Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems
Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
128, 127, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
- Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
- Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (
~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp. - Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s).
{{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~is available for this. - It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
- Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
Uploads by Fabe56
[edit]Fabe56 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
I happened upon a very large number of uploads by Fabe56, and became intrigued. I was looking at File:05Puffing Billy Novem 2011 (6317817690).jpg, and, setting the date aside, saw it as a minor child privacy issue, so dug further. In November 2011 that child was circa six years old. Today, at circa 20, that exact problem has evaporated. Even at date of upload at circa 18, that problem was borderline. I hasten to say that Fabe56 is very unlikely to be the person who uploaded the picture to Flickr. This is not about child privacy as you will see when you read on.
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)
Collapsing bulk of early discussion, leaving initial problem statement visible
|
|---|
|
Propose restricting ability to upload
[edit] Uploader blocked form uploading
|
|---|
|
There appears historically to be no way of engaging with Fabe56.
Thus we need to attract their attention in order to seek to resolve the mass uncritical uploading of files. Until they enter into a dialogue that reaches a satisfactory conclusion, something that may be set by consensus, I propose a block on at least the use of mass upload tools, and, if consensus here decides, a block on uploads. These blocks may have a different duration.
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I blocked Fabe56 from uploading files for 3 months. Hopefully they will get the message. Further block can be sent whenever needed. Yann (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
How does the huge number of files get sorted out?
[edit]I see two options, assuming lack of engagement:
- We ignore them. 'disk space is cheap'(!)
- We start quietly nominating batches for deletion.
Thoughts would be appreciated. Is there an admin action that can be implemented to handle the obvious candidates unilaterally without a DR, for example? 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 11:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hopefully Fabe56 will do something. Otherwise, an indefinite block should be sent. Yann (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed! I am assuming worst case, though. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Why would you assume that when someone clearly stated that they have seen Fabe56 curating their uploads[1]? Nakonana (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think a plan needs to be formulated. They have been absent from Commons since 29 January and everywhere else since 30 January 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 12:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- They remain absent 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 05:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hello,
- Sorry, I didn't have access to the Internet. I will try to revert all my contributions to Wikimedia Commons. It will take time for sure, but it seems to be the best solution, as I don't want to offend anyone.
- I personnaly really regret that collaboration is not really an integral part of this project, but that fine no worries ;-)
- Sorry again. Fabe56 (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Fabe56 Collaboration is a two way street. You are meant to act collegially with uploads, and not simply blast them here uncritically. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- They remain absent 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 05:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed! I am assuming worst case, though. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hopefully Fabe56 will do something. Otherwise, an indefinite block should be sent. Yann (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Fabe56 On 18 February you said
I will try to revert all my contributions to Wikimedia Commons. It will take time for sure, but it seems to be the best solution, as I don't want to offend anyone.
, however, you have edited here since that time - Special:Contributions/Fabe56 - and I cannot see any indication that you have started the process of the massive clear up. Instead it seems you are carrying on almost as though nothing is happening, except that you are blocked from uploading files. - With precision, please, what is your plan and what is your timetable? 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 11:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Timtrent,
- I feel foolish, but once again, I apologize for completely misunderstanding the issue. I thought it only concerned my uploads...
- I didn't realize that other contributions were also causing problems. I am therefore stopping my contributions here as of now, this being my last one.
- Please remember that I am a volunteer and doing this to improve and not destroyed the project. I have no idea how I am going to proceed and how I will manage my time for those tasks. So how long it will take me to undo ALL my contributions: probably years, with 387,223 edits, which means at least 1 minute per edit to undo.
- Keep in mind this is not pleasant and motivating to destroy works that I (wrongly but sincerally) thought were valuable.
- Thank you. Fabe56 (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Fabe56 This discussion is about your enormous quantity of uploads, uploaded uncritically en masse.
- I agree. When I checked you has 202,108 uploads. Some of these will be of genuine benefit to Wikimedia Commons. However, it appears that the great majority have been uploaded mechanically, with no evidence of thought about why they have been chosen, and no useful categorisation afterwards. I accept that you uploaded them in good faith, believing that you were enhancing the project. The real outcome is that you have created a large logistical challenge, both for yourself and for others.
- I suggest that there may be tools only accessible to administrators to assist with clearing the enormous pile, and that you ask for administrative help. This is especially important, since only administrators can delete files
- Let me look at four recent examples taken from yur upload log om 28 January 2026:
- None is COM:INUSE, none has a useful filename, none is categorised.
