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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.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	129, 128, 127, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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

^{Translate this page}

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

Latest comment: 3 hours ago80 comments15 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collapsing bulk of early discussion, leaving initial problem statement visible

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

Uploader blocked form uploading

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

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

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

Support (as proposer) indefinite block on use of mass upload tools, appealable on a satisfactory discussion and subject to immediate reimposition if future behaviour warrants it. Support (as proposer) time limited block on uploading at all in order to seek to get them to engage with a discussion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support This proposal makes sense. Yann (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support curating and quality assurance is an inseparable part of contributing here, but currently sorely lacking in Fabe56's work. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support Time to slow down and do some cleanup work. Geoffroi 18:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support Makes sense to me. --Túrelio (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support Special:AbuseFilter/208 can be used to block specifically from flickr2commons. However, if they switch to another upload tool, we will probably have to block all uploading. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment @Pi.1415926535 since this is a dual acting proposal, I think your concern is satisfied initially if consensus agrees it. Other tools can be handled by an implementation of an indefinite total upload block should intransigence be displayed 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Question Is this sufficient elapsed time and a consensus, or does it need to run lomger? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

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?

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)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

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

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)Reply

@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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I have made some more small progress today. Unfortunately the progress is 100% manual. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is more (manual) progress. The uploader appears to have returned and is, form time to time, making some endeavours to solve the mess. Unfortunately I see no progress from them in eliminating the uncritical uploads. I do see some attempts at categorisation, but the greater part I have seen so far of the uploads are pretty much streams of private pictures. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Depressingly the progress is slow. What would be ideal would be for @Fabe56 to join in and nominate teaches of files for deletion. Instead they are corralling some files in categories which appear to be unhelpful in solving the mess. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

What is available to help to solve this?

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

That makes a great deal of sense 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

That is a highly useful query, @Rhododendrites, and beats my manual approach 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:~2026-16139-88 appears to be related cuz of bulk edits I think that they are not innocent because of a pattern Gladcape2013 (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Journey_to_Midway_Island_(5548529782).jpg&oldid=1183303241 Gladcape2013 (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Gladcape2013 I have pinged you on a request for checkuser. You may file these yourself with ease. Thank you for this information. Others will investigate and reach a conclusion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree that there is a serious problem here. I'm not sure I'd agree with what the serious problem is. DS (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @~2026-16139-88 and reminding others that if a COM:AN/U discussion expands to include the conduct of more users, those users should be notified. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Would Gladcape2013 or someone please explain to me what, if anything, about User:~2026-16139-88's they find problematic? I sampled a few, and they looked like good edits to me, by someone apparently knowledgeable and probably close to the subject depicted in these Flickr-sourced photos. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Some people are very angry that some other people are uploading too many images without properly adding them to categories, and have decided that all such images should be deleted. Or... something. DS (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@DragonflySixtyseven Anger? No. I raised the issue over this one uploader because I see uncritical bulk uploading by scraping entire photo streams from any source to be against the ethos of Commons, and have been working in my way to seek to contain this. Anger has no place here.

I see the need to create a preventative solution to this for all uploads for the future and well as a corrective solution. Corrective action is arduous, and interferes with everything else here. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

theyre good edits Gladcape2013 (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

~2026-16139-88's pov

Commenting here on Jmabel request/notification:

Preliminary note: I didn't recognize neither User:Fabe56 nor User:Timtrent until I found several good photos of birds affected by Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Midway Journey III (see also this comment), so I don't know any backstory (if existing).
From my point of view, (many, or most of) Fabe56's uploads are problematic due to their mass (several thousands) combined with low-quality descriptions, meaningless filenames (often), and rather generic categorization, and because of the high portion of out-of-scope private/personal photos (as pointed out above: unidentified, or identifiable but non-notable people).
From my point of view, Timtrent's latest deletion requests (ca. 50 requests with identical wording) are problematic due to the mass of affected files (thousands), of which not less than 500 (example 1, 2) are obviously useful/in-scope (apart from serial filenames, for the time being). The requests are also problematic because of their undifferentiated, weak justification. And they include some errors (uploads by unrelated users). Timtrent's modus operandi pretty much looks like blind "revenge activism", or alike, and actually doubles the problem (clean-up needed under pressure of time: mainly for other users, including admins).
This case reminds me of the Winterysteppe/Artix Kreiger/Tyler ser Noche complex (yes, years ago!), and of similar cases. – A better solution (than mass DR) would be to create and fill a maintenance category like Category:Files uploaded by Fabe56 (review needed) – I'm sure this could be done by experienced users with database queries and scripts (cf similar suggestions above) – plus Category:Files uploaded by Fabe56 (checked), Category:Files uploaded by Fabe56 (bad filenames), Category:Files uploaded by Fabe56 (potentially delete) etc.
Additional note: I tend to ignore User:Gladcape2013, whose 11th action on Commons was to post a weird suspicion on the admins' noticeboard, and otherwise doesn't seem to be an active user.

