Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

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

^{Translate this page}

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

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~31
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~2
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2026-02: ~138

Other:

• Duplicates: ~265
• Advertisements/spam: ~6
• Personal photos/selfies: ~44
• Other speedy deletions: ~42
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~2
• Undeletion requests: ~14

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~60
• Interface admin: ~11
• Technical: ~4
• Template protection: ~5
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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

---

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

---

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

Note

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

Aramean vs. Assyrian

Involved people

• Wlaak (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Surayeproject3 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• AramaicFuse (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) (who is probably a sock)

Hi, There is a on-going dispute between several people about this subject (listed above). They are edit-warring about names of files. I don't know what should be used, but I feel that systematic renaming against the uploader's opinion is not OK. Please see history of File:Assyrian Warrior and Leader, Shamoun Hanne Haydo.png, File:Members of the Diyarbakir Syriac-Aramean Orthodox Musical Ensemble, 4-30-1914.webp, File:Group photo with believers and parish priest in Kfarboran, Tur Abdin (early 20th century).jpg, File:Syriac-Aramean women depicted wearing traditional clothing near Mardin, 1909.jpg, File:Syriac-Aramean couple from Tur Abdin, 1890.jpg, File:Assyrians walking after the closure of their school in Qamishli (1946).jpg, etc. Yann (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I accepted a renaming request for Group photo with believers and parish priest in Kfarboran, Tur Abdin (early 20th century).jpg. Before it mentioned Syriac-Aramean villagers in the title. Aramean I don't doubt. While the categories are mentioning syriac as well, the source the picture is from, does not mention syriac at all. --Gereon K. (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that the file qualified for criterion 2 ("meaningless or ambiguous name"). Criterion 2 is for file names like "rfggdfhde.jpg" or "DCS 1234.jpg" or "Panoramio (13456865).jpg". Nakonana (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that the context towards this entire situation needs to be established before moving forward. Some background on the larger dispute involved can be found here as well as en:Terms for Syriac Christians.

Firstly, Wlaak has previously been brought to Commons ANI for using a sockpuppet account [1]. More information on this can be found there, but the end result was a block on the sockpuppet, User:DavidKaf, as well as Wlaak's meatpuppet User:Devi van velden. Shortly after, they were globally blocked for cross-wiki disruption along a specific topic area [2]. One thing I will note is that, Off-wiki evidence (sent to Arbitration Committee) also suggests intent to edit Wikipedia to push ideological perspective of a real world conflict, with a racist backdrop behind online activity (anti-Assyrian sentiment), and use of meatpuppetry. Subsequently, an account that has since been topic banned on English Wikipedia, User:777network [3], files an overwrite request for an edit the DavidKaf account made [4]. This account has been suspected as a meatpuppet of Wlaak [5].

Wlaak has his global block lifted, and files rename requests for his uploads such as this one here. I requested renames for these files before I had filemover rights, so they were moved by other editors, and from memory I had personally only moved three of them afterwards [6] [7] [8]. I hadn't touched many files/categories relating to this topic area between Wlaak's global block and now. Upon noticing the rename requests, I reject them [9] as I see them as contesting the naming dispute once more, but eventually Abzeronow reverts some of them back due to their available sourcing. I have not touched them afterwards, nor have I touched any of Wlaak's most recent uploads. Wlaak has also requested that some of my uploads be renamed on a similar basis, though I had no issues with this and renamed them, such as with this image [10] and this one [11].

Something that I will point out now is that the off-Wiki evidence that has been sent in relation to Wlaak ties him to two of the sources he is using to upload these images; these are arameandom.com and Arameans.com. These websites also have their own cases of anti-Assyrian sentiment, see here: [12] [13]. This may seem like an aspersion without prior knowledge of the off-Wiki evidence, but is necessary to mention for this case and should be kept in mind. This is also part of my rationale for changing the sources on some of these images, as some of their earlier uploads online mentioned the subjects as being Assyrians, but Wlaak uploaded them from his website to assert an Aramean ID instead.

