Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 128

Category:Commons talk archives#Administrators'%20noticeboard/User%20problems

DrtheHistorian

Seems like a blatant violation of COM:No personal attacks to me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I was not attempting to make personal attacks, if it came as such I do apologize. The second one you shared I can see how it was inappropriate. I have crossed it out.
The first statement however that is the whole discussion of the topic. The point was purely towards the pictures that are being uploaded. I should have worded it differently.
I was and never will make personal attacks and I do not tolerate them one bit, if it came out as such it is bad writing from my end. DrtheHistorian (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
DrtheHistorian, I do appreciate you striking the "propaganda tool" part.
Can you see how "user 999real has uploaded [...] with a clear agenda" also reads like an attack on 999real? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
After reading the cm again, I can see how it can be interpreted as such. What I meant was towards the images, not the user. The images have a clear agenda. Definitely a bad writing from my end. DrtheHistorian (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
DrtheHistorian, after reading the first comment again, I must admit there's also some suboptimal reading on my part. There is no comma after "propaganda", so the agenda is more likely to refer to the images and not the user. It's not great writing and not fully unambiguous, especially when viewed with the context of the "propaganda tool" accusation fresh in memory it's rather easy to misinterpret. But I do believe now the agenda in your first comment referred to the images and not 999real. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
I am glad we could clear things up. DrtheHistorian (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
 Not done Thanks for resolving of the issue. Yann (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Moryni

Moryni (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - As far as I understand, the user is subtly advertising sports betting. I would appreciate a second pair of eyes to take a look. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: I agree. They also stole their one upload from https://www.flickr.com/photos/latebol/10659694245/.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for spamming. Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Yann

Yann (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) The user deletes the Template:Copyvio from this page File:TadeuszBilinski.jpg even though there is no information that the photo was taken before 1994. It is scandalous that the user restores the incorrect time frame for the photo - Special:Diff/1159886838 - even though the website of the Polish Parliament Library It does not specify the year the photo was taken. The man was a member of the Polish parliament until 2001. . The person in the photo is still alive. It is ridiculous that the uploader added a false time frame for when the photo was taken, and no one bothered to verify whether the source page actually provided the date the photo was taken. Worst of all, Yann restored the false information without verifying it on the source page. Deliberately restoring information that is not confirmed on the source page can be considered vandalism, not copyright protection. It is unlikely that the user has the ability to discern whether the photo was actually taken before 1994. It is absurd that users here know better when the photo was taken than the parliamentary library staff. Everything was explained in the request for deletion, - Special:Diff/1158530387 - yet the user did not bother to read the arguments provided there. The unjustified deletion of the template and the reinstatement of false information inconsistent with the source, despite being brought to the attention, could hardly be considered a manifestation of bad faith on the user's part. The very act of reinstating false information is scandalous. I get the impression that the user is desperately trying to prove me wrong despite the obvious facts. The user's discussion is blocked, so I cannot inform them about this discussion. I also had to clear my browser data, which resulted in me losing access to my old account. Uniminomumm (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done @Uniminomumm: I believe you misunderstand {{Copyvio}}. It is only intended for clear-cut cases, as described in Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#F1. Clearly that does not apply here. (Or maybe not so clearly: I see yours is a brand new account, so you probably haven't run across this before. No harm, no foul.) It would need to go through a normal DR. This is certainly not a violation of policy on Yann's part.
May I suggest that you tread a little lighter and not jump straight to filing a complaint about someone's conduct when you are still learning your way around how things work on this site? - Jmabel ! talk 06:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Elcobbola and long-term abuse

I'm getting tired of this! Every edit I make makes this "Elcobbola" think that I'm vandalizing Wikipedia, just for fun! Blarneyuj (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Not only that, he also reverts files using the "Temporary deletion for history cleaning or revision suppression" thing! This has got to stop in an instant! Blarneyuj (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Blarneyuj, please provide a link of where this is happening so we can investigate. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
It just says so right here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Elcobbola Blarneyuj (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Blarneyuj has been indeffed by Elcobbola. Legitimately still clueless what they were on about, they didn't reveal the account that was used to upload the supposedly reverted files. Just noise I guess. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Yet another LTA wasting our time. Elcobolla did fine. Bedivere (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Angelodealgostini

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Only one copyvio during 6 years. Not enough for block. Taivo (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your review. I confirm that I am not submitting new files with copyright issues. I am reviewing old uploads and requesting the deletion of those that are not my own work or that do not have a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons, to correct past mistakes. I will remain attentive to the rules from now on. Thank you. Angelodealgostini (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
por favor quero excluir esse aquivos que foram upload Angelodealgostini (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Federigo Federighi

Federigo Federighi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - persistent copyvio uploader. Has been blocked serveral times, but doesn't seem to learn. Keeps uploading problematic files, including a blatant NETCOPYVIO today. Jcb (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done. One year block (third block). Taivo (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Tokugawa Sinai

Tokugawa Sinai (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - Uploading unfree files after warnings. Kim Jang 1 (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. I'll delete the last remaining upload as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

User:邵成鑫1007

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}}. --Tim (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, 2 files deleted. Yann (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Newpictures11

Newpictures11 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) A dozen of blatant copyvios after the last warning in November 2025. Komarof (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done (Taichi notified me of this case on my talk page) Bedivere (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Artinpl

Artinpl (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) From 2016 to 2024 user Artinpl uploaded hundreds of paintings of anonymous people, falsely claiming that they are the members of Jagiellon or Vasa dynasty or Polish aristocracy. His real name is [SUPPRESSED] and he is not an art historian nor historian, and the only source he gives for his (mis)identifications of the sitters is his own website Art In Poland (https://web.archive.org/web/20220727084501/https://artinpoland.weebly.com/pl). He also changed some descriptions of the paintings, basing only on his own original amateur research. On his website you can see his original research, which was never reviewed by any authority in the field of art history. Some examples:

I think that the contributions made by this user are highly dangerous, as there are already some historical books released in Poland, which include these paintings with their wrong descriptions. I would suggest you to delete all the files he sent and remove all the contributions he made or at least do something, because, as far as I know, posting original research is forbidden on Wikimedia and it's honestly a shame that nobody hasn't done anything with it for so many years. Marekos (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Support, as the user was already blocked twice.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
 Support Already books have been published with those false information? Msb (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
I've done your requested renames to neutral names, including the ones where you proposed a different ID. Any ID of these images should be referenced to a reliable source before we go with it. The descriptions and other info need to be scrubbed. Just out of general interest, why are we suppressing the guy's name, when a simple Google Lens search of the paintings gives his name and personal information as the identifier? Geoffroi 03:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
@Geoffroi: The Universal Code of Conduct requires that there be explicit permission from a user who edits under a pseudonym in order to give their actual name. Certainly no evidence of such permission was provided. If there is such explicit permission then, yes, it may be added back. - Jmabel ! talk 05:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Groupir !

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

I've been collaborating in Commons for several years, uploading hundreds or images and videos, actively participating in copyright discussions, and deletion requests (mostly in the FoP and URAA areas). Not all users react nicely when one of their files are nominated in a DR, but they mostly react well when asked not to take things personally and to concentrate on the discussion. Unfortunately, the interaction with Groupir in the last days goes beyond of what I consider tolerable and she or he ignores request to avoid personal attacks. The concrete facts:

  • They accuse me of harassment, intimidation and creating the DR because I have anger for some alleged defeats they did in the past Special:Diff/1161858531, I asked to stop their defamation and to report the issue if they considered it necessary Special:Diff/1161873988.
  • They state that I belong to the annoying class of users that has no contribution to the project Special:Diff/1161946498, I requested again to stop the personal attacks Special:Diff/1161959078.
  • An anonymous user left a message on my talk page, stating that the problem is people like me that have no life Special:Diff/1162592663. Of course, I cannot assert it is from Groupir but the timing and the fact that I hardly ever get messages makes it at lest an unfortunate coincidence.
  • After I refused to answer a personal question, they called me a diva, ignoring my previous requests to avoid personal attacks Special:Diff/1163150330. That was the last straw to motivated me to open this request.
  • And if the previous was not enough, while preparing this report I found that Groupir wrote recently on their user page that they wished an unpleasant death to all users that engaged in deletion requests Special:Diff/1160645035 (maybe a native French speaker could give a better translation for the verb crevent, or the whole sentence).
  • Note that it is not the first time they are disrespectful with people that open a DR, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_67#Groupir_%21

This level of aggressivity, intolerance and hate should be inadmissible in a collaborative project like Commons. Günther Frager (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

For the moment, I've just added a comment to the DR. This does appear to be inappropriate conduct by Groupir !, but I'd like to give them a chance to respond (both there and here) before taking any further action. - Jmabel ! talk 18:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
@Günther Frager: I concur. Vandalism of this section goes beyond the pale.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
@Jeff G. It is to defend myself against fake accusations ǃ?ǃǃ? Groupir ! (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
You can reply to accusations but you must not edit any comment by other users. GPSLeo (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC).
@Groupir !: If you wish to defend yourself, digging a deeper hole is not a good way to do it. And that is a bit of a "non-denial denial." Are you specifically saying that the anonymous edit was not you? And do you have any response at all to the rest of what Günther Frager says here? - Jmabel ! talk 23:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
@Groupir !: Was starting Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Collections of Musée Grévin a fake accusation? Notification about that edit was my first interaction with you, over eight years ago.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
What's that got to do with it ? I think you are totally missing the point, Jeff G. Groupir ! (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
 Comment I deleted some files, which are obvious copyright violations. I support a block. Unacceptable answers. And I blocked Special:Contributions/~2026-87874-8 for 3 days for Intimidation/harassment. Yann (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Groupir ! has got underground. Yann (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, this affair happens at the same time with big problems in real life. So even though Wikipedia is a important part of my life, there are still better priorities. Groupir ! (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
@Groupir !: OK fine. Why don't you apologize, and promise to behave better? That wouldn't take long. So we could close this... Yann (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

ไอ้นาย

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

Hi, Any idea who is this new account who asks another account to be blocked without any evidence, i.e. [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yann&diff=prev&oldid=1164209278)? Yann (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Yann, the user does not seem like a newbie. Maybe CUs may help. Kadı Message 17:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Poom2014 seems to have made a sockpuppet report on thwiki on 11 February, maybe the request on your talk page is retaliation for that report? Nakonana (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Poom2014 also got reported on the sockpuppet notice board... Nakonana (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done OK, blocked. Thank you for looking into this. Yann (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

User Needs Talk page access removed.

