Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Note

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

Uploads by Fabe56

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago29 comments9 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose restricting ability to upload

[edit]

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

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

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

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

How does the huge number of files get sorted out?

[edit]

I see two options, assuming lack of engagement:

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

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

Hopefully Fabe56 will do something. Otherwise, an indefinite block should be sent. Yann (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Indeed! I am assuming worst case, though. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why would you assume that when someone clearly stated that they have seen Fabe56 curating their uploads[1]? Nakonana (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think a plan needs to be formulated. They have been absent from Commons since 29 January and everywhere else since 30 January 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

VNC200

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Continues to upload blatant copyvio and unfree derivative files after warning. All the deletion notices available on TP. Previously blocked for 1 week then 1 month then 3 months. {{End of copyvios}} was also served on 06:30, 23 April 2023 by Krd. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment This user was blocked on 29 December 2024, but the last deleted file was on 24 November 2025. I am not sure that File:BDO Andal monitored EF fillup work at helpdesk of 278 Raniganj AC under Paschim Bardhaman district, West Bengal.jpg is OK, but I don't see obvious copyright violations after the block. Yann (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yann, one question. The last block expired on 29 March 2025. Multiple political party flags were uploaded as own work in November 2025, i.e. 8 months after last block expired. You can check the upload log. File:Jan Suraaj Party flag.svg, File:NCP (SP) flag.svg, File:Shiv Sena flag.svg, File:Shiv Sena (UBT) flag.svg, File:Shiv Sena (UBT) flag (7).svg. Weren't all of these obvious copyvios. Shaan SenguptaTalk 01:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ah yes, right. I mixed up 2024 and 2025. ✓ Done Blocked indef. (4th block). Yann (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nazwa1234

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nazwa1234 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - Another user from Poland who adds photos violating copyright despite bannes. Uniminomum (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Uniminomum: Pictures from Poland from before 1994 are usually in the public domain, unless proved otherwise. These should not be speedy nominated. And you have to inform users when you report them here. I did it for you this time. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Occisors

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Over the time the user in question has been here, they have demonstrated a long pattern of disruptive editing, bludgeoning, insulting, and general incivility. The user joined this website a month ago, and immediately began posting several copyright violating pictures of Luigi Mangione (the suspect in the killing of Brian Thompson) (see talk page). Every single edit the user has made on Commons since then has been in relation to Mangione.

After these were deleted, the user then uploaded photos with justification from court documents to say they were public domain. This sparked a formal deletion discussion here, where the user began showing the problematic behavior in question. I will now highlight several comments (emphasis not mine):

Extended content
  • "I literally never said that this photo was taken in the early 18th century. You ok?" [2]
  • "You need to respond to a lot of things. One of them being the fact that you are making baseless deletion requests and are either refusing to read/cannot read/cannot comprehend the information about the photo licensing or you are intentionally misinterpreting and making up statements that do not exist in the provided licensing information." [3]
  • "By definition, in order to "repeat" yourself, you would have needed to have answered the points I have raised before - which you did not. Therefore, you would not be "repeating" yourself. Also, you should address the issue that you lied on the administrator's board about the @Trade's edits and how they are about "very similar files" to these ones, when, in fact, they are not. They are different photos, and you know that. And that is why you are refusing to answer any of my questions, right?" [4]
  • "Why should I "dial it back" if it is "great to see"? Maybe you should dial back your "disruptive" and "block-worthy" behaviors, which have been reported to the Administrators' board? And also making false and/or biased statements?" [5]
  • "Not to mention 1931 is not 18th century... *insert facepalm emoji*" [6]
  • "I can remove that as a source, so that Trade/Counterfeit purses/Whatever other alt acc they have can move on from this" [7] (Trade has never been found to be an alt account of anyone)

After the files were ultimately deleted, Occisors subsequently nominated the Mangione images I had uploaded for deletion. In the following deletion discussion, they continued the pattern of uncivil behavior, as shown in the comments below:

Extended content
  • I am not going to waste my time with your clearly biased and disruptive behaviors and false statements. Do better. [8]
  • I mean, use common sense. When and why would NBC do that. This is obviously unlicensed footage. [9]
  • During this deletion discussion, they also put in repeated votes for their own deletion nomination, until they had to be told by Abzeronow to not do this. Occisors acknowledged this and promptly ceased.