Yesterday, after File:Jacobite of Tur Abdin 1907 was renamed [14], I leave a talk page message to the filemover to discuss the edit [15] and the dispute it's involved in; Wlaak leaves some additional comments, and I emphasize that I want to discuss the renames with him outside of the filemover's talk page. Later, I make some category redirects pertaining to the topic area [16], as I have done before [17], and Wlaak leaves me a talk page message [18], stating: Stop messing with redirects, categories mentioning the identifying people as Syriac-Arameans should stay at Syriac-Arameans, respect the self-identification. I mention that ...dividing people by "Syriac-Aramean" and "Assyrian" identity is implying that they are separate groups entirely. They are not., and I have attached the English Wikipedia links above so that others may see what I mean. Wlaak then begins to make his own category redirects linking to his new categories [19], and then goes to change some of mine [20] linking to them as well.

I don't particularly appreciate having been accused of POV-pushing before my side of this situation has been discussed. While this case can realistically be made against me, so too can it be made against Wlaak. On top of that, there are issues regarding sock/meatpuppetry and off-Wiki coordination and anti-Assyrian sentiment from Wlaak's end, so I would like to address that as well. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Link given above leads to [21]. Yann (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the files I checked from this batch qualified for the criterion 2 rationale for renaming that was used, Surayeproject3. It also seems like no redirects were left when renaming the files, even though, to my knowledge, it is recommended to (almost always) leave a redirect for technical reasons (to not break any links to the file that used the old file name).

As far as the file name dispute goes, I'd second Sneeuwschaap's recommendation[22] to simply omit the disputed parts from the file name. If there are sources that claim "Assyria" while other sources say "Syriac-Arameans" then this fact can be incorporated into the file description in the typical encyclopedic writing style that is used throughout Wikipedia: just neutraly summarize what the sources say, attribute sources where necessary, and add relevant references. Its not our job as Commons users to establish The Truth™ or to right great wrongs by "correcting" the file names one way or the other, or whatever this file renaming back and forth is. Neither of us knows who those people really were, so just state in the file description that there are different claims in different sources, and don't make any statements regarding the people's ethnicity in the file name where it is not possible to elaborate on the issue of conflicting information. Nakonana (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana, that is fine regarding the file names. What about the categories though? As I have mentioned, the people who call themselves "Assyrian" and "Aramean" are not a different ethnic group at all, and they are not recognized to be a different ethnic group. Putting files regarding the same ethnic group in several different categories is not efficient and just scatters the images all over the place. This is also something that needs to be addressed as well. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

An image described as Aramean does not fit in an Assyrian category, vice versa. It is not a big deal, we should just respect the identification. They are recognized to be different ethnic groups, such as in Australia [23], and not to mention the overwhelmingly big portion of them that claim this as well. Wlaak (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Since there are sources that would support both claims —Assyrian and Aramean— I'd put them in both categories. Nakonana (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Yann for opening this discussion!

I do not want to give editors a headache with this whole dispute, but shortly said, this is a dispute that goes way back, it stretches to enWiki - one POV is Syriac-Aramean and the other is Assyrian.

To stay relevant within Commons, I originally uploaded files and images surrounding Syriac-Aramean topics, this is if the image is of Syriac-Arameans, I upload it. I had originally uploaded numerous images to Commons beginning 29 September 2025, I created a category of it as well, namely this one.

It used to contain over 50 uploads.

Surayeproject3 files for a global lock on me at Meta Wikimedia, and succeeds in doing so on 16 October 2025. About two days later, he targets nearly all 50 uploads and renames them to his POV; Assyrian, one example is: [24] (note that some verbatim supports Aramean).

He does not stop there, Surayeproject3 then targets the entire category itself and deletes all its files it once used to have from Commons and instead creates a redirect to his fitting POV; Assyrian: [25]

Fast forward to November 4, my global lock was reduced to a global block. Fast forward to January 24, my global block was removed.

I got back to Commons and simply requests to rename my own uploads, for example these: [26] [27] [28].

Roughly 2h 30 minutes after my first rename request, Surayeproject3 goes back to Meta Wikimedia and tries getting me blocked, but to no success: [29]

A few minutes prior/after he tried getting me blocked, he removed my rename requests on my uploads: [30] [31] [32].

