Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	128, 127, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~109
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~3
• No license since 15 February 2026: ~17
• No permission since 15 February 2026: ~128
• No source since 15 February 2026: ~76
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2026-02: ~306

Other:

• Duplicates: ~195
• Advertisements/spam: ~5
• Personal photos/selfies: ~7
• Other speedy deletions: ~262
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~2
• Undeletion requests: ~10

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~6
• Interface admin: ~14
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~2
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

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

Uploads by Fabe56

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Comment Scope can be tricky; unless those out-of-scope files are either uncategorized, misleadingly categorized, or part of an agenda that is one or another way harmful to Commons, I'm a lot less concerned with borderline out-of-scope files than with copyvios. (@Timtrent I can't tell from your characterization above whether there is a major problem here with bad categorization/not-categorization or not. The Category:While42 photos do look like a lot of files of something of no obvious importance, but they don't seem to be clogging any categories that a normal user would care about.)

I would certainly not be concerned that [t]great majority of the files are not used anywhere: the majority of files on Commons are not used in other Wikimedia projects. The majority of my own uploads are not used in other Wikimedia projects, even though most of them are solidly in Commons scope. The majority of uploads from the Seattle Public Library, ditto. - Jmabel ! talk 00:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel This is exactly why I have asked the question. I agree that in/out of scope is difficult I am interested to see the answers fromm thosee who wish to answer, I know I do not have the competence to resolve this in my mind yet. Thank you for your answer.

I do think there are serious naming and categorisation issues creating huge limitations of usefulness, thus impacting scope (if it cannot be found, even if in scope, does that render it out of scope?).

This feels mightily above my pay grade ($0.00 as for all of us!)

I won't thank everyone who answers, and certainly have no intent of bludgeoning the discussion, assuming more folk do answer! But those who do, please take my thanks as read. Whatever is determined, Commons will be improved. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Timtrent reported a recurring issue with Fabe56's pattern of contributions, namely lots of our of scope Flickr imports and a disregard towards IP rights. This is shown by:

- Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 38#Block request for User:Fabe56 (May 2024)

- User talk:Fabe56/Archive/2025#Apparent laziness while importing from Flickr (August 2025)

-Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 42#User:Fabe56 (November 2025)

This is exacerbated by a complete absence of communication: Fabe56 did not engage in any exchange when contacted or notified about these problems. In my opinion, this behaviour can easily described as "spamming images" now, and thus indeed constituting a problem for Commons, as there's no curating activity at all. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I am inclined to block them from uploading until they acknowledge this is a serious issue and make substantial headway in cleaning up their mess. Almost every upload lacks a useful filename, description, and/or categorization. Many are also out of scope or copyvios. They upload so many duplicates that their last 500 deleted files only go back five weeks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 I find this approach interesting, though it may simply stop ongoing activity without creating their desire to clear up the mess left in their wake.

I have no issue at all with well curated, well named, properly licenced, non copyvio, in scope uploads, even in great volume. I take issue with those outside those boundaries (which I acknowledge may be more restrictive than Commons boundaries, and are my personal preference). 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to force mass uploaders to clean up their messes after they're made. I'm of the opinion that stopping the disruption is still better than letting it continue. It's a perennial issue; I think as a community we will need to set and enforce stricter rules about mass uploads so that we don't get to the point where a user has tens or hundreds of thousands of uncurated uploads. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolute agreement with that. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

A lot of the images in Category:While42 SF No 10 have a Rackspace logo in them so I searched for that and it turns out we have wiki articles in several languages on Rackspace Technology, I guess that makes them in scope? Though, I do find it problematic that due to the addition of hidden categories images like File:Bored (53152633849).jpg aren't even listed in maintenance categories like Category:Media needing categories even though they are clearly in need of having non-hidden categories added to them. This really makes them nearly impossible to find even for those who are generally willing to work through uncategorized files. Nakonana (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana It looks as if some, maybe all, in that category were taken at a Rackspace event. However, using that cat as an example, by no means all of these files are useful, let alone identified.

I think the broader picture is more important that one category which I plucked at random form an overabundance of mundanity.

"Why is this user uploading an extraordinary number of files with no obvious driver to do so, and are they valid actions?" 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

As best I can tell, While42 is a small engineering club. One of their club events was held at a Rackspace office, but that doesn't mean that Rackspace's notability "rubs off" on While42 by simple association. Omphalographer (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Comment I've processed hundreds of valid file rename requests from this user, and I've seen them doing category work as well, so they're definitely currating the images they upload. The user looks to be a native French speaker, so perhaps another French speaker is needed to communicate with them regarding any issues or problems with their contributions. Geoffroi 04:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you that information. I have left them the following message below the AN/U notice:

  It is extremely important that you take part in the discussion at the location linked to directly in the notice I am replying to.

  It does not matter if your first language is not English. You may contribute to it in French.

  Please use a machine traalsation system such as https://translate.google.com if you are unable to read what is written there,

  I do not write French, bt am using that method to talk to you. It produces language which is understable even if imperfect.

  ------

  Il est extrêmement important que vous participiez à la discussion à l'endroit indiqué dans le message auquel je réponds.

