Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems
Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
128, 127, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
- Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
- Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (
~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp. - Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s).
{{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~is available for this. - It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
- Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
Uploads by Fabe56
[edit]Fabe56 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
I happened upon a very large number of uploads by Fabe56, and became intrigued. I was looking at File:05Puffing Billy Novem 2011 (6317817690).jpg, and, setting the date aside, saw it as a minor child privacy issue, so dug further. In November 2011 that child was circa six years old. Today, at circa 20, that exact problem has evaporated. Even at date of upload at circa 18, that problem was borderline. I hasten to say that Fabe56 is very unlikely to be the person who uploaded the picture to Flickr. This is not about child privacy as you will see when you read on.
.jpg){kind=link}
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:
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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
.jpg){kind=link}
I consulted Túrelio as an experienced admin here, at User talk:Túrelio § An enormous cache of personal pictures and received the advice that has led me here.
In this diff I asked Fabe56 "Your activity is immense. I see you have been here a long time, long enough to amass a significant picture archive. I am curious so have a question for you.
How are the great majority of the files congruent with COM:SCOPE, please?
" so far without reply, though they have been active since I asked the question.
My feeling is that Fabe56's uploads have been to create an enormous hoard of pictures for personal use without the ability to justify them against our project scope. With, currently, 202,108 uploads performed by Fabe56 this is well beyond my ability to even consider handling. Thus I am here to alert those who may have a toolkit to look at this and to require a rationale from Fabe56 for this enormous project they have been working on. I believe AN/U will get an answer even if I will not, and I know that admins here will know how to handle this. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 23:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Collapsing bulk of early discussion, leaving initial problem statement visible
|
|---|
|
Propose restricting ability to upload
[edit] Uploader blocked form uploading
|
|---|
|
There appears historically to be no way of engaging with Fabe56.
Thus we need to attract their attention in order to seek to resolve the mass uncritical uploading of files. Until they enter into a dialogue that reaches a satisfactory conclusion, something that may be set by consensus, I propose a block on at least the use of mass upload tools, and, if consensus here decides, a block on uploads. These blocks may have a different duration.
|
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I blocked Fabe56 from uploading files for 3 months. Hopefully they will get the message. Further block can be sent whenever needed. Yann (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
How does the huge number of files get sorted out?
[edit]I see two options, assuming lack of engagement:
- We ignore them. 'disk space is cheap'(!)
- We start quietly nominating batches for deletion.
Thoughts would be appreciated. Is there an admin action that can be implemented to handle the obvious candidates unilaterally without a DR, for example? 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 11:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hopefully Fabe56 will do something. Otherwise, an indefinite block should be sent. Yann (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed! I am assuming worst case, though. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Why would you assume that when someone clearly stated that they have seen Fabe56 curating their uploads[1]? Nakonana (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think a plan needs to be formulated. They have been absent from Commons since 29 January and everywhere else since 30 January 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 12:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- They remain absent 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 05:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hello,
- Sorry, I didn't have access to the Internet. I will try to revert all my contributions to Wikimedia Commons. It will take time for sure, but it seems to be the best solution, as I don't want to offend anyone.
- I personnaly really regret that collaboration is not really an integral part of this project, but that fine no worries ;-)
- Sorry again. Fabe56 (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Fabe56 Collaboration is a two way street. You are meant to act collegially with uploads, and not simply blast them here uncritically. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- They remain absent 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 05:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed! I am assuming worst case, though. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hopefully Fabe56 will do something. Otherwise, an indefinite block should be sent. Yann (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Fabe56 On 18 February you said
I will try to revert all my contributions to Wikimedia Commons. It will take time for sure, but it seems to be the best solution, as I don't want to offend anyone.
, however, you have edited here since that time - Special:Contributions/Fabe56 - and I cannot see any indication that you have started the process of the massive clear up. Instead it seems you are carrying on almost as though nothing is happening, except that you are blocked from uploading files. - With precision, please, what is your plan and what is your timetable? 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 11:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Timtrent,
- I feel foolish, but once again, I apologize for completely misunderstanding the issue. I thought it only concerned my uploads...
- I didn't realize that other contributions were also causing problems. I am therefore stopping my contributions here as of now, this being my last one.
- Please remember that I am a volunteer and doing this to improve and not destroyed the project. I have no idea how I am going to proceed and how I will manage my time for those tasks. So how long it will take me to undo ALL my contributions: probably years, with 387,223 edits, which means at least 1 minute per edit to undo.
- Keep in mind this is not pleasant and motivating to destroy works that I (wrongly but sincerally) thought were valuable.
- Thank you. Fabe56 (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Fabe56 This discussion is about your enormous quantity of uploads, uploaded uncritically en masse.
- I agree. When I checked you has 202,108 uploads. Some of these will be of genuine benefit to Wikimedia Commons. However, it appears that the great majority have been uploaded mechanically, with no evidence of thought about why they have been chosen, and no useful categorisation afterwards. I accept that you uploaded them in good faith, believing that you were enhancing the project. The real outcome is that you have created a large logistical challenge, both for yourself and for others.
- I suggest that there may be tools only accessible to administrators to assist with clearing the enormous pile, and that you ask for administrative help. This is especially important, since only administrators can delete files
- Let me look at four recent examples taken from yur upload log om 28 January 2026:
- None is COM:INUSE, none has a useful filename, none is categorised.
