Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
Latest comment: 17 hours ago by Alexis Jazz in topic Harki Muhammad

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Note

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

Uploads by Fabe56

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago30 comments9 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose restricting ability to upload

[edit]

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

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

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

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

How does the huge number of files get sorted out?

[edit]

I see two options, assuming lack of engagement:

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

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

Hopefully Fabe56 will do something. Otherwise, an indefinite block should be sent. Yann (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Indeed! I am assuming worst case, though. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why would you assume that when someone clearly stated that they have seen Fabe56 curating their uploads[1]? Nakonana (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think a plan needs to be formulated. They have been absent from Commons since 29 January and everywhere else since 30 January 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
They remain absent 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 05:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:AlexandreAssatiani

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

User:Federigo Federighi

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

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

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

User:Tokugawa Sinai

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

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

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

User:邵成鑫1007

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

邵成鑫1007 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - Continue to upload copyvio images after warned with {{End of copyvios}}. --Tim (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Uploads by User:Artinpl

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Artinpl (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) From 2016 to 2024 user Artinpl uploaded hundreds of paintings of anonymous people, falsely claiming that they are the members of Jagiellon or Vasa dynasty or Polish aristocracy. His real name is [SUPPRESSED] and he is not an art historian nor historian, and the only source he gives for his (mis)identifications of the sitters is his own website Art In Poland (https://web.archive.org/web/20220727084501/https://artinpoland.weebly.com/pl). He also changed some descriptions of the paintings, basing only on his own original amateur research. On his website you can see his original research, which was never reviewed by any authority in the field of art history. Some examples: [2] [3] [4]

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

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

User:Pedu0303 overwriting uploads with AI retouched versions

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago25 comments9 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

User:Groupir !

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago12 comments6 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

User:Newpictures11

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

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

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

User:Вёкса Йокинен

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

ไอ้นาย

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

@Yann, the user does not seem like a newbie. Maybe CUs may help. Kadı Message 17:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Poom2014 seems to have made a sockpuppet report on thwiki on 11 February[5], maybe the request on your talk page is retaliation for that report? Nakonana (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Poom2014 also got reported on the sockpuppet notice board[6]... Nakonana (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done OK, blocked. Thank you for looking into this. Yann (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

User Needs Talk page access removed.

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

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

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

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

Albino Junior 83

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

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

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

User:Houseclock reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago14 comments6 people in discussion

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

"Bozo the Clown" may be a copyrighted character, but the drawing of him shown, and the rest of the sticker, are indeed my own work as the former President of KMEC-TV. This comment is typical for the other images removed. Please confirm whether or not this constitutes a copyright violation, as I do not believe it does. Houseclock (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Houseclock Please follow the instructions at c:COM:VRT to verify your identity. A search shows that David Arquette owns the rights to Bozo the Clown, and was "published" in 1946 in the US, so it's not in the public domain.
Do you have permission from whoever held the rights at the time to Bozo the Clown to publish that, and under compatible terms with Commons (unrestricted use, distribution, sharing, and modifying for any purpose)? If not, it's a derivative work of the copyrighted character, and thus not permitted. HurricaneZeta (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
It would be good to determine if the "children's storytelling record album and illustrated read-along book set" from 1946, as stated on Wikipedia, are still under copyright protection in the US. If these works didn't have their copyrights renewed, I don't think how the character would still be somehow protected. Bedivere (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
The Library of Congress' oldest Bozo the Clown material is Hannan, Walter. Bozo at the Circus [Sound Recording]. Capitol, 1946. ([7]). There are a couple of other 1940s recordings, however the first print material is a series titled "Bozo the Clown" [8] beginning 1950. It appears in the 1947 copyright entries [9] "Capitol records, ine., Zollywood, Calif. Bozo at the circus; a children’s book that “talks” ... right ... (by, Capitol records, inc. Hollywood, °1946.". Copyright not renewed in 1974 [10] [11]. As a result, the clown is public domain. At least in its first incarnation of 1946. It is a good question, though, if the copyright term for the sound recording does apply too, since the whole book/album was registered as a book. Just as a precaution, the sound recording could be copyrighted until 2067. --Bedivere (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for checking that! I had assumed that it was renewed given someone currently owns the rights to it, but that could be a different incarnation of it. HurricaneZeta (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
the trademark could still be active and registered, but the clown seems to be in the public domain (copyright != trademark) Bedivere (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment I deleted most of the files. No source, improper license, etc. US documents published before 1978 without a proper license might be in the public domain, but evidence must be provided. Yann (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Yann, what evidence is necessary? These were advertising materials created by the station itself (KMEC-TV) which has been defunct since 1968. Houseclock (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
(I.e. not taken from a magazine, etc. as suggested by others) Houseclock (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Houseclock: You have to provide evidence of a publication without a copyright notice. The copyright doesn't disappear because of disappearance is the station. These may be orphan works, but the copyright still exists. Yann (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Houseclock: do you still have the materials themselves, or just digitizations of them.
@Yann: given that Houseclock is presumably not making up that he is former President of KMEC-TV, wouldn't he presumably know whether they bothered to copyright these materials? Or do you doubt his word on that? - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I still have the materials themselves, I scanned these to upload them. As far as whether the station bothered to copyright them, there is certainly no copyright notice or anything to that effect printed on them; what I uploaded was the materials in their entirety. Houseclock (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK ok, sorry I didn't see that. So yes, the easiest way is to confirm your identity via COM:VRT, then you can upload them all. Yann (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Houseclock: I'm not sure how concerned you are to keep your name confidential; if it comes to that, there is a Volunteer Response Team who handle confidential correspondence, and if Yann wants proof you would not be comfortable with making public, you could correspond with them to prove you are who you say you are.