I then go to an Admin's talk page to address the situation and he helps me get the renames done. I then asked if it there is any possibility for a IBAN between me and Surayeproject3.

Fast forward until today, I request the renaming of one of my uploads per the latest source addition (which supported the name change). A filemover accepts this request and moves it for me, in which Surayeproject3 notices, so he goes to the filemovers talk page and successfully gets him to undo his move.

Fast forward to a few hours prior to this comment, Surayeproject3 created redirects on various "Arameans in country X" categories to "Assyrian people" - examples include (i cannot include all since i rescued some) the ones that are still standing as he put them: [33] [34] [35].

I go on his talk page to tell him to quit messing with the redirects and to respect the self-identification of the images: [36]

Instead of acknowledging this, he tells me that he has offered me opportunities to discuss the file names, to which I reply that whatever name the sources mention, let that be. For instance, if a source mentions the people as "Banana" let it be in the category of "Banana" instead of redirecting to category "Pineapple". He replies that dividing them "Syriac-Arameans" and "Assyrians" give the impressions that they are different groups (which many believe, many of the people themselves), and this is exactly what the POV is about, he cannot stand Syriac-Aramean names it feels like. I replied that it is not relevant, and that we should respect the sources and the self-identification of the images, and referenced the Admins talk page. He then accuses me of owning the sources and website (I had already addressed this back in September) I use as references, not one website, but two! To which I told him I have no connection with, and for what it is worth, they are by far not the only sources I use, I've used Gertrude Bell, JSTOR, Facebook, Instagram, and various other websites, for example on this one and this one.

I would like to anyone that can, to check the Arbitration case he is referring to and determine if I am behind the websites (I am not), and any CheckUser on Commons are more than welcome to see if I am attached to AramaicFuse who Surayeproject3 linked just now. It is very unfortunate that events on other projects will be dragged to Commons, Surayeproject3 tried the same thing on the Turkish Wikipedia (follow global contributions and try to get me banned because of events on enWiki), but to no avail.

Saying I have racist motives and putting it in a manner where I have intent to push anything in real-life is to me not acceptable accusations, I don't mind the website accusations, but the racist accusations is far from OK! Again, please check the Arbitration case he is referring to, I have not heard of anything from them.

His targeting on Syriac/Aramean named files go further back than my active presence on Commons, just searching for "Aramean" in the archive on deletion requests will show numerous requests involving Surayeproject3, one of them is this one. I am not saying they might not be valid, but it is clear that this is a targeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlaak (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I remain on the stance that I would like to get a voluntarily IBAN between me and Surayeproject3, after the redirects he a few hours ago messed with gets fixed. As it probably is very visible from this thread alone, it seems like the only solution.

Thanks to anyone looking into this matter!

Wlaak Wlaak (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I was informed about this and asked to comment. Please, not again, with these endless novels with Diflinks to page-long discussions with mutual accusations. I'm actually not that interested in your war about the correct or incorrect description of the filesnames, descriptions, categories etc., but in the end I agree with Yann: an IBAN would probably be best. Just leave each other's files alone, stop hounding each other. @Wlaak, are you aware of what an IBAN means and what it means for both of you? It usually means that for topics of interest to both of you, you first need to check the version history, whether it's for a file, a category, or galleries, whatsoever. If the other person's username appears there, you are prohibited from editing the page, as otherwise any editing by the other user could be considered a violation of the interaction ban. This is just a friendly piece of advice. Regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 21:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I am not sure if I should reply or not since you do not want to be part of this. But if an IBAN would go in effect, would it mean that I cannot edit my own uploads if Surayeproject3 has previously edited them? Even if they are my own uploads? Wlaak (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Wlaak, In an edit war, the state before the war is usually frozen until a consensus is reached, which I doubt will happen in your case, since the dispute has been ongoing for quite some time. For files created before the ban, you naturally have the right to restore the previous state. However, it would be better if someone else did it, which, as I understand it, has already happened for some files. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 05:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok , thank you . Wlaak (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Suggesting to widen the IBAN to include Etcnoel1, who has been doing disruptive edits on my uploads, despite being told to quit and reverted. Not much previous activity on Commons other than editing my uploads. [37][38][39][40][41][42]. Etcnoel1 has been previously blocked on enWiki.