- Yes, it is likely to feel disheartening. I can do nothing about that. It is disheartening to have had to bring the matter here. I tried to engage with you on your user talk page to save the need to come here, but here we are, and you are blocked from uploading. I recognise that this all disrupts your hobby, but solving the problem is part of that hobby.
- So I ask you again, With precision, please, what is your plan and what is your timetable? 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 14:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Fabe56 You are active on Wikidata, and have been for several days, despite needing to contribute here, to this discussion. You will have seen the pings. As time passes without your providing input into methodology removal of files my own good faith is starting to decay. I am concluding that you have no plan, no timetable. Convince me, convince us that you are going to contribute here, please.
- Yann removed your ability to upload files here. That is a very simple block, and is to prevent further abuses of uploading privileges. Lack of engagement with solving this self created problem may result in wider blocks (0.9 probability).
- Continuing with editing other projects without a positive contribution here would be easy to construe as a lack of interest in helping clear up behind yourself. Please do not bury your head in the sand. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 10:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am drawing the conclusion from their user page that Fabe56 has withdrawn from Commons, and will not assist in any way with the cleanup. I draw no inference from their user talk page; their habit is to archive 100% periodically.
- It is now up to the rest of us to clean house. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 08:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have left a message at User talk:Fabe56 § I think you may have retired from Commons for the moment which I hope will encourage them to continue here, and in the hope of ameliorating their stress assuming that has arisen from here.
- I hope we will have their input to the formulation of a plan to seek to identify and compartmentalise those to retain from those to remove. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 10:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
What is available to help to solve this?
[edit]We have a major difficulty expressed by Fabe56 in the segment above. They seem to be ready and willing to solve this issue that they have created, but express doubts on their ability do do so, and in a timely manner. I have paraphrased. If I need correction I am happy to receive it.
The idea of creating DRs for (say) 100 at a time means an enormous number of DRs and a lot of work for a lot of people, coupled with "DR Fatigue" for the community. I have seen admins perform bulk deletes before. @Yann: : As the blocking admin I wonder if you have thoughts on how they may be assisted by one or more admins to get rid of the files that meet any of the conditions for removal, including:
- Named with names that are insufficiently descriptive to allow them to be retrieved and used
- Not sorted into any categorisation scheme that is of use to Commons
- Not COM:INUSE in any valid and meaningful way
- Duplicates or near duplicates of each other
- in some manner 'out of scope' for Commons
- Form part of a personal picture library, something that Commons may not be used for
It is likely that some of the >200,000 uploads will be useful to Commons even if they fail one of more of these suggested conditions for removal. I am unsure that time will be well spent by trying to determine that. obviously I am just asking Yann as blocking admin. I do not seek to restrict this conversation to them alone. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 18:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- If some of these should be batch DRs (files with clearly parallel reasons to be deleted), it is pretty easy to use VFC to set up a batch DR. More or less, the process is:
- If they are in a given category, or can be found with a given search, you use that category/search to launch VFC. Note that is is fine if not everything in the category/search should be DR'd: within VFC, you can be selective.
- In VFC, set your action to "Nominate for deletion"
- I think the rest of it is pretty obvious.
- Similarly, if a search will find files that can be batch-categorized, Cat-a-lot is very useful for that.
- Not being in use is not a reason for any action; it is just that being in use is a reason to keep almost anything that is not CSAM, a copyright violation, or unacceptable AI-generated content.
- Presumably those should help whittle things down to something more tractable. Obviously, bad names and duplicates typically have to be dealt with one by one (the only major exception being that if there is a pattern of renaming, admins have a tool for that).
- - Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- There are 202,108 files. I have made a trivial start. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fabe56 See the current last discussion on the page. This is just 24 files and will take years. I use VFC. This is a batch DR. It is easy to do the first few. Then you have to scroll south and wait for the screen to fill. DRs take a finite time. So this DR is an example of the futility of this approach.
- Maybe I should try all 202,108 in one go (not a serious suggestion, I have no intention of doing something so patently disruptive). This will take a task force to solve. I do not believe DRs to be the way to go here. That was my first and likely last on this set of uploads. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- If there is no search that easily finds them, and the only way you can find them is to go through the user uploads, you can use Cat-a-Lot to stick a maintenance category on them, then use VFC to nominate them for deletion (and then, ideally, strip the maintenance category). But I sure do wish that the selection methods for our various tools were coded separately from the actions they take, so we could mix and match. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- I suspect someone who knows how can write a query to achieve it. It's not that there's any rush, except it would be good to tidy this up more than somewhat while we're all still alive(!).
- Even if the query split them into maintenance cats containing 100 or so each (based on sane criteria) that would make the task possible, albeit imperfect. Doing any of this manually is where madness lies. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 02:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- If there is no search that easily finds them, and the only way you can find them is to go through the user uploads, you can use Cat-a-Lot to stick a maintenance category on them, then use VFC to nominate them for deletion (and then, ideally, strip the maintenance category). But I sure do wish that the selection methods for our various tools were coded separately from the actions they take, so we could mix and match. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: In past years, I have used one temp category Category:Jefftemp to assist categorizing files found with searches and whatnot, and then nominated them from there to subsections of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jefftemp. Doing it directly from the searches could be cleaner; good luck with that. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. I agree, but I do not have the IT literacy myself to create any form of search. Nor, yet, do we have agreed criteria to try to ensure we do not destroy a useful resource while removing files that are not useful to Commons. Some of my bulleted items in this section look to be likely criteria, others of them need to be modified or discarded. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 21:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
The uploads are so numerous it's hard to actually evaluate at what rate the files are in scope, categorized, and named. It's worth noting Fabe56 isn't even in the top 50 most prolific uploaders here, and categorization for any batch that doesn't come with structured data is a persistent problem we could use better guidelines for. Certainly I'd like to see tighter restrictions on f2c and some auditing of new users' transfers so we avoid getting to this point.