Cheers ~2026-16139-88 (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

May you kindly please apologize because I am very active Gladcape2013 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Gladcape2013: you're not in any sort of trouble, so no need to defend yourself. Please, you and 2026-16139-88, let's not get into some silly tit-for-tat here. But you said above that 2026-16139-88 was "not innocent because of a pattern". May I take it that your later "theyre good edits" means that you are withdrawing that "not innocent" remark, and that you don't have a problem with their edits, and we can drop this side issue of ~2026-16139-88's conduct and get back to the main matter at hand? - Jmabel ! talk 01:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The problem

This problem requires accurate definition. I tried to do this way up in the thread. I do not think I did that particularly well. The participation of others, perhaps especially those with lengthy experience here, will be welcomed. Once consensus exists on what the problem is, and also whether that is a problem we wish to solve, we can move forwards into agreeing a route. My suggestion for those with lengthy experience is not worded to exclude those with small or limited experience. New eyes on an established ecosystem can create great insight. And, in forming a consensus, new eyes have an absolute equal right to say what they think. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Above, I made some suggestions:

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

I believe we need to decide whether any or these are something which we can vary or adopt and form a consensus over what to do about these, both in this specific case and extrapolate that towards an overall policy, nothing that policy is forced in a different forum.

I do not think that these bullets are ready yet to turn into proposals. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

While my description of the problem would have some overlap with Timtrent's, I believe that his description has the wrong thrust. The problem is that we have a large number of files that Fabe56 uploaded without curating them, either in terms of scope or in terms of name/description/categorization. The ones that are out of scope (or duplicates or copyvios, though few are) should, of course be deleted. The rest need (belated) curation in terms of name/description/categorization.

A secondary problem is that the only way we can readily find the files in question is Special:ListFiles/Fabe56, which is not suited to the purpose: sorted by upload date rather than in any useful order, and no way when looking at it to identify either what has already been curated, what may currently be nominated for deletion, and what may already have survived a prior DR (for other than procedural reasons; DRs closed for procedural reasons have no bearing on whether the file is worth keeping). I believe this can largely be addressed with maintenance categories, but this section is supposed to be for defining the problem, not proposing a solution.

COM:INUSE has almost nothing to do with the matter, except that it is a reason not to delete something we might otherwise delete for being out of scope. If we deleted files for not being in use by sister projects, we would delete 80-90% of Commons content, probably including some featured images and media. Forming "part of a personal picture library" is not relevant: whether the particular file is in scope is relevant. If some random person has a photo album of a trip to the Nepal or even just San Francisco, the pictures of eating lunch with their friends are going to be mainly out of scope, but it doesn't make their pictures of buildings or the countryside any less valuable than anyone else's.

The San Francisco and Nepal examples are not arbitrary: there have been a series of DRs that were roughly as indiscriminate as the uploads, where some quite clearly in-scope photos of both of these were nominated for deletion. And that constitutes a third problem: overreaction. As far as I can tell, Fabe56's indiscriminate uploads present a moderately serious but not particularly urgent problem. The waste of several terabytes of storage is real, but it is also water under the bridge: since "deletion" is soft deletion, we aren't getting that back. If it looked like there were a large number of incorrectly licensed files, or copyvios, that could be a pretty urgent problem, but I see no sign of that: the only copyright issues I've seen are the usual issues of limited freedom of panorama that we encounter in almost every mass upload to Commons. Similarly if there were some large body of material here that was objectionable for some reason (promoting fascism; inaccurate maps; etc.) that would have some urgency I see no sign of that. The main issue is a large number of files (in scope and otherwise) that almost no non-editor is going to find because they have meaningless names, no useful categorization, and no usefully searchable description. We need to take out the trash and polish the jewels, but neither of those tasks is an emergency. - Jmabel ! talk 22:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

A possible approach

A possible approach to managing this situation. This is by no means a comprehensive solution, but I think it would be likely to prevent duplication of work, and could begin to step things forward.

