Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems
Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
128, 127, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
- Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
- Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (
~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp. - Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s).
{{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~is available for this. - It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
- Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
Uploads by Fabe56
[edit]Fabe56 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
I happened upon a very large number of uploads by Fabe56, and became intrigued. I was looking at File:05Puffing Billy Novem 2011 (6317817690).jpg, and, setting the date aside, saw it as a minor child privacy issue, so dug further. In November 2011 that child was circa six years old. Today, at circa 20, that exact problem has evaporated. Even at date of upload at circa 18, that problem was borderline. I hasten to say that Fabe56 is very unlikely to be the person who uploaded the picture to Flickr. This is not about child privacy as you will see when you read on.
.jpg){kind=link}
I investigated other files uploaded by Fabe56. I found that they seem to have started to acquire files from Flickr in 2023 in bulk. They use #flickr2commons. An example is File:Bored (53152633849).jpg by a different Flickr contributor from the prior file. Scanning through a subset of their uploads I found many different files on many different topics, with the issues including:
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- The great majority of the files are not used anywhere (certainly those I have sample checked)
- I could find none actually created as originals by Fabe56
- They are uploaded from properly licenced files contributed to Flickr by multiple uploaders
- Many have filenames that have no value in identifying then, likely scraped uncritically from Flickr with those names
- Some are placed in categories. One example is Category:While42 SF No 10 which appear to have no value (again created by Fabe56), a subcat of a hierarchy created in isolation, the top level cat being Category:While42. http://while42.org may be the organisation associated with this, but what use is this to Commons? I was led down this rabbit hole by File:DSC 7555 (13052613053).jpg. This is but one such rabbit hole
- I do not believe the files, almost certainly the great majority of the huge number, meet Commons:Project scope; I suggest that there is no educational value
.jpg){kind=link}
I consulted Túrelio as an experienced admin here, at User talk:Túrelio § An enormous cache of personal pictures and received the advice that has led me here.
In this diff I asked Fabe56 "Your activity is immense. I see you have been here a long time, long enough to amass a significant picture archive. I am curious so have a question for you.
How are the great majority of the files congruent with COM:SCOPE, please?
" so far without reply, though they have been active since I asked the question.
My feeling is that Fabe56's uploads have been to create an enormous hoard of pictures for personal use without the ability to justify them against our project scope. With, currently, 202,108 uploads performed by Fabe56 this is well beyond my ability to even consider handling. Thus I am here to alert those who may have a toolkit to look at this and to require a rationale from Fabe56 for this enormous project they have been working on. I believe AN/U will get an answer even if I will not, and I know that admins here will know how to handle this. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 23:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Collapsing bulk of early discussion, leaving initial problem statement visible
|
|---|
|
Propose restricting ability to upload
[edit] Uploader blocked form uploading
|
|---|
|
There appears historically to be no way of engaging with Fabe56.
Thus we need to attract their attention in order to seek to resolve the mass uncritical uploading of files. Until they enter into a dialogue that reaches a satisfactory conclusion, something that may be set by consensus, I propose a block on at least the use of mass upload tools, and, if consensus here decides, a block on uploads. These blocks may have a different duration.
|
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I blocked Fabe56 from uploading files for 3 months. Hopefully they will get the message. Further block can be sent whenever needed. Yann (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
How does the huge number of files get sorted out?
[edit]I see two options, assuming lack of engagement:
- We ignore them. 'disk space is cheap'(!)
- We start quietly nominating batches for deletion.
Thoughts would be appreciated. Is there an admin action that can be implemented to handle the obvious candidates unilaterally without a DR, for example? 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 11:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hopefully Fabe56 will do something. Otherwise, an indefinite block should be sent. Yann (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed! I am assuming worst case, though. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Why would you assume that when someone clearly stated that they have seen Fabe56 curating their uploads[1]? Nakonana (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think a plan needs to be formulated. They have been absent from Commons since 29 January and everywhere else since 30 January 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 12:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- They remain absent 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 05:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hello,
- Sorry, I didn't have access to the Internet. I will try to revert all my contributions to Wikimedia Commons. It will take time for sure, but it seems to be the best solution, as I don't want to offend anyone.
- I personnaly really regret that collaboration is not really an integral part of this project, but that fine no worries ;-)
- Sorry again. Fabe56 (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Fabe56 Collaboration is a two way street. You are meant to act collegially with uploads, and not simply blast them here uncritically. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- They remain absent 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 05:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed! I am assuming worst case, though. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hopefully Fabe56 will do something. Otherwise, an indefinite block should be sent. Yann (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Fabe56 On 18 February you said
I will try to revert all my contributions to Wikimedia Commons. It will take time for sure, but it seems to be the best solution, as I don't want to offend anyone.
, however, you have edited here since that time - Special:Contributions/Fabe56 - and I cannot see any indication that you have started the process of the massive clear up. Instead it seems you are carrying on almost as though nothing is happening, except that you are blocked from uploading files. - With precision, please, what is your plan and what is your timetable? 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 11:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Timtrent,
- I feel foolish, but once again, I apologize for completely misunderstanding the issue. I thought it only concerned my uploads...
- I didn't realize that other contributions were also causing problems. I am therefore stopping my contributions here as of now, this being my last one.
- Please remember that I am a volunteer and doing this to improve and not destroyed the project. I have no idea how I am going to proceed and how I will manage my time for those tasks. So how long it will take me to undo ALL my contributions: probably years, with 387,223 edits, which means at least 1 minute per edit to undo.
- Keep in mind this is not pleasant and motivating to destroy works that I (wrongly but sincerally) thought were valuable.
- Thank you. Fabe56 (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Fabe56 This discussion is about your enormous quantity of uploads, uploaded uncritically en masse.
- I agree. When I checked you has 202,108 uploads. Some of these will be of genuine benefit to Wikimedia Commons. However, it appears that the great majority have been uploaded mechanically, with no evidence of thought about why they have been chosen, and no useful categorisation afterwards. I accept that you uploaded them in good faith, believing that you were enhancing the project. The real outcome is that you have created a large logistical challenge, both for yourself and for others.
- I suggest that there may be tools only accessible to administrators to assist with clearing the enormous pile, and that you ask for administrative help. This is especially important, since only administrators can delete files
- Let me look at four recent examples taken from yur upload log om 28 January 2026:
- None is COM:INUSE, none has a useful filename, none is categorised.