If issues truly run through all of their uploads, I don't know that actually tagging and listing all of them at DR is reasonable, and can probably be handled through some other avenue. But I don't know that it's true that they run through all of their uploads. Here's what I'd like to know: Fabe56 could you provide an estimate for what % of uploads you think are categorized, the % that likely have a useful name, and the % that are likely in-scope? If you agree you may have gone overboard with some of the uploads, would you like some time to go back through them? I don't see a need to just delete everything if you think many/most are fine, or if you want some time to investigate. Since they're transferred from Flickr, I suspect just evaluating account-by-account rather than file-by-file may be the most efficient approach, then you can say "yes files transferred from this account are probably out of scope" or "files transferred from this account are useful and I'll work on categorizing/renaming". — Rhododendrites talk | 02:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites Your approach seems eminently reasonable. It also makes sure that Fabe56 does not feel the enormity of the task, since your thinking lightens the load significantly. Since they have been active on Wikidata this morning I have every hope that they will have seen your ping and will wish to start engaging with this process. I know they will wish to have their uploading block removed, and I know they uploaded in good faith, believing their actions to be positive. I continue to assume their good faith, and I have faith in them. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 12:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hello,
- It would be nice to stop using words that I haven't used. I respect the authorities and the decisions made here, I have never contested them, I have never fought against these choices!
- I never express the wish to have my uploading block removed. It's not up to me to decide.
- @Rhododendrites, I was working on categorization, modifying and renaming my uploads, but I was also asked to stop all my edits. I am well aware that I cannot manage everything on my own, but many editors also help me refine them, etc. That's what I liked about Commons, the fact that we helped each other to improve the information collected.
- Anyway, I'm sorry to leave such a mess, but I really don't want to fight. I don't have the energy for that right now.
- Goodbye. Fabe56 (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Fabe56 You are perfectly entitled to categorise. The only edits you are precvented from making are uoploads
- To be clear, your message is capable of being interpreted as "I am walking away from the mess, do whatever you like." Is that your intention? If it is not, please state your intention. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 13:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have opened a dialogue with KylieTastic on their Commons talk page. I have chosen not to ping them and distract them. I've asked them about the formulation of useful queries to seek to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. They hope, but cannot promise, to look at this over the weekend. There is, of course, no deadline.
- We need a consensus on what to remove and what to keep, and I am not yet sure what that consensus might be, nor, quite, how to reach it. We need to assume that the uploader will not help.. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 17:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Question However, see this diff, whcih may make life simpler. However, are user requests not time limited based upon upload date? 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 17:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Possibly part of a strategy for moving this forward: have a bot tag all of Fabe56's uploads with a template that indicates that it needs (1) name review, (2) category review, (3) description review. Make sure the template is designed to facilitate batch removals of any one of those independent of the other. So if the template were, for example, {{Fabe56 uploads needing review|name=1|category=1|description=1}}, it would be easy using VFC and regular expressions to remove "name=1" and "category=1" from all Fabe56 uploads in Category:While42 SF No 10 (since I believe these now have acceptable names). The 3 resulting (large) maintenance categories of what needs each kind of review would be much more tractable than working directly from Special:ListFiles/Fabe56.
This would help prevent different people who are working on this from redundantly checking the same files. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- That makes a great deal of sense 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 13:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I have created a discussion on the underlying issues at Commons:Village pump/Technical § Exploratory: Handling the uploading of images better to which I hope there will be many contributions 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 13:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
User:M j
[edit]
No action on M.J account non-admin-closure Mr.Besya (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
M j (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Please take a look at the user’s contributions. Their last edits, all just with the edit summary “wrong”, damage the description pages of many images, often (always?) removing the {{Assessments}} template. I can’t see any sensible explanation for this, therefore I think we must regard this as vandalism. Please consider to block this user in order to prevent further damage, and please revert their newest edits (starting with 11th February). It may also be useful to take a look at their older contributions. Thank you very much! – Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Aristeas: I reverted their newest edits. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @ Jeff G.: thank you! – Maybe I have to apologize because my statement above was too general. In the edits I first looked at User:M j has removed information which was certainly valid: the featured picture status on Commons in this edit, the valued image status in this edit or the POTY info in this edit. This is why I got the impression that this is a case of vandalism. Now I see that in other edits, like this one, the user has removed only the statement that an image is featured on the Persian Wikipedia. So maybe my impression that this was clear vandalism is wrong, and User:M j tried to tidy up some featured picture information regarding the Persian Wikipedia, but was too hasty and damaged other valid information by the way. That’s unfortunate, but alas, maybe I was too hasty, too, and should have rather discussed with the user what exactly they wanted to accomplish before reporting them here. I am very sorry for this. Therefore:
- @M j: Sorry if I was too hasty to call your edits vandalism, but in the edits I first looked at you have damaged valuable information. Could you explain what you wanted to do with these edits, and why you are removing the information? Of course if your edits were legitimate, I apologize and promise to help you to restore them, just avoiding the errors which had slipped in. – Aristeas (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Aristeas and @M j: This is what happens when you make removals on 14 file description pages in a row with identical "wrong" Edit Summaries. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Yes, indeed. – Because User:M j seems to be active only sporadically, I have asked a friend who understands Persian to look at some of the images. He has explained to me that these photos were indeed not featured on the Persian Wikipedia: some were not successful when nominated, some included a link to a totally unrelated nomination, etc. So it seems most of User:M j’s edits were sound and valid. @M j: Sorry, I apologize for the misunderstanding and the wrong accusation! @Jeff G.: Sorry, I apologize for the confusion and the unnecessary work! Unfortunately the files I first looked at were exactly the ones in which too much information was removed. This, and the short and uniform edit summaries, has totally misled me. I promise to be more cautious the next time.