I'd really like to start by closing at least the bulk of the large current DRs of Fabe56's uploads.
- For every DR that is basically a ton of photos of unidentifiable people at a meeting of a non-notable tech group, and does not seem to contain other content, close these as delete.
- For other DRs of images that truly represent one thing—e.g. a particular motorcycle race—try to find some editor who knows the subject well enough to say whether this event is Commons-level notable or not, whether it's a "keep all", "keep a couple", or "delete", and trust their determination.
- For the more heterogeneous DRs, do a procedural close as keep, probably don't even bother with {{Kept}} on the talk pages of the kept files, and expect to DR a fair amount of this content, but in a more manageable way. (If anyone does not get what problem I am addressing here, see the remarks from myself (Jmabel), Ziv, DragonflySixtyseven, and Ooligan toward the bottom of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Sylvain Kalache Flickr stream with bad file names, in dialogue with Timtrent.)
Also on that same DR, near the bottom, DragonflySixtyseven has remarked on some already-deleted content that probably was deleted erroneously and should be restored. I leave it to them to expand on that.
Create a template and maintenance categories to make sure we don't duplicate work here. I'll expand on that later.
Anyone who wants can add appropriate categories, names, descriptions, etc. to photos that seem to them to be worth keeping. I gather several people are already doing that. Similarly, there are also cases where adding a category is a good preliminary to a DR: e.g. the now-deleted Category:Slideshare office warming party 2011.
Start doing DRs of groups of images that will almost certainly stand or fall together, or at least where the farthest from that might be "delete most of these, but keep a couple."

Assuming people think this is sane, I'll expand on the template and maintenance categories later, probably somewhere between 12 and 24 hours from now. - Jmabel ! talk 04:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

On their talk page I have assured @Jmabel that I am in broad agreement. Any differences of opinion will be and are minor. I have also assured them that I am bound, willingly, by consensus, and that I will open no further DRs in this matter except by consensus.

I believe their approach to be valid. The current DRs may be closed in any appropriate manner and closed as soon as sensible. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

So here's my idea for template/category support. Create a Template:Uploads review. (I'm deliberately not making this specific to Fabe56 because we could use this same approach for other problematic batch uploads.) Have a bot stick it on 100% of Fabe56's uploads. If no parameters are set, it would place a message on each file page along the following lines:

The name, description, categories, and caption of this image may need checking.

If you believe these have been fully dealt with, you may remove this template.
If you believe some, but not all, of the above have been dealt with, you can add your name to the {{Uploads review}} template as having validated them. E.g. "{{Uploads review|description=MyAccount|name=MyAccount}}" would mean you believe name and description have been dealt with, but you cannot vouch for categories or caption. No need to write out an actual link to your account, just the account name.
If you believe the file should be deleted:
- Consider whether it is one of a group of closely related files that will probably stand or fall together. If it is, that is best handled with a Mass deletion request (Mass DR).
- If it would not be a case for a Mass DR, you can start either a regular deletion request or (if appropriate) speedy deletion.
- If you believe the file should be deleted but you are not comfortable with starting the relevant type of deletion process, you can use the {{Uploads review}} template to flag this and someone else will follow up: e.g. "{{Uploads review|delete=SHORT EXPLANATION OF WHY}}" Examples of good explanations would be "out of scope, non-notable event" or "very low quality". Please don't be offended if someone disagrees and reverts that instead of following up on your deletion suggestion.

If no parameters are set, it would go in the following maintenance categories:

Setting any of the corresponding template parameters to a non-empty string means the relevant category would be skipped, as well as removing or striking through the relevant word in the first sentence of the template display.

If "delete" is set, it would go in

Category:Upload review - deletion candidate

and not in any of the other categories.

My own feeling is that in many cases categories will be the most useful thing to add. Once files are decently categorized, someone could (for example) do a search such as 'deepcat:"Alcatraz Island" incategory:"Upload review - needs filename check"' to find uploads about Alcatraz Island that still need filename work.

I would hope that in many cases tools such as COM:VFC will allow a lot of cleanup to be done on a batch basis.

Pinging @Fabe56 here, in case they have any issue with this. Also, Fabe56, I hope you will actively participate in the cleanup process, especially categorization.

And of course suggestions from anyone else are welcome, too, including "no, I've got this completely different way I want to do this."

Timtrent has suggested we look into how to head off problems like this in the future long before the point where we are trying to clean up tens or hundreds of thousand files. I agree entirely, but I think we need to solve the immediate problem first, then address that one. - Jmabel ! talk 19:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jmabel,

I never stop (except during few days I thought all my edit were problematic) improving Wikimedia Commons from Categorizing, Geolocating etc. Since few days many renaming proposal has been refected, so I may not put a lot of effort there since it's really time consuming and I really feel I'm annoying with them, but for the other part, no issue to report!

Thanks. Fabe56 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support this approach as a good starting point. @Fabe56 I think I have understood that you created this with goodwill and with good intent. Please continue to work with goodwill and good intent to help by being part of the solution. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Special:Contributions/~2026-16585-73

Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

~2026-16585-73 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) - Personal attack page and vandalism.