- Yes, it is likely to feel disheartening. I can do nothing about that. It is disheartening to have had to bring the matter here. I tried to engage with you on your user talk page to save the need to come here, but here we are, and you are blocked from uploading. I recognise that this all disrupts your hobby, but solving the problem is part of that hobby.
- So I ask you again, With precision, please, what is your plan and what is your timetable? 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 14:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Fabe56 You are active on Wikidata, and have been for several days, despite needing to contribute here, to this discussion. You will have seen the pings. As time passes without your providing input into methodology removal of files my own good faith is starting to decay. I am concluding that you have no plan, no timetable. Convince me, convince us that you are going to contribute here, please.
- Yann removed your ability to upload files here. That is a very simple block, and is to prevent further abuses of uploading privileges. Lack of engagement with solving this self created problem may result in wider blocks (0.9 probability).
- Continuing with editing other projects without a positive contribution here would be easy to construe as a lack of interest in helping clear up behind yourself. Please do not bury your head in the sand. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 10:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am drawing the conclusion from their user page that Fabe56 has withdrawn from Commons, and will not assist in any way with the cleanup. I draw no inference from their user talk page; their habit is to archive 100% periodically.
- It is now up to the rest of us to clean house. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 08:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have left a message at User talk:Fabe56 § I think you may have retired from Commons for the moment which I hope will encourage them to continue here, and in the hope of ameliorating their stress assuming that has arisen from here.
- I hope we will have their input to the formulation of a plan to seek to identify and compartmentalise those to retain from those to remove. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 10:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Recent DRs have lowered the vast nukes of files by a couple of hundred. This has menat real work for a number of people. I feel we need an administrative approach to purging many of these files. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have made some more small progress today. Unfortunately the progress is 100% manual. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 12:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Recent DRs have lowered the vast nukes of files by a couple of hundred. This has menat real work for a number of people. I feel we need an administrative approach to purging many of these files. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
What is available to help to solve this?
[edit]We have a major difficulty expressed by Fabe56 in the segment above. They seem to be ready and willing to solve this issue that they have created, but express doubts on their ability do do so, and in a timely manner. I have paraphrased. If I need correction I am happy to receive it.
The idea of creating DRs for (say) 100 at a time means an enormous number of DRs and a lot of work for a lot of people, coupled with "DR Fatigue" for the community. I have seen admins perform bulk deletes before. @Yann: : As the blocking admin I wonder if you have thoughts on how they may be assisted by one or more admins to get rid of the files that meet any of the conditions for removal, including:
- Named with names that are insufficiently descriptive to allow them to be retrieved and used
- Not sorted into any categorisation scheme that is of use to Commons
- Not COM:INUSE in any valid and meaningful way
- Duplicates or near duplicates of each other
- in some manner 'out of scope' for Commons
- Form part of a personal picture library, something that Commons may not be used for
It is likely that some of the >200,000 uploads will be useful to Commons even if they fail one of more of these suggested conditions for removal. I am unsure that time will be well spent by trying to determine that. obviously I am just asking Yann as blocking admin. I do not seek to restrict this conversation to them alone. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 18:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- If some of these should be batch DRs (files with clearly parallel reasons to be deleted), it is pretty easy to use VFC to set up a batch DR. More or less, the process is:
- If they are in a given category, or can be found with a given search, you use that category/search to launch VFC. Note that is is fine if not everything in the category/search should be DR'd: within VFC, you can be selective.
- In VFC, set your action to "Nominate for deletion"
- I think the rest of it is pretty obvious.
- Similarly, if a search will find files that can be batch-categorized, Cat-a-lot is very useful for that.
- Not being in use is not a reason for any action; it is just that being in use is a reason to keep almost anything that is not CSAM, a copyright violation, or unacceptable AI-generated content.
- Presumably those should help whittle things down to something more tractable. Obviously, bad names and duplicates typically have to be dealt with one by one (the only major exception being that if there is a pattern of renaming, admins have a tool for that).
- - Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- There are 202,108 files. I have made a trivial start. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fabe56 See the current last discussion on the page. This is just 24 files and will take years. I use VFC. This is a batch DR. It is easy to do the first few. Then you have to scroll south and wait for the screen to fill. DRs take a finite time. So this DR is an example of the futility of this approach.
- Maybe I should try all 202,108 in one go (not a serious suggestion, I have no intention of doing something so patently disruptive). This will take a task force to solve. I do not believe DRs to be the way to go here. That was my first and likely last on this set of uploads. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- If there is no search that easily finds them, and the only way you can find them is to go through the user uploads, you can use Cat-a-Lot to stick a maintenance category on them, then use VFC to nominate them for deletion (and then, ideally, strip the maintenance category). But I sure do wish that the selection methods for our various tools were coded separately from the actions they take, so we could mix and match. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- I suspect someone who knows how can write a query to achieve it. It's not that there's any rush, except it would be good to tidy this up more than somewhat while we're all still alive(!).
- Even if the query split them into maintenance cats containing 100 or so each (based on sane criteria) that would make the task possible, albeit imperfect. Doing any of this manually is where madness lies. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 02:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- If there is no search that easily finds them, and the only way you can find them is to go through the user uploads, you can use Cat-a-Lot to stick a maintenance category on them, then use VFC to nominate them for deletion (and then, ideally, strip the maintenance category). But I sure do wish that the selection methods for our various tools were coded separately from the actions they take, so we could mix and match. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: In past years, I have used one temp category Category:Jefftemp to assist categorizing files found with searches and whatnot, and then nominated them from there to subsections of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jefftemp. Doing it directly from the searches could be cleaner; good luck with that. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. I agree, but I do not have the IT literacy myself to create any form of search. Nor, yet, do we have agreed criteria to try to ensure we do not destroy a useful resource while removing files that are not useful to Commons. Some of my bulleted items in this section look to be likely criteria, others of them need to be modified or discarded. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 21:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
The uploads are so numerous it's hard to actually evaluate at what rate the files are in scope, categorized, and named. It's worth noting Fabe56 isn't even in the top 50 most prolific uploaders here, and categorization for any batch that doesn't come with structured data is a persistent problem we could use better guidelines for. Certainly I'd like to see tighter restrictions on f2c and some auditing of new users' transfers so we avoid getting to this point.