Dove2022 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

User has been attacking admins, they're NOTHERE. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Talk page access removed. Yann (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Albino Junior 83

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done I had already warned them earlier. I deleted all DRs, improperly written anyway, and reverted other edits. Yann (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

PrusAlternativeHistory alternate history uploads

PrusAlternativeHistory (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has continued uploading flags related to alternate history (fictional). They continued this after I warned them here and nominated the files for deletion. Additionally, files like File:Second German Empire (1935-1950).png lead me to think this user is NOTHERE. HurricaneZeta (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted as F10, user blocked as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

User:AlexandreAssatiani

AlexandreAssatiani (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) recent blatant copyvios (e.g., File:Vazha Abakelia.jpg) after huge amount of warnings and two blocks. Komarof (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef. Two files deleted. I guess all files need review. Yann (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done. I deleted 11 more files and 2 now-empty categories. Taivo (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
please bear in mind that Alexandre worked for president zourabishvili and that under her reign the official staffing photography through for example the (now replaced) website was under a commons license. There is a template for that. Hopefully Alexandre will use the appropriate ways to proof that. Labrang (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
but if you decide to axe photos of Georgia, then I have a few of my own i want to take down. So please get in touch then. Labrang (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Pedu0303 overwriting uploads with AI retouched versions

Pedu0303 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user has recently been replacing a bunch of their old uploaded photos (as far back as 2009) with versions retouched by Apple Photos Clean Up or Google Gemini. I'm concerned that this is reducing the quality of the images.

Some of the alterations made to the images by these tools have included:

I've requested on the user's talk page that they stop doing this, but they've continued doing so. Do we have a policy on these sorts of overwrites, and is this a good case for a batch revert? Omphalographer (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Good case for a batch revert. I did revert some manually but there's several dozens of pictures vandalized by the same uploader. Shame. Bedivere (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Some of these are so changed as to no longer be documentary photos, or anything like. I see also that these resulting images are not tagged with {{Retouched picture}} or any other equivalent.
I hope we can come up with a completely non-punitive way to deal with this. Given that users generally have a pretty broad right to overwrite their own uploads, and that the original works were released under a free license, the best solution may be, for each photo:
  • One of the following:
    • (My preference) revert back to the original version. Upload the AI-dehanced version under a distinct file name, possibly according to some systematic naming pattern related to the original photos.
    • (Less desirable) Leave the AI-dehanced versions where they are; take advantage of free-licensing to restore the original under a distinct file name according to some systematic naming pattern related to the original photos (e.g. add "(original)" to the filename). Insofar as possible—I realize this is not under our control—switch any uses of the file over to the originals, since these AI-dehanced versions probably violate the policies of a lot of the wikis on which they are being used.
  • Either way, we should tag the AI-dehanced version with {{Retouched picture}}.
I would hope that Pedu0303 will cooperate with this, and even take on the bulk of the work. If not, then this may call for a block. Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
They're continuing to overwrite photos. I've left another message on their talk page urging them to stop and respond here. Omphalographer (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Some of the originally-uploaded files appear to have been misleadingly edited as well - see File:PALACETE BARUEL 2024 ENTARDECER.jpg where the sky is blatantly pasted in from a different file, and File:Biblioteca narbal fontes alto de santana.jpg with a pasted-in tree. While I certainly agree with a bulk-revert, a will block them if they do not stop, it's worth considering whether some of the files need to be deleted altogether. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
I hate to do this, but clearly the only way to get their attention is a block. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Blocked for 2 weeks. I strongly hope they will agree to engage here, and I can unblock them. - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm proceeding with a batch revert of 188 files which have been overwritten with retouched versions. See User:Omphalographer/Pedu0303 for the list. I'll make notes of any surprises I find along the way. Omphalographer (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
@Omphalographer: Do you have a tool for that?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
I searched for the retouched images using quarry:history/102027/1104063/1070878, but did the reverts manually to make sure I was reverting to a good version, and to check for any surprises along the way. (I've now finished.)
A couple of things I found along the way included:
  • Most images were edited to insert a blue sky and brighten the image. In some cases, this caused the image model to synthesize shadows for photos which were originally taken on a cloudy day or at night.
  • A significant number of images were edited to deliberately remove objects like telephone poles and wires, street signs, traffic lights, and trees. In some cases, this left obvious artifacts like telephone wires hanging in midair.
  • Many images also contained minor alterations to or distortions of details like the contents of signs, vehicles and pedestrians on roadways, reflections, and objects near the edge of the image. In some cases, like File:Tolle3.JPG, this made changes as significant as replacing a motorcycle with a car.
  • A few images attempted to remove large obstructions from the image or to artificially uncrop the image, often resulting in bizarre results like File:Alto da Lapa.jpg, File:Panelao pmsp sao paulo.jpg, or File:Ponte das Bandeiras, Rio Tiete.jpg.
There are nine images remaining with no original version available, which can be seen at quarry:history/102027/1104075/1070890. I've left these alone for now. Omphalographer (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
I've found a probable copyfraud (with the Google image search): File:Jardim Leonor, estádio, hospital e Palácio Bandeirantes.jpg to File:Jardim_Leonor_Morumbi.jpg, I went for a speedy with Special:Diff/1160182048/1164621212. Will report if I find other dubious things. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Further copyfrauds:
Will asks for speedies on them. I think that we're in the realm of copyvio offenses sanctionable by a long block, aren't we? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
I think that File:Distritos do Mandaqui e Alto de Santana, vistos da Serra da Cantareira.jpg could perhaps be the model for File:Zona Norte 2026.jpg, if the AI added a lot of fantasies. Or it's a concatenation of "Distritos do Mandaqui..." and File:Mandaqui visto da Serra da Cantareira.jpg. The viewing angles to the beige high-rise to the right of the dark red and white patterned building, bottom left on the images, are really similar. The blob of buildings on the far middle left has also a similar pyramidal pattern. This shot is at least not a likely copyfraud, but still useless AI slop... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
@Jmabel, Pi.1415926535, Bedivere and Yann: I'm speaking to you as admins involved in this case. After I did some further digging, not only were there the above-mentioned copyfrauds found, but also other alleged copyvios, see the most recent section on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pedu0303. This really feels like Pedu0303 is some guy who's totally lazy in regards to copyrights: the amount of deliberately wrong authorship declarations is substantial, in my opinion. Do you have further ideas on how to proceed? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
I have a rather drastic opinion on the matter but I don't think that would be helpful. But then again, the user is uncooperative, is not willing to talk and explain the behavior. Easiest approach would be just to delete massively the files OR have the user check and ask themselves for the deletion of problematic files. That seems unlikely though. Bedivere (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
@Grand-Duc: Since it looks like he's simply waiting out the block, I don't know what more there is for an admin to do right now. Does your list amount to a request for an indef-block? - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Maybe indef until such time they engage. Bidgee (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I think that I repeatedly wrote on several Commons boards that, in my opinion, copyvios are one of the most harmful things to do in regard to the integrity of the project, and if that happens by avoidable negligence or deliberately, the committing such copyvios may even be worse than personal attacks against editors. So, an indef block against Pedu0303 seems certainly justifiable. But I also have a reticence in calling for such a heavy-handed measure as I do not want to appear similar to a political hawk (it's always too easy to shoot first ask later instead of looking for compromises...).
Furthermore, his "standard" contribs, urban environment shots taken with his smartphone or a point-and-shoot camera, appear sufficiently useful in a documentary way, which means that he has or had a will to reasonably contribute.
So, weighing all things in, I would say that the current block, handed down for unsound edits, may perhaps be amended and prolonged to take note of those other misbehaviours. Maybe 30 days total (=counted from the start of the current block) and a new block commentary along the lines of "Did unsound AI editing with harm to the project and committed copyfrauds, noticeably from Commons and Flickr contributors"? That would offer a baseline from where to judge possible new uploads, and if he repeats these harming endeavours, then the indef block will be the next recourse. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
(PS. I'm using the pronoun "his" as "Pedu0303" said himself on his user page that his first name is "Pedro", which is a clearly male name). Grand-Duc (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Remember that blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. It's hard for me to see how a one-month block would differ from a two-week block in terms of reducing the chance of future problems from this user. I think the issue is much more one of how he behaves if/when he returns from the block.
An indef block remains a possibility, if people simply do not want him to come back without prior negotiation of what he will do upon returning. - Jmabel ! talk 08:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
@Jmabel, maybe we can indef him from uploading/overwriting if not indef as a whole. That would contain the damage and may push the user to engage. Otherwise he may just wait for the current block to expire and this thread to be archived. Shaan SenguptaTalk 09:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
I'd be fine with indef from uploading/overwriting if some other admin wants to do that. (I've already taken the action I thought was most appropriate, Pedu0303 still isn't engaging, I'm willing to just wait and see but if someone wants to take this stronger preventative action I have no objection.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
I think that a prevention of misbehaviours would not be the primary purpose of amending the block, and a punitive purpose a secondary, a side effect at best. I had the notion that waiting out 2 weeks is easier done than doing the same for 1 month, so a prolonged block could be a stronger nudging towards engagement in communication. Furthermore, it's also a stronger signal to both third parties reviewing the case whenever possible new problems arise and to the user that his future participation opportunities are really at stake. It's more of aiming at communication "You did something really wrong there" than preventing harm (well, no more copyvios can be uploaded or files overwritten during the block, obviously). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Side note: Commons needs a template/templates like w:en:Template:They. Nakonana (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
@Omphalographer: Blocked for two weeks, perhaps then they will be willing to engage.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Houseclock reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Houseclock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • Uploading non-free images as their "own work"; one of them clearly shows a copyrighted character Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
"Bozo the Clown" may be a copyrighted character, but the drawing of him shown, and the rest of the sticker, are indeed my own work as the former President of KMEC-TV. This comment is typical for the other images removed. Please confirm whether or not this constitutes a copyright violation, as I do not believe it does. Houseclock (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
@Houseclock Please follow the instructions at c:COM:VRT to verify your identity. A search shows that David Arquette owns the rights to Bozo the Clown, and was "published" in 1946 in the US, so it's not in the public domain.
Do you have permission from whoever held the rights at the time to Bozo the Clown to publish that, and under compatible terms with Commons (unrestricted use, distribution, sharing, and modifying for any purpose)? If not, it's a derivative work of the copyrighted character, and thus not permitted. HurricaneZeta (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
It would be good to determine if the "children's storytelling record album and illustrated read-along book set" from 1946, as stated on Wikipedia, are still under copyright protection in the US. If these works didn't have their copyrights renewed, I don't think how the character would still be somehow protected. Bedivere (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
The Library of Congress' oldest Bozo the Clown material is Hannan, Walter. Bozo at the Circus [Sound Recording]. Capitol, 1946. (). There are a couple of other 1940s recordings, however the first print material is a series titled "Bozo the Clown" beginning 1950. It appears in the 1947 copyright entries "Capitol records, ine., Zollywood, Calif. Bozo at the circus; a children’s book that “talks” ... right ... (by, Capitol records, inc. Hollywood, °1946.". Copyright not renewed in 1974 . As a result, the clown is public domain. At least in its first incarnation of 1946. It is a good question, though, if the copyright term for the sound recording does apply too, since the whole book/album was registered as a book. Just as a precaution, the sound recording could be copyrighted until 2067. --Bedivere (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for checking that! I had assumed that it was renewed given someone currently owns the rights to it, but that could be a different incarnation of it. HurricaneZeta (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
the trademark could still be active and registered, but the clown seems to be in the public domain (copyright != trademark) Bedivere (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
 Comment I deleted most of the files. No source, improper license, etc. US documents published before 1978 without a proper license might be in the public domain, but evidence must be provided. Yann (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Hi Yann, what evidence is necessary? These were advertising materials created by the station itself (KMEC-TV) which has been defunct since 1968. Houseclock (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
(I.e. not taken from a magazine, etc. as suggested by others) Houseclock (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
@Houseclock: You have to provide evidence of a publication without a copyright notice. The copyright doesn't disappear because of disappearance is the station. These may be orphan works, but the copyright still exists. Yann (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
@Houseclock: do you still have the materials themselves, or just digitizations of them.
@Yann: given that Houseclock is presumably not making up that he is former President of KMEC-TV, wouldn't he presumably know whether they bothered to copyright these materials? Or do you doubt his word on that? - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I still have the materials themselves, I scanned these to upload them. As far as whether the station bothered to copyright them, there is certainly no copyright notice or anything to that effect printed on them; what I uploaded was the materials in their entirety. Houseclock (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
OK ok, sorry I didn't see that. So yes, the easiest way is to confirm your identity via COM:VRT, then you can upload them all. Yann (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
@Houseclock: I'm not sure how concerned you are to keep your name confidential; if it comes to that, there is a Volunteer Response Team who handle confidential correspondence, and if Yann wants proof you would not be comfortable with making public, you could correspond with them to prove you are who you say you are.