The files I had uploaded were ultimately deleted by Josve05a. When I had discovered this, I read through the deletion discussion and I agreed that the closing statement that most of the files I uploaded were ineligible for Commons. Nevertheless, I disagreed with the deletion of one of the nominated files, and I appealed the deletion of this particular file with Josve05a at his talk page, which is an appropriate forum per Commons:Undeletion_requests#Appealing_a_deletion.

After a short discussion, Josve05 agreed to undelete the file I had appealed. However, Occisors did not agree and argued for the deletion. During this, they left the following remark accusing me and/or Josve of lying:

Extended content
  • "Howard saying "no clear breakdown was provided identifying which segments originate from NBC and which do not" is a lie." [10] (accusing Josve of lying in their closing comment, although Occisors misattributes this statement to me)

At this point, I had already read through the deletion discussions in which Occisors showed their problematic behavior. After this comment which clearly assumed bad faith, I decided that Occisors deserved a warning since they were continuing a pattern of disruptive editing, insults, and accusations. I left a warning on their talk page pointing out some instances of their past disruptive behavior and that I would report them to this noticeboard if they continued this behavior.

Insteaad, Occisors continued to argue in the Josve's talk page showing the same disruptive behavior I had warned them for. In this comment, they characterized my warning as a threat meant to silence them. Furthermore, in the same comment, the user falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet based on a deletion nomination I made, simply because it was also related to Luigi Mangione:

Extended content

"I would also like to point out that Howard threatened me with reporting on my commons user talk page after commenting here. Interestingly, Howard, mostly linked my comments to the now blocked sockpuppet – calling them “uncivil” and that I’m essentially commenting too much. They “warned” me that they’ll report me for such comments as where I ask people for sources to their claims.?? Howard says it was “uncivil” to point out that NBC doesn’t release their raw editorial footage under free license, and to ask to provide an example where they did that before. Howard/sockpuppet were not able to provide that, by the way."

I consider this final comment to be the straw that breaks the camel's back when it comes to Occisor's month-long history of repeatedly bludgeoning deletion discussions, insulting other users, falsely accusing them of being sockpuppets, and accusing people of lying. Additionally (as you may notice above), Occisors repeatedly makes use of font effects to bold, enlargen, underline their texts throughout these discussions. This is a form of disruptive editing intended to highlight their own comments and drown out others' comments in the discussion. They also have a tendency to leave walls upon walls of text effectively repeating their arguments, which is a form of bludgeoning.

In conclusion, Occisors ought to be blocked from Commons until they have demonstrated a willingness not to engage in behavior which stifles discussion, assumes bad faith, and treats other editors insultingly.