- I will go through all the files later this day and check them one by one. I will restore User:M j edits where appropriate, but keep all valid information. I think this is the best solution, and an appropriate penance for my hastiness ;–). Sorry again and all the best, – Aristeas (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: OK, I have checked all related files (as listed in the users’s contributions for 11th to 15th February) and inspected them one by one. @M j: almost all of your edits were correct, so I apologize again for my misunderstanding and the wrong report. I have restored your edits, just avoiding a few tiny glitches. The good thing is that now all these changes have been double-checked, and I took the time to add lengthy edit summaries, so hopefully in the future editors will understand more easily why the “fawiki” and “fawiki-nom” parameters or the complete {{Assessments}} template have been removed from these images. Furthermore, I found some additional optimizations, e.g. removing some more wrong FP or POTD status claims for other Wikipedias (which were just copied over from other images). So sorry to everybody for the confusion, but at the end of the day things are a tiny little bit better than before ;–). Best, – Aristeas (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Aristeas@Jeff G.. Hello. I’ve been reviewing a large number of featured pictures on fa Wikipedia recently. If I made one or two mistakes, it was because I was examining a high number of pics in a short period of time. Even if I had written fully detailed edit summaries, someone might still have questioned why the status of so many pics needed correction, so writing longer summaries could not have been very effective.
- It’s always best, before reporting a user for any reason you may suspect them of (while of course always assuming good faith), to review their contributions and even if they have made a mistake, ask them for an explanation. If they are unwilling to explain and continue making the same edits, then you can proceed with reporting them.
- Even if you had checked my global account, especially my contributions on fa Wikipedia, you could not have been suspicious of my contributions. Of course, this largely relates to user rights. Imagine if an administrator had edited the images with the same brief edit summaries. You probably would never have come here to report them. The higher the level of rights we have, the less these kinds of oversights will occur. That said, I still need to continue this process of reviewing pictures, whether I use short edit summaries or longer ones.
- Anyway, have a good day. M j (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @M j: Thank you very much for the explanations and for your understanding! Again, I am sorry for the confusion and the mistaken accusation. It’s great that you check the pictures for wrong ‘Featured picture on the Persian Wikipedia’ claims and other mistakes; there is indeed an astonishing amount of wrong entries, and so I really appreciate that you are fixing errors here. Funny enough, I am doing similar things here on Commons (checking the Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons for wrong or missing entries), and this is why I noticed your edits; unfortunately I first stumbled exactly over a file where accidentally the FP status on Commons was removed, too, and that put me on a completely wrong track, because I have seen similar edits before from people with clearly destructive intentions. Anyway, I wish you all the best for our work. In the future I (and others) know you are tidying up, and we will understand your edits even without long comments. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: OK, I have checked all related files (as listed in the users’s contributions for 11th to 15th February) and inspected them one by one. @M j: almost all of your edits were correct, so I apologize again for my misunderstanding and the wrong report. I have restored your edits, just avoiding a few tiny glitches. The good thing is that now all these changes have been double-checked, and I took the time to add lengthy edit summaries, so hopefully in the future editors will understand more easily why the “fawiki” and “fawiki-nom” parameters or the complete {{Assessments}} template have been removed from these images. Furthermore, I found some additional optimizations, e.g. removing some more wrong FP or POTD status claims for other Wikipedias (which were just copied over from other images). So sorry to everybody for the confusion, but at the end of the day things are a tiny little bit better than before ;–). Best, – Aristeas (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Aristeas and @M j: This is what happens when you make removals on 14 file description pages in a row with identical "wrong" Edit Summaries. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
.png&diff=prev&oldid=1166549945){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1163423510){kind=link}
User:FrankWeerdte
[edit]
Done Blocked for a week per Yann non-admin-closure Mr.Besya (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
FrankWeerdte (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - uploading copyright violations after warning - Jcb (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Wikiuser829
[edit]Wikiuser829 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Continues to upload copyvios despite being asked multiple times and by multiple users not to. The last report went unattended. I explained the user at Revision #1160293930 about parliament related violation only to come back and see new uploads with the same violation. The user was previously blocked in Nov 2023 for 1 week for uploading unfree files after warnings. Talk page (and) archives are full of deletion notices and various warnings served multiple times and by multiple users. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging @Yann (blocking admin previously) just so this thread doesn't die unattended like the previous one. Shaan SenguptaTalk 18:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan SenguptaTalk 10:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC) Mr.Besya
[edit]- User: Mr.Besya (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Personal attack in Special:Diff/1170612091. Vandalism.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- To be real with you im deeply sorry what I comment and I'm shame of my self and my contribution on commons i'll take accountability Mr.Besya (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- and I'm sorry what I did personal attack and if the user was attack in my comment I will make a 5 sentence of sorry apology Mr.Besya (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- jeff... I know you have a reason to report me but the real reason why I did that because
- I'm dumbass and confused Mr.Besya (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- We don't need "dumbass and confused" users. The vandalism has continued. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Dafuq?