If issues truly run through all of their uploads, I don't know that actually tagging and listing all of them at DR is reasonable, and can probably be handled through some other avenue. But I don't know that it's true that they run through all of their uploads. Here's what I'd like to know: Fabe56 could you provide an estimate for what % of uploads you think are categorized, the % that likely have a useful name, and the % that are likely in-scope? If you agree you may have gone overboard with some of the uploads, would you like some time to go back through them? I don't see a need to just delete everything if you think many/most are fine, or if you want some time to investigate. Since they're transferred from Flickr, I suspect just evaluating account-by-account rather than file-by-file may be the most efficient approach, then you can say "yes files transferred from this account are probably out of scope" or "files transferred from this account are useful and I'll work on categorizing/renaming". — Rhododendrites talk | 02:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites Your approach seems eminently reasonable. It also makes sure that Fabe56 does not feel the enormity of the task, since your thinking lightens the load significantly. Since they have been active on Wikidata this morning I have every hope that they will have seen your ping and will wish to start engaging with this process. I know they will wish to have their uploading block removed, and I know they uploaded in good faith, believing their actions to be positive. I continue to assume their good faith, and I have faith in them. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 12:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hello,
- It would be nice to stop using words that I haven't used. I respect the authorities and the decisions made here, I have never contested them, I have never fought against these choices!
- I never express the wish to have my uploading block removed. It's not up to me to decide.
- @Rhododendrites, I was working on categorization, modifying and renaming my uploads, but I was also asked to stop all my edits. I am well aware that I cannot manage everything on my own, but many editors also help me refine them, etc. That's what I liked about Commons, the fact that we helped each other to improve the information collected.
- Anyway, I'm sorry to leave such a mess, but I really don't want to fight. I don't have the energy for that right now.
- Goodbye. Fabe56 (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Fabe56 You are perfectly entitled to categorise. The only edits you are precvented from making are uoploads
- To be clear, your message is capable of being interpreted as "I am walking away from the mess, do whatever you like." Is that your intention? If it is not, please state your intention. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 13:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have opened a dialogue with KylieTastic on their Commons talk page. I have chosen not to ping them and distract them. I've asked them about the formulation of useful queries to seek to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. They hope, but cannot promise, to look at this over the weekend. There is, of course, no deadline.
- We need a consensus on what to remove and what to keep, and I am not yet sure what that consensus might be, nor, quite, how to reach it. We need to assume that the uploader will not help.. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 17:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Question However, see this diff, whcih may make life simpler. However, are user requests not time limited based upon upload date? 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 17:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Possibly part of a strategy for moving this forward: have a bot tag all of Fabe56's uploads with a template that indicates that it needs (1) name review, (2) category review, (3) description review. Make sure the template is designed to facilitate batch removals of any one of those independent of the other. So if the template were, for example, {{Fabe56 uploads needing review|name=1|category=1|description=1}}, it would be easy using VFC and regular expressions to remove "name=1" and "category=1" from all Fabe56 uploads in Category:While42 SF No 10 (since I believe these now have acceptable names). The 3 resulting (large) maintenance categories of what needs each kind of review would be much more tractable than working directly from Special:ListFiles/Fabe56.
This would help prevent different people who are working on this from redundantly checking the same files. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- That makes a great deal of sense 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 13:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I have created a discussion on the underlying issues at Commons:Village pump/Technical § Exploratory: Handling the uploading of images better to which I hope there will be many contributions 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 13:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
From the linked diff above and the responses here, I get the sense that Fabe56 does not intend to fix any of this, which is disappointing, but also I can empathize with their frustration at the prospect of such a large task. Given it's so much faster to copy from Flickr en masse than to do the hard work of evaluating, describing, naming, and categorizing each photo, that puts us in a tough spot. We should have higher standards for use of bulk uploading tools IMO, but for now, from a damage control perspective, here's one possible approach (similar to what I suggested Fabe56 could do): I created a quarry query here that groups their uploads by most frequent category in order to try to take a Flickr stream-level view of the issues. Presumably poorly named files and out of scope files would often be grouped by such categories, and it seems more efficient rather than scroll through uploads in reverse chronological order. — Rhododendrites talk | 13:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikiuser829
[edit]Wikiuser829 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Continues to upload copyvios despite being asked multiple times and by multiple users not to. The last report went unattended. I explained the user at Revision #1160293930 about parliament related violation only to come back and see new uploads with the same violation. The user was previously blocked in Nov 2023 for 1 week for uploading unfree files after warnings. Talk page (and) archives are full of deletion notices and various warnings served multiple times and by multiple users. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging @Yann (blocking admin previously) just so this thread doesn't die unattended like the previous one. Shaan SenguptaTalk 18:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan SenguptaTalk 10:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC) DarkWorld305
[edit]- User: DarkWorld305 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Unretracted personal attacks in Special:Diff/904191273/904540701. Continued resistance to: the use of C2 and Cfd; and completion of DR requirements, as in Special:Diff/1173934203.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Comment the "unretracted personal attack" is from July 2024, over 18 months ago, so it is at most background here. For the more recent thing, I'm not sure what you are saying is wrong with nominating an empty category for a CfD; I'd probably have just speedied it myself. If this is all there is (an insult 18 months ago, and starting a CfD where the could have just nominated for speedy deletion), it doesn't seem like an admin issue. - Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Not done per Jmabel. I deleted one incorrectly named redirect. Taivo (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
رضا سلیمانی ۲۳۷۷
[edit]- User: رضا سلیمانی ۲۳۷۷ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Edit warring to impose a speedy deletion request on the non-obvious case File:Portrait of Ruhollah Khomeini By Ali Kaveh.jpg with an incorrect template, even after the deletion discussion has started (thus hiding the discussion from the file page).