Zuck28

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago20 comments5 people in discussion

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

The permission only except screenshots, wallpapers, vacation pictures, promotional posters. And these pictures are clearly not one of them and doesn’t have any other copyright holder, as the watermark is present. So in good faith these pictures are assumed to be released under Cc license. Zuck28 (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Zuck28: Who is the photographer?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
{{Bollywoodhungama}} usually doesn't mention individual names of photographers the credit always goes to the company Bollywood Hungama. Zuck28 (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Zuck28: I defanged your post. How does that situation square with COM:EVID? What "party or event" is documented?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is not explicitly mentioned in the source. Zuck28 (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Zuck28: You are missing the previous clause from Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama This applies only to photos of parties and events from their website, taken by their own photographers. All other images are copyrighted.. These images were not taken on any event or party. File:Giorgia Andriani4.jpg is clearly a photo shot. It was shot in Maldives, and the full set (the link in https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/photos/celeb-photos/giorgia-andriani/giorgia-andriani-2-27/ has 5 photos) was published the same day in https://www.instagram.com/p/DUDPnT3CAku/?img_index=1 (there are 12 photos there). The photo was likely taken by Khushal Photography, see a similar photo shot published today in Andriani's official Instagram [12]. File:Giorgia Andriani gym.jpg is a paparazzo photo. Günther Frager (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I was unaware about this information. I am willing to follow the further instructions provided. Let me know what is next? Should I self nominate the pictures for deletion? Zuck28 (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment File:Giorgia Andriani gym.jpg is fine, but File:Giorgia Andriani4.jpg is not. I deleted the second one, and the crop. Yann (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yann: So photos from unnamed paparazzi with dodgy licenses are acceptable now? Duly noted.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello @Yann, Thanks for the clarification. I wanted to mention a new fact that these pictures were originally posted on Hungama in 2025, an year before they were reposted on Instagram as mentioned by @Günther Frager. See 1, also the images were listed under events section, so I believe this is not a copyright violation. Zuck28 (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Zuck28: that is not the definition of event. They send then photographers and journalists to award ceremonies, film premieres and other social events. They don't fly photographers to other countries or make exclusive photo sessions with artists, and if they do it is not what they authorized in the VRT ticket. You should also have to ask yourself what "vacations pictures" from the list of exceptions you listed means. Regarding the post from 2025, you just need to check the links of the photos it contains, why did they create the URL https://stat5.bollywoodhungama.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Giorgia-Andriani-2.jpg in July 2025? or well in January 2023 as the same photo also appears in https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/photos/celeb-photos/giorgia-andriani/giorgia-andriani-19/. Günther Frager (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am just trying to understand the process. You definitely pointed out an important issue, but if the source is misleading, what to do? I uploaded the pictures in good faith and being unaware of these issues. Zuck28 (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Zuck28: Stop uploading from Bollywood Hungama.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
So far, images from "parties and events" are OK. Yann (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
But the problem here is they listed these pictures too in the event section. Zuck28 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jeff G., It is one of the largest source which provides images on commoms.
Zuck28 (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
We only allow images from events and parties from Bollywood Hungama, professionally shot images from there are not allowed, we made that clear in the licensing..doesn't really matter where the images are posted on the site, if it looks like a professionally taken image, its not allowed here..The picture of her outside the Gym is fine, it was not taken professionally... Stemoc 19:48, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
IMO "professionally" is not the right word here. These paparazzi made a living out of taking pictures of Bollywood people. Casually may describe this better. Pictures from studios, and more generally planned photo shoots are not OK, while pictures from exhibitions and public places are usually OK. Yann (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Paparazzi do sell pictures to magazines and websites, but do they transfer the copyright to them? They are not staff members. Anyways, probably this is a discussion for VP. Günther Frager (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mohammadmnmk

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago8 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

PrusAlternativeHistory alternate history uploads

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

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

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

Santino Luno

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Marraski

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

Joaoluzneryy

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Harki Muhammad

[edit]
Latest comment: 17 hours ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

✓ Done Blocked for 1 month by The Squirrel Conspiracy. Should be enough time to read COM:L. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=1165963661"