His edits towards my uploads includes removing my source and changing it for another, the image in that source is not a 1:1 to the one in my original source (quality is way off). Taken this to both our talk pages. [43][44]. Wlaak (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this discussion, Yann. The Terms for Syriac Christians was enlightening reading for me. I don't intend to take sides here, I am neither a Pan-Aramean nor a Pan-Assyrian and I don't stand for denial of either Aramean or Assyrian identity, and I acknowledge this matter is complex, nuanced and a bit messy. Abzeronow (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Wlaak

The user @Wlaak and me have had some issues regarding the file File:Arameans of the Dawronoyo Movement.jpg where I attempted to change the description to a more accurate one (as per what sources say),[45] which Wlaak did not take lightly. I ask for the admins to have a look at him, as he proceeded to continuously accuse me of vandalism, using the term itself so loosely.[46][47] He also seems to claim ownership of files and articles, claiming that I’m quote “messing with his uploads”.[48] This is however not the first time that he has been warned of this similar behavior regarding “claiming ownership”, as he has been through the same situation on English Wikipedia.[49] To conclude, I finally ask for you admins to take a look into this; as he clearly hasn’t learned anything from past mistakes. And he should definitely not be allowed to throw the term “vandalism” so loosely against other editors without knowing what the term truly indicates. Etcnoel1 (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Your source is not the source of the file, the image in your source is not the one used in the uploaded file's source. I am not claiming ownership of files, I am reverting edits that are not productive - Commons does not have articles. The source Etcnoel1 wants to push instead of the already existing one, states nothing other than describing the flags used in the background, one of the flags mentioned does not exist in the file uploaded, per the source it was taken from.

For context, see my comment here. Since we are dropping enWiki, here is the one of Etcnoel1. Wlaak (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It’s about the reliability of the source too. You used an Aramean Instagram account which did not post the original and full image, but rather the cropped out version which leaves out the Assyrian flag—this is just misleading when it comes to the description, as you labeled them “Arameans” when they are visibly Assyrians once you see the full image. This does not diminish the fact that you throw the term “vandalism” so loosely and claim ownership of files here on Wikimedia, I’m allowed to edit without you accusing me of horrendous things. Etcnoel1 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you using AI? What about the reliability? The photograph is in the public domain. A good portion of Commons is images from either Facebook, Instagram, or even X. The source you are pushing for (a source that does not contain the exact file as the uploaded) does not even mention them as Assyrians, rather it calls them Syriacs. And for the record, cropping images is completely allowed on Commons. Wlaak (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m not using A.I., and that’s yet another bold claim on your behalf. The source I am pushing is more reliable, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be the cropped version, as long as it’s the exact same photo. And if you took your time to read my source, you’d see that it says quote “For the sake of simplicity, the term "Syriac" is here employed to denote also those individuals or communities identifying as Assyrians, Chaldeans, Arameans, Christian Kurds or Christian Arabs.” And if we look at the picture, we see the Assyrian and Aramean flags, which would make it nothing but fair if we label them as Syriac-Assyrians or even Aramean-Assyrians. Anyhow, I could ask you the very same question; if the source of the original image now calls them Syriac, why do you call them Aramean? Etcnoel1 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It was a question, not a claim, I explicitly wrote "Are you using AI?" since I saw you used "—".

Right, so the source still does not call them Assyrians, rather Syriacs, which includes all the above mentioned? I call them Aramean because the source for the file did, the source you are using is not the source used for the file. I won't comment on this further. Wlaak (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for that misunderstanding, no I didn’t use A.I. Also, do you you mean an Aramean Instagram account which is not the original source of the picture, which (fyi) cropped out the Assyrian flag? And if this more reliable source calls them Syriac, and there is an Assyrian flag in the background which was now cropped out, don’t you think that it would only be right for us to label them as Syriac-Assyrians? The image being cropped doesn’t change who the people in the image are, now does it? I’d say it’s only fair to accurately describe the people in the image, why is this such an issue for you Wlaak? Etcnoel1 (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Flag ≠ people. The source you link is even talking about Kurds and Arabs. I won’t change the source I used for the file, your source is not the source used for the file. Its a much lower quality one either way. Cropping is OK, it does not include anything other than whatnot described in the file already. Please do not ping me further. Wlaak (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Flag has very much to do with people, what kind of conclusion is that? On what basis did your source conclude that the people in the picture are “Arameans”? I’d assume by the flags. Etcnoel1 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This will be my final reply. Again, your source mentions Arabs, Kurds, Chaldeans as well. Including all is not logical. The people in your source are described as Syriacs, that’d include Kurds, Arabs and Chaldeans, per your own source. The file does not include the Assyrian flag so it should not be mentioned that it does, because it doesn’t…