GrandEscogriffe (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Marinaio56
[edit]- User: Marinaio56 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Made malformed Special:Permalink/1174579097 edit after not responding to a level 4 warning from 22 December 2025 about DR problems using vetted {{DR problem warning}}.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- WHEN i made the download of the picture i didn't know that the picture must be before 1976 Marinaio56 (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Marinaio56: That is not responsive to my report. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Marinaio56: is something preventing you from using the normal "Nominate for deletion" tool? It consistently creates correctly formed nominations for deletion. Yes, in theory it is possible to do the whole process by hand, but the permalink above suggests that you ar not good at doing this by hand. - Jmabel ! talk 05:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Alex Neman problematic uploads
[edit]Alex Neman (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Hi, can an admin please take a look at Alex Neman's creepy uploads of back of people i.e. this, this for example. I also believe that he has had numerous of similar images nominated for deletion before. It seems he can't understand why his behaviour is allowed. I don't want to say anything much, but I have friends who have partners and these pictures can be interpreted as creepy (i'm single), and falls short of COM:SCOPE. LuvsMG481 (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yep here's another one - this one is definitely creepy, photographing someone from behind while sitting without consent is not on --LuvsMG481 (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Alex Neman: Uploading photos of people's hair and backs from behind without their consent is not OK. Kindly cease and desist from such uploads. See also COM:PHOTOCONSENT. Note that this is after your three previous blocks. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) needs to be indefinite, or just ban him like they did on the Enwp for sockpuppetry. Alex Neman how would you like it if anyone took a picture of your family member without your consent and publish it? Lucky had it not been a friend of mine, or there would have been problems, that being the police would have been called for stalking and harassment, its a criminal offence --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Next time I don't want to upload rear view images of people again... I will focus on uploading automobile images... While waiting for 6 months to request unblock my main Wikipedia account... Alex Neman (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Alex Neman, There are several concerns that need to be addressed regarding your past conduct on Wikipedia. Your use of multiple IPs created confusion and led to other editors being wrongly suspected of sockpuppetry, which caused real disruption within the community. The ban from English Wikipedia reflects the seriousness of those actions. If you are now seeking understanding or sympathy, it’s important to acknowledge the impact your behaviour had on others. From what has been observed, the behaviour was harmful, and recognising that fully is an essential step toward rebuilding trust.. See this this this this. I have so much diffs, but i've got so much more than dealing with this madness. For wikipedia sockpuppeting, banned, edit warring, block evasion, similar behaviour to this, this. I have so much more --LuvsMG481 (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Next time I don't want to upload rear view images of people again... I will focus on uploading automobile images... While waiting for 6 months to request unblock my main Wikipedia account... Alex Neman (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) needs to be indefinite, or just ban him like they did on the Enwp for sockpuppetry. Alex Neman how would you like it if anyone took a picture of your family member without your consent and publish it? Lucky had it not been a friend of mine, or there would have been problems, that being the police would have been called for stalking and harassment, its a criminal offence --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Alex Neman: Uploading photos of people's hair and backs from behind without their consent is not OK. Kindly cease and desist from such uploads. See also COM:PHOTOCONSENT. Note that this is after your three previous blocks. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done Considering that Alex Neman was warned and blocked before, that these images are out of scope, even if the subjects consent, and even more out of scope if they do not, or if these are AI-generated, so blocked indef. I deleted the images I found among the 1000 first of his uploads. Yann (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- This needs a permission from Cinta Laura Kiehl, right? Yann (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yann. Yeah 100%. I take selfies with a lot of my friends... if i wanted to upload them on here I would ask their consent and only for realistic use. Absolutely 100%. I maybe send selfies to some close friends here and there, but I certainly would not upload for the whole world to see. For example, I personally know Adam Gilchrist personally, his son is one of my friends and if i wanted to take a selfie with Adam, I would not upload on Commons without seeking his consent first. I have two friends who are famous sportspeople - same reason --LuvsMG481 (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yann one more for you to delete please. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done. Alex Neman requested to shorten his block so that it will last 3 months and I granted that, adding a strong warning. Taivo (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Taivo, Yann. Here are a few more of Alex Neman's rear view of women again. Also can anyone please check Neman's logo uploads please, i've gotta feeling they may not be suitable for commons and also the selfies with the celebrities. There's so much more lurking and giving him a second chance imo was not suitable, because he will likely repeat, like he did with the IPs to edit Wikipedia when he was banned over there. It could be likely he might create a new account to circumvent the block like he did on enwp. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- I deleted some logos. Taivo (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done Files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Taivo, Yann. Here are a few more of Alex Neman's rear view of women again. Also can anyone please check Neman's logo uploads please, i've gotta feeling they may not be suitable for commons and also the selfies with the celebrities. There's so much more lurking and giving him a second chance imo was not suitable, because he will likely repeat, like he did with the IPs to edit Wikipedia when he was banned over there. It could be likely he might create a new account to circumvent the block like he did on enwp. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yann one more for you to delete please. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yann. Yeah 100%. I take selfies with a lot of my friends... if i wanted to upload them on here I would ask their consent and only for realistic use. Absolutely 100%. I maybe send selfies to some close friends here and there, but I certainly would not upload for the whole world to see. For example, I personally know Adam Gilchrist personally, his son is one of my friends and if i wanted to take a selfie with Adam, I would not upload on Commons without seeking his consent first. I have two friends who are famous sportspeople - same reason --LuvsMG481 (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- This needs a permission from Cinta Laura Kiehl, right? Yann (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
,_Dyandra_Convention_Center,_Central_Surabaya_03.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped_2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
Harold Foppele
[edit]Harold Foppele and socks are now globally locked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Harold Foppele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have copyright and/or scope issues with almost all of his uploads. Their only uses seem to be in illustrating his writings on en.wikiversity, which have serious issues of their own. (Note his page-creation block on enwiki for repeatedly creating bad articles.) At this point, I think a complete block from uploading is needed unless he can display substantially better judgement and understanding of Commons policies.
- He doesn't understand that images published elsewhere are automatically copyrighted, and thinks users can "agree to disagree" about that. He claims false PD licenses on a number of images, including copyvios (Sample-Based Diagonalization.png, File:Predicting-new-quantum.jpg) and falsely claiming PD licenses on CC-BY images (File:Quamtum Computer v.s. Classic computer.png, File:Quantum network Illustration of a generic quantum network composed of network nodes, repeater nodes, link nodes,.jpg). He falsely claims own work for some images like HP7906B.jpg.
- Many uploads have other issues such as severe pixelization not present in the source, incorrect date information, and incorrect source/author information. File:Variational Quantum Algorithms - From Theory to NISQ-Era.png is an example with all three problems.
- Many uploads are AI-generated with blatant errors; they often don't even illustrate the concept they claim to. See for example File:The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with colors and diagram.jpg (which has weird artifacts on the equations and two graphics that don't actually illustrate the uncertainty principle), File:Lindblad equation ( Markovian ).png with a hilariously bad watch, and File:Quantum teleportatie en verstrengeling hulpbron.png that looks fancy but doesn't actually communicate anything. His responses at this DR indicate to me that he doesn't actually understand the images he uploads or why they are often incoherent. With File:Quantum Machine Learning.png, for example, he didn't notice blatant misspellings and duplicated text until I filed a DR.