Mohammadmnmk

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Despite receiving a warning and the deletion of the photo he had uploaded, he has once again uploaded a similar file:
File:Mahyadehghani1.jpg Fotrus (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Hi, this user removed the image deletion tag that you had added to this image: File:Mahyadehghani1.jpg Fotrus (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
@Fotrus: Thanks, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahyadehghani1.jpg. The user keeps uploading photos from Instagram and IRNA (irna.ir) without evidence of any actual free license, making null posts, and asking at COM:UDR for undeletion of files that aren't deleted yet; I suspect a CIR issue.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
@Fotrus, as a standard procedure, I've warned the user to not remove deletion tags. I highly doubt that's gonna bear some fruits but let's see. Shaan SenguptaTalk 13:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
@Shaan Sengupta: This user, in the Persian Wikipedia as well, despite receiving warnings, continues to act without paying attention to the guidelines. In the Persian Wikipedia, he has been reported to the administrators so that action may be taken against him. I hope that action will also be taken against him on Wikimedia Commons due to his disregard for the warnings. Fotrus (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Thats why I said what I said. Shaan SenguptaTalk 14:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
@Shaan Sengupta: I do not know why he insists on uploading images of this actress. He has recently uploaded this image as well: File:Mahya dehghanii.jpg
In the Persian Wikipedia as well, he is focused only on the article about this person. Fotrus (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Santino Luno

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef., all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Marraski

Marraski (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) keeps taking screenshots of his computer and marking them as his own work.

he keeps taking screenshots of images on his/her/they computer and marking them as CC BY 4.0. this is putting it under the wrong thing and his screenshots dont pass the threshold of originality i dont think. i tried to fix one (and an ai-generated image of the wright brothers first flight which he marked as being real) but he has uploaded too many, plus lots of the images dont even have sources! Anonymsiy (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anonymsiy: Did you not see "Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this." above? I notified them for you, this time. That text has been a part of this page since I added it in Special:Diff/622795595 this edit 12:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
ohhh ok sorry Anonymsiy (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
his files are all getting warned anyway Anonymsiy (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Joaoluzneryy

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Harki Muhammad

Harki Muhammad (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
User was warned in August: User talk:Harki Muhammad#File copyright status
But just uploaded another slew of copyvios. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 month by The Squirrel Conspiracy. Should be enough time to read COM:L. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Help.bhcomputers

Help.bhcomputers (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) – blocked on Wikipedia; I recommend blocking under Template:Promotional user block criteria (Commons:ADVERT and Commons:IU). – みんな空の下 (トーク) 05:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Zuck28

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The permission only except screenshots, wallpapers, vacation pictures, promotional posters. And these pictures are clearly not one of them and doesn’t have any other copyright holder, as the watermark is present. So in good faith these pictures are assumed to be released under Cc license. Zuck28 (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
@Zuck28: Who is the photographer?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Bollywoodhungama}} usually doesn't mention individual names of photographers the credit always goes to the company Bollywood Hungama. Zuck28 (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
@Zuck28: I defanged your post. How does that situation square with COM:EVID? What "party or event" is documented?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
It is not explicitly mentioned in the source. Zuck28 (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
@Zuck28: You are missing the previous clause from Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama This applies only to photos of parties and events from their website, taken by their own photographers. All other images are copyrighted.. These images were not taken on any event or party. File:Giorgia Andriani4.jpg is clearly a photo shot. It was shot in Maldives, and the full set (the link in https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/photos/celeb-photos/giorgia-andriani/giorgia-andriani-2-27/ has 5 photos) was published the same day in https://www.instagram.com/p/DUDPnT3CAku/?img_index=1 (there are 12 photos there). The photo was likely taken by Khushal Photography, see a similar photo shot published today in Andriani's official Instagram . File:Giorgia Andriani gym.jpg is a paparazzo photo. Günther Frager (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
I was unaware about this information. I am willing to follow the further instructions provided. Let me know what is next? Should I self nominate the pictures for deletion? Zuck28 (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
 Comment File:Giorgia Andriani gym.jpg is fine, but File:Giorgia Andriani4.jpg is not. I deleted the second one, and the crop. Yann (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
@Yann: So photos from unnamed paparazzi with dodgy licenses are acceptable now? Duly noted.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Hello @Yann, Thanks for the clarification. I wanted to mention a new fact that these pictures were originally posted on Hungama in 2025, an year before they were reposted on Instagram as mentioned by @Günther Frager. See 1, also the images were listed under events section, so I believe this is not a copyright violation. Zuck28 (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
@Zuck28: that is not the definition of event. They send then photographers and journalists to award ceremonies, film premieres and other social events. They don't fly photographers to other countries or make exclusive photo sessions with artists, and if they do it is not what they authorized in the VRT ticket. You should also have to ask yourself what "vacations pictures" from the list of exceptions you listed means. Regarding the post from 2025, you just need to check the links of the photos it contains, why did they create the URL https://stat5.bollywoodhungama.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Giorgia-Andriani-2.jpg in July 2025? or well in January 2023 as the same photo also appears in https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/photos/celeb-photos/giorgia-andriani/giorgia-andriani-19/. Günther Frager (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
I am just trying to understand the process. You definitely pointed out an important issue, but if the source is misleading, what to do? I uploaded the pictures in good faith and being unaware of these issues. Zuck28 (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
@Zuck28: Stop uploading from Bollywood Hungama.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
So far, images from "parties and events" are OK. Yann (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
But the problem here is they listed these pictures too in the event section. Zuck28 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
@Jeff G., It is one of the largest source which provides images on commoms.
Zuck28 (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
We only allow images from events and parties from Bollywood Hungama, professionally shot images from there are not allowed, we made that clear in the licensing..doesn't really matter where the images are posted on the site, if it looks like a professionally taken image, its not allowed here..The picture of her outside the Gym is fine, it was not taken professionally... Stemoc 19:48, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
IMO "professionally" is not the right word here. These paparazzi made a living out of taking pictures of Bollywood people. Casually may describe this better. Pictures from studios, and more generally planned photo shoots are not OK, while pictures from exhibitions and public places are usually OK. Yann (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Paparazzi do sell pictures to magazines and websites, but do they transfer the copyright to them? They are not staff members. Anyways, probably this is a discussion for VP. Günther Frager (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
That's a good question. BH claims a copyright over these images, and since we will never know what contract they have with their photographers, we have to rely on them. IMO it makes sense that BH acquires the copyright, since BH sells these images. Yann (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
User is now aware of the BH image permission yet removes a speedy notice from a file for the second time today. Being aware of the copyright, being here on a noticeboard about it, and then still not acknowledging it is troubling. They've also attempted to restore it to the Wikipedia page which I have removed for a second time.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
And my apologies as I see it was manually reviewed (I thought it was not). Currently at deletion discussion as I disagree the image meets the exceptions. It is not a party or event or anything listed in the general release.--CNMall41 (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
@CNMall41: Casual images from Bollywood Hungama are accepted if they are in parties-and-events/, like other similar images in Category:Giorgia Andriani, and thousands more of other Bollywood personalities. I deleted the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giorgia Andriani, which are from a photo shoot. Yann (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Uniminomumm