The source used for the file only mentions Arameans in the description.

Now, I won’t be further commenting on this. Please do not ping me. Wlaak (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This is just repetitive argumentation. My last and final reply would be what I said earlier: none of this diminishes the remainder; you accused me of vandalism, used the term loosely, while having in reality no idea what the word indicates. Etcnoel1 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

None of this diminishes the remainder; you accused me of vandalism, used the term loosely, having in reality no idea what the word indicates. Etcnoel1 (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Also regarding the A.I., claim you made, how could it be A.I when I made a grammatical mistake in the text? Etcnoel1 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment How do we know that this is in the public domain, as the license claims? Yann (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Reverse image mentions 2003 as the date. I took the source from Instagram as it is where I found it and it seems to be the highest quality available. Wlaak (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Just because an image is publicly available does not mean that it is in the so-called "public domain", which is a term that means the image is not protected by copyright. Most images that are publicly available are still protected by copyright and thus not in the "public domain". For such a recent image to be in the public domain we'd need an explicit statement by the copyright holder that they are waving their copyright. Nakonana (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The courtesy of the image goes to Sargon Adam, the photograph was taken in Syria March 2003. Photographs prior to 2004 in Syria is in the public domain. The copyright holder said it was 2003 March. [50] Wlaak (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This topic[51] again but with a new party? Nakonana (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes exactly , I suggested to widen IBAN to include the new party as well. because this is not out of interests regarding Commons rather POV interests Wlaak (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

No, this was about the fact that @Wlaak continuously misused the word “vandalism” towards me in his summaries, and he kept on using it despite not knowing what the term actually indicates. I don’t see how this should be tolerated at all. Etcnoel1 (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Which one is it? The description of the file or the use of ”vandalism” by me? Your opening statement made it seem as you filed this request due to the file description? Wlaak (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It’s both? Just because we spoke more about the description part just now, doesn’t mean that your misuse of the word “vandalism” never took place. “Which one is it” this isn’t a pick or choose situation if that’s what you think, you are wrong on both counts. Period. Etcnoel1 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I just reacted to you saying no to Nakonana. So it is as Nakonana said, the same topic again; Aramean vs. Assyrian. Wlaak (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Not really though, the topic is both things. Etcnoel1 (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Yutyo77764

Yutyo77764 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Despite numerous blocks and warnings, the user still posts photos that violate copyright law. The list of his deleted files is quite long and yet he doesn't see the problem. He is so brazen that he cites social media as a source for old photos. In other cases, he does not refer to actual sources but provides the names of scientific institutions that collect archival data. However, access to the archives is not easy for ordinary people and research workers do not make such archival photos available to random people just to publish them here. Uniminomum (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

And has hit the point where there are so many templates on their user discussion page that they won't even render. - Jmabel ! talk 05:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I archived the talkpage and now even for me it renders, but I do not block the user, because last problematic upload seems to origin from September. Taivo (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Of the most recent 50 edits to that user talk page, they have responded exactly twice. That is not exactly responsive to criticism.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The uploader has been proven to be providing false information about the dates the photos were taken. He uploaded photos of members of parliament who served multiple terms in the Polish Parliament, downloaded from the website of the Polish Sejm library. However, the website lacks any information about when the photos of individual members were taken. Uniminomum (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't really think there's much to do here other than leave an {{end of copyvios}} warning and go from there. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 05:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Uploads by Fabe56

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  ------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose restricting ability to upload

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does the huge number of files get sorted out?