- Some of his uploads seem to be about subjects he has invented entirely. For example, File:An infographic illustrates ultrafast laser pulses.png plus the deleted files File:Rontosecond pulse laser (Schematic).jpg and File:Rontosecond pulse laser (Futuristic).jpg all discuss rontosecond-timescale lasers, a concept that appears nowhere but his writings.
- Other (mostly AI-generated uploads) are technically INUSE, but only because he has inserted them into his Wikiversity writings. Decorative images with no real scientific basis such as File:Quantum Mechanics.jpg, File:Artist impression of Quantum internet.png, and File:Artistic impression of an atom 4.png (which he made in 12 different colors) have no actual educational value and are outside the scope of Commons.
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think what can be agreed upon is that they either do not understand or choose not to understand the basic laws and principles of copyright, despite my strenuous attempts to advise them of this. I would provide diffs (here, enWiki and Wikversity), but there are too many. They are co-operative, friendly, but their actions do not demonstrate an understanding of our needs here, however often they are told what those needs are.
- The AI 'whimsy' likely has a value on Wikiversity and nowhere else, so should be uploaded there and reside there. It has no generalised educational use, and is thus out of the general Commons scope. Where it is generated by others it is likely their copyright. Where generated by the uploader it is stated by knowledgeable editors to be only broadly rooted in facts, thus the educational value is speculative rather than authoritative. In neither case is it suitable to remain here. Wikiversity is the correct upload site for this material, but it must be correctly licenced there by the originator in order to upload it there, or their Doctrine of Fair Use must be met
- On Wikiversity I have no issue with unusual AI (etc) generated non factual images because they may be used within the material on Wikiversity. I have an issue with their being on Commons, whose scope is educational and factual.
- Uploads of images of people appears to have ceased, though File:Afbeelding van WhatsApp op 2025-10-09 om 14.24.30 c4fcdf06.jpg remains. I thought I had nominated it for SD previously and have done so now, on the simple basis that the uploader is unlikely to be the owner of the copyright
Support I am minded towards this being a single, final, authoritative warning, with a possible limited term block on uploading to attract their concentration, requiring a commitment not to misuse Commons in any manner. Any future misuse should trigger an indefinite upload block. Also the images need to be removed from Commons correctly. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)- Support. I already gave him a final warning for copyright violations three days ago. Not understanding that we don't accept content newly uploaded to Pexels and Unsplash is a big red flag. CIR. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Please take into account that the person behind this account is 80 years of age. --Túrelio (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Not yet confirmed, but there may also be some sockpuppetry involved - details at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Harold Foppele. Omphalographer (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I've opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Atoms Artist Impression, as I think that these presumed AI graphics aren't legitimately used on Wikiversity, per wikiversity:Wikiversity:Verifiability. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- I evaluated the situation, and it is clear that @Harold Foppele uploaded images that violated copyrights. I see @Jeff G.'s final warning, despite the warning he is continuing to defend himself by writing, "Hi, as you can see in the comments, this image is widly spread over the internet.".
- To sum up, a block is definitely needed to make him take copyright rules seriously. According to his user page, I see that he is 80 years old, so I am refraining from an indefinite block.
- I am blocking him for a month. If the SPI case were to become closed with CU confirmation, feel free to take further actions. Kadı Message 19:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Kadı: Perhaps that could be extended past the end of his wikibreak. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Kyliec338
[edit]Could an admin take a look at files recently uploaded by Kyliec338? Many of them appear to re-uploads or files previously deleted lacking permission of for being a copyright violation. This user has been uploading photos of en:Maria Kulikovska and her works both to Commons and locally to English Wikipedia as COM:Own work, and all of them have ended up being deleted for a lack of permisison or some other reason. The user has never stated they're Kulikovska; so, it's not clear why they're claiming everything they upload to be "own work". The EXIF data from some of the files upload is similar to the that of a Facebook image, but again there's nothing provided as source information that would aid in verifying that (and any type of license). -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly, files deleted. Final warning sent to @Kyliec338. Done. Kadı Message 22:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look at this Kadı. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
User:Everyonesvisa
[edit]User repeatedly violates WP:TPO by removing, altering, and moving other people's comments, as can be seen here and also here. The first example is especially severe because it explicitly interferes with consensus building on a protected file talk page during an open discussion. Furthermore it happened knowingly because the user has already been politely informed about the policy. The file in question was previously protected for a month due to edit warring, initiated by the same user.
I therefore ask that the account is temporarily blocked from editing due to these multiple and intentional violations. Vinokurov Demis (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know all of Wikipedia's numerous rules. I was aware of the deletion rules, but I didn't realize that moving a post also violated the rules. In any case, I apologize for that. Everyonesvisa (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Everyonesvisa: while we allow a little more leeway than Wikipedia (e.g. it's usually considered OK here to fix an obvious spelling error) these were way over the line.