~2026-16676-12 (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

What copy wikipedia Administrators copy user only and vandalism Copy Wikipedia Administrators name vandalism 1, Wikipedia Administrators name vandalism 2 and Copy Wikipedia Administrators name vandalism 3, please click blocked global lock at personal attack page and vandalism, thank you. ~2026-16676-12 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Already done globally locked. - Jmabel ! talk 05:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also indef-blocked ~2026-16692-60 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information), same story. - Jmabel ! talk 05:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Fortunato2601

Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

User: Fortunato2601 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klebs1 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The account in question is a dummy account of a user banned (Romaburuno) by ptwiki ([2]) for fakery and LTA (Long Term Access), as well as uploading images with inappropriate licenses to this project. Klebs1 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Klebs1: Romaburuno never logged in here, where LTA means Long Term Abuser. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done. I deleted speedily most uploads as copyright violations. Currently that's enough. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@User:Komarof

Latest comment: 5 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion

This user made mass DR nomination of files what uploaded by @User:Vahan Kochar, claiming what these are not "own works", due to photo from Andranik and Vahan Kochar's collection template.
There's one problem: Vahan Kochar is copyright holder and uploader of this photos on commons, so he can claim photos as a own works and put that template on the files. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Assuming that Vahan Kochar is who he claims to be, I suggest that at least some of the images nominated for deletion might not be own work because they are way too old for that, for example File:Hagop SEMERDJIAN Studio PHEBUS Paris 1922 à 1949 ETSEV.tif, even though they might be his father's work. I cannot understand why you report Komarof instead of discussing this issue elsewhere, e.g. in the DRs or on Komarof's personal talk page, where you should have notified the user about this report. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Vahan Kochar inherited copyrights of them by his father, so only father's photos cannot be own works. But instead of just fixing incorrect claiming Komarof just want delete them, so he should be warned for DR misusing. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Robert Flogaus-Faust: You cannot, but I can. This appears to be a kind of retaliation request after my assessment of the numerous mostly meaningless comments that this inexperienced user tries to leave under almost every nomination I start. E.g., just look at this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Արա Վրույր.tif: Not to mention this is clearly a scanned clipping from some publication, this user is trying to claim that this photograph was taken by a person who was born a year after the death of the person depicted. Now, regarding the Vahan Kochar's uploads, I carefully examined all the descriptions he provided when uploading files. There are three description options. Here they are: Author:Andranik Kochar, Author:Vahan Kochar, and this one: photo from Andranik and Vahan Kochar's collection. Moreover, in the titles of some photos he even honestly indicated the real author, as here: Studio PHEBUS Paris. From these I conclude that Mr. Kochar, without wanting to deceive anyone, simply decided that he had the right to publish images taken by other photographers, on the grounds that copies of them were stored in his collection. I have nominated for deletion only these images from the third group (and not all of them, but the most questionable ones). That's it. Komarof (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Komarof you should also see the files' history: on this one tag what photographer is Andranik Kochar was added upon image upload.

On another one same situation as on above image and Studio PHEBUS looks to be place where depicted person was worked, not an actual copyright owner. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Adding a certain group of images to Category:Photographs by Andranik Kochar does not qualify as a claim of authorship. For example, Mr. Vahan Kochar added to this same category the following files: File:Հովհաննես Քյուրքչյանց.jpg, File:Արամ Վրույր.tif. These people died in 1903 and 1924, while Mr. Andranik Kochar was born in 1919. Their descriptions, in turn, are explicit: photo from Andranik and Vahan Kochar's collection. Komarof (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Files with suspicious claim of authorship in that category are minority, you should just fix incorrect claim instead of attempting delete various others. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@SomeFancyUsername: Did you not see "Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this." above? I notified them for you, this time. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Josiah Cosgrove

Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This user's talk page shows that they have been persistently uploading copyrighted files, which have all been deleted, for several months now. They were apparently warned about this as far back as September of last year, and do not show any signs of stopping. SilviaASH (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

This was after Ziv final warned them in September. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done. I blocked the user for a week. Copyvios are deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

More of Alex Neman's problematic uploads

Latest comment: 1 day ago29 comments13 people in discussion

Hi admins, can we please delete more of the following. Yann and I dealt with this with Yann blocking Alex Neman Indefinitely and upon appeal the block was shortened by Taivo for three months. I was viewing this just to see what needed to be tidied up and saw a spam of Alex Neman's rear view photos.

I'll put it as a gallery

This has been an ongoing issue with Alex Neman, and it has not been limited to this project. He has been blocked as a sockpuppet and banned on the English Wikipedia. Quite frankly I don't think the reduced block of three months was justified, this has been an ongoing issue as cited on the previous ANI report by Jeff G. and also continued block evasion on the EnWp. Either he is to be banned indefinitely because it is clear he has competence issues. A large number of them were very unlikely he asked consent from the women he pictured. I've also requested for speedy deletion for these uploads FYI.