Pinging the users mentioned above: @Trade, @Abzeronow, @Josve05a. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have uploaded copyrighted screencaps to commons claiming they were under "free license" because you didn't do your research. I had to do the research and prove that they were copyrighted. Instead, you continued reupload the video/screencaps with various vague excuses, but without any solid proof of copyright. Your excuse? The absence of evidence that it's copyrighted. Which is against wiki commons rules - that state that the burden of proof is on you. S, maybe you should be banned for that? As I have explained before my deleted images were all reported by the sockpuppet account, whose essentially only purpose for deletion was to reinstate your copyrighted screencaps. So, idk why you mentioned that. Why not mention yourself posting copyrighted content on commons?
You accuse me of " bludgeoning" by "tendency to leave walls upon walls of text", but this is what your post is - a whole of text. Unlike you, in my posts I always include all the sources and quote the relevant bits from those sources - that's the only reason my posts are "long" - not to drown out others' comments in the discussion - it's not against wiki rules afaik for your posts to be long or to use formatting to highlight important points of your posts, especially when they are long. "Someone used bold text - let's block them! - this is your logic?" Once again, if you can just provide me with SOURCE (this is all I am ever asking - which according to you is uncivil) where it's against wikipedia rules and it's a blockable offense? Why is it possible to format text in the first place here then? You're literally the one assuming the bad faith here. Another user actually just taught me today that "tq" code is preferred to be used on talk pages when quoting stuff, etc..to make the text green. I would've used that instead of other format had I known it about it.If you weren't so happy with my text formatting - you couldn't taught me that - instead you assumed bad faith.
I personally find it easier to read formatted & highlighted text than a wall of unformatted, humogonous text. Or when people directly provide relevant pieces of info from sources, instead of just linking the source, where one then has to go at look hunt it for themselves. Not to mention, you never say what was factually incorrect in what I have said regarding copyrights.
Occisors ought to be blocked from Commons until they have demonstrated a willingness not to engage in behavior which stifles discussion I have constantly demonstrated that... your literal examples of me being "uncivil" etc. are of me asking people to provide sources to back up their opinion.
And most the discussion examples you use here are of me and the sockpuppet account, who's been vandalizing the page in question to promote their biased opinions without any sources. So, I was correct to call them out on their self-admitted biased behavior and that they may be a sockpuppet (which they were). Occisors (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Occisors: You can make your arguments on copyright violations, I have no issue with debating this matter. If you convince me the file is indeed a copyright violation, I will indeed support its deletion. I have never shied away from ordering my own files deleted due to what I later discovered to be copyright violating content.
Indeed I did agree that at least two files from the deletion nomination you started should remain deleted as they were found to be Reuters footage. However, from my own personal research, I found that at least some of the video did contain original NBC News footage, which is the only part I requested to be kept.
My concern is not with your arguments but with your conduct throughout all of this. You can make a request to delete a file without falsely and baselessly accusing me of lying, being a sockpuppet, or bias. You have already accused both me and Trade of being sockpuppets simply for disagreeing with you. I have seen recently you have gone back on making your text larger in arguments, which I consider a positive development, however you need to stop with accusations and personal attacks in the arguments you make.
If you agree to this, there will be no further problem. Indeed, if admins find the content I uploaded to be inadmissible and delete it, I will not relitigate the matter any further. I have already provided my reasoning for why it should be kept and I have no more arguments to rehash. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 16:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

DrtheHistorian

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
I am glad we could clear things up. DrtheHistorian (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Not done Thanks for resolving of the issue. Yann (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Moryni

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

@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)Reply
✓ Done Blocked for spamming. Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yann

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

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 [11] It does not specify the year the photo was taken. The man was a member of the Polish parliament until 2001. [12] [13] [14]. 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)Reply

 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)Reply

User:Elcobbola and long-term abuse

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply
Blarneyuj, please provide a link of where this is happening so we can investigate. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
It just says so right here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Elcobbola Blarneyuj (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ 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)Reply
Yet another LTA wasting our time. Elcobolla did fine. Bedivere (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Angelodealgostini

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

 Not done. Only one copyvio during 6 years. Not enough for block. Taivo (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
por favor quero excluir esse aquivos que foram upload Angelodealgostini (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:AlexandreAssatiani

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

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)Reply

✓ Done Blocked indef. Two files deleted. I guess all files need review. Yann (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done. I deleted 11 more files and 2 now-empty categories. Taivo (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Federigo Federighi

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

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)Reply

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

User:Tokugawa Sinai

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

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)Reply

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

User:邵成鑫1007

[edit]
Latest comment: 23 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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

Uploads by User:Artinpl

[edit]
Latest comment: 17 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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: [15] [16] [17]

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)Reply

 Support, as the user was already blocked twice.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Pedu0303 overwriting uploads with AI retouched versions

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=1163017059"