- I don't think we need a sanction at this time; this discussion here certainly counts as a strong, clear warning. Everyonesvisa: I strongly suggest that until you have a lot more sense of what is and isn't OK in this respect, don't edit other people's talk page (or similar) comments at all. If something needs to be cleaned up in that respect, let someone else do it, because if you get it wrong, after what you did here no one is going to cut you any slack. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
User:Sameforyou
[edit]This user is a known sock-master/sockpuppeteer of Wikipedia, Truthfindervert. It seems they have started disrupting Wikimedia Commons. See them disrupting the following file by removing its description and uploading many croppings: File:The Sikh Empire according to contemporary maps and sources 1842~.png
Sockpuppet archive on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Truthfindervert/Archive
They have targetted other users' media uploads on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia articles in-order to push their changes on Wikipedia, although they are difficult to understand due to their strange usage of the English-languages. They tend to harrass other user (myself included), see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ficus_virens_tree_located_near_the_entrance_of_the_Rai_Bahadur_Kalyan_Singh_Charitable_Trust_in_Amritsar,_Punjab,_India,_8_April_2023.jpg&action=history
Their tell-tale sign is incomprehensible, gobbledygook edit summaries.They somehow also found a social-media account of mine last year and started harassing me on it as well. May this user be banned and the pages protected from them? MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- @MaplesyrupSushi: I semi-protected the 2 files you linked above, but I can't see any mention of Sameforyou in the SPI you mention above. Yann (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann - But it is clear they are the same person if you analyze their edit summaries and topic-interests. They have a very unique manner of writing in their edit summaries. I will submit a separate SPI if needed. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done. The user is now globally locked. Taivo (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann - But it is clear they are the same person if you analyze their edit summaries and topic-interests. They have a very unique manner of writing in their edit summaries. I will submit a separate SPI if needed. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
User:BocaJuniors00
[edit]BocaJuniors00 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
This user uploaded the Goodyear logo to this site against its rules, and when I saw his talk page, I noticed he's had many images he posted deleted for similar reasons. I wonder if he will be blocked. The Goodyear logo he uploaded has been deleted. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Candidyeoman55: The file you are pointing out was uploaded 2 years ago. It doesn't make sense to take any measure if there is no disruptive behavior at the moment. Günther Frager (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. I added one more warning. Yann (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
User:Vanguard Man
[edit]Vanguard Man (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) repeatedly removes speedy deletion templates from files without addressing the issues. JaydenChao (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- The user also vandalized this report in Special:Diff/1176509132. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Jeff, it seems that Vanguard Man removed the warnings from their talk page. JaydenChao (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done. One week block for vandalism, plus I deleted speedily 3 uploads. Taivo (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Taivo: The user is aggressively removing warnings & notifications from his user talk page while blocked, which appears to be an abuse of TPA. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- None of the logos are own work as claimed. Barring the airport logos, I doubt any other would qualify as PD-text (I haven't checked all of them). Shaan SenguptaTalk 09:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done Blocked email & talk page use, blocked for a month. - Jmabel ! talk 19:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Jeff, it seems that Vanguard Man removed the warnings from their talk page. JaydenChao (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
User:Ike777j
[edit]User:Ike777j (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) has only inputted image in 2024 for Univah Pro and other compagnies. All images seems promotional and of unknown copyright status. An Administrator should review them.
Pierre cb (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done Several warnings sent, most files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
User:Hurricanehink
[edit]Hurricanehink (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) Being mean.~2026-14610-86 (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Rangeblocked the TA for block evasion, semi-protected User talk:Hurricanehink for a month. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
SHRI RAMDAYAL SINGH SOCIAL WORKER and ~2026-13508-78
[edit]- Users: SHRI RAMDAYAL SINGH SOCIAL WORKER (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) and ~2026-13508-78 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Continued introduction of oos content after warning. Unresponsiveness to posts on user talk page. Sweeping problems under the rug. Vandalism.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: I see one edit on 1 March 2026, and nothing after that. Do I miss anything? Yann (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- OK, I blocked the IP. Yann (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- OK, I blocked the IP. Yann (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to report both a file move performed by Yacàwotçã, which I believe should be brought up for attention here. Timeline is as follows:
- On 6 March Yacàwotçã uploaded File:March 2026 malicious script screenshot.jpg under the name File:Woodpecker10.jpg. The image in itself is a screenshot of a page that was suppressed, which is already inappropriate in itself; however, the filename "Woodpecker10.jpg" was also a file that was mass added to pages on Meta as part of automated edits during the March 2026 user script incident. Since all of the edits are still visible, and this image held that file name, all of the edits are showing this file, making this highly visible in these edits, which is even more inappropriate.
- On 7 March, the file was moved to the name "March 2026 malicious script screenshot.jpg", and the redirect "Woodpecker10.jpg" was subsequently deleted by Revi C. under G2.
- Despite all of this, on 8 March, Yacàwotçã moved the file and back again to recreate the redirect. The given rationale by Yacàwotçã for this was FR1 for the first move and FR2 for the second move. Since the move back to "March 2026 malicious script screenshot.jpg" happened one minute after the first move, it would be reasonable to assume that the move was done to re-create the redirect, rather than to create a name that actually describes the file ("woodpecker" isn't a description of the image).
I consider this overall inappropriate use of file mover rights and would like to bring this up for discussion. As for any conclusion to this I leave to the Commons community. EPIC (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- The name was initially chosen because it was the one of the inexistent image used by the attack and therefore how it might become known. The moves were made following the existing criteria. Respectfully, Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, and just adding: it wasn't suppressed, just deleted. @EPIC, please correct yourself. Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- The page was deleted regularly at first and was later suppressed. EPIC (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, sure, I don't speak Russian so I thought the log there was a deletion log, not a block one. Perhaps a DR should be opened in this case, but I surely wasn't expecting an AN topic due to a supposed "inappropriate use" of the FM rights, which I certainly disagree with. Nothing inappropriate here, wouldn't be much different if I simply re-created the redirect. Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- The script is malicious and therefore dangerous to our users and their systems. That it is currently embedded in an image but readily OCR-able from that image is immaterial. It should not be here, period. Please delete it forthwith, in all incarnations. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- The question is whether its spread can be stopped: the script is readily available on Reddit and the Wayback Machine. So what exactly would we achieve by deleting it here? It would just be a bit of a "out of sight out of mind" case, but not an actual "the script is gone for good" case. Nakonana (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- +1. For the record, part of the code is available here (RS?). I couldn't find the Reddit post where the code is supposedly available, and the Wayback Machine archive has been deleted, but not archive.today's (and I don't see them deleting it after they were—justifiably—expelled from enwiki). Yacàwotçã (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- The Wayback Machine archive is still there. Not sure whether I should post the link here though. The reddit thread is also still there, although the full script in that thread might only be available via the posted Wayback Machine link. However, there's also a post with an analysis of what the script does, and that analysis provides at least some snippets of the script. Nakonana (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- +1. For the record, part of the code is available here (RS?). I couldn't find the Reddit post where the code is supposedly available, and the Wayback Machine archive has been deleted, but not archive.today's (and I don't see them deleting it after they were—justifiably—expelled from enwiki). Yacàwotçã (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- The question is whether its spread can be stopped: the script is readily available on Reddit and the Wayback Machine. So what exactly would we achieve by deleting it here? It would just be a bit of a "out of sight out of mind" case, but not an actual "the script is gone for good" case. Nakonana (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Jeff here, but will allow time for a few others to weigh in. We should not be hosting malicious scripts.