@Yann: you warned this user yesterday, what's going on here? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC) - Done Blocked for a week. This is a case of en:WP:CIR. BTA we should import this policy to Commons. Yann (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- How have we not already? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann I've done so at User:Alachuckthebuck/Competence is Required All the Best -- Chuck Talk 19:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Already done, locked as a sock of Jaredryandloneria thanks to EPIC. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- How have we not already? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Dronebogus
[edit]No admin action needed. @Erik Baas: I advise you not to create reports for spurious reasons. Yann (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- 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.
User: Dronebogus (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Reason for reporting: Unacceptable language use: here. - Erik Baas (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- And again: here. - Erik Baas (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Edit war: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Human trafficking dark black and white.png - Erik Baas (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- On top of the ridiculous nature of their report, this user is blatantly forum shopping. A w:wp:boomerang is in order. Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- At the first diff, I see OP screaming in bold text that the file was in use at the time of writing; support warning for both Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, forgot to address OP's personal attacks there Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- I wasn’t even swearing at OP; I was using it to emphasize how shocked I was. OP, on the other hand, was actually insulting me with his accusations of “dirty tricks”. Dronebogus (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- I was advised to go there: "You may wish to try COM:ANU". - Erik Baas (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Both reports were frivolous and you shouldn’t have made them in the first place. Don’t edit other people’s comments, don’t insult them, don’t cast aspersions, anc don’t start a huge massacree over a non-insulting, non-sexual use of the word “fuck”! Dronebogus (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- At the first diff, I see OP screaming in bold text that the file was in use at the time of writing; support warning for both Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- On top of the ridiculous nature of their report, this user is blatantly forum shopping. A w:wp:boomerang is in order. Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Who gives a fuck about someone using the F-word? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Dronebogus
[edit]
Moved from COM:ANV User: Dronebogus (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Reason for reporting: Unacceptable language use: here. - Erik Baas (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- And again: here. - Erik Baas (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Using a curse word isn't vandalism. You may wish to try COM:ANU. GMGtalk 14:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- It is unaceptable. And now leading to an edit war: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Human trafficking dark black and white.png - Erik Baas (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Using a curse word isn't vandalism. You may wish to try COM:ANU. GMGtalk 14:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Dronebogus/2
[edit] Moved from COM:ANV User: Dronebogus (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Reason for reporting: Deleting other people's contributions on a talk page: here. - Erik Baas (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- It was messing up the page formatting Dronebogus (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- It was not. Liar. - Erik Baas (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Then you have no idea how page formatting works which adds to the mountain of w:wp:CIR issues you’ve accrued Dronebogus (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- It was one sentence, without any line feed or no-break-space; it can never break page formatting. - Erik Baas (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Then you have no idea how page formatting works which adds to the mountain of w:wp:CIR issues you’ve accrued Dronebogus (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- It was not. Liar. - Erik Baas (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- And again: [2] - Erik Baas (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have revert it into my edit Mr.Besya (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- you know what! Im gonna forgive that guy, Everyone makes mistake! Mr.Besya (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have revert it into my edit Mr.Besya (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Human_trafficking_dark_black_and_white.png&diff=next&oldid=1171770785){kind=link}
For better or worse, we do not sanction people for swearing. Some say it's a net negative in this multilingual, multicultural project, and others say because this is a multilingual, multicultural project, it's especially important to be tolerant of strong language. Where it matters more is if it's used to attack someone, not merely, as in this case, criticizing usage of an image. We do sanction people for repeatedly editing other users' comments and edit warring, though. If someone's language seems egregious, this is the forum to address it -- don't try to edit it yourself. — Rhododendrites talk | 17:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- 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.
Mentxuwiki
[edit]- User: Mentxuwiki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Pilar Lledó Real.png after three blocks for doing so.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I think this guy need to be blocked for copyright violation Mr.Besya (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Not done. The last deleted upload comes from 5th of January and after that Mentxuwiki has uploaded more than 100 files. In addition, the mentioned file was not copyvio, it was deleted as AI creation due to missing educational value. Taivo (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Abdiqani Mohamed Faraska cad
[edit]- User: Abdiqani Mohamed Faraska cad (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Continued spamming and uploading of Out of Commons:Project scope content after warnings.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Sockpuppeting
[edit]- Tigray Region (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
- TIA Nerits (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Sockpuppet of Montserrado County (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)--Trade (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done Both blocked indef. Yann (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
No admin action required. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- 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.
Picture where the deletion is contested: File:りそなグループ B.LEAGUE 2024-25 B1リーグ戦 第7節 サンロッカーズ渋谷対ファイティングイーグルス名古屋 国立代々木競技場第二体育館 2024年11月6日の渋谷 202411061505 IMG 7677.jpg.
I would like to raise a concern regarding the recent actions and responses of administrator Yann in relation to the deletion of the file .
1. Disregard for Japanese copyright law I provided a detailed explanation based on the revised Japanese copyright law, demonstrating that the image in question complies with national legal standards. However, Yann dismissed my explanation without addressing its content, stating, “I don't know the details of Japanese law, but this would not be OK anywhere in the world.” This statement is not only dismissive but also based on unsupported speculation, as it explicitly acknowledges a lack of knowledge about Japanese law while still asserting a universal judgment. Such reasoning undermines the principle of informed decision-making and disregards the need to evaluate files within their appropriate legal context.
