Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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}

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.

User Manh2107 mass uploading files, falsely claiming as own work

Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Manh2107 (talk · contributions · Statistics) has been mass uploading files (nearly 180 so far) and falsely claiming them as their own work. They appear to be Russian district and municipal emblems and coats of arms. This may put them in the public domain under Russian copyright law, but one archive I found ([1]) suggests that some of these may be copyrighted. I left a couple messages on their talk page but I haven't gotten any response. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Totally outside my expertise, and I don't speak Russian, but it has been over 15 hours and nothing has been done. Could someone more qualified than I please take this on? - Jmabel ! talk 20:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

From a second look, from their profile, they may actually be Vietnamese. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The user still has not responded. I used Google translate to leave simple messages in Russian and Vietnamese. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

And they are still at it. Any reason nothing has been done? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Bedivere deleting files en masse without valid speedy deletion tag solely to punish LTA

Latest comment: 4 days ago47 comments11 people in discussion

Bedivere has been speedily deleting a huge number of film logos, which were frequently COM:INUSE and do not qualify for copyright protection per COM:TOO, under the invalid rationale W:WP:DENY. This is apparently all because some particularly disruptive LTA on Spanish Wikipedia uploaded these. (See User talk:Bedivere#Why are you purging tons and tons of simple-geometry logos with the rationale “DENY”?) Deleting innocuous files without discussion in an attempt to punish/un-person the uploader is unacceptable and has disrupted numerous wikis using these files. I don’t know what prompted this but it’s a serious overreach of administrative authority. Dronebogus (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

DENY is actually a EN-WP essay, so at least a step below guidelines and policies. But we have the guideline COM:Vandalism, where the first sentence reads "Vandalism" refers to actions taken with the deliberate intention of harming the site rather than improving it[...]. The log of one of the deleted files is evidence that the uploader is actually globally locked, not only blocked (a noticeable difference per m:Global locks vs m:Global blocks), so the evaluation as that uploader being a harmful individual is quite evident. So, seeing their contributions as "harming the site" is not far-fetched. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

People can always reupload some or all of the deleted files if they genuinely need them. In most cases, these files are free and can be safely kept. However, retaining them simply because they appear innocuous or are freely licensed completely misses the point of the deletion.

Deletion, while a last resort, is the most decisive measure available: it serves to deny the troll who uploaded the files any form of recognition or reward. Prolonging this discussion only plays into the hands of this problematic user turning us into their laughing stock.

The globally locked LTA has repeatedly used multiple accounts to evade blocks here and elsewhere. Keeping their uploads solely on the grounds that they are freely licensed only reinforces and encourages this behavior. The issue is not the intrinsic value of the files themselves, but the principle of not rewarding block evasion or disruptive conduct.

Retaining these uploads legitimize their actions and validate the idea that Commons can be exploited as a tool for disruption (we should not be allowing that, even if the deletion reason logged is vague or seems like it). Anyone who legitimately needs these logos is free to reupload them, provided they are indeed freely licensed, but they should not be restored.

If we continue to debate the merits of every individual file uploaded by this user, we are granting them exactly the attention they seek. I strongly encourage those who require these specific logos for legitimate purposes to reupload them independently and move on. Bedivere (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bedivere: given that the uploader is not the rights-holder, couldn't we just suppress their account name in the file history and edit history? Or does that somehow not meet the goal? - Jmabel ! talk 04:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Deleting the files en masse is also giving them negative attention. I didn’t even know this troll existed until you did this. Now you’re broadcasting their existence and disruption to the entire Wikimedia ecosystem while creating an even bigger mess in the process and shifting the responsibility of cleaning it up onto everyone else. The best way to deny recognition is to ignore them when they aren’t directly engaged in trolling. The second best way would have been reuploading and replacing everything yourself. Dronebogus (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

As I mentioned to Dronebogus in this message, we've been dealing with this situation for three years without any improvement, while the LTA exploits every weakness in the bureaucracy. We can clearly see this here: only one user has stopped everything, and now he perceives it as "negative". I wonder if we should also invite the LTA into the conversation and suddenly everyone agrees to a deal. If the LTA is already been banned globally, why do we have to keep the door open? The LTA should resolve his problem at the Meta