I see two options, assuming lack of engagement:

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

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

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

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

Why would you assume that when someone clearly stated that they have seen Fabe56 curating their uploads[52]? Nakonana (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Kontributor_2K

I would appreciate if an admin could take a look at @Kontributor 2K. Even tho he seems extremly engaged (and does for sure know Commons well), i've had the issue that he isn't open to discuss or accept criticism at all several times now in the ecclesiastical heraldry cat. The last example cf. here:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noah.Albert.ZivMilF%C3%BC#c-Kontributor_2K-20260201134700-Noah.Albert.ZivMilF%C3%BC-20260201134000 @ZuppaDiCarlo, @TheLoyalOrder, and @Madboy74 also indicated issues with his tone on his user page.

Best regards Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

See also User talk:Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü#Category:Ecclesiastical heraldry crests.

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

VNC200

• VNC200 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues to upload blatant copyvio and unfree derivative files after warning. All the deletion notices available on TP. Previously blocked for 1 week then 1 month then 3 months. {{End of copyvios}} was also served on 06:30, 23 April 2023 by Krd. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment This user was blocked on 29 December 2024, but the last deleted file was on 24 November 2025. I am not sure that File:BDO Andal monitored EF fillup work at helpdesk of 278 Raniganj AC under Paschim Bardhaman district, West Bengal.jpg is OK, but I don't see obvious copyright violations after the block. Yann (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Yann, one question. The last block expired on 29 March 2025. Multiple political party flags were uploaded as own work in November 2025, i.e. 8 months after last block expired. You can check the upload log. File:Jan Suraaj Party flag.svg, File:NCP (SP) flag.svg, File:Shiv Sena flag.svg, File:Shiv Sena (UBT) flag.svg, File:Shiv Sena (UBT) flag (7).svg. Weren't all of these obvious copyvios. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 01:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, right. I mixed up 2024 and 2025.  Done Blocked indef. (4th block). Yann (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Nazwa1234

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

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

Occisors

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

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

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

Extended content

"I literally never said that this photo was taken in the early 18th century. You ok?" [53] "You need to respond to a lot of things. One of them being the fact that you are making baseless deletion requests and are either refusing to read/cannot read/cannot comprehend the information about the photo licensing or you are intentionally misinterpreting and making up statements that do not exist in the provided licensing information." [54] "By definition, in order to "repeat" yourself, you would have needed to have answered the points I have raised before - which you did not. Therefore, you would not be "repeating" yourself. Also, you should address the issue that you lied on the administrator's board about the @Trade's edits and how they are about "very similar files" to these ones, when, in fact, they are not. They are different photos, and you know that. And that is why you are refusing to answer any of my questions, right?" [55] "Why should I "dial it back" if it is "great to see"? Maybe you should dial back your "disruptive" and "block-worthy" behaviors, which have been reported to the Administrators' board? And also making false and/or biased statements?" [56] "Not to mention 1931 is not 18th century... *insert facepalm emoji*" [57] "I can remove that as a source, so that Trade/Counterfeit purses/Whatever other alt acc they have can move on from this" [58] (Trade has never been found to be an alt account of anyone)

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

Extended content

I am not going to waste my time with your clearly biased and disruptive behaviors and false statements. Do better. [59] I mean, use common sense. When and why would NBC do that. This is obviously unlicensed footage. [60] During this deletion discussion, they also put in repeated votes for their own deletion nomination, until they had to be told by Abzeronow to not do this. Occisors acknowledged this and promptly ceased. The files I had uploaded were ultimately deleted by Josve05a. When I had discovered this, I read through the deletion discussion and I agreed that the closing statement that most of the files I uploaded were ineligible for Commons. Nevertheless, I disagreed with the deletion of one of the nominated files, and I appealed the deletion of this particular file with Josve05a at his talk page, which is an appropriate forum per Commons:Undeletion_requests#Appealing_a_deletion.