- Yes, it is likely to feel disheartening. I can do nothing about that. It is disheartening to have had to bring the matter here. I tried to engage with you on your user talk page to save the need to come here, but here we are, and you are blocked from uploading. I recognise that this all disrupts your hobby, but solving the problem is part of that hobby.
- So I ask you again, With precision, please, what is your plan and what is your timetable? 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 14:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
What is available to help to solve this?
[edit]We have a major difficulty expressed by Fabe56 in the segment above. They seem to be ready and willing to solve this issue that they have created, but express doubts on their ability do do so, and in a timely manner. I have paraphrased. If I need correction I am happy to receive it.
The idea of creating DRs for (say) 100 at a time means an enormous number of DRs and a lot of work for a lot of people, coupled with "DR Fatigue" for the community. I have seen admins perform bulk deletes before. @Yann: : As the blocking admin I wonder if you have thoughts on how they may be assisted by one or more admins to get rid of the files that meet any of the conditions for removal, including:
- Named with names that are insufficiently descriptive to allow them to be retrieved and used
- Not sorted into any categorisation scheme that is of use to Commons
- Not COM:INUSE in any valid and meaningful way
- Duplicates or near duplicates of each other
- in some manner 'out of scope' for Commons
- Form part of a personal picture library, something that Commons may not be used for
It is likely that some of the >200,000 uploads will be useful to Commons even if they fail one of more of these suggested conditions for removal. I am unsure that time will be well spent by trying to determine that. obviously I am just asking Yann as blocking admin. I do not seek to restrict this conversation to them alone. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 18:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- If some of these should be batch DRs (files with clearly parallel reasons to be deleted), it is pretty easy to use VFC to set up a batch DR. More or less, the process is:
- If they are in a given category, or can be found with a given search, you use that category/search to launch VFC. Note that is is fine if not everything in the category/search should be DR'd: within VFC, you can be selective.
- In VFC, set your action to "Nominate for deletion"
- I think the rest of it is pretty obvious.
- Similarly, if a search will find files that can be batch-categorized, Cat-a-lot is very useful for that.
- Not being in use is not a reason for any action; it is just that being in use is a reason to keep almost anything that is not CSAM, a copyright violation, or unacceptable AI-generated content.
- Presumably those should help whittle things down to something more tractable. Obviously, bad names and duplicates typically have to be dealt with one by one (the only major exception being that if there is a pattern of renaming, admins have a tool for that).
- - Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- There are 202,108 files. I have made a trivial start. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fabe56 See the current last discussion on the page. This is just 24 files and will take years. I use VFC. This is a batch DR. It is easy to do the first few. Then you have to scroll south and wait for the screen to fill. DRs take a finite time. So this DR is an example of the futility of this approach.
- Maybe I should try all 202,108 in one go (not a serious suggestion, I have no intention of doing something so patently disruptive). This will take a task force to solve. I do not believe DRs to be the way to go here. That was my first and likely last on this set of uploads. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- If there is no search that easily finds them, and the only way you can find them is to go through the user uploads, you can use Cat-a-Lot to stick a maintenance category on them, then use VFC to nominate them for deletion (and then, ideally, strip the maintenance category). But I sure do wish that the selection methods for our various tools were coded separately from the actions they take, so we could mix and match. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- I suspect someone who knows how can write a query to achieve it. It's not that there's any rush, except it would be good to tidy this up more than somewhat while we're all still alive(!).
- Even if the query split them into maintenance cats containing 100 or so each (based on sane criteria) that would make the task possible, albeit imperfect. Doing any of this manually is where madness lies. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 02:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- If there is no search that easily finds them, and the only way you can find them is to go through the user uploads, you can use Cat-a-Lot to stick a maintenance category on them, then use VFC to nominate them for deletion (and then, ideally, strip the maintenance category). But I sure do wish that the selection methods for our various tools were coded separately from the actions they take, so we could mix and match. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: In past years, I have used one temp category Category:Jefftemp to assist categorizing files found with searches and whatnot, and then nominated them from there to subsections of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jefftemp. Doing it directly from the searches could be cleaner; good luck with that. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. I agree, but I do not have the IT literacy myself to create any form of search. Nor, yet, do we have agreed criteria to try to ensure we do not destroy a useful resource while removing files that are not useful to Commons. Some of my bulleted items in this section look to be likely criteria, others of them need to be modified or discarded. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 21:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
The uploads are so numerous it's hard to actually evaluate at what rate the files are in scope, categorized, and named. It's worth noting Fabe56 isn't even in the top 50 most prolific uploaders here, and categorization for any batch that doesn't come with structured data is a persistent problem we could use better guidelines for. Certainly I'd like to see tighter restrictions on f2c and some auditing of new users' transfers so we avoid getting to this point.