Uniminomumm (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) A new user is nominating over one hundred Polish images for deletion using a similar rationale. The account was started on 5 February 2026 and is only nominating images for deletion. Does anyone know if this is part of some previous grudge match between contributors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 01:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know, but I don't see any obvious problematic edits in a spot check. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Just odd, to create an account and dive into deletion nominations. I had a similar problem, someone nominated my last 400 images for deletion after I reversed a single edit of theirs. Could you ask that they aggregate images into one or two nominations instead of individual ones using the same rationale? --RAN (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
I wonder why he keeps posting the same reply every time, even though I pointed out that in some cases there's no proof that the photos were taken before 1994 because some people died later. He is behaving like a bot. It is also puzzling that the adversary has been contributing essentially only to my discussions in recent days. Uniminomumm (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
 Not done. Uniminomumm is not the first user created mostly for nominating inappropriate images for deletion. Uniminomumm nominates Polish images, Pildirüüstaja (talk · contribs) nominated Estonian images, probably most of long-standing administrators can remember such cases. This is allowed. If multiple of the requests is clearly improper, then it would be a problem, but nothing such has been pointed out. Taivo (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Nominating pictures such as File:Marian Killar (graduate of gymnasium in Sanok, 1936).jpg shows a wrong understanding of Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, so I closed some DRs. Idem for File:Stanislav Poplavsky, Commander of the Land Forces of the Polish People's Republic.jpg. This was obviously published during his life time, or shortly after his death. The issue is that Uniminomumm is probably a sock, certainly not a new user. Yann (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Another example: File:Bolesław Kowalski- Cień - CAW.jpg. This was obviously published. Real bad faith is needed to claim the opposite. And this is not one-time mistake. It is systematic, so I blocked Uniminomumm for 2 weeks. So ✓ Done. Yann (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
After reviewing dozens of DRs by Uniminomumm, I think that there is ground for a longer block: beside sockpuppetry, single purpose account, etc. Yann (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Lakshmikanta Manna

Lakshmikanta Manna (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Recent copyvios after multiple deletions and warnings, including the last one. Komarof (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

That's right, but last upload deleted as copyvio is from August. I do not see problematic uploads from current year. Taivo (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Вёкса Йокинен

Вёкса Йокинен (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , who identifies himself on the Russian Wikipedia as Vasily Aleksandrovich Besko, uploads images, giving them hoax names and descriptions, see File:Bazyli Beśko.jpg, File:Klemens Feliks Beśko.jpg, File:The grave of actor Basil Beśko.jpg. Images (some of them could be AI-generated) are probably being uploaded for vandalism — to create hoax articles (there's already one such example, the photo for which was uploaded not to Commons, but directly to the Russian Wikipedia). Should these have to be deleted / renamed? In any case, I believe the user should be warned. Komarof (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Is the article w:ru:Бесько, Базилий a hoax? Or are just the images related to Bazyli Besko a hoax? Nakonana (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Also note that there are articles in several languages on this Bazyli Besko. Nakonana (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Nakonana, you seem to be in a great hurry and are trying to draw some conclusions for me and to force me to refute things I didn't say. And here's the thing:
  • w:ru:Бесько, Михал article is probably a hoax and the image used there is definitely a hoax.
  • File:Klemens Feliks Beśko.jpg is definitely a hoax - the user took a postcard from an external source with an image of an unnamed officer, and made up a name and biography for him.
  • File:Bazyli Beśko.jpg is probably a hoax - this might be AI-generated image, claimed to be the uploader's 'own work'.
  • File:The grave of actor Basil Beśko.jpg, at first, doesn't look like the uploader's own work as well, due to low resolution and missing metadata and secondly, probably has false attribution, where wishful thinking is passed off as reality.
--Komarof (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
are trying to draw some conclusions for me and to force me to refute things I didn't say I just asked for clarification. Nakonana (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done. I decided to delete all uploads of the user as hoaxes or copyvios, but currently not to block him. Taivo (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Mattcomm

Mattcomm (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - Keeps uploading pictures depicting them without permission from the photographer after warnings - Jcb (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, some files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Boston Mayflower

Boston Mayflower (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - This user is abusing deletion requests. They obviously don't know what they're doing here. See recent contributions from 16 February 2026. heylenny (talk/edits) 15:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Heylenny: You didn't inform Boston Mayflower about your report. I did it for you this time. Yann (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Well, I thought the template already mentioned the user. But thanks anyway. heylenny (talk/edits) 16:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
@Heylenny: it says near the top of this page, "Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this." Is anything unclear about that? - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see it. heylenny (talk/edits) 20:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
And in case it is not clear why that is a rule: if a user does not visit WMF projects daily, they probably will not know they've been pinged, but are very likely to get an email when someone writes on their user talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 20:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Already said I didn't see it. Was in a rush. Is that such a big deal? Next time I won't forget to notify the user. But thank you. heylenny (talk/edits) 20:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
  • You "already" said this after I posted? And I was supposed to know this how? I don't have a crystal ball. - Jmabel ! talk 02:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
@Heylenny: That text has been a part of this page since I added it in Special:Diff/622795595 this edit 12:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Ohhhh thanks!!! heylenny (talk/edits) 03:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't need 3 people to tell me a simple thing that I forget to do ONE TIME. This is becoming off-topic. heylenny (talk/edits) 03:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
By the way, this user doesn't seem to get attention on their talk page. Since they already got various ignored warnings. heylenny (talk/edits) 20:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
FWIW, they have no contributions since Yann notified them on their talk page, so there is a fair chance they have not yet noticed this discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't think this account is even open to discussion. heylenny (talk/edits) 03:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
The user actively tries to get file redirects removed, sometimes making a mess in the process; I have warned them twice about this, with no response. File renamers follow "When in doubt, leave a redirect." per the COM:FR#Leaving redirects guideline. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Tuvan ASSR (1971–1978).svg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Komarof

Komarof (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) unfortunately some of files that user komarof nominated to be delete are wrong. User state "Different resolutions, made using more than 30 different camera types, uploaded by user with long history of blatant copyvios. reason for nomination " For example this file "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kaps_Dam_Site.jpg" uploaded 2013 and this file "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D5%80%D5%A1%D5%B5%D5%AF%D5%A1%D5%B1%D5%B8%D6%80-2-2_(1).jpg" (picture taken 2007) or this file "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_canal.JPG" (picture taken 2011)

Using different camera during the years of 2007 till 2026 (almost 21 years) It is an accepted logic for an user to nominating files to be delete? is it copyright violation?

beside all files have camera information by details and it is not copyright violation

  • File:Armenian Cows in the Meadow.JPG
  • File:Cattle Feeding (Armenia).JPG
  • File:Damaged Irrigation Canal.JPG
  • File:Arthur Abraham in Yerevan 2009.jpg
  • File:Nokia 2700 Classic on the ground.JPG
  • File:Pub in Armenia 1.jpg
  • File:Armenian National Agrarian University (ANAU).jpg
  • File:IWRM Workshop in Yerevan.JPG


and many other files [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

That's interesting. Is Narek75 your account too? In that case, you've had far more blatant copyvios and blocks for that than I thought. This is all about Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Narek75, by the way. Komarof (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Komarof no the account not belong to me, I just check files that are related to my articles and topics. You violated the act of labeling the files (not one file) don't have any issue constantly. I have not checked other users uploaded yet.[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: Hi, labeling files like these are not correct [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