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

Extended content
"Howard saying "no clear breakdown was provided identifying which segments originate from NBC and which do not" is a lie." [61] (accusing Josve of lying in their closing comment, although Occisors misattributes this statement to me)

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

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

You have uploaded copyrighted screencaps to commons claiming they were under "free license" because you didn't do your research. I had to do the research and prove that they were copyrighted. Instead, you continued reupload the video/screencaps with various vague excuses, but without any solid proof of copyright. Your excuse? The absence of evidence that it's copyrighted. Which is against wiki commons rules - that state that the burden of proof is on you. S, maybe you should be banned for that? As I have explained before my deleted images were all reported by the sockpuppet account, whose essentially only purpose for deletion was to reinstate your copyrighted screencaps. So, idk why you mentioned that. Why not mention yourself posting copyrighted content on commons?

You accuse me of " bludgeoning" by "tendency to leave walls upon walls of text", but this is what your post is - a whole of text. Unlike you, in my posts I always include all the sources and quote the relevant bits from those sources - that's the only reason my posts are "long" - not to drown out others' comments in the discussion - it's not against wiki rules afaik for your posts to be long or to use formatting to highlight important points of your posts, especially when they are long. "Someone used bold text - let's block them! - this is your logic?" Once again, if you can just provide me with SOURCE (this is all I am ever asking - which according to you is uncivil) where it's against wikipedia rules and it's a blockable offense? Why is it possible to format text in the first place here then? You're literally the one assuming the bad faith here. Another user actually just taught me today that "tq" code is preferred to be used on talk pages when quoting stuff, etc..to make the text green. I would've used that instead of other format had I known it about it.If you weren't so happy with my text formatting - you couldn't taught me that - instead you assumed bad faith.

I personally find it easier to read formatted & highlighted text than a wall of unformatted, humogonous text. Or when people directly provide relevant pieces of info from sources, instead of just linking the source, where one then has to go at look hunt it for themselves. Not to mention, you never say what was factually incorrect in what I have said regarding copyrights.

Occisors ought to be blocked from Commons until they have demonstrated a willingness not to engage in behavior which stifles discussion I have constantly demonstrated that... your literal examples of me being "uncivil" etc. are of me asking people to provide sources to back up their opinion.

And most the discussion examples you use here are of me and the sockpuppet account, who's been vandalizing the page in question to promote their biased opinions without any sources. So, I was correct to call them out on their self-admitted biased behavior and that they may be a sockpuppet (which they were). Occisors (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Occisors: You can make your arguments on copyright violations, I have no issue with debating this matter. If you convince me the file is indeed a copyright violation, I will indeed support its deletion. I have never shied away from ordering my own files deleted due to what I later discovered to be copyright violating content.

Indeed I did agree that at least two files from the deletion nomination you started should remain deleted as they were found to be Reuters footage. However, from my own personal research, I found that at least some of the video did contain original NBC News footage, which is the only part I requested to be kept.

My concern is not with your arguments but with your conduct throughout all of this. You can make a request to delete a file without falsely and baselessly accusing me of lying, being a sockpuppet, or bias. You have already accused both me and Trade of being sockpuppets simply for disagreeing with you. I have seen recently you have gone back on making your text larger in arguments, which I consider a positive development, however you need to stop with accusations and personal attacks in the arguments you make.

If you agree to this, there will be no further problem. Indeed, if admins find the content I uploaded to be inadmissible and delete it, I will not relitigate the matter any further. I have already provided my reasoning for why it should be kept and I have no more arguments to rehash. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 16:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

DrtheHistorian

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

• Commons:Village pump (Diff ~1159480428) user 999real has uploaded almost 1.5m images in span of 2 years, most being propaganda with a clear agenda
• Commons:Village pump (Diff ~1159515858) User has shown they are a propaganda tool,

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

I was not attempting to make personal attacks, if it came as such I do apologize. The second one you shared I can see how it was inappropriate. I have crossed it out.

The first statement however that is the whole discussion of the topic. The point was purely towards the pictures that are being uploaded. I should have worded it differently.