If issues truly run through all of their uploads, I don't know that actually tagging and listing all of them at DR is reasonable, and can probably be handled through some other avenue. But I don't know that it's true that they run through all of their uploads. Here's what I'd like to know: Fabe56 could you provide an estimate for what % of uploads you think are categorized, the % that likely have a useful name, and the % that are likely in-scope? If you agree you may have gone overboard with some of the uploads, would you like some time to go back through them? I don't see a need to just delete everything if you think many/most are fine, or if you want some time to investigate. Since they're transferred from Flickr, I suspect just evaluating account-by-account rather than file-by-file may be the most efficient approach, then you can say "yes files transferred from this account are probably out of scope" or "files transferred from this account are useful and I'll work on categorizing/renaming". — Rhododendrites talk | 02:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Burzagli
[edit]- User: Burzagli (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Rudolf-Claudus.jpg after final warning.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Not done. Only one suspicious image during 8 years. Not enough for block. Taivo (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
User:M j
[edit]M j (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Please take a look at the user’s contributions. Their last edits, all just with the edit summary “wrong”, damage the description pages of many images, often (always?) removing the {{Assessments}} template. I can’t see any sensible explanation for this, therefore I think we must regard this as vandalism. Please consider to block this user in order to prevent further damage, and please revert their newest edits (starting with 11th February). It may also be useful to take a look at their older contributions. Thank you very much! – Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Aristeas: I reverted their newest edits. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @ Jeff G.: thank you! – Maybe I have to apologize because my statement above was too general. In the edits I first looked at User:M j has removed information which was certainly valid: the featured picture status on Commons in this edit, the valued image status in this edit or the POTY info in this edit. This is why I got the impression that this is a case of vandalism. Now I see that in other edits, like this one, the user has removed only the statement that an image is featured on the Persian Wikipedia. So maybe my impression that this was clear vandalism is wrong, and User:M j tried to tidy up some featured picture information regarding the Persian Wikipedia, but was too hasty and damaged other valid information by the way. That’s unfortunate, but alas, maybe I was too hasty, too, and should have rather discussed with the user what exactly they wanted to accomplish before reporting them here. I am very sorry for this. Therefore:
- @M j: Sorry if I was too hasty to call your edits vandalism, but in the edits I first looked at you have damaged valuable information. Could you explain what you wanted to do with these edits, and why you are removing the information? Of course if your edits were legitimate, I apologize and promise to help you to restore them, just avoiding the errors which had slipped in. – Aristeas (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Aristeas and @M j: This is what happens when you make removals on 14 file description pages in a row with identical "wrong" Edit Summaries. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Yes, indeed. – Because User:M j seems to be active only sporadically, I have asked a friend who understands Persian to look at some of the images. He has explained to me that these photos were indeed not featured on the Persian Wikipedia: some were not successful when nominated, some included a link to a totally unrelated nomination, etc. So it seems most of User:M j’s edits were sound and valid. @M j: Sorry, I apologize for the misunderstanding and the wrong accusation! @Jeff G.: Sorry, I apologize for the confusion and the unnecessary work! Unfortunately the files I first looked at were exactly the ones in which too much information was removed. This, and the short and uniform edit summaries, has totally misled me. I promise to be more cautious the next time.