That files were taken by many cameras is not proof, but it's definitely suspicious. I'll expand on the DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: it is not proof nor suspicious. Every cellphone has Useful life of al least 2 years not more or even less. So labeling the files that have not issue is not accept in commons [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Modern Sciences, please take the time to tidy up your signature, then read this carefully and stop making unfounded accusations. Komarof (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
@Komarof: My signature is not the subject of this discussion. Please focus on the actions you have taken. uploading files which have taken from different cameras are not reason to nominating to delete. there are not issue with these files. I saw those explanations not related to this topic. There are not any unfounded accusations. Your act as nominating files which have not issue on them. You process incorrect act constantly . [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
User:Modern Sciences, I have already had the displeasure of reading your opinion on this matter, and there is no need to repeat it several times, especially after it has been convincingly refuted by a specialist. If in the future I need the opinion of a user who has multiple warnings and a block for uploading non-free files as free ones, about how I should proceed in matters of clarifying the licensing status of images, I will certainly let you know. --Komarof (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Most of those photos were not taken with cellphones. One was taken with a D700, a camera that sold for $3000 in 2008 (the date of the photo) and sells used for $400 today. Even a cheap DSLR is not a device that is going to fall apart after a couple years, and at the top end, they'll last decades.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Models or Prices or quantity per year are not subject To be discussed on Commons. It is not up to us what kind of camera the uploader used to take the photo or how much does it cost those equipment's. No Commons rules were violated when uploading the images.[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Before taking it upon yourself next time to declare what is accepted on Commons and what is not, you might want to familiarize yourself with the actual accepted practice (random selection): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on. Komarof (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Argue the DR in the DR, not here. Even if Modern Sciences were completely correct, which I do not think they are, the worst imaginable case here would be an ineptly conceived DR. Nothing about that would be an administrative issue about Komarof's behavior. - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Burzagli

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Only one suspicious image during 8 years. Not enough for block. Taivo (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

User:てれとぴあん

This user already have been short blocked twice, but still continue uploading unfree photo or logos. Netora (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

No,We haven't done that. てれとぴあん (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

AhmedMaktabat

AhmedMaktabat (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Reuploaded copyvio after warning. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a week and deleted last remaining upload. Taivo (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

KMB1933 mass uploading uncategorized images

KMB1933 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Despite notifying them on their talk page about needing to categorize their uploads, since the warning they transferred another 75 images from Flickr in the span of a minute and failed to add any categories to them.

This is the type of behavior which leads me to advocate for rate-limiting Flickr2Commons transfers for non-autopatrolled users. 4300streetcar (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I blocked KMB for 2 weeks from uploading files. After KMB has categorized the uploads, (s)he can request unblock. Taivo (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Chuan Zhuo Rui

Chuan Zhuo Rui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Uploading copyright materials after final warning. Also attempted to mislead File:260219 Aespa.jpg with a YouTube source where the exact frame wasn't even in the video itself and was instead taken from Twitter. This is clearly dishonest conduct, which I believe that they should be blocked indef. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Everyonesvisa

In the last week the user has overwritten multiple Visa requirement maps and removed several dependencies (such as Faroe Islands) and changed the color scheme. Example: new version versus old version. The changes were done unilaterally and without prior discussion.

Visa requirement maps are a very niche subject on Wikipedia which very few people edit or monitor, but which have significant impact. File:Visa requirements for Russian citizens.svg which was affected the most and which I help also maintain, is seen by at least 30,000 people monthly on corresponding Russian and English Wikipedia pages. Changes therefore have to be made carefully.

When I pointed this out to the user (talk page) and suggested to go with the WP:BRD cycle (keep the old version, start a discussion, reach the consensus, make a change), the user simply ignored, responded with irrelevant considerations, and continued to make their changes, starting an edit war. I find this unencyclopedic and against the principles of disruptive editing, including edit warring, and weaponizing the non-"ownership" concept („no reason to ask for your permission“, „you're not obligated to agree“ – quotes from the talk page). This is directly against principles of COM:OWN: „If there is any disagreement... discuss the issue on the talk page and co-operate in order to create the best possible version together."

I therefore ask that a warning is issued for the user. Vinokurov Demis (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course, I acknowledge that mutual agreement is necessary, such as As with COM:OWN:.
However, I did discuss it with Vinokurov Demis, and I did not ignore all of his points; I accepted some of them.
I raised legitimate objections. I made improvements because there were areas that needed improvement. These were the "freedom of movement" and "id valid" categories. However, Vinokurov Demis simply stated his personal opinion, saying, "I think it's unnecessary," without any justification.
I believe the visa policy classifications and colors I modified do not damage the map.
The colors haven't changed significantly either.
However, Vinokurov Demis, being just an individual is first reverted my changes and then pointed them out. If they had "discussed" first and then "reverted" after reaching an agreement,
we wouldn't have fought like this.
And the non-"ownership" doesn't belong to Vinokurov Demis.
Compared to maps of other countries, the situation on the Russian map is not fair and free, and Vinokurov Demis has rather monopolized it.
Did Vinokurov Demis ever reach an agreement with others and modify the map? It seems he didn't.
I believe this is inappropriate behavior, being lenient on oneself and strict on others. Everyonesvisa (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
I would like to point out that putting words in my mouth which I never said such as «„I think it's unnecessary,“» here or «a map shouldn't be improved simply because it's "been there for a long time."» at the file page might also be a violation of Wikipedia policies, including civility (WP:CIVIL) and good faith (WP:FAITH).
In fact, what I said is „Please don't redo the changes [...] Instead, let's discuss what changes you would like to make and let's first try to find an agreement between ourselves“ which is exactly how it should be on Wikipedia. What the user proceeded to do however, instead of trying to find a consensus in good faith, was just carry out with the changes anyway, evoking therefore an edit war. I personally value every contributor and every contribution to Wikipedia, but a warning would be fully justified and appropriate here. Vinokurov Demis (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
I didn't say anything that wasn't true. You said in "talk room", "Adding extra color just to differentiate freedom of movement/ID card travel is unnecessary in my opinion." (19:41, 20 February 2026) This is your personal opinion.
And you're acting as if you were the administrator.
I have a question. Have you ever gotten consensus from numerous users for each map you've modified? But you haven't said anything. Ultimately, I think that means you've modified the map according to your own will.
I want to ask:
"Are you the official administrator of this map?" "Do I need your permission to edit the Russian map?"
You keep saying "agreement" or "discussion,"
but you're acting dictatorially, refusing to accept others' opinions.
Even if it's only a part of it... rather I've accepted your opinion. Everyonesvisa (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Of course, I revised the map first. But did I know at the time that I had to reach an agreement with you first? Sorry, I didn't. If you needed to, you should have discussed the revised map first and then changed it. But you changed the map first and then discussed it. An "Please don't redo the changes" is coercion. That's why I'm saying you're wrong. Everyonesvisa (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't know how to explain it simpler without repeating myself. I'll try one last time. The problem are not the edits, but the edits after a reversal — the edits after a discussion was started but wasn't concluded. On Wikipedia everyone is welcome and everyone is free to make whatever good faith changes they wish. You revised 15 maps or so – in good faith I believe – great. Usually, barely anyone cares. The problem however might occur when somebody does care. Like I do care about the map in question. An editor who cares and disagrees with your vision then has also a right to revert your edit and start a discussion – open to everyone. This is all normal and standard of the WP:BRD process. In this phase it's completely normal to exchange opinions and arguments. I think this way, you think this way, we meet in the middle and in the end we're both happy. Other editors can and should be invited as well. In the end a consensus is normally reached and the changes are then made calmly to the status quo. What is not normal however is to revert a revert, and proceed with your changes anyway — completely bypassing a discussion. Vinokurov Demis (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

It's obvious that the two of you have had a hard time hashing this out, but it looks to me like if there is any remaining difference, it is about the exact shades of blue and green to use for certain statuses. That is presumably not an administrative issue. I'm sure you have both found the process frustrating, but presumably the next time you have a conflict like this you should be able to get more directly to discussing the issues at hand. Is there really anything else substantial that I'm missing? What administrative issue is there about something that the two of you have not already resolved, albeit with difficulty? - Jmabel ! talk 01:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, thank you for looking into this. The remaining administrative issue is that the file is currently sitting on the newly disputed version rather than the long-standing stable status quo. Because I stepped back to avoid an edit war, the user's undiscussed changes remain live.
I am more than happy to hash out the exact shades of blue and green on the Talk page. However, per standard BRD and status quo guidelines, those discussions should happen while the stable version is live. Could you please restore the file to the last stable version and ideally also lock it for admins only for a month (as already requested on Blocks and protections page) so we can figure out the consensus on the Talk page without the disputed version remaining live? Vinokurov Demis (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
We can and should discuss all of this in the map's talk page later when the editing war is resolved (all edits paused), and not here Vinokurov Demis (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
If so, let's discuss this again in the "talk page"
And please cancel the report here.
This is unfair. Everyonesvisa (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

User:LN9267

This user is abusing rename requests constantly. He's requesting moves for hundreds of files, and then requesting moves for the same files over and over and over. Here's an example, but their are a huge number of files like this. This person is packing the rename request category every day, and this isn't fair to filemovers. This person needs to start uploading files with proper names, and he needs to stop requesting multiple back-to-back moves for all his uploads. Whether intentional or not, this is disruptive editing or even trolling. Geoffroi 18:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I am apologize for my previous action, I just want to make more detail information only, I will upload correct name files start today. LN9267 (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't understand why we have users requesting hundreds of file renames in the first place. If someone is going to request a large number of valid renames on a continuing basis, why wouldn't they want to be filemovers and do the renames themselves? The filemover tool is extremely simple and easy to use, and current filemovers would be able to do more work in other areas. Geoffroi 04:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
As you say though, choosing a proper name from the get go is probably the best solution. I would be embarrassed to have other people helping me to clean up my sloppy uploads by the hundreds. Geoffroi 04:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
I know fandom allow users do the rename files themselves, also have limit in short time, such as move two files each 5 minutes.
I am double confirm correct and suitable files name since today, also apologize again to admins. LN9267 (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