  Peu importe si l'anglais n'est pas votre langue maternelle. Vous pouvez y contribuer en français.

  Si vous ne parvenez pas à lire le texte, veuillez utiliser un système de traduction automatique comme https://translate.google.com.

  Je ne parle pas français, mais j'utilise ce moyen pour communiquer avec vous. Il produit un langage compréhensible, même s'il est imparfai.

  While this is imperfect, and while the AN/U notification is itself translatable into French, it should help. I am also seeking to attract their attention with this: @Fabe56: . We are looking for a good solution to this rather than a block. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  If Fabe56 begins to engage in this discussion here and if that happens to be in French, then Yann who was involved in November '25 and also myself are able to use French, too. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Either it is coincidence, or the fact of this discussion existing appears to have had the effect of their ceasing contributions at all on the date of the first posting. I have not analysed their contribution window. The time of their last activity for 29 January may be their normal close down time, but they have not restarted.

  I impute no motive whatsoever for their hiatus, and feel it is more than likely to be real life intervening based on prior history.

  @Grand-Duc Whatever dialogue you are able to engage them in to bring them here, or for then to give an explanation elsewhere would be valuable. I started this to discover what is happening and to ask for guidance for them, not to punish them. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Propose restricting ability to upload

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

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

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

•  Support (as proposer) indefinite block on use of mass upload tools, appealable on a satisfactory discussion and subject to immediate reimposition if future behaviour warrants it.  Support (as proposer) time limited block on uploading at all in order to seek to get them to engage with a discussion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
•  Support This proposal makes sense. Yann (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
•  Support curating and quality assurance is an inseparable part of contributing here, but currently sorely lacking in Fabe56's work. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
•  Support Time to slow down and do some cleanup work. Geoffroi 18:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
•  Support Makes sense to me. --Túrelio (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
•  Support Special:AbuseFilter/208 can be used to block specifically from flickr2commons. However, if they switch to another upload tool, we will probably have to block all uploading. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

   Comment @Pi.1415926535 since this is a dual acting proposal, I think your concern is satisfied initially if consensus agrees it. Other tools can be handled by an implementation of an indefinite total upload block should intransigence be displayed 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Question Is this sufficient elapsed time and a consensus, or does it need to run lomger? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

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

How does the huge number of files get sorted out?

I see two options, assuming lack of engagement:

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

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

Hopefully Fabe56 will do something. Otherwise, an indefinite block should be sent. Yann (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed! I am assuming worst case, though. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Why would you assume that when someone clearly stated that they have seen Fabe56 curating their uploads[1]? Nakonana (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I think a plan needs to be formulated. They have been absent from Commons since 29 January and everywhere else since 30 January 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

They remain absent 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 05:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Sorry, I didn't have access to the Internet. I will try to revert all my contributions to Wikimedia Commons. It will take time for sure, but it seems to be the best solution, as I don't want to offend anyone.

I personnaly really regret that collaboration is not really an integral part of this project, but that fine no worries ;-)

Sorry again. Fabe56 (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Fabe56 Collaboration is a two way street. You are meant to act collegially with uploads, and not simply blast them here uncritically. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Fabe56 On 18 February you said I will try to revert all my contributions to Wikimedia Commons. It will take time for sure, but it seems to be the best solution, as I don't want to offend anyone., however, you have edited here since that time - Special:Contributions/Fabe56 - and I cannot see any indication that you have started the process of the massive clear up. Instead it seems you are carrying on almost as though nothing is happening, except that you are blocked from uploading files.

With precision, please, what is your plan and what is your timetable? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Вёкса Йокинен

Вёкса Йокинен (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, 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)

Zuck28

• User: Zuck28 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This is in followup to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 127#Zuck28. More copyright concerns have arisen at File:Giorgia Andriani4.jpg (plus File:Giorgia Andriani4 (cropped).jpg) and File:Giorgia Andriani gym.jpg. There is no "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license" in evidence. See Template talk:BollywoodHungama.

  — 🇺🇦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 [2]. 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) (assign permissions) 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) (assign permissions) 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:Help.bhcomputers

Help.bhcomputers (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) – 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)

User:Mattcomm

Mattcomm (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) - 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) (assign permissions) - 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) (assign permissions) 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 [3] [4][[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

• User: Burzagli (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Rudolf-Claudus.jpg after final warning.

  — 🇺🇦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:M j

M j (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

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

FrankWeerdte (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) - 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)

User:てれとぴあん

• てれとぴあん (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

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) (assign permissions)
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) (assign permissions)

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: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:Everyonesvisa

• Everyonesvisa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

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: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) (assign permissions) 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. HurricaneZeta^C 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

• Please, see User:Geoffroi and the category link.

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[5]? 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[6]. 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 Sengupta^Talk 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 Sengupta^Talk 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) (assign permissions) removes valid warning tag from the file they transferred from another project twice [7] [8], after warning not to do that [9] 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

• Narek75 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

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)

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: [10]. 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.

The same applies to the photographs of Katharina Wagner and Eva Wagner. -

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)

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)