- I will go through all the files later this day and check them one by one. I will restore User:M j edits where appropriate, but keep all valid information. I think this is the best solution, and an appropriate penance for my hastiness ;–). Sorry again and all the best, – Aristeas (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: OK, I have checked all related files (as listed in the users’s contributions for 11th to 15th February) and inspected them one by one. @M j: almost all of your edits were correct, so I apologize again for my misunderstanding and the wrong report. I have restored your edits, just avoiding a few tiny glitches. The good thing is that now all these changes have been double-checked, and I took the time to add lengthy edit summaries, so hopefully in the future editors will understand more easily why the “fawiki” and “fawiki-nom” parameters or the complete {{Assessments}} template have been removed from these images. Furthermore, I found some additional optimizations, e.g. removing some more wrong FP or POTD status claims for other Wikipedias (which were just copied over from other images). So sorry to everybody for the confusion, but at the end of the day things are a tiny little bit better than before ;–). Best, – Aristeas (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Aristeas@Jeff G.. Hello. I’ve been reviewing a large number of featured pictures on fa Wikipedia recently. If I made one or two mistakes, it was because I was examining a high number of pics in a short period of time. Even if I had written fully detailed edit summaries, someone might still have questioned why the status of so many pics needed correction, so writing longer summaries could not have been very effective.
- It’s always best, before reporting a user for any reason you may suspect them of (while of course always assuming good faith), to review their contributions and even if they have made a mistake, ask them for an explanation. If they are unwilling to explain and continue making the same edits, then you can proceed with reporting them.
- Even if you had checked my global account, especially my contributions on fa Wikipedia, you could not have been suspicious of my contributions. Of course, this largely relates to user rights. Imagine if an administrator had edited the images with the same brief edit summaries. You probably would never have come here to report them. The higher the level of rights we have, the less these kinds of oversights will occur. That said, I still need to continue this process of reviewing pictures, whether I use short edit summaries or longer ones.
- Anyway, have a good day. M j (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @M j: Thank you very much for the explanations and for your understanding! Again, I am sorry for the confusion and the mistaken accusation. It’s great that you check the pictures for wrong ‘Featured picture on the Persian Wikipedia’ claims and other mistakes; there is indeed an astonishing amount of wrong entries, and so I really appreciate that you are fixing errors here. Funny enough, I am doing similar things here on Commons (checking the Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons for wrong or missing entries), and this is why I noticed your edits; unfortunately I first stumbled exactly over a file where accidentally the FP status on Commons was removed, too, and that put me on a completely wrong track, because I have seen similar edits before from people with clearly destructive intentions. Anyway, I wish you all the best for our work. In the future I (and others) know you are tidying up, and we will understand your edits even without long comments. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: OK, I have checked all related files (as listed in the users’s contributions for 11th to 15th February) and inspected them one by one. @M j: almost all of your edits were correct, so I apologize again for my misunderstanding and the wrong report. I have restored your edits, just avoiding a few tiny glitches. The good thing is that now all these changes have been double-checked, and I took the time to add lengthy edit summaries, so hopefully in the future editors will understand more easily why the “fawiki” and “fawiki-nom” parameters or the complete {{Assessments}} template have been removed from these images. Furthermore, I found some additional optimizations, e.g. removing some more wrong FP or POTD status claims for other Wikipedias (which were just copied over from other images). So sorry to everybody for the confusion, but at the end of the day things are a tiny little bit better than before ;–). Best, – Aristeas (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Aristeas and @M j: This is what happens when you make removals on 14 file description pages in a row with identical "wrong" Edit Summaries. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
.png&diff=prev&oldid=1166549945){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1163423510){kind=link}
User:FrankWeerdte
[edit]FrankWeerdte (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - uploading copyright violations after warning - Jcb (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
User:てれとぴあん
[edit]- てれとぴあん (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
This user already have been short blocked twice, but still continue uploading unfree photo or logos. Netora (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- No,We haven't done that. てれとぴあん (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
AhmedMaktabat
[edit]AhmedMaktabat (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Reuploaded copyvio after warning. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done. I blocked him for a week and deleted last remaining upload. Taivo (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
KMB1933 mass uploading uncategorized images
[edit]KMB1933 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Despite notifying them on their talk page about needing to categorize their uploads, since the warning they transferred another 75 images from Flickr in the span of a minute and failed to add any categories to them.