"Use of Incidental Copyrighted Works (Article 30-2 of the Japanese Copyright Act)
When a person engages in acts such as photographing, recording, filming, broadcasting, or other similar activities that reproduce or transmit images or sounds of objects or events (hereinafter referred to as “reproduction or transmission acts”), and copyrighted works are incidentally included in the subject matter of such acts (including works that form part of the object or sound being reproduced or transmitted), the use of such incidental copyrighted works (hereinafter referred to as “incidental works”) is permitted as part of the reproduction or transmission, provided that:
The incidental work constitutes only a minor part of the resulting material (hereinafter referred to as the “reproduced or transmitted material”), considering factors such as the proportion of the work, the clarity of its reproduction, and the role it plays in the overall material.
The use is within a reasonable scope, taking into account whether the use is for profit, how difficult it is to separate the incidental work from the main subject, and the role the incidental work plays in the final material.
However, this permission does not apply if the type, purpose, or manner of use of the incidental work would unfairly harm the interests of the copyright holder.
Incidental works used under the above conditions may also be used as part of the use of the reproduced or transmitted material, regardless of the method of use. However, this is not allowed if such use would unfairly harm the interests of the copyright holder, considering the type, purpose, and manner of use."
[Microsoft’s Plain Language Translation]
2. Misapplication of the de minimis policy Yann justified the deletion by claiming that the signboard in the image is the “central part” and thus not de minimis. However, Commons’ official policy does not state that central placement alone disqualifies an element from being considered de minimis. I cited the example of File:Louvre at night centered.jpg, where the central pyramid is accepted as de minimis. Yann responded by asserting that the Louvre example is different because the pyramid is unavoidable, whereas the signboard in the deleeted image could have been excluded. This reasoning introduces a subjective standard not supported by official policy and contradicts the principle of consistent application. Administrators are expected to have a proper understanding of current policies and their implementation. At present, however, Yann appears not to meet this standard and is applying the policy in a self-serving and arbitrary manner.
3. Lack of adequate explanation and dismissive communication Despite multiple polite requests for clarification, Yann repeatedly declined to provide a detailed justification for the deletion. His final response was, “Well, if another admin agrees with you, fine. But I don't.” However, the undeletion request was not restored and was instead archived without further action. Yann did not facilitate any discussion or consensus-building with other administrators, revealing that his statement was merely a temporary deflection rather than a genuine invitation for review.
I am not seeking to escalate conflict, but I believe this situation raises important questions about policy interpretation, respect for national laws, and administrator accountability. Continuing to delete legally compliant files without proper justification results in the unjust exclusion of Japanese content, which significantly undermines the usefulness of the project as a whole. This constitutes a breach of trust toward the community and should not be overlooked. Under normal circumstances, it might be appropriate for me to propose a desysop based on abuse of administrative authority. However, I recognize that Yann has served as an administrator for many years, has contributed positively in various areas, and that the number of active administrators has been declining. That said, individuals who disregard official policy and national laws in undeletion discussions—where final decisions about file status are made—should not be in a position to exercise such authority in a unilateral and self-serving manner. I kindly request that other administrators review this case and provide their perspectives.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2026-02#File:りそなグループ B.LEAGUE 2024-25 B1リーグ戦 第7節 サンロッカーズ渋谷対ファイティングイーグルス名古屋 国立代々木競技場第二体育館 2024年11月6日の渋谷 202411061505 IMG 7677.jpg User talk:Yann#File:りそなグループ B.LEAGUE 2024-25 B1リーグ戦 第7節 サンロッカーズ渋谷対ファイティングイーグルス名古屋 国立代々木競技場第二体育館 2024年11月6日の渋谷 202411061505 IMG 7677.jpg Y.haruo (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not done @Y.haruo: In short you'd like sanctions against an admin for telling you, accurately, that copyrighted material that dominates an image cannot be considered de minimis just because the title does not mention the copyrighted material. Nope.
- That said, if your intention here had nothing to do with the content of the poster, we can restore it with a Gaussian blur or similar concealment over that content. Would you like me to do that? - Jmabel ! talk 06:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jmabel, for your response. However, I would like to point out a discrepancy in the reasoning provided. Administrator Yann stated that the file was deleted because the signboard was “in the center” of the image, implying that central placement alone disqualifies an element from being considered de minimis. On the other hand, your justification is that the copyrighted content is “dominant” or “prominent” in the image.
- This shift in rationale raises concerns about consistency in policy interpretation. If we follow the logic that prominence alone invalidates a de minimis claim, then the example of the Louvre pyramid—clearly a central and visually dominant element in the image—should also be disqualified. Yet, that image is accepted on Commons, based on the understanding that the pyramid, while central and prominent, is not the main subject and is difficult to exclude from the composition.
- Similarly, in the case of the deleted image, the signboard was not the subject of the photograph but rather an incidental part of documenting a public event. Its inclusion was unavoidable given the context and setting. Therefore, the deletion appears to lack a consistent and policy-based foundation.
- I respectfully request a reconsideration of the deletion based on a consistent application of the de minimis policy and the recognition of national copyright exceptions, such as Article 30-2 of the Japanese Copyright Act.
- That said, since the poster is not the subject of the image, I have no objection to having it blacked out. However, I cannot accept the inconsistency in how such cases are being handled. Y.haruo (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, You said that the picture can be kept because the poster is incidental. Incidental means that however the picture is taken, the incidental item comes in full or in part in the picture. It is not possible to use this argument here. It would be easy to take a picture of this building without the poster, therefore the poster is not incidental. Yann (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- 1) Our colleague Jim had come to the same conclusion as Yann.