User:ایوب صادقی

User is uploading copyvio photographs of Iranian newspapers in order to prove print-only sources they provided to me at en:User_talk:LaundryPizza03#My_edits_to_the_Iran_article_and_other_articles!. They have also been reported at en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ایوب_صادقی_(Ayyub_Sadeghi), which is related to this incident. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done. I mass deleted all uploads. Taivo (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Chath

Chath (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Recent copyvios despite multiple warnings and a 3 month block for Uploading unfree files. Komarof (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done. 6 months block (second block). Taivo (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Camilonava

Camilonava (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has continued to upload non-free files despite having been previously warned and blocked. --Ovruni (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done. 1 year block (third block). I deleted 2 copyvios. Taivo (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

User:CitricMink96044

CitricMink96044 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) is continuing to upload copyvios after multiple deletions and warnings and a 3 day block. HurricaneZetaC 21:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed as NOTHERE (note also enwiki block for socking); uploads deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Geoffroi

Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive
That said, keep an eye on the user in case their w:WP:FLOUNCE is reversed Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Is this about Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#JacktheBrown? Nakonana (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
And? Nakonana (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Yeah it is Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
FWIW, I've deleted the attack category linked on the user page and made a few rangeblocks. That's solely related to the LTA; I'm not sufficiently familiar with the background to comment about the user dispute. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Might need some salting as this is the fourth time the category gets deleted. Nakonana (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Salted. Abzeronow (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
No discredit to Geoffroi’s valuable contributions but am I the only one who thinks that statement on their userpage is not correct. The user has included a line stating that a particular group isn't safe on Commons bcoz of two admins (who are named there). This clearly is a personal attack. I would've removed it by myself but it is a userpage and we are already discussing the conduct of the user. So does anyone have an issue with that line being removed? I would advocate for removal of that full statement bcoz the second part is not correct either. Shaan SenguptaTalk 08:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
I just blanked the entire page based on Shaan Sengupta's idea Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
I've restored {{Retired}} bcoz that doesn't do any harm. Shaan SenguptaTalk 09:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
It appears that attack started with Special:Diff/1170118110.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I believe this user is a "troubled soul" and felt under stress recently. I know the behavior in question was extremely offensive but I hope in the future there is the possibility this user can return to editing on the Commons. Krok6kola (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

User:SomeFancyUsername

SomeFancyUsername (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) removes valid warning tag from the file they transferred from another project twice , after warning not to do that Komarof (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I already told you on my talkpage what that file is created by wikimedia user, so "warning tag" is literally invalid. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
@SomeFancyUsername: You are responsible for files you upload here, no matter where they were before.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Narek75

Following the discussion above in COM:ANU#User:Komarof, I came upon the the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Narek75 opened by User:Komarof, who has done a lot of work investigating and flagging problems with Narek75's uploads. Based on this DR and their talk page, Narek75 has clearly uploaded many photos taken by others as "own work". I haven't determined if they've uploaded violations after a warning, but there are still likely many violations in their ~1,000 uploads. Can Narek75 be encouraged to check their own uploads and identify the invalid ones, before uploading any more? -Consigned (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Narek75 has been formally warned last week, and there is no new upload. I don't think any admin action is needed at this point. Yann (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Actually, my last warning wasn't the first one: User talk:Narek75/Archive/2011-2021#Copyright violations. I just didn't notice it in time. Komarof (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
OK, that was 10 years ago. The last deleted upload was uploaded on 29 April 2024. Yann (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

User:U are goes?

U are goes? (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) blatant copyright violations and out of scope images after several warnings not to do that. Komarof (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Most uploads deleted; blocked 2 weeks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

We need to talk about User:Gisbert K

We need to talk about @Gisbert K: . This user has had a "career" of several years in our project as a forger—it's hard to call it anything else. Some of his alterations to images are truly appalling. Historical figures are changed in ways the user believes they should have looked—not how they actually did. It's not about improving the quality of the images, but about actively altering the image itself. I also remember a case from about two years ago, I think, where he added several windows to a building that didn't correspond to reality, to the building's true appearance, because he thought it would look better. Currently, a large number of takedown requests are pending against these fake images: . But I don't think that's enough. This has been dragging on for so long now, and there's been no change in Gisbert K.'s behavior, nor does he seem to understand why a project like Commons doesn't need such falsifications. It can't possibly need them. The public opinion regarding AI use has once again demonstrated that this kind of thing is not condoned by the vast majority of contributors here. And of course, you can't punish someone retroactively. But even before, these falsifications were unacceptable and were deleted. He's currently serving a block on the German-language Wikipedia for image manipulation. I think, however, that even 6,500 edits and almost nine years of contributing to Commons can't compensate for all of this. I probably won't be able to get my way with my view on an indefinite block. But in my opinion, a longer block is finally necessary. The fact that there hasn't been a block at all is truly a mystery to me. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, You should inform users when reporting them. I did it for you this time. I see that Raymond added a warning in German. Yann (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
I've pinged him. Pings are made for those ocassions. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
They're not, as they don't always get through. Belbury (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
I would like to point out that, as stated on my user page, due to my age — I will be turning 85 in a few days — I have effectively been on a Wikibreak for more than a year and now contribute only occasionally.
For quite some time, I have not uploaded any edited images. The only recent exceptions are the uploads related to Bayreuth and the Berlin State Opera, which have now become the subject of criticism.
For example, there is the very dark photograph of Christian Thielemann from which I created a cropped version. In the original image, nothing at all was discernible in the area beneath his arms; an unaltered crop would have shown only something indistinct and impossible to identify. Against that background, a uniform surface seemed to me to be the more sensible solution and, in fact, an improvement to the image. File:Chr Thielemann hochkant.jpg
The same applies to the photographs of Katharina Wagner and Eva Wagner. File:Katharina Wagner 2009.jpg File:Eva Wagner 2009.jpg-
I believe that the warning and the three-day suspension are sufficient at this time. There was no malicious intent on my part; my intention was merely to share images that, in my view, appeared to be of better quality.
If my actions were in violation of any rules or guidelines, I sincerely apologize and will ensure that I adhere strictly to them in the future. Gisbert K (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
All these tinkering with the pictures made them worse, that's just cheap junk, anything but a better quality. Especially with the Wagner sisters the existing crops far exceed the quality of the grey background. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Gisbert was today blocked on de-wp, his main-project. See here Der-Wir-Ing (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
@ Der-Wir-Ing Wärest du so freundlich, an der von dir genannten Stelle auf meine Stellungnahme hier zu der Sache zu verweisen, da ich es selbst wegen der Sperre nicht kann. Gisbert K (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Cajetan392

Cajetan392 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) continues to give erroneous, approximative or, at best, dubious claims for his uploads, despite having been asked nearly 50 times to provide correct license and source information. The user was also warned at least twice on their frWiki User Talk page to refrain from uploading copyvios onto Commons. Users have politely pointed out his mistakes to them, but their last rebutal response[translation 1], opposing COM:PRP, made it pretty clearly the user refuses to acknowledge Commons policies and rules. I think a formal warning is mandated.

  1. ↑
    Français : Les cahiers publicitaires sont des documents publics et je reconnais que la source est Bombardier. Tu devrais plutôt laisser Bombardier s'opposer è ce qu'on fasse connaître son histoire.
    English: Advertising brochures are public documents, and I admit that the source is Bombardier. You should rather let Bombardier oppose the disclosure of its history.

Webfil (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Mouhamad sall

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done You warned this user, I closed the DR, and protected the file. Yann (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

User:M j

 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)

User:FrankWeerdte

✓ 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)

Mr.Besya

  — 🇺🇦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)

Dronebogus

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)
Who gives a fuck about someone using the F-word? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Dronebogus

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)

Dronebogus/2

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)
And again: - 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)

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

  — 🇺🇦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

  — 🇺🇦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

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)

Yann (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

  — 🇺🇦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

GrandEscogriffe (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Marinaio56

  — 🇺🇦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)

Wikiuser829

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)
Checkmark 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)

User:Kyliec338

Could an admin take a look at files recently uploaded by Kyliec338? Many of them appear to re-uploads or files previously deleted lacking permission of for being a copyright violation. This user has been uploading photos of en:Maria Kulikovska and her works both to Commons and locally to English Wikipedia as COM:Own work, and all of them have ended up being deleted for a lack of permisison or some other reason. The user has never stated they're Kulikovska; so, it's not clear why they're claiming everything they upload to be "own work". The EXIF data from some of the files upload is similar to the that of a Facebook image, but again there's nothing provided as source information that would aid in verifying that (and any type of license). -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, files deleted. Final warning sent to @Kyliec338. ✓ Done. Kadı Message 22:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this Kadı. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Alex Neman problematic uploads

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)
✓ 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)
✓ Done. Alex Neman requested to shorten his block so that it will last 3 months and I granted that, adding a strong warning. Taivo (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Taivo, Yann. Here are a few more of Alex Neman's rear view of women again. Also can anyone please check Neman's logo uploads please, i've gotta feeling they may not be suitable for commons and also the selfies with the celebrities. There's so much more lurking and giving him a second chance imo was not suitable, because he will likely repeat, like he did with the IPs to edit Wikipedia when he was banned over there. It could be likely he might create a new account to circumvent the block like he did on enwp. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I deleted some logos. Taivo (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Everyonesvisa

User repeatedly violates WP:TPO by removing, altering, and moving other people's comments, as can be seen here and also here. The first example is especially severe because it explicitly interferes with consensus building on a protected file talk page during an open discussion. Furthermore it happened knowingly because the user has already been politely informed about the policy. The file in question was previously protected for a month due to edit warring, initiated by the same user.