This has taken me hours to do up, I hope this helps. Put yourself in your partner's shoes (i can't because i'm single, and never dated, and don't wish to anytime soon). --LuvsMG481 (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@LuvsMG481: Do I understand correctly that you created a separate DR for each of these, rather than a mass DR? If so, why? Are there some of these that present significantly different issues than others? They look pretty parallel to me. - Jmabel ! talk 05:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey Jmabel. I'm not very sure how to do these 'mass deletion' requests nor never done them before. Thats why i brought it here for you guys to sort out. I'm new to this Wiki, so I'm trying to learn the ropes. I apologise but I figured it would be easier otherwise if we do a regular DR request it would take ages, if not months. I don't know a lot of the templates here, and would love to have some assistance with these --LuvsMG481 (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've created Commons:Deletion requests/Files on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems for you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

No worries The Squirrel Conspiracy. But to be fair, the 'creepshot' is only one aspect, he has been warned time and time again about these issues hence why I wanted these nominated plus based on past complaints as well and Neman's past blocks. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@LuvsMG481:

Assuming "'creepshot' is only one aspect" refers to the DR, you can raise other issues there as well.
I take it you are pursuing something other than just a DR, though, or you would not be here at COM:AN/U. Is there something you are bringing up here that you consider new, and that you thing Taivo may not have taken into consideration? If so, could you please be specific about that. Otherwise, I think that rather than extend the block, anything would more likely be a matter of setting conditions on the user's conduct after they are allowed to return and, again, if that's the case please spell out what you'd be looking for someone to impose.
As for creating a mass DR: this would probably have been pretty easy with VFC. If you are likely to do anything similar in the future, that is a tool you should probably learn to use.

- Jmabel ! talk 06:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

True and thats why I think i would like to have autopatrol rights to enable for these :). Regardless, we will wait for Yann to handle this, because he dealt with a similar story last time. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@LuvsMG481: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

All good Jeff G., this was discussed already. I'm just doing what I can to clean up Wikimedia commons and ensure its a proper free respiratory system, thats why we are here! Also Jmabel sent me the instructions, so we are all good. Can we all focus on the issue at hand please, not on my inability to use mass deletion, we are wasting time here otherwise, when we have an issue with Neman's which is ongoing for the last 2-3 years. Thank you --LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@LuvsMG481: I have been aware of Neman's inappropriate behavior for over three years. I think indef is much more appropriate than a mere three months. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Jeff G.. I think we should do a community proposal on whether we should indef Alex Neman or should we keep the three months. I'm not sure how to do it mate, would you be kind enough to do it for me, or show me how to do it please --LuvsMG481 (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@LuvsMG481: A !votes subsection below would do the job. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would want to see some comment from @Alex Neman: before commenting further (with an unblock for this purpose, if necessary). Do they understand the problem here? Are they willing to avoid that in the future? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry to tell you this Andy Dingley, but he's not gonna apologise and fix his errors. He promised to stop block evasion on EnWp but then was discovered by an admin using an IP to evade his block. Then we have more bullshit, pretend to be retired when he was blocked using an IP, which led to page being protected, more block evasion using IPs. This is literal proof that he's not going to keep his promises. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Indef Alex Neman (!votes)

Support, obviously per above. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Current 3-month-length block is enough. Actually rear views of women is not the worst we can see in Commons. In small quantity, they have even educational value. Taivo (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Strong support, honestly not just these weird images. I have explained it in the above, with block evasion, uncredible promises, numerous complaints from other users across wikis (he's banned and indeffed on Enwp). This behaviour needs to be curbed. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Those don't look like creepshots to me: 1. some photos were taken with a flash, which the photographed person surely would have noticed, so the photos were not taken without the subjects knowledge; 2. some were taken with the subjects facing a wall, which means they were posing for the photo I front of a neutral background; 3. all / most of the photos show the subject standing still (even in busy surroundings), which also indicates that they were posing for the photo.
The photos do have educational value in that they show different hairstyles. There appears to be an issue with duplicates, though, so maybe the uploader can commit to not upload so many duplicates in the future.
As for conduct on other wikis, it can be relevant for assessment here, but generally speaking, people are not getting blocked on Commons just because they were blocked on another wiki project. The issue of sockpuppetry has been brought up, but I wonder whether the user was actually socking in on Commons, or whether the socking only occurred elsewhere. I also have to wonder whether the user has engaged in the reported problematic behavior after they already had been blocked for said behavior at least once? Or is this report just about the uploads the user had made before they got blocked? Nakonana (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Initially Nakonana mate, it was about the images, but that is now not a priority. The priority now I think is the sockpuppeting behaviour. If the images don't get deleted after this, its ok, which i mainly reported, but I think the socking is the major concern and in violation of Commons policies. Happy to discuss it on my talkpage or email, whichever suits --LuvsMG481 (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support Looking through the enwiki SPI, I find that the ranges 158.140.167.0/25 and 158.140.171.0/25 have been active on Commons for the last three years, with >1,000 combined edits that are all behavioral matches to Alex Neman. Temporary accounts on those ranges, also with behavioral matches, have been active within the last several months. I see two registered accounts that also made edits on Commons: New Alex Neman (active July 2010) and Alexuploader2017 (active December 2017). @Nakonana: This means that Alex Neman has been socking on Commons for 15 years, with near-constant socking for the most recent several years. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Pi.1415926535 I wouldn't consider @New Alex Neman a case of "bad socking". Neman's user page says they were born in 1999, so he would be 10–11 years old at the time. Come on, are we really going to punish someone for being a kid more than a decade ago? Yacàwotçã (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support, per Pi.1415926535. --Kadı Message 20:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per Taivo. Cutlass ^Ciera 14:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey Cutlass, the issue is no longer with the pictures, we are now talking about his socking behaviour. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