This is the type of behavior which leads me to advocate for rate-limiting Flickr2Commons transfers for non-autopatrolled users. 4300streetcar (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
I blocked KMB for 2 weeks from uploading files. After KMB has categorized the uploads, (s)he can request unblock. Taivo (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Chuan Zhuo Rui
[edit]Chuan Zhuo Rui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Uploading copyright materials after final warning. Also attempted to mislead File:260219 Aespa.jpg with a YouTube source where the exact frame wasn't even in the video itself and was instead taken from Twitter. This is clearly dishonest conduct, which I believe that they should be blocked indef. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
This user is abusing rename requests constantly. He's requesting moves for hundreds of files, and then requesting moves for the same files over and over and over. Here's an example, but their are a huge number of files like this. This person is packing the rename request category every day, and this isn't fair to filemovers. This person needs to start uploading files with proper names, and he needs to stop requesting multiple back-to-back moves for all his uploads. Whether intentional or not, this is disruptive editing or even trolling. Geoffroi 18:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
_train_door_16-02-2026(1).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- I am apologize for my previous action, I just want to make more detail information only, I will upload correct name files start today. LN9267 (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't understand why we have users requesting hundreds of file renames in the first place. If someone is going to request a large number of valid renames on a continuing basis, why wouldn't they want to be filemovers and do the renames themselves? The filemover tool is extremely simple and easy to use, and current filemovers would be able to do more work in other areas. Geoffroi 04:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- As you say though, choosing a proper name from the get go is probably the best solution. I would be embarrassed to have other people helping me to clean up my sloppy uploads by the hundreds. Geoffroi 04:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- I know fandom allow users do the rename files themselves, also have limit in short time, such as move two files each 5 minutes.
- I am double confirm correct and suitable files name since today, also apologize again to admins. LN9267 (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
User:Everyonesvisa
[edit]- Everyonesvisa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
In the last week the user has overwritten multiple Visa requirement maps and removed several dependencies (such as Faroe Islands) and changed the color scheme. Example: new version versus old version. The changes were done unilaterally and without prior discussion.
Visa requirement maps are a very niche subject on Wikipedia which very few people edit or monitor, but which have significant impact. File:Visa requirements for Russian citizens.svg which was affected the most and which I help also maintain, is seen by at least 30,000 people monthly on corresponding Russian and English Wikipedia pages. Changes therefore have to be made carefully.
When I pointed this out to the user (talk page) and suggested to go with the WP:BRD cycle (keep the old version, start a discussion, reach the consensus, make a change), the user simply ignored, responded with irrelevant considerations, and continued to make their changes, starting an edit war. I find this unencyclopedic and against the principles of disruptive editing, including edit warring, and weaponizing the non-"ownership" concept („no reason to ask for your permission“, „you're not obligated to agree“ – quotes from the talk page). This is directly against principles of COM:OWN: „If there is any disagreement... discuss the issue on the talk page and co-operate in order to create the best possible version together."
I therefore ask that a warning is issued for the user. Vinokurov Demis (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Of course, I acknowledge that mutual agreement is necessary, such as As with COM:OWN:.
- However, I did discuss it with Vinokurov Demis, and I did not ignore all of his points; I accepted some of them.
- I raised legitimate objections. I made improvements because there were areas that needed improvement. These were the "freedom of movement" and "id valid" categories. However, Vinokurov Demis simply stated his personal opinion, saying, "I think it's unnecessary," without any justification.
- I believe the visa policy classifications and colors I modified do not damage the map.
- The colors haven't changed significantly either.
- However, Vinokurov Demis, being just an individual is first reverted my changes and then pointed them out. If they had "discussed" first and then "reverted" after reaching an agreement,
- we wouldn't have fought like this.
- And the non-"ownership" doesn't belong to Vinokurov Demis.
- Compared to maps of other countries, the situation on the Russian map is not fair and free, and Vinokurov Demis has rather monopolized it.
- Did Vinokurov Demis ever reach an agreement with others and modify the map? It seems he didn't.
- I believe this is inappropriate behavior, being lenient on oneself and strict on others. Everyonesvisa (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that putting words in my mouth which I never said such as «„I think it's unnecessary,“» here or «a map shouldn't be improved simply because it's "been there for a long time."» at the file page might also be a violation of Wikipedia policies, including civility (WP:CIVIL) and good faith (WP:FAITH).
- In fact, what I said is „Please don't redo the changes [...] Instead, let's discuss what changes you would like to make and let's first try to find an agreement between ourselves“ which is exactly how it should be on Wikipedia. What the user proceeded to do however, instead of trying to find a consensus in good faith, was just carry out with the changes anyway, evoking therefore an edit war. I personally value every contributor and every contribution to Wikipedia, but a warning would be fully justified and appropriate here. Vinokurov Demis (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything that wasn't true. You said in "talk room", "Adding extra color just to differentiate freedom of movement/ID card travel is unnecessary in my opinion." (19:41, 20 February 2026) This is your personal opinion.
- And you're acting as if you were the administrator.