I therefore ask that the account is temporarily blocked from editing due to these multiple and intentional violations. Vinokurov Demis (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know all of Wikipedia's numerous rules. I was aware of the deletion rules, but I didn't realize that moving a post also violated the rules. In any case, I apologize for that. Everyonesvisa (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
@Everyonesvisa: while we allow a little more leeway than Wikipedia (e.g. it's usually considered OK here to fix an obvious spelling error) these were way over the line.
I don't think we need a sanction at this time; this discussion here certainly counts as a strong, clear warning. Everyonesvisa: I strongly suggest that until you have a lot more sense of what is and isn't OK in this respect, don't edit other people's talk page (or similar) comments at all. If something needs to be cleaned up in that respect, let someone else do it, because if you get it wrong, after what you did here no one is going to cut you any slack. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

User:BocaJuniors00

BocaJuniors00 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user uploaded the Goodyear logo to this site against its rules, and when I saw his talk page, I noticed he's had many images he posted deleted for similar reasons. I wonder if he will be blocked. The Goodyear logo he uploaded has been deleted. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Candidyeoman55: The file you are pointing out was uploaded 2 years ago. It doesn't make sense to take any measure if there is no disruptive behavior at the moment. Günther Frager (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I added one more warning. Yann (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Vanguard Man

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)

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)
Hi Jeff, it seems that Vanguard Man removed the warnings from their talk page. JaydenChao (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done. One week block for vandalism, plus I deleted speedily 3 uploads. Taivo (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
@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)
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)
✓ Done Blocked email & talk page use, blocked for a month. - Jmabel ! talk 19:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Ike777j

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)

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

User:Hurricanehink

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

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

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

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

@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)
OK, I blocked the IP. Yann (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

user:Cossrad

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)

  • After what "the last warning"? You don't warn anyone; you nominate files, making up some kind of copyright violation, and you do not reply to the discussion page for these images. -- Cossrad (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    This one: User talk:Cossrad#Copyright violations, made in 2024. Re: you do not reply to the discussion page. Are you sure? Komarof (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    Sure. You haven't responded to any of my comments regarding deleting these files before this request even though the files clearly require discussion. Instead you immediately went to complain about me here instead of engaging in a substantive discussion. --Cossrad (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    Moreover less than an hour passed from your request for deletion to writing a complaint here. -- Cossrad (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    Judging by your second reply, you, albeit belatedly, managed to focus and notice that all your clearly unreliable responses on the discussion pages regarding possible regular file deletions were already answered by me before this request. But this request was submitted regarding files nominated for speedy deletion. Komarof (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    You've completely gone off topic. You wrote about "problem tags". This only concerns one file, the one I removed the tag from. I didn't remove anything from the others. It is a grievous affliction. Cossrad (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    In addition, discussions of deletion nominations take place on the deletion pages linked from the files, and not in the participant's discussion. -- Cossrad (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'd also like to point out to the administrators: this file () is not a derivative work. It was created entirely by me. This user, without discussing this with me or providing a link to the "original," is flagging the file for warning. And then submitting a request here. --Cossrad (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    But in fact, you stole it from here. Komarof (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    No. This is my own work. Cossrad (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    Good movie. Submit a link to the problem file here and start a discussion about it after nominating it on the administrators' forum. -- Cossrad (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

---
To be short:

  1. File:Andrey Zvyagintsev 2023.jpg - false free license;
  2. File:Saransk1958.png - false own work claim, derivative of . --Komarof (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
✓ Done Blocked for a week. One file deleted. Yann (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Harold Foppele

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

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)

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)
 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)
 Comment Please take into account that the person behind this account is 80 years of age. --Túrelio (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
 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)
 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)
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)
@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)
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

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)

@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)
@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)
✓ Done. The user is now globally locked. Taivo (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

User: Willtron

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)

Dronebogus edit warring with editors of local Wikipedias

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)

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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
Could you just tell me? Dronebogus (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

User:FrankWeerdte

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)

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

Potentially inappropriate use of file mover bit by Yacàwotçã

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)

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)
Oh, and just adding: it wasn't suppressed, just deleted. @EPIC, please correct yourself. Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
The page was deleted regularly at first and was later suppressed. EPIC (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
+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)
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)
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)
 Comment I blurred the script, and have hidden the old file. Yann (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
@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)
@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)
Agreed, I don't see any admin issue here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
@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)
Yes. That file name is currently referenced in the English Wikipedia Signpost. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 02:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

User:邵成鑫1007 (2)

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)

@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)
@ShuQizhe Oh, thanks for letting me know. I’m not familiar with noticeboards here. Tim (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Sugar Tax

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)

Related discussion occuring at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sugar Tax, communication and edit summaries LaffyTaffer (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Yeah...when I left that message it was only one edit HurricaneZetaC 16:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
Three blankings now Danners430 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
And the same number of blankings of my user talk Danners430 (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a month. And also now globally locked. Yann (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Bull-Doser yet again

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)

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)
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)
 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)
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)
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)
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)

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

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)

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

Josearenasd

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)

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)
Good to see filters working as they should. Abzeronow (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Dabmasterars

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

The user created my user page Special:Diff/1179412068 something that many know that I don' want. I kindly ask an admin to sanction the user for vandalism, to delete my user page and to lock it so no other vandal can recreate it. Thanks. Günther Frager (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I simply created a blank page with a correct template so your name isn't red. If that's against the rules, then I'm sorry and I will never repeat this again. This was done in good faith, I swear. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 13:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
@Dabmasterars Usually you shouldn't be editing or creating other people's userpages, it's their choice whether they have one or not. HurricaneZetaC 14:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
@Dabmasterars: How do you determine which users deserve to have their redlinked user pages created in such a way? How often do you do it? Why does your Edit Summary not reflect what you did?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
This was my first time creating/editing someone else's user page, I thought to add the reviewer template so that the user is automatically included in Category:Commons reviewers (which is, in my opinion, beneficial for Commons). That's why I only included the template and nothing else, so that the page is technically still blank and the user can insert whatever after the template. I apologize for not providing a meaningful summary.
Edit: I also distinctly remember someone editing my Wikipedia user page to fix a paragraph not showing, which led me to believe that good faith edits are generally okay. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Also, there is literally zero reason for having a completely missing user page. At least with a reviewer template people can identify you better. Why you don't want anything is beyond me. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 05:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Belbury

Over the last few days Belbury has requested deletion of my photo etc on here. Some have been here for years with anyone else noting a problem. He is requested deletion of photos for the reason he believes that are too large, not of quality and dupes. I feel he is harassing and targeting my work for no reason. Pat.s.baker62 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pat.s.baker62: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Pat.s.baker62

Sure, let's boomerang discuss the user's wanton disregard of COM:OW and uploading of huge upscaled images to use Commons as a free webhost for commercial purposes, as well as failure to notify. The files are listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pat.s.baker62.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Why a separate section for the report? It can be merged with the other one.
(However, the few uploads I checked by Pat were not overwrites, but distinct separate files from the source files. But maybe I just happened to have clicked on the few non-overwriting ones.) Nakonana (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
@Nakonana: merged.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pat.s.baker62 are all new uploads, they're files where the user has taken a low resolution image from Commons, stretched it to be ten or twenty times larger, and uploaded it as a new file (eg. File:Malay Proa (boat).jpg is a blurry 3840×4242 pixel version of the 543×600 File:A Piratical Proa in Full Chase.jpg). They explained at the DR that they are doing this because they're writing for a print magazine that asks them to provide links to usable picture of the proper size, so the files need to be above a certain pixel size to be accepted.
These are redundant, misleading duplicate images that aren't of any use to the project. Pat.s.baker62 shouldn't be using Commons as free web host as part of their workflow for filing magazine articles.
They'd also been overwriting other users' uploads with stretched versions in the past, but stopped in 2023 when Commons stopped unapproved users from overwriting other people's images. Most of those overwrites had already been reverted at the time, I undid the remaining instances earlier today. Belbury (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Well, sir, I'm not overwriting anything... I am uploading, larger good quality photos, etc and using the proper copywrites while I'm doing so to enhance the useablity of the photos.
also: You can usually reuse photos from Wikimedia Commons freely, but you must follow the specific license shown on each file’s page, especially its attribution and “share‑alike” requirements.
Content under open content licenses may be reused without any need to contact the licensor(s), but just keep in mind that:
some licenses require that the original creator be attributed;
some licenses require that the specific license be identified when reusing (including, in some cases, stating or linking to the terms of the license); and
some licenses require that if you modify the work, your modifications must also be similarly freely licensed.
Content in the public domain may not have a strict legal requirement of attribution (depending on the jurisdiction of content reuse), but attribution is recommended to give correct provenance. Pat.s.baker62 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
So, people can no longer use photos from wikemedia commons contra to what your the policy states Pat.s.baker62 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Pat.s.baker62 blocked for a week, and files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