When did he sock on Commons? The ranges mentioned haven't been active since the block. Cutlass ^Ciera 15:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll let Pi.1415926535 answer this. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any block evasion, but LOUTSOCKing is still socking even if they're not blocked here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oppose per Taivo, I think the 3 month-block is fair as long as the uploader will keep to their promise to not upload any more problematic images of this type in the future. If in the future, they resume this problematic behavior, then they should be indeffed. And for the issue of en:WP:LOUTSOCKING, I don't see any edits by the IPs that are done "deceptively" or "in order to mislead". Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose as per Tvpuppy, but contingent on good behavior in the future. JayCubby (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Tenam2

Latest comment: 4 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, as I can see in my watchlist, Tenam2 is asking for renaming in French a lot of files in Italian which don't need to be renamed, because Aosta Valley is an Italian region where both Italian and French are the official languages. All the files concern the Aosta Valley area. He has a long history on the Italian wikipedia of pushing French language instead of Italian. He was already been warned to not change names of my files (and others' ones) without reason (1, 2); in response to my request, he asked for changes to even more files than usual. I don't think it is a constructive way of contribute.

What is really wired is also that he seems follow my files, following edits of user:Arbalete and edit them just after Arbalete. With Arbalete, I'm discussing in those days about categories he is creating. After my disagreement with Arbalete —whom I had also asked not to change the names of my files — Tenam2 began deliberately requesting the changing of the names of my files. The situation is very unpleasant for me; I feel like I'm targeted. Una tantum (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Talk with Tenam2: User_talk:Tenam2#Rinomina_file_POV

Talks with Arbalete: User_talk:Arbalete#Rinomina_file and User_talk:Arbalete#Category:Nus_train_station_-_Station_building. Una tantum (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I would like to clarify the situation from my point of view, because two distinct and separate actions are being conflated.

The files I renamed on 17 March were renamed only as translations (Italian > French). At that time, I understood, based on an existing discussion that this was allowed. After that point, I did not touch those files again.

The files I renamed afterwards, i.e. today, were not renamed as translations, but to improve clarity and consistency of file names, in particularr e.g. providing with a clearer identification of subject, place, and viewpoint, harmonisation according to a descriptive and neutral naming convention.

This is exactly what I explained on my user talk page: "stazione di Verrès" is ambiguous and far less clear to me than "Verrès (AO) - gare ferroviaire - vue côté rue", since it specifies the province (AO = Aosta Valley, Verrès being not a major city at all and is not known outside this region) in which Verrès is located, the type of building ("stazione" may not be a train station in Italian) and the side the photo was taken from. This is the sole reason why I renamed that file. In one case I even left "abc1", which is an extension I read on other discussions that Una tantum prefers to keep in his/her file names, even if I don't know whether this is allowed in file names.

Other examples: this file name has a typo (Rhemes ND > Rhêmes-Notre-Dame), and this file name is completely useless, but my renaming proposals were bulk deleted.

These renames were content-neutral, descriptive, and intended solely to improve the nomenclature, not to promote any language over another.

This is not a personal attack. It is purely coincidental that the files concerned belong to the same author: they were renamed because their names were unclear or non-descriptive, not because of who had uploaded them.

I am not following any user. I work on Aosta Valley related content, and we're familiar with this user.

Aosta Valley is a region where Italian and French are both official languages on an equal legal footing. Renaming files in French for places and subjects located in that region aiming to improve their names is therefore legitimate and neutral, and fully consistent with local toponymy and official usage. About my supposed "long history on the Italian wikipedia of pushing French language instead of Italian", examples should be cited, elsewhere this remains an empty accusation, apart from being totally vague.

If there is disagreement on a specific rename, I'm open to discussing it calmly and on a case-by-case basis. However, presenting this work as harassment or targeting is IMO a misunderstanding of both my actions and my intentions.