- 2) As a general remark, independant of your case: administrators on Commons combine a wealth of experience in copyright law from various countries. But, of course, we are not lawyers or judges educated and specialized in copyright law – with potentially very few exceptions. Also, as we are unpaid volunteers and do this work in our spare time, we have limited time. So, in doubt we err on the side of caution. Why? Because, if we do not allow an image, which would actually be legally o.k., we are preventing many Wikimedia projects from using the image, except those with a fair-use-like exception-policy. But if we allow an image, which would be legally not o.k., we expose external re-users to the risk of costly copyright-litigation, which would be far more damaging.--Túrelio (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Y.haruo, I didn't read your wall of text, please try to be more succinct in the future. Your concern in the comment above confuses group and part-of-group. For example: a dog is an animal, but an animal is not a dog.
The signboard being located in the center can make it dominant. But being dominant does not mean something is located in the center.
A more accurate way of measuring is to ask: if we blur/crop the offending subject, would the image still be useful? If yes, it's usually DM. We may or may not actually apply the blur/crop which is decided on a case-by-case basis. If no, delete. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC) - I've restored a version with a Gaussian blur over the poster. Assuming that poster was the only issue with the image, and that Y.haruo is sincere in having considered that de minimis, that should settle the issue of the particular image.
- As for the AN/U issue here, I stand by what I said. Nothing in Yann's conduct here approaches the level of a sanction and User:Y.haruo is hereby warned that if he continues to pursue the matter of Yann's conduct here, this is liable to become a "boomerang" (an issue of his conduct rather than Yann's). - Jmabel ! talk 20:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the new version. I removed the deletion notice from the file, and added a note in the DR. Yann (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- 100% agree with Jmabel. – And even if Yann’s “actions and responses” in this case would have been plain wrong, that would have been just a case for a broader discussion about the meaning of copyright laws in the case of that file. In no way this is a case for an ad hominem complain about Yann. Yann is a diligent and meticulous admin who does a lot of important work here. Even an admin can make mistakes; in fact, it’s practically unavoidable, especially for a diligent admin (only those who do nothing make no mistakes). If users report every inconvenient admin decision here on COM:ANU, like vandalism, we shouldn’t be surprised if no one wants to clean up this place anymore. Then we might as well shut down Commons. – Aristeas (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- 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:邵成鑫1007
[edit]邵成鑫1007 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - Continue to upload copyvio images after warned with {{End of copyvios}} and block expired. --Tim (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done Blocked for 3 months (2nd block), copyvios already deleted. Yann (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
User:Pravoslav Přemysl
[edit]I request that the user Pravoslav Přemysl (talk · contribs) be permanently blocked for spreading neo-fascist propaganda. Gampe (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Uploading media related to propaganda does not necessarily mean that a person is uploading it with the intention to spread it. We've got plenty of Category:Propaganda on Commons. What makes you think that the user is acting in bad faith? Nakonana (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not done, mostly per Nakonana. Commons accepts every kind of free media, including neofascist propaganda. Both his uploads are nominated for regular deletion, copyright violation is possible, educational value is under doubt (article in cs.wiki is nominated for deletion). Currently here is no reason for block. Taivo (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
DarkWorld305
[edit]- User: DarkWorld305 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Unretracted personal attacks in Special:Diff/904191273/904540701. Continued resistance to: the use of C2 and Cfd; and completion of DR requirements, as in Special:Diff/1173934203.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Comment the "unretracted personal attack" is from July 2024, over 18 months ago, so it is at most background here. For the more recent thing, I'm not sure what you are saying is wrong with nominating an empty category for a CfD; I'd probably have just speedied it myself. If this is all there is (an insult 18 months ago, and starting a CfD where the could have just nominated for speedy deletion), it doesn't seem like an admin issue. - Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Not done per Jmabel. I deleted one incorrectly named redirect. Taivo (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
رضا سلیمانی ۲۳۷۷
[edit]- User: رضا سلیمانی ۲۳۷۷ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Edit warring to impose a speedy deletion request on the non-obvious case File:Portrait of Ruhollah Khomeini By Ali Kaveh.jpg with an incorrect template, even after the deletion discussion has started (thus hiding the discussion from the file page).
