vandalized in the future than, say, File:Woodpecker06.jpg or File:Woodpecker20.jpg? I don't get this. - Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes. That file name is currently referenced in the English Wikipedia Signpost. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 02:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

user:Cossrad

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago15 comments3 people in discussion

Cossrad (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Recent copyvios after the last warning, removes problem tags from files uploaded. Komarof (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

---
To be short:

  1. File:Andrey Zvyagintsev 2023.jpg - false free license;
  2. File:Saransk1958.png - false own work claim, derivative of [3]. --Komarof (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the first file, I agree that it's a violation; I made a mistake by misreading the YouTube license. This file needs to be deleted. Regarding the second file, I disagree. -- Cossrad (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done Blocked for a week. One file deleted. Yann (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

User: Willtron

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago23 comments6 people in discussion

This user has been making vexatious revenge nominations of my files (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toys R Us AI child.webp, Commons:Deletion requests/File:On This Day… 1776 George Washington.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:On This Day… 1776 ΛAMEREEDD.jpg) because I nominated some of their files for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Batalla de l'Aínsa.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lacuerco.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pero III Canigó.png). My files are unambiguously in scope because they’re screenshots from notable AI-generated works (On This Day… 1776 and an AI generated commercial by Toys R Us). Two of these files are COM:INUSE to illustrate those works; they are not inferior AI slop representations of something that could be illustrated without AI (like the files uploaded by Willtron) but are being used to discuss something that is almost entirely made by AI. In any case no matter the merits of the files targeted starting a tit-for-tat nomination war because you didn’t like that your files got nominated for deletion is just patently unacceptable conduct. Doing it once would have just been childish; doing it for four separate files without even bundling them is active disruption and harassment. Dronebogus (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you nominate someone's uploads on the basis of "If it’s AI it’s slop.", then you should have no surprise if they nominate your AI uploads too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I haven’t debated that the files I uploaded are slop; the question is whether they’re notable slop. Willtron’s uploads are not notable, mine are. Dronebogus (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
You claim that your uploads are notable, Willtron's are merely illustrative.
Yet this doesn't make any real difference. Your uploads are not notable (by our definitions of the term). They might illustrate a notable topic, they might even pass NFC (I think there's a good chance that one of them per topic would pass NFC for that). Yet neither of these are demonstrably notable topics (there are no WP articles on them), there has been no discussion as to whether they are, and in the absence of an article on each potential topic, they remain just that. "Notable film maker makes bad film" doesn't in itself make that film notable.
Yet Willtron's images are illustrative of what are two clearly notable topics, with existing articles. That's certainly no less, and a lot more of real demonstration rather than a hypothetical, than your claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I’m not discussing this with you any further, especially since this discussion is about Willtron’s behavior and not their or my uploads. I provided context to show that my original nominations were legitimate and Willtron’s nominations are not, but the point is that the timing and nature of the files nominated in both cases shows Willtron is doing it at least in part to get back at me. Dronebogus (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Andy Dingley as much as I hate AI generated images on commons, unless there's a copyright violation, we can't delete them if it's INUSE. the first link (the Toys R Us child) is INUSE on enwiki. the On This Day file is also INUSE on enwiki. weather or not it's AI slop is debateable, but it does serve a valid educational purpose. However, File:On This Day… 1776 ΛAMEREEDD.jpg is almost certainly not notable, is absolutely not INUSE, and isn't even clear. File:Batalla de l'Aínsa.png probably shouldn't be INUSE, but it is, and so can stay until it's removed. I think that Dronebogus should read wp:BOOMERANG, and not be crying foul when someone is using the same rationale as them to keep their AI files. Notability isn't the standard on commons, SCOPE is the standard. I think that both Dronebogus and Willtron should be prohibited from any kind of action on each other's files. 2 wrongs don't make a right. and while Willtron has filed the one and only valid DR mentioned in this case.
This isn't a thread about INUSE or copyright, it's about the relative merits of the two uploaders' images, and Dronebogus' claim that theirs are more notable (which isn't really a thing).
Copyright issues are being raised at the DRs (and obviously override INUSE). I can't see the 'anything connected to AI is free for our use' argument as a strong one here, but that's not this thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Dronebogus: tit for tat nom wars are bad, but maybe don't use "it's INUSE, BUT I don't think it's as good as my not INUSE files" as a rationale in a DR. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
File:On This Day… 1776 ΛAMEREEDD.jpg illustrates the fairly blatant AI misgeneration issues in the series, which were highlighted and criticized in the media. It’s in scope. Dronebogus (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Willtron's nominations are transparently retaliatory. Dronebogus's comments arguing that any AI="slop". It's a tempting pejorative to reach for when we don't see the value in something, and I'd argue that most AI-generated imagery can be considered slop (high-output, low-quality, questionable usefulness, interchangeable with countless others, etc.), but AI != slop automatically. I don't know why Andy is jumping in to argue over a Wikipedia-based concept like notability. On Commons, we have scope, and a screenshot (if the license details are ok) of a major film production, the subject of a ton of [negative, in this case] press, by a major Hollywood director, is pretty obviously in scope. Trouts aplenty and we can move on. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
It was Dronebogus who raised the question of notability, and who also claimed that his were and Willtron's aren't (which is also wrong). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Rhododendrites, While I think your analysis is spot on, I don't think your course of action is ideal. This is a known and reoccurring issue (just search "dronebogus" in the ANU archives) and I think some intervention would be prudent to avoid further disruption. IBAN's aren't used much on Commons, and I don't think it would be prudent to impose one here, but I do think a banning both of them from DR'ing each other's files would help prevent blocks and losing contributors. If it's uncontroversial, then someone else will file the DR, and I don't think letting them off with a slap on the wrist is in the best interests of the project. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don’t think even an Iban is needed; my nominations may not have been worded in the most tactful or intelligent way, but they were good faith and had nothing to do with the uploader; Willtron’s nominations could have been legitimate and good faith (that is to say, there’s nothing technically wrong with them even if I think they’re incorrect) if it wasn’t for overwhelming circumstantial evidence they were done only because I nominated Willtron’s AI generated images and Willtron did not take it well. This is clearly a case of w:wp:POINT making. I think Willtron needs a stern warning, and I could word by DRs a little better and not interfere with wikis in languages I don’t speak. We have not interacted before this incident so it’s not a longstanding problem; an Iban would not only be excessive but purely unnecessary. Dronebogus (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dronebogus edit warring with editors of local Wikipedias