- I have a question. Have you ever gotten consensus from numerous users for each map you've modified? But you haven't said anything. Ultimately, I think that means you've modified the map according to your own will.
- I want to ask:
- "Are you the official administrator of this map?" "Do I need your permission to edit the Russian map?"
- You keep saying "agreement" or "discussion,"
- but you're acting dictatorially, refusing to accept others' opinions.
- Even if it's only a part of it... rather I've accepted your opinion. Everyonesvisa (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- Of course, I revised the map first. But did I know at the time that I had to reach an agreement with you first? Sorry, I didn't. If you needed to, you should have discussed the revised map first and then changed it. But you changed the map first and then discussed it. An "Please don't redo the changes" is coercion. That's why I'm saying you're wrong. Everyonesvisa (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know how to explain it simpler without repeating myself. I'll try one last time. The problem are not the edits, but the edits after a reversal — the edits after a discussion was started but wasn't concluded. On Wikipedia everyone is welcome and everyone is free to make whatever good faith changes they wish. You revised 15 maps or so – in good faith I believe – great. Usually, barely anyone cares. The problem however might occur when somebody does care. Like I do care about the map in question. An editor who cares and disagrees with your vision then has also a right to revert your edit and start a discussion – open to everyone. This is all normal and standard of the WP:BRD process. In this phase it's completely normal to exchange opinions and arguments. I think this way, you think this way, we meet in the middle and in the end we're both happy. Other editors can and should be invited as well. In the end a consensus is normally reached and the changes are then made calmly to the status quo. What is not normal however is to revert a revert, and proceed with your changes anyway — completely bypassing a discussion. Vinokurov Demis (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
It's obvious that the two of you have had a hard time hashing this out, but it looks to me like if there is any remaining difference, it is about the exact shades of blue and green to use for certain statuses. That is presumably not an administrative issue. I'm sure you have both found the process frustrating, but presumably the next time you have a conflict like this you should be able to get more directly to discussing the issues at hand. Is there really anything else substantial that I'm missing? What administrative issue is there about something that the two of you have not already resolved, albeit with difficulty? - Jmabel ! talk 01:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Jmabel, thank you for looking into this. The remaining administrative issue is that the file is currently sitting on the newly disputed version rather than the long-standing stable status quo. Because I stepped back to avoid an edit war, the user's undiscussed changes remain live.
- I am more than happy to hash out the exact shades of blue and green on the Talk page. However, per standard BRD and status quo guidelines, those discussions should happen while the stable version is live. Could you please restore the file to the last stable version and ideally also lock it for admins only for a month (as already requested on Blocks and protections page) so we can figure out the consensus on the Talk page without the disputed version remaining live? Vinokurov Demis (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- We can and should discuss all of this in the map's talk page later when the editing war is resolved (all edits paused), and not here Vinokurov Demis (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- If so, let's discuss this again in the "talk page"
- And please cancel the report here.
- This is unfair. Everyonesvisa (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- We can and should discuss all of this in the map's talk page later when the editing war is resolved (all edits paused), and not here Vinokurov Demis (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
User is uploading copyvio photographs of Iranian newspapers in order to prove print-only sources they provided to me at en:User_talk:LaundryPizza03#My_edits_to_the_Iran_article_and_other_articles!. They have also been reported at en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ایوب_صادقی_(Ayyub_Sadeghi), which is related to this incident. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done. I mass deleted all uploads. Taivo (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
User:Chath
[edit]Chath (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Recent copyvios despite multiple warnings and a 3 month block for Uploading unfree files. Komarof (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done. 6 months block (second block). Taivo (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
User:Camilonava
[edit]Camilonava (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has continued to upload non-free files despite having been previously warned and blocked. --Ovruni (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done. 1 year block (third block). I deleted 2 copyvios. Taivo (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
User:CitricMink96044
[edit]CitricMink96044 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) is continuing to upload copyvios after multiple deletions and warnings and a 3 day block. HurricaneZetaC 21:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done Indeffed as NOTHERE (note also enwiki block for socking); uploads deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
User:Geoffroi
[edit]- Please, see User:Geoffroi and the category link.
Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Blocks are preventative, not punitive
- That said, keep an eye on the user in case their w:WP:FLOUNCE is reversed Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Is this about Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#JacktheBrown? Nakonana (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- And[2]? Nakonana (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah it is Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- FWIW, I've deleted the attack category linked on the user page and made a few rangeblocks. That's solely related to the LTA; I'm not sufficiently familiar with the background to comment about the user dispute. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Might need some salting as this is the fourth time the category gets deleted[3]. Nakonana (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Salted. Abzeronow (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Might need some salting as this is the fourth time the category gets deleted[3]. Nakonana (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- And[2]? Nakonana (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- No discredit to Geoffroi’s valuable contributions but am I the only one who thinks that statement on their userpage is not correct. The user has included a line stating that a particular group isn't safe on Commons bcoz of two admins (who are named there). This clearly is a personal attack. I would've removed it by myself but it is a userpage and we are already discussing the conduct of the user. So does anyone have an issue with that line being removed? I would advocate for removal of that full statement bcoz the second part is not correct either. Shaan SenguptaTalk 08:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- I just blanked the entire page based on Shaan Sengupta's idea Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've restored
{{Retired}}bcoz that doesn't do any harm. Shaan SenguptaTalk 09:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've restored
- It appears that attack started with Special:Diff/1170118110. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- I just blanked the entire page based on Shaan Sengupta's idea Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- I believe this user is a "troubled soul" and felt under stress recently. I know the behavior in question was extremely offensive but I hope in the future there is the possibility this user can return to editing on the Commons. Krok6kola (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
User:SomeFancyUsername
[edit]SomeFancyUsername (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) removes valid warning tag from the file they transferred from another project twice [4] [5], after warning not to do that [6] Komarof (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%d0%91%d0%b0%d0%bb%d1%82%d0%b8%d0%b9%d1%81%d0%ba%d0%be%d0%b5_%d0%bc%d0%be%d1%80%d0%b5.png&diff=prev&oldid=1170359737){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%d0%91%d0%b0%d0%bb%d1%82%d0%b8%d0%b9%d1%81%d0%ba%d0%be%d0%b5_%d0%bc%d0%be%d1%80%d0%b5.png&diff=prev&oldid=1170363456){kind=link}
- I already told you on my talkpage what that file is created by wikimedia user, so "warning tag" is literally invalid. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- @SomeFancyUsername: You are responsible for files you upload here, no matter where they were before. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Narek75 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Following the discussion above in COM:ANU#User:Komarof, I came upon the the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Narek75 opened by User:Komarof, who has done a lot of work investigating and flagging problems with Narek75's uploads. Based on this DR and their talk page, Narek75 has clearly uploaded many photos taken by others as "own work". I haven't determined if they've uploaded violations after a warning, but there are still likely many violations in their ~1,000 uploads. Can Narek75 be encouraged to check their own uploads and identify the invalid ones, before uploading any more? -Consigned (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Narek75 has been formally warned last week, and there is no new upload. I don't think any admin action is needed at this point. Yann (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, my last warning wasn't the first one: User talk:Narek75/Archive/2011-2021#Copyright violations. I just didn't notice it in time. Komarof (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- OK, that was 10 years ago. The last deleted upload was uploaded on 29 April 2024. Yann (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, my last warning wasn't the first one: User talk:Narek75/Archive/2011-2021#Copyright violations. I just didn't notice it in time. Komarof (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
We need to talk about User:Gisbert K
[edit]We need to talk about @Gisbert K: . This user has had a "career" of several years in our project as a forger—it's hard to call it anything else. Some of his alterations to images are truly appalling. Historical figures are changed in ways the user believes they should have looked—not how they actually did. It's not about improving the quality of the images, but about actively altering the image itself. I also remember a case from about two years ago, I think, where he added several windows to a building that didn't correspond to reality, to the building's true appearance, because he thought it would look better. Currently, a large number of takedown requests are pending against these fake images: [7]. But I don't think that's enough. This has been dragging on for so long now, and there's been no change in Gisbert K.'s behavior, nor does he seem to understand why a project like Commons doesn't need such falsifications. It can't possibly need them. The public opinion regarding AI use has once again demonstrated that this kind of thing is not condoned by the vast majority of contributors here. And of course, you can't punish someone retroactively. But even before, these falsifications were unacceptable and were deleted. He's currently serving a block on the German-language Wikipedia for image manipulation. I think, however, that even 6,500 edits and almost nine years of contributing to Commons can't compensate for all of this. I probably won't be able to get my way with my view on an indefinite block. But in my opinion, a longer block is finally necessary. The fact that there hasn't been a block at all is truly a mystery to me. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gisbert_K#File:Katharina_und_Eva_Wagner_2009.jpg){kind=link}
- Hi, You should inform users when reporting them. I did it for you this time. I see that Raymond added a warning in German. Yann (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've pinged him. Pings are made for those ocassions. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- They're not, as they don't always get through. Belbury (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that, as stated on my user page, due to my age — I will be turning 85 in a few days — I have effectively been on a Wikibreak for more than a year and now contribute only occasionally.