GrandEscogriffe (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Marinaio56
[edit]- User: Marinaio56 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Made malformed Special:Permalink/1174579097 edit after not responding to a level 4 warning from 22 December 2025 about DR problems using vetted {{DR problem warning}}.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- WHEN i made the download of the picture i didn't know that the picture must be before 1976 Marinaio56 (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Marinaio56: That is not responsive to my report. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Marinaio56: is something preventing you from using the normal "Nominate for deletion" tool? It consistently creates correctly formed nominations for deletion. Yes, in theory it is possible to do the whole process by hand, but the permalink above suggests that you ar not good at doing this by hand. - Jmabel ! talk 05:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Alex Neman problematic uploads
[edit]Alex Neman (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Hi, can an admin please take a look at Alex Neman's creepy uploads of back of people i.e. this, this for example. I also believe that he has had numerous of similar images nominated for deletion before. It seems he can't understand why his behaviour is allowed. I don't want to say anything much, but I have friends who have partners and these pictures can be interpreted as creepy (i'm single), and falls short of COM:SCOPE. LuvsMG481 (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yep here's another one - this one is definitely creepy, photographing someone from behind while sitting without consent is not on --LuvsMG481 (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Alex Neman: Uploading photos of people's hair and backs from behind without their consent is not OK. Kindly cease and desist from such uploads. See also COM:PHOTOCONSENT. Note that this is after your three previous blocks. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) needs to be indefinite, or just ban him like they did on the Enwp for sockpuppetry. Alex Neman how would you like it if anyone took a picture of your family member without your consent and publish it? Lucky had it not been a friend of mine, or there would have been problems, that being the police would have been called for stalking and harassment, its a criminal offence --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Next time I don't want to upload rear view images of people again... I will focus on uploading automobile images... While waiting for 6 months to request unblock my main Wikipedia account... Alex Neman (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Alex Neman, There are several concerns that need to be addressed regarding your past conduct on Wikipedia. Your use of multiple IPs created confusion and led to other editors being wrongly suspected of sockpuppetry, which caused real disruption within the community. The ban from English Wikipedia reflects the seriousness of those actions. If you are now seeking understanding or sympathy, it’s important to acknowledge the impact your behaviour had on others. From what has been observed, the behaviour was harmful, and recognising that fully is an essential step toward rebuilding trust.. See this this this this. I have so much diffs, but i've got so much more than dealing with this madness. For wikipedia sockpuppeting, banned, edit warring, block evasion, similar behaviour to this, this. I have so much more --LuvsMG481 (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Next time I don't want to upload rear view images of people again... I will focus on uploading automobile images... While waiting for 6 months to request unblock my main Wikipedia account... Alex Neman (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) needs to be indefinite, or just ban him like they did on the Enwp for sockpuppetry. Alex Neman how would you like it if anyone took a picture of your family member without your consent and publish it? Lucky had it not been a friend of mine, or there would have been problems, that being the police would have been called for stalking and harassment, its a criminal offence --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Alex Neman: Uploading photos of people's hair and backs from behind without their consent is not OK. Kindly cease and desist from such uploads. See also COM:PHOTOCONSENT. Note that this is after your three previous blocks. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yep here's another one - this one is definitely creepy, photographing someone from behind while sitting without consent is not on --LuvsMG481 (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done Considering that Alex Neman was warned and blocked before, that these images are out of scope, even if the subjects consent, and even more out of scope if they do not, or if these are AI-generated, so blocked indef. I deleted the images I found among the 1000 first of his uploads. Yann (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- This needs a permission from Cinta Laura Kiehl, right? Yann (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yann. Yeah 100%. I take selfies with a lot of my friends... if i wanted to upload them on here I would ask their consent and only for realistic use. Absolutely 100%. I maybe send selfies to some close friends here and there, but I certainly would not upload for the whole world to see. For example, I personally know Adam Gilchrist personally, his son is one of my friends and if i wanted to take a selfie with Adam, I would not upload on Commons without seeking his consent first. I have two friends who are famous sportspeople - same reason --LuvsMG481 (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yann one more for you to delete please. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yann. Yeah 100%. I take selfies with a lot of my friends... if i wanted to upload them on here I would ask their consent and only for realistic use. Absolutely 100%. I maybe send selfies to some close friends here and there, but I certainly would not upload for the whole world to see. For example, I personally know Adam Gilchrist personally, his son is one of my friends and if i wanted to take a selfie with Adam, I would not upload on Commons without seeking his consent first. I have two friends who are famous sportspeople - same reason --LuvsMG481 (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- This needs a permission from Cinta Laura Kiehl, right? Yann (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
,_Dyandra_Convention_Center,_Central_Surabaya_03.jpg){kind=link}
Harold Foppele
[edit]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.
- He doesn't understand that images published elsewhere are automatically copyrighted, and thinks users can "agree to disagree" about that. He claims false PD licenses on a number of images, including copyvios (Sample-Based Diagonalization.png, File:Predicting-new-quantum.jpg) and falsely claiming PD licenses on CC-BY images (File:Quamtum Computer v.s. Classic computer.png, File:Quantum network Illustration of a generic quantum network composed of network nodes, repeater nodes, link nodes,.jpg). He falsely claims own work for some images like HP7906B.jpg.
- Many uploads have other issues such as severe pixelization not present in the source, incorrect date information, and incorrect source/author information. File:Variational Quantum Algorithms - From Theory to NISQ-Era.png is an example with all three problems.
- Many uploads are AI-generated with blatant errors; they often don't even illustrate the concept they claim to. See for example File:The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with colors and diagram.jpg (which has weird artifacts on the equations and two graphics that don't actually illustrate the uncertainty principle), File:Lindblad equation ( Markovian ).png with a hilariously bad watch, and File:Quantum teleportatie en verstrengeling hulpbron.png that looks fancy but doesn't actually communicate anything. His responses at this DR indicate to me that he doesn't actually understand the images he uploads or why they are often incoherent. With File:Quantum Machine Learning.png, for example, he didn't notice blatant misspellings and duplicated text until I filed a DR.
- Some of his uploads seem to be about subjects he has invented entirely. For example, File:An infographic illustrates ultrafast laser pulses.png plus the deleted files File:Rontosecond pulse laser (Schematic).jpg and File:Rontosecond pulse laser (Futuristic).jpg all discuss rontosecond-timescale lasers, a concept that appears nowhere but his writings.
- Other (mostly AI-generated uploads) are technically INUSE, but only because he has inserted them into his Wikiversity writings. Decorative images with no real scientific basis such as File:Quantum Mechanics.jpg, File:Artist impression of Quantum internet.png, and File:Artistic impression of an atom 4.png (which he made in 12 different colors) have no actual educational value and are outside the scope of Commons.
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