I was and never will make personal attacks and I do not tolerate them one bit, if it came out as such it is bad writing from my end. DrtheHistorian (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

DrtheHistorian, I do appreciate you striking the "propaganda tool" part.
Can you see how "user 999real has uploaded [...] with a clear agenda" also reads like an attack on 999real? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

After reading the cm again, I can see how it can be interpreted as such. What I meant was towards the images, not the user. The images have a clear agenda. Definitely a bad writing from my end. DrtheHistorian (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

DrtheHistorian, after reading the first comment again, I must admit there's also some suboptimal reading on my part. There is no comma after "propaganda", so the agenda is more likely to refer to the images and not the user. It's not great writing and not fully unambiguous, especially when viewed with the context of the "propaganda tool" accusation fresh in memory it's rather easy to misinterpret. But I do believe now the agenda in your first comment referred to the images and not 999real. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I am glad we could clear things up. DrtheHistorian (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Thanks for resolving of the issue. Yann (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Moryni

Moryni (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) - As far as I understand, the user is subtly advertising sports betting. I would appreciate a second pair of eyes to take a look. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: I agree. They also stole their one upload from https://www.flickr.com/photos/latebol/10659694245/.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Yann

Yann (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) The user deletes the Template:Copyvio from this page File:TadeuszBilinski.jpg even though there is no information that the photo was taken before 1994. It is scandalous that the user restores the incorrect time frame for the photo - Special:Diff/1159886838 - even though the website of the Polish Parliament Library [62] It does not specify the year the photo was taken. The man was a member of the Polish parliament until 2001. [63] [64] [65]. The person in the photo is still alive. It is ridiculous that the uploader added a false time frame for when the photo was taken, and no one bothered to verify whether the source page actually provided the date the photo was taken. Worst of all, Yann restored the false information without verifying it on the source page. Deliberately restoring information that is not confirmed on the source page can be considered vandalism, not copyright protection. It is unlikely that the user has the ability to discern whether the photo was actually taken before 1994. It is absurd that users here know better when the photo was taken than the parliamentary library staff. Everything was explained in the request for deletion, - Special:Diff/1158530387 - yet the user did not bother to read the arguments provided there. The unjustified deletion of the template and the reinstatement of false information inconsistent with the source, despite being brought to the attention, could hardly be considered a manifestation of bad faith on the user's part. The very act of reinstating false information is scandalous. I get the impression that the user is desperately trying to prove me wrong despite the obvious facts. The user's discussion is blocked, so I cannot inform them about this discussion. I also had to clear my browser data, which resulted in me losing access to my old account. Uniminomumm (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done @Uniminomumm: I believe you misunderstand {{Copyvio}}. It is only intended for clear-cut cases, as described in Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#F1. Clearly that does not apply here. (Or maybe not so clearly: I see yours is a brand new account, so you probably haven't run across this before. No harm, no foul.) It would need to go through a normal DR. This is certainly not a violation of policy on Yann's part.

May I suggest that you tread a little lighter and not jump straight to filing a complaint about someone's conduct when you are still learning your way around how things work on this site? - Jmabel ! talk 06:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Elcobbola and long-term abuse

I'm getting tired of this! Every edit I make makes this "Elcobbola" think that I'm vandalizing Wikipedia, just for fun! Blarneyuj (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Not only that, he also reverts files using the "Temporary deletion for history cleaning or revision suppression" thing! This has got to stop in an instant! Blarneyuj (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Blarneyuj, please provide a link of where this is happening so we can investigate. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It just says so right here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Elcobbola Blarneyuj (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blarneyuj has been indeffed by Elcobbola. Legitimately still clueless what they were on about, they didn't reveal the account that was used to upload the supposedly reverted files. Just noise I guess. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yet another LTA wasting our time. Elcobolla did fine. Bedivere (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Angelodealgostini

• User: Angelodealgostini (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Troféu do Mundialito de Clubes.jpg after final warning for doing so. Making incomplete DRs for seven of them (one while logged out).

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

 Not done. Only one copyvio during 6 years. Not enough for block. Taivo (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your review. I confirm that I am not submitting new files with copyright issues. I am reviewing old uploads and requesting the deletion of those that are not my own work or that do not have a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons, to correct past mistakes. I will remain attentive to the rules from now on. Thank you. Angelodealgostini (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

por favor quero excluir esse aquivos que foram upload Angelodealgostini (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

User:AlexandreAssatiani

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

 Done Blocked indef. Two files deleted. I guess all files need review. Yann (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted 11 more files and 2 now-empty categories. Taivo (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Federigo Federighi

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

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

User:Tokugawa Sinai

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

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