How should we handle the user's remaining 122 uploads? They aren't duplicates, they're offsite PD images that the user stretched before uploading to Commons, for the sake of their magazine's pixel size requirement. Is there a template to flag them as needing replacement with the original sources, so that we aren't misleading users into briefly believing that we have a 5000px scan of something? {{Thumbnail}} isn't quite right for it, and only a few of them are {{AI upscaled}}. --Belbury (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury: Perhaps we need a {{Upscale}} or something. Alice had two pills.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Or a toggle switch on {{Thumbnail}}, where the upload is larger than the source? I assume this is a very unusual case, though. Belbury (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
{{AI upscaled}}, assuming that is how the upscaling was done. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
No, only a few of their uploads are AI upscaled, and I've already flagged those. In the majority of cases the user has just given the images an uncomplicated, enormous resize in image editing software, to get it above their target pixel threshold.
I'll just go with a {{Cleanup image}} with an explanatory note, and a suggestion to re-upload the original resolution version.Belbury (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh. While cleaning these files up, a discrepancy led me to an earlier account Pat.s.baker (talk · contributions · Statistics) that was asked back in 2021 to please stop uploading upscales of lower resolution images. They stopped using that account a few weeks afterwards, and registered a new "Pat.s.baker62" account in January 2022, apparently in response to some leftover overwritten files from the first account being reverted. --Belbury (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Dimensionofknowledge

User is repeatedly removing the deletion template from File:Und dann kam Punk Episode 181 mit Coco.jpg saying that the DR can be "closed as keep, as copyright was verified", when the DR hasn't been closed and the copyright situation is complex (it's a derivative podcast thumbnail). Belbury (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Baophucminh53G

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

@~2026-15874-94: Reported at m:srg#Global lock for Baophucminh53G.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked, tagged, locked. --Lymantria (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Google.m%SikhEmpire-noindex

This brand new user has gone on a spree of nominating Category:Maps of the Sikh Empire for discussion (twice), and seemingly random maps of the Sikh Empire for deletion. Their rationales are written in hardly comprehensible language (the user probably does not have English as native language and might be using a translation machine), which do not really boil down to valid Commons:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. They vaguely mention inaccuracies or neutrality issues, even though Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view is not a valid reason for deletion. Seems to me they have some opposition to the Sikh Empire in general, although I'm not sure; but if so, this is going nowhere. How should we deal with this? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: I agree with you, and reverted the edits I could, as well as warning the user.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Nederlandse Leeuw: You're welcome. Escalated to m:srg#Global lock for Google.m%SikhEmpire-noindex.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Truthfindervert. --Lymantria (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Liberaltarian12345

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

A better solution to prevent that from happening is to contact the person at https://parliamentdiagram.toolforge.org and tell them to make it so that i can download the images as PNG's off the site directly, rather than needing to upload them to Wikimedia to do so. Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Liberaltarian12345: how exactly is a technical issue with a tool responsible for you uploading out-of-scope content? - Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Because if I could download it off of there directly, then I would not have to upload it to Wikimedia. It is my only option to get the images for use. Unless there is also a way for me to immediately delete them after i get them off of Wikimedia as well Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
The fact that you have some non-WMF-related project you are working on does not entitle you to upload nonsense to Commons. You are more than welcome to approach the people who created the tool and to ask if they will either modify it for you to do what you want, or you can fork the project at GitHub and modify it to your needs, but you don't get to more-or-less vandalize our website for your convenience.
At a quick look, I believe parliamentarch with that does most of the work. It has a command-line interface, and appears to turn out SVG files (as strings). Shouldn't be hard to build a tool of your own around that, and it is pretty trivial with any of a number of free tools (ImageMagick, GraphicsMagick, GIMP) to turn an SVG into a PNG, if that is what you really want. - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Henrydat and "199.7.158.234"

  • 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))
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)

EN67 and Etoile Noire Strasbourg

EN67 has uploaded twice the same logo, without any source and licensing. The files were deleted and he was warned by Ziv (talk · contribs). Etoile Noire Strasbourg uploaded it again today. EN67 and Etoile Noire Strasbourg are probably the same user : it's what he is saying on my talk page on frwiki. A Check User Request is on progress on frwiki. But here, the logo is still without source and licensing. Supertoff (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,
I would like to clarify the situation.
First, regarding the accounts mentioned: we are not a single person. We are several employees working for the same organization (the club). The person who made the first uploads is a colleague. I am his direct supervisor and I am now taking over the discussion because the situation seems to be turning unnecessarily problematic.
Regarding the logo, there is also an important point: I am the author and creator of the logo used by the Etoile Noire de Strasbourg. The first version of the logo that appeared on Commons was uploaded without my copyright being properly indicated and without any explicit authorization from me as the author at the time.
This is exactly what I am currently trying to clarify and regularize.
For this reason, I have now uploaded the logo again on Wikimedia Commons, this time indicating the correct authorship and rights for the new version of the logo.
This is not an edit war. I am simply trying to resolve a copyright situation concerning a work that I created and to ensure that everything is correctly handled according to the rules of Commons.
I would therefore appreciate a clear and constructive response so that this matter can be resolved properly. Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
The Logo is not on commons... It is on frwiki. If you want resolve properly the problem, read the blue link on EN67 talk page. And read the informations when you are uploading files... All is already written in the help page. Supertoff (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello,
I am currently blocked on frwiki, which prevents me from correcting the situation myself. I would therefore ask to be unblocked so I can properly update the logo, as I am its author.
the actual logo used on the page it taken form a page that doesn't exist anymore and that don't have the right to share the logo.
Also, could you explain why the official registered name “Etoile Noire” cannot be used or reflected on the page?
Thank you. Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Etoile Noire Strasbourg: The name used above at 10:02 is best expressed as fr:Fichier:Étoile noire de Strasbourg 2021.png. The permission there fr:Template:Marque déposée invokes fair use and does not allow copying to Commons. See also COM:FAIR. We would need free permission as explained at VRT or VRT/fr.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk · contribs) And what don't you understand on french file import page when it is written : Conditions pour importer un fichier / Fichier dont vous êtes l'auteur (excepté les logos, voir plus bas) Supertoff (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Donc, comment changer ce logo si je ne peux pas mettre de logo?? je suis l'auteur, le logo n'est pas à jour. il ya donc un problème. Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
https://etoile-noire.fr/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/cropped-logo-3D-retro-etoile-noire-270x270.png
le lien de notre logo sur la page officielle du club. Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
If the French Wikipedia accepts fair use, then the problem is solved for Commons. It simply shouldn't be transferred to Commons anymore. Alternatively, the copyright holder send permission to COM:VRT. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 10:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Please unblock me so that I can upload on FrWiki. the matter is done and I don't want to have to exchange with @Supertoff Etoile Noire Strasbourg (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Etoile Noire Strasbourg: Supertoff is the blocking Admin on frwiki, it is they who need convincing.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Etoile Noire Strasbourg: EN67 is not blocked on frwiki except on fr:Étoile noire (hockey sur glace). He can upload files. It is why I blocked him partially. And as said Ziv, the problem is solved here. Supertoff (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Etoile Noire Strasbourg, i deleted now File:LOGO Etoile noire OFFICIEL ROND.png. Deleted files can be restored after obtaining permission from the copyright holder. Further details, as mentioned above, can be found at COM:VRT. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 12:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
(Since the above went a bit off track) @Etoile Noire Strasbourg: if you hold the copyright to File:LOGO Etoile noire OFFICIEL ROND.png and you want the file restored here on Commons, there are basically two ways to do this. (1) The club website can be explicit about the specific free license offered and about any expected attribution. Once the site says that, come back here and the file can be undeleted. (2) You can follow the procedure at COM:VRT (in English) or COM:VRT/fr (in French) to generate a release that clarifies the license and email it as explained there. Expect some (entirely confidential) correspondence back and forth, in order to establish that you are who you say you are. Once that is complete to the satisfaction of the VRT, they should undelete the file. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Problème avec supertoff

Bonjour, @Supertoff Tu n'es pas détenteur de la marque et de l'entreprise Etoile Noire. Nous entrons maintenant, puisque tu le dis, dans une guerre d'édition que tu as déclenchée en voulant avoir le contrôle sur notre page Wikipédia… Nous sommes détenteurs de la vérité et des véritables informations sur l'entreprise qui est la nôtre. Vous êtes en train de diffamer l'image de notre marque.

Vous n'êtes pas le roi de la plateforme ni le patron !

Aux dernières nouvelles, si nous décidons de modifier le logo ou de modifier la description de notre entreprise, nous avons le droit.

Je comprends que maîtriser toutes les pages Wikipédia est votre seule activité, mais à un moment donné, si vous vous présentez comme un dictateur qui décide de tout, ça ne peut pas marcher.

Vos informations sont fausses, même le titre de la page est faux. Il va donc falloir nous laisser éditer notre page comme bon nous semble. Merci pour votre compréhension.

Cordialement,

Etoile Noire Strasbourg EN67 (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@EN67: Bonjour, En quoi, ceci concerne Wikimedia Commons ? Yann (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Yann: does en:WP:OWN have a French analog?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, here: fr:Wikipédia:Appropriation d'un article. Yann (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, Google Translate says this amounts to appropriation of the French Wikipedia article on their ice hockey club, and objecting to their blockage there for what amounts to meatpuppetry, while the upper section revolves around resisting hints to use VRT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Yann: est-ce que le fait d'être traité de dictateur est autorisé sur commons ? Supertoff (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Supertoff: No, that is unacceptable. You are protecting your project, as you were elected to do.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done I blocked Etoile Noire Strasbourg indef. for socking, and warned EN67. Any other excess of language should lead to a block. Yann (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
@Yann: how is having two people from the same organization "socking", especially if they are open about it? - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
This would be OK if 1. they are in good standing, 2. if one account doesn't come to the rescue of the other one when accusing of breaking Commons policies (or Wikipedia for that matter), 3. they disclose the other account on their user page. Yann (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
And as Supertoff and Jeff G. said, EN67's message may be a reason for blocking in itself. Yann (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Category:Commons pages with broken file links Category:Commons talk archives