- For quite some time, I have not uploaded any edited images. The only recent exceptions are the uploads related to Bayreuth and the Berlin State Opera, which have now become the subject of criticism.
- For example, there is the very dark photograph of Christian Thielemann from which I created a cropped version. In the original image, nothing at all was discernible in the area beneath his arms; an unaltered crop would have shown only something indistinct and impossible to identify. Against that background, a uniform surface seemed to me to be the more sensible solution and, in fact, an improvement to the image. File:Chr Thielemann hochkant.jpg
- The same applies to the photographs of Katharina Wagner and Eva Wagner. File:Katharina Wagner 2009.jpg File:Eva Wagner 2009.jpg-
- I believe that the warning and the three-day suspension are sufficient at this time. There was no malicious intent on my part; my intention was merely to share images that, in my view, appeared to be of better quality.
- If my actions were in violation of any rules or guidelines, I sincerely apologize and will ensure that I adhere strictly to them in the future. Gisbert K (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- All these tinkering with the pictures made them worse, that's just cheap junk, anything but a better quality. Especially with the Wagner sisters the existing crops far exceed the quality of the grey background. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've pinged him. Pings are made for those ocassions. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Gisbert was today blocked on de-wp, his main-project. See here Der-Wir-Ing (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- @ Der-Wir-Ing Wärest du so freundlich, an der von dir genannten Stelle auf meine Stellungnahme hier zu der Sache zu verweisen, da ich es selbst wegen der Sperre nicht kann. Gisbert K (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
User:U are goes?
[edit]U are goes? (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) blatant copyright violations and out of scope images after several warnings not to do that. Komarof (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done Most uploads deleted; blocked 2 weeks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Wikiuser829
[edit]Wikiuser829 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Continues to upload copyvios despite being asked multiple times and by multiple users not to. The last report went unattended. I explained the user at Revision #1160293930 about parliament related violation only to come back and see new uploads with the same violation. The user was previously blocked in Nov 2023 for 1 week for uploading unfree files after warnings. Talk page (and) archives are full of deletion notices and various warnings served multiple times and by multiple users. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging @Yann (blocking admin previously) just so this thread doesn't die unattended like the previous one. Shaan SenguptaTalk 18:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Cajetan392
[edit]Cajetan392 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) continues to give erroneous, approximative or, at best, dubious claims for his uploads, despite having been asked nearly 50 times to provide correct license and source information. The user was also warned at least twice on their frWiki User Talk page to refrain from uploading copyvios onto Commons. Users have politely pointed out his mistakes to them, but their last rebutal response[translation 1], opposing COM:PRP, made it pretty clearly the user refuses to acknowledge Commons policies and rules. I think a formal warning is mandated.
- ↑ Français : Les cahiers publicitaires sont des documents publics et je reconnais que la source est Bombardier. Tu devrais plutôt laisser Bombardier s'opposer è ce qu'on fasse connaître son histoire.English: Advertising brochures are public documents, and I admit that the source is Bombardier. You should rather let Bombardier oppose the disclosure of its history.
Webfil (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Mouhamad sall
[edit]- User: Mouhamad sall (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: New self-appointed censor.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done You warned this user, I closed the DR, and protected the file. Yann (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Mr.Besya
[edit]- User: Mr.Besya (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Personal attack in Special:Diff/1170612091. Vandalism.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- To be real with you im deeply sorry what I comment and I'm shame of my self and my contribution on commons i'll take accountability Mr.Besya (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- and I'm sorry what I did personal attack and if the user was attack in my comment I will make a 5 sentence of sorry apology Mr.Besya (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- jeff... I know you have a reason to report me but the real reason why I did that because
- I'm dumbass and confused Mr.Besya (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Mentxuwiki
[edit]- User: Mentxuwiki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Pilar Lledó Real.png after three blocks for doing so.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I think this guy need to be blocked for copyright violation Mr.Besya (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)