- Jmabel ! talk 20:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- The script is malicious and therefore dangerous to our users and their systems. That it is currently embedded in an image but readily OCR-able from that image is immaterial. It should not be here, period. Please delete it forthwith, in all incarnations. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, sure, I don't speak Russian so I thought the log there was a deletion log, not a block one. Perhaps a DR should be opened in this case, but I surely wasn't expecting an AN topic due to a supposed "inappropriate use" of the FM rights, which I certainly disagree with. Nothing inappropriate here, wouldn't be much different if I simply re-created the redirect. Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- The page was deleted regularly at first and was later suppressed. EPIC (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, and just adding: it wasn't suppressed, just deleted. @EPIC, please correct yourself. Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I blurred the script, and have hidden the old file. Yann (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Question: if what we have is basically a screenshot (in a very broad sense, given its shape) of code, how is that in scope any more than anything else that is essentially text? - Jmabel ! talk 01:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel I don't think an ANU thread is the best place to hash out if we should host the malicious code that caused the harm last week. (Sidebar: though a blurred copy almost certainly should be deleted as all it does us no good, and should only be kept if INUSE elsewhere) That should probably be an VPC or VPP thread. As to any possible sanctions for the file moves, I'm inclined to give a warning to check logs more carefully in the future and call it there. Thank you to Epic for bringing this to our attention. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Alachuckthebuck: agreed. Is there any admin who thinks the complaint about Yacàwotçã's conduct has merit? My take is that even if the moves may not have been ones we would all agree with, nothing here amounts to inappropriate use of filemover rights. Pretty much everyone with this right is going to make at least the occasional controversial file move, and I see nothing particularly egregious here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed, I don't see any admin issue here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Alachuckthebuck: agreed. Is there any admin who thinks the complaint about Yacàwotçã's conduct has merit? My take is that even if the moves may not have been ones we would all agree with, nothing here amounts to inappropriate use of filemover rights. Pretty much everyone with this right is going to make at least the occasional controversial file move, and I see nothing particularly egregious here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel I don't think an ANU thread is the best place to hash out if we should host the malicious code that caused the harm last week. (Sidebar: though a blurred copy almost certainly should be deleted as all it does us no good, and should only be kept if INUSE elsewhere) That should probably be an VPC or VPP thread. As to any possible sanctions for the file moves, I'm inclined to give a warning to check logs more carefully in the future and call it there. Thank you to Epic for bringing this to our attention. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
user:Cossrad
[edit]Cossrad (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Recent copyvios after the last warning, removes problem tags from files uploaded. Komarof (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- After what "the last warning"? You don't warn anyone; you nominate files, making up some kind of copyright violation, and you do not reply to the discussion page for these images. -- Cossrad (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- This one: User talk:Cossrad#Copyright violations, made in 2024. Re: you do not reply to the discussion page. Are you sure? Komarof (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sure. You haven't responded to any of my comments regarding deleting these files before this request even though the files clearly require discussion. Instead you immediately went to complain about me here instead of engaging in a substantive discussion. --Cossrad (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Moreover less than an hour passed from your request for deletion to writing a complaint here. -- Cossrad (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Judging by your second reply, you, albeit belatedly, managed to focus and notice that all your clearly unreliable responses on the discussion pages regarding possible regular file deletions were already answered by me before this request. But this request was submitted regarding files nominated for speedy deletion. Komarof (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- You've completely gone off topic. You wrote about "problem tags". This only concerns one file, the one I removed the tag from. I didn't remove anything from the others. It is a grievous affliction. Cossrad (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- In addition, discussions of deletion nominations take place on the deletion pages linked from the files, and not in the participant's discussion. -- Cossrad (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- You've completely gone off topic. You wrote about "problem tags". This only concerns one file, the one I removed the tag from. I didn't remove anything from the others. It is a grievous affliction. Cossrad (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Judging by your second reply, you, albeit belatedly, managed to focus and notice that all your clearly unreliable responses on the discussion pages regarding possible regular file deletions were already answered by me before this request. But this request was submitted regarding files nominated for speedy deletion. Komarof (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out to the administrators: this file ([2]) is not a derivative work. It was created entirely by me. This user, without discussing this with me or providing a link to the "original," is flagging the file for warning. And then submitting a request here. --Cossrad (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- But in fact, you stole it from here. Komarof (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- No. This is my own work. Cossrad (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Good movie. Submit a link to the problem file here and start a discussion about it after nominating it on the administrators' forum. -- Cossrad (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- But in fact, you stole it from here. Komarof (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- This one: User talk:Cossrad#Copyright violations, made in 2024. Re: you do not reply to the discussion page. Are you sure? Komarof (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saransk1958.png){kind=link}
---
To be short:
- File:Andrey Zvyagintsev 2023.jpg - false free license;
- File:Saransk1958.png - false own work claim, derivative of [3]. --Komarof (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Regarding the first file, I agree that it's a violation; I made a mistake by misreading the YouTube license. This file needs to be deleted. Regarding the second file, I disagree. -- Cossrad (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done Blocked for a week. One file deleted. Yann (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
This user has been making vexatious revenge nominations of my files (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toys R Us AI child.webp, Commons:Deletion requests/File:On This Day… 1776 George Washington.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:On This Day… 1776 ΛAMEREEDD.jpg) because I nominated some of their files for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Batalla de l'Aínsa.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lacuerco.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pero III Canigó.png). My files are unambiguously in scope because they’re screenshots from notable AI-generated works (On This Day… 1776 and an AI generated commercial by Toys R Us). Two of these files are COM:INUSE to illustrate those works; they are not inferior AI slop representations of something that could be illustrated without AI (like the files uploaded by Willtron) but are being used to discuss something that is almost entirely made by AI. In any case no matter the merits of the files targeted starting a tit-for-tat nomination war because you didn’t like that your files got nominated for deletion is just patently unacceptable conduct. Doing it once would have just been childish; doing it for four separate files without even bundling them is active disruption and harassment. Dronebogus (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- If you nominate someone's uploads on the basis of "If it’s AI it’s slop.", then you should have no surprise if they nominate your AI uploads too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- I haven’t debated that the files I uploaded are slop; the question is whether they’re notable slop. Willtron’s uploads are not notable, mine are. Dronebogus (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- You claim that your uploads are notable, Willtron's are merely illustrative.