Thank you. Tenam2 (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is this normal? A common, clear and harmonized naming convention should be followed and promoted. "Nus (AO) - maison communale" (in French) or "Nus (AO) - municipio" (in Italian) correspond to such criteria, but "municipio di Nus abc2" is less clear imho. Files on wikimedia common are common, we're not on anyone's private photo archive. --Tenam2 (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

"stazione di Verrès" is ambiguous and far less clear to me than "Verrès (AO) - gare ferroviaire - vue côté rue" — why did you translate the file name when all you wanted to do was to have a clearer identification of the subject?

We also don't require file names to be perfect; it's fine if the file name is "good enough". From that point of view "stazione di Verrè" is a pretty clear file name. I for one wouldn't have a clue what the "AO" is supposed to mean in the file name you chose.

and this file name is completely useless — how is this file name "useless"? The file shows the Donnas power plant and the file name translates literally to "hydroelectric company Donnas" (Sied Donnas = Società Idroelettrica di Donnas (SIED)). How is that useless? Why would it be OK for you to use abbreviations like "AO" but not for them to use abbreviations like "Sied"?

Renaming files in French for places and subjects located in that region aiming to improve their names is therefore legitimate and neutral — renaming files to translate the file names is explicitly against the renaming policy, see COM:FRNOT.

Is this normal? We usually honor the file names an uploader chooses, unless the file name qualifies for one of the renaming criteria listed at COM:FNC. And regarding the criterion on harmonizing, beware that a file can be in several categories and harmonizing it according to the file naming scheme in one category might disharmonize its file name in another category's naming scheme. Furthermore, it could disharmonize the file name from the uploader's other uploads (e.g. I like to include dates in my file names, but your chosen file naming scheme for above category would disrupt my file naming scheme because your suggestion does not include a date). Nakonana (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello and thank you for the detailed explanations. You helped me understand where my interpretation was wrong, and I appreciate the time taken to point to the relevant policies.

I would however like to clarify a few points, both factually and in terms of intent:

What I find unfortunate is that this could not have been explained by Una tantum, calmly and with policy references (as Nakoana has done here), before opening an ANI. I did not engage in any edit war, I did not revert any file, and I acted according to two different criteria which I explained trensparently on my talk page. I also received accusations (language pushing, targeting) with no proof. Had wikimedia policy been cited clearly at the outset, the situation would most likely not have escalated, specially because with Una tantum we are familiar and even had the chance to meet in real life and exchange about our common passion as wikipedians.
I clearly understood and accepted that translating file names is not allowed, even in a bilingual or officially multilingual region, and after the first objection was raised on my talk page I stopped translating file names. My mistake was to assume that using French to make names clearer from my perspective was acceptable, given that French is an official language in the Aosta Valley and that I am personally more precise in French. That assumption was incorrect under wikimedia policy and I acknowledge it.
Regarding Sied Donnas: while I now accept that this may be "good enough" as you say (though what is the criteria?) for some users, I still find it problematic from clarity that understanding it requires external knowledge (that me e.g. as a native Aosta Valley person did not have at all) or a Google search especially when the expansion ("Società Idroelettrica di Donnas") is not mentioned anywhere on the file page itself if I'm not mistaken. That said I understand now that Commons does not require file names to be maximally explicit, only "good enough", and that uploader conventions deserve deference, though this lack of clear naming criteria is a bit weird to me and would like to know your opinion (and of more users involved).
about the choice to add "(AO)", it was based on a prior discussion with Arbalete (link already provided), which led me to believe that adding the provincial abbreviation was acceptable.
To ensure I have correctly understood the rules and to avoid any future ANI: this rename does infringe Commons rules? Please confirm that this understanding is correct.
I want to reiterate clearly: I did not target any uploader. The files happened to be by the same author, most probably because they concern the same geographic area I work on. I have no aim of pushing French instead of Italian. I have long contributed in multilingual contexts, including Italian Wikipedia since approximately 10 years. once again myy actions were guided by what I mistakenly believed to be acceptable harmonisation and clarification practices.
I have learned from this exchange. My intention is that this clarification may also be useful for others working on Aosta Valley related content, like @Arbalete and @Pilaz, where bilingualism can easily lead to misunderstandings about what is locally legitimate versus what is globally allowed on Wikimedia Commons.

Tenam2 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The move at [3] was probably ill-advised, especially with no rationale stated.

For what it's worth, stability of individual filenames has a high value on Commons, so one rule of thumb is "unless there's a pretty serious problem with it, or it's a very recent upload, leave the filename alone." - Jmabel ! talk 23:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Xemsomenh

Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

User: Xemsomenh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reason:Uploading multiple files that are potentially against the policy. MinhVN1863 (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

MinhVN1863. Please provide diffs for evidence - LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

MinhVN1863 - I've notified the user for you. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@MinhVN1863, @LuvsMG481: I indefinitely blocked Xemsomenh and deleted all of their uploads.