[edit]

I was going to just leave a ping, assuming it was accidental, but I've now found two instances of Dronebogus going to Wikipedia projects to remove a file (which is not itself a problem) and then getting into an edit war with local editors over inclusion of the file. I appreciate the work to clean up AI-generated messes, but this is far too zealous and IMO wildly inappropriate. See Depersonalizasyon on trwiki and Burro-ambulância on ptwiki. I didn't even set out looking for these -- I was just curious about the INUSE arguments. Given these were two of the first three I checked just now, I'm guessing there are others. At minimum, I think a crystal clear warning is needed and a firm commitment to be very careful not to do this in the future. (Putting it in this subsection only because it's partly about Dronebogus, too, but no objection to moving it to its own heading at the bottom) — Rhododendrites talk |  17:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

A wrinkle, I thought I had found a third instance on hawiki, but now I see it is Dronebogus edit warring with Erik Baas, who also has no other edits on hawiki other than to get into this edit war. Ugh. Looking at the diffs above again, it looks like only the trwiki example was against local users, so still very inappropriate, but the ptwiki was edit warring against two Commons users again, in a proxy battle over AI imagery. :/ — Rhododendrites talk |  17:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
You’re right, I shouldn’t have edit warred, and I shouldn’t edit wikis where I can’t communicate my intent anyway. It was indeed zeal against AI slop overriding common sense. I won’t remove any images from wikis in languages I don’t speak from now on; on English wikis I don’t edit war anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dronebogus, This is not your first time at ANU for AI disputes, and honestly, I don't think it will be the last. This is really concerning, and short of banning you from commenting on or uploading AI images, I'm out of ideas as to how to separate you from this content area. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
When was the last time I was here for AI disputes, how many times was I here before, anc how many resulted in action? Dronebogus (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dronebogus: is that rhetorical, or could you really not answer that yourself and need someone else to research it? - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Could you just tell me? Dronebogus (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Here's what I found for you being reported "at ANU for AI disputes":
Perhaps there's more, but that's what I found. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. The first was a nothingburger, and the second and third cases someone else was found to be in the wrong. Maybe I wasn’t fully in the right in those cases, but that isn’t sufficient grounds for sanctioning someone. I don’t appreciate being treated as guilty of multiple prior offenses just because you can type my name and a given keyword into the archive search and find multiple results. Dronebogus (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I found another one in 2025, similar situation as the current situation here:
However, no admin action was done other than the DR being closed. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don’t remember that incident super well given it doesn’t look very interesting, but it seems like a case of a user restoring their bad AI image to an article despite being told “no” by multiple editors that happened to include me. So I’d say I was in the right there. Dronebogus (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:FrankWeerdte

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

FrankWeerdte (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - has been blocked a few weeks ago for uploading copyvio after warnings, now continuing to upload copyvios. Jcb (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:邵成鑫1007 (2)

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

邵成鑫1007 (2) (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - Block evasion of 邵成鑫1007 (talk · contribs). -- Tim (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@TimWu007: Hello. Just to let you know, I have already submitted a report, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#User:邵成鑫1007_(2). 浅村しき (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@ShuQizhe Oh, thanks for letting me know. I’m not familiar with noticeboards here. Tim (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Sugar Tax

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Sugar Tax (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) This vandalism is completely out of line. Sugar Tax should either be blocked for that or as a compromised account. --Simplir594 (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Related discussion occuring at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sugar Tax, communication and edit summaries LaffyTaffer (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's only one edit, if they continue maybe but their enwiki user page says they are retired. I don't think that one edit is enough to warrant a block. HurricaneZetaC 15:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would urge editors to look at the discussion on en-wiki, where they have just been indefinitely blocked for vandalism amongst other things. Their edits to my user space here are direct retaliation from that discussion. Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also, it's not just one edit... there's this page move, this page creation, this blanking which was repeated. Danners430 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah...when I left that message it was only one edit HurricaneZetaC 16:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Note that they just blanked this discussion following their indef on en, it appears they're intent on going scorched earth on Wikipedia as a whole. LaffyTaffer (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've requested a global lock at ANI on en-wiki, as they've also been vandalising on meta-wiki Danners430 (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Three blankings now Danners430 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
And the same number of blankings of my user talk Danners430 (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done Blocked for a month. And also now globally locked. Yann (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Bull-Doser yet again

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago8 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

What's the issue? The lack of licensing?
So just auto-delete after 7 days, same as usual. That should cover it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
This seems like a one-off licensing mistake. These aren't problematic uploads, and do not involve the same issues the last discussion was about, which you seem to imply. I do not see any need to take action besides give a reminder to add the correct templates when uploading. This discussion feels premature. I do not think any action needs to be taken. CutlassCiera 17:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment (non admin) I don't think the community should still be chaperoning a 20-year old account with 20k+ uploads, especially after a topic ban concerning uploads... However, I checked the last 15 days' uploads, they are mostly clean and only one is missing a license; a formal warning to be careful to fill out all the fields when uploading seems enough to me, as this is a one-in-many occurrence. Webfil (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Bull-Doser has been following the conditions that I gave for the unblock, and has stopped uploading pictures of people. I don't see the issue here. CutlassCiera 17:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am sorry I forgot to put the PD-self template. My bad. I normally add this one. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Can an admin close this thread? This isn't deserving of being on ANU and the reported editor has corrected the minor mistake that caused it to be posted. CutlassCiera 21:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Closing; no action needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dabmasterars

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago6 comments4 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply
@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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

User:Quoiiiiii

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Quoiiiiii (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This user is only engaged in uploading copyright violation images. The user has been warned several times earlier. Agent 007 (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Blocked indef. Uploading porn after being warned. Clearly NOT HERE. Yann (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Agent VII: Thanks to Yann.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Belbury

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago16 comments6 people in discussion

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)Reply

@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)Reply

Pat.s.baker62

[edit]

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)Reply

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)Reply
@Nakonana: merged.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
✓ Done Pat.s.baker62 blocked for a week, and files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply
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)Reply
{{AI upscaled}}, assuming that is how the upscaling was done. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

✓ Done OK, that solves the problem. #2 blocked indef., old account warned again (x2). Yann (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Josearenasd

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Josearenasd (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Vandal. NOTHERE. Shaan SenguptaTalk 03:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

See user contributions and this report and this report. The user tried nominating @Abzeronow's userpage twice. Also removed vandalism warning served by me from TP. Shaan SenguptaTalk 03:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Good to see filters working as they should. Abzeronow (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done Blocked as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Dimensionofknowledge

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

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)Reply

✓ Done Blocked for a week for edit-warring. Yann (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Baophucminh53G

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

Baophucminh53G - obvious sock of Đăng Đàn Cung/To.Minh.Duc.2826HS. ~2026-15874-94 (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~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)Reply
✓ Done Blocked, tagged, locked. --Lymantria (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

EN67 and Etoile Noire Strasbourg

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 hours ago22 comments7 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
@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)Reply
@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)Reply
(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)Reply

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)Reply

@EN67: Bonjour, En quoi, ceci concerne Wikimedia Commons ? Yann (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yann: does en:WP:OWN have a French analog?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, here: fr:Wikipédia:Appropriation d'un article. Yann (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@Yann: est-ce que le fait d'être traité de dictateur est autorisé sur commons ? Supertoff (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
✓ 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)Reply

Google.m%SikhEmpire-noindex

[edit]
Latest comment: 20 hours ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

@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)Reply
Thank you! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Truthfindervert. --Lymantria (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Liberaltarian12345

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 hours ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Repeated uploads of fantasy election apportionment diagrams. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

User:Henrydat and "199.7.158.234"

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • 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))Reply
Checkmark 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]
Latest comment: 6 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

Moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

- Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 02:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ 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)Reply

Alexbarbershop

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

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)Reply

 Not done Alexbarbershop is not blocked, and was never blocked on Commons. Yann (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=1180776869"