- Yet this doesn't make any real difference. Your uploads are not notable (by our definitions of the term). They might illustrate a notable topic, they might even pass NFC (I think there's a good chance that one of them per topic would pass NFC for that). Yet neither of these are demonstrably notable topics (there are no WP articles on them), there has been no discussion as to whether they are, and in the absence of an article on each potential topic, they remain just that. "Notable film maker makes bad film" doesn't in itself make that film notable.
- Yet Willtron's images are illustrative of what are two clearly notable topics, with existing articles. That's certainly no less, and a lot more of real demonstration rather than a hypothetical, than your claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- I’m not discussing this with you any further, especially since this discussion is about Willtron’s behavior and not their or my uploads. I provided context to show that my original nominations were legitimate and Willtron’s nominations are not, but the point is that the timing and nature of the files nominated in both cases shows Willtron is doing it at least in part to get back at me. Dronebogus (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley as much as I hate AI generated images on commons, unless there's a copyright violation, we can't delete them if it's INUSE. the first link (the Toys R Us child) is INUSE on enwiki. the On This Day file is also INUSE on enwiki. weather or not it's AI slop is debateable, but it does serve a valid educational purpose. However, File:On This Day… 1776 ΛAMEREEDD.jpg is almost certainly not notable, is absolutely not INUSE, and isn't even clear. File:Batalla de l'Aínsa.png probably shouldn't be INUSE, but it is, and so can stay until it's removed. I think that Dronebogus should read wp:BOOMERANG, and not be crying foul when someone is using the same rationale as them to keep their AI files. Notability isn't the standard on commons, SCOPE is the standard. I think that both Dronebogus and Willtron should be prohibited from any kind of action on each other's files. 2 wrongs don't make a right. and while Willtron has filed the one and only valid DR mentioned in this case.
- Dronebogus: tit for tat nom wars are bad, but maybe don't use "it's INUSE, BUT I don't think it's as good as my not INUSE files" as a rationale in a DR. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- File:On This Day… 1776 ΛAMEREEDD.jpg illustrates the fairly blatant AI misgeneration issues in the series, which were highlighted and criticized in the media. It’s in scope. Dronebogus (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- I haven’t debated that the files I uploaded are slop; the question is whether they’re notable slop. Willtron’s uploads are not notable, mine are. Dronebogus (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Willtron's nominations are transparently retaliatory. Dronebogus's comments arguing that any AI="slop". It's a tempting pejorative to reach for when we don't see the value in something, and I'd argue that most AI-generated imagery can be considered slop (high-output, low-quality, questionable usefulness, interchangeable with countless others, etc.), but AI != slop automatically. I don't know why Andy is jumping in to argue over a Wikipedia-based concept like notability. On Commons, we have scope, and a screenshot (if the license details are ok) of a major film production, the subject of a ton of [negative, in this case] press, by a major Hollywood director, is pretty obviously in scope. Trouts aplenty and we can move on. — Rhododendrites talk | 17:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- It was Dronebogus who raised the question of notability, and who also claimed that his were and Willtron's aren't (which is also wrong). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites, While I think your analysis is spot on, I don't think your course of action is ideal. This is a known and reoccurring issue (just search "dronebogus" in the ANU archives) and I think some intervention would be prudent to avoid further disruption. IBAN's aren't used much on Commons, and I don't think it would be prudent to impose one here, but I do think a banning both of them from DR'ing each other's files would help prevent blocks and losing contributors. If it's uncontroversial, then someone else will file the DR, and I don't think letting them off with a slap on the wrist is in the best interests of the project. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don’t think even an Iban is needed; my nominations may not have been worded in the most tactful or intelligent way, but they were good faith and had nothing to do with the uploader; Willtron’s nominations could have been legitimate and good faith (that is to say, there’s nothing technically wrong with them even if I think they’re incorrect) if it wasn’t for overwhelming circumstantial evidence they were done only because I nominated Willtron’s AI generated images and Willtron did not take it well. This is clearly a case of w:wp:POINT making. I think Willtron needs a stern warning, and I could word by DRs a little better and not interfere with wikis in languages I don’t speak. We have not interacted before this incident so it’s not a longstanding problem; an Iban would not only be excessive but purely unnecessary. Dronebogus (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Dronebogus edit warring with editors of local Wikipedias
[edit]I was going to just leave a ping, assuming it was accidental, but I've now found two instances of Dronebogus going to Wikipedia projects to remove a file (which is not itself a problem) and then getting into an edit war with local editors over inclusion of the file. I appreciate the work to clean up AI-generated messes, but this is far too zealous and IMO wildly inappropriate. See Depersonalizasyon on trwiki and Burro-ambulância on ptwiki. I didn't even set out looking for these -- I was just curious about the INUSE arguments. Given these were two of the first three I checked just now, I'm guessing there are others. At minimum, I think a crystal clear warning is needed and a firm commitment to be very careful not to do this in the future. (Putting it in this subsection only because it's partly about Dronebogus, too, but no objection to moving it to its own heading at the bottom) — Rhododendrites talk | 17:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- A wrinkle, I thought I had found a third instance on hawiki, but now I see it is Dronebogus edit warring with Erik Baas, who also has no other edits on hawiki other than to get into this edit war. Ugh. Looking at the diffs above again, it looks like only the trwiki example was against local users, so still very inappropriate, but the ptwiki was edit warring against two Commons users again, in a proxy battle over AI imagery. :/ — Rhododendrites talk | 17:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- You’re right, I shouldn’t have edit warred, and I shouldn’t edit wikis where I can’t communicate my intent anyway. It was indeed zeal against AI slop overriding common sense. I won’t remove any images from wikis in languages I don’t speak from now on; on English wikis I don’t edit war anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus, This is not your first time at ANU for AI disputes, and honestly, I don't think it will be the last. This is really concerning, and short of banning you from commenting on or uploading AI images, I'm out of ideas as to how to separate you from this content area. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- When was the last time I was here for AI disputes, how many times was I here before, anc how many resulted in action? Dronebogus (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus, This is not your first time at ANU for AI disputes, and honestly, I don't think it will be the last. This is really concerning, and short of banning you from commenting on or uploading AI images, I'm out of ideas as to how to separate you from this content area. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
User:FrankWeerdte
[edit]FrankWeerdte (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - has been blocked a few weeks ago for uploading copyvio after warnings, now continuing to upload copyvios. Jcb (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done Blocked for 3 months, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)