Done. Kadı Message 12:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

User: Midnightazu

Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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

New user has uploaded a dozen or so school and sports logos, almost all of which are complex enough to qualify for copyright protection. They have been labelled CC-BY-4.0, which is very unlikely to be correct. I started to tag them for SD/F1, but realised that it's a bit bitey and harrassy to swamp them with lots of copyvio notices; it's also a waste of everybody's time as I think the logos are going to need mass deletion anyway. • a frantic turtle 🐢 13:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Similar case with this file, it is licenced under CC-BY-SA 3.0 but on the website it says copyrighted. This does not fall into the category of SD/F1 but it should be checked if user tagged as own work, if he did change it to the URL of the school. I'm not too much of an expert but I think logos from memory are ineligible for copyright if they serve simple design, and school logos may be copyrighted but if we delete them, then we should delete logos like Scotch College one. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

A Frantic Turtle. You are meant to notify the user. I've done it for you --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

[4] • a frantic turtle 🐢 14:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

It seems the discussed account has been changed to Renamed user 5818f39ac3b3aa558df5c2ae9ad1fd0d (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Trinhnguyen1

Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Trinhnguyen1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user – Only used for advertising, created a page about a non-notable writer on viwiki, uploaded multiple files probably just to advertise the book. MinhVN1863 (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done. I warned the user and deleted most of his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Zelinschi Angela

Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Zelinschi Angela (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Persistent copyvio. Gikü (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comment One more warning, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zelinschi Angela. Yann (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Appreciate! Gikü (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

6D still uploading without properly categorizing

Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

6D (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Digging up a 3-month old discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_126#User:6D_bulk_uploading_Flickr_accounts:

I took a quick look at their recent uploads (as I very frequently run into uncategorized airplane photos uploaded by them from late 2025), and with some exceptions they mostly still aren't properly categorizing what they uploaded.

To their credit, they have been doing the bare minimum categorization of aircraft by adding the aircraft registration for aircraft uploads, such as File:Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner (55132357718).jpg.
However, other recent uploads (largely of ground vehicles) have been uploaded without categories (other than author categories like "Photographs by photographer X" which are not particularly useful), and either remain uncategorized or were categorized by other people:
- File:BR 1462 Desiro HC EMU (55128588179).jpg from last week and File:Suzuki Every (55128099854).jpg are uncategorized except for the author category Category:Photographs by Samson Ng.
- Their most recent several uploads as of this post, such as File:Liebherr 125 EC-B 6 (55154131612).jpg and various uploads of vehicles (such as File:Renault 4 (55155037296).jpg), were categorized by another user with no categorization done by 6D themselves other than an author category, despite the vehicle name being in the filename .
  - The was a specific complaint on December 3, 2025 in the archived ANU discussion at the top that 6D was not categorizing vehicles on images of vehicles despite the vehicle name obviously being in the filename. This is still happening on their most recent uploads. Earlier in March, the user that categorized their recent uploads left a message on their talk page encouraging them to categorize their uploads themselves. 2 weeks later, that talk page post still has no response from 6D. The list of files that user encouraged them to categorize are either still uncategorized or were categorized by other users, despite every one of those files describing their subject in their filenames.

4300streetcar (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi 6D here, I am really sorry for forgetting to categorise the land vehicle images, next time I will categorise the images before updoading. 6D (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

WIKI COMMONS IMAGE REMOVED 3-22-2026

Latest comment: 9 hours ago7 comments4 people in discussion

MY HEADSHOT WAS REMOVED FOR A NON EXISTING COPYRIGHT, A artists photo is essential for his livelihood, this image was not the property of a television network or outside agency as indicated in the take down notice ! Taf79444g (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Above referenced File:MARC ANTOINE 1970s TV ENTERTAINER.PNG Taf79444g (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Whoever is the copyright holder, we need a permission for a free license from them. And shouting. Yann (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Taf79444g: There has never been a File:MARC ANTOINE 1970s TV ENTERTAINER.PNG. I presume this is about File:MARC ANTOINE 1970s TV ENTERTAINER.png. You credited the source as Taft Broadcasting 1974, and claimed yourself to be the author of the photo. Are you the photographer, the person depicted, or do you have some other relation to this photo? - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

That’s my husband in the photo, it’s 56 years ago ! A headshot that was that used over the years taken by his first wife ! Taf79444g (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

If I'm reading correctly, your husband's first wife is the photographer (the person behind the camera), is that correct or not? HyperAnd [talk] 05:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Taf79444g: And, if so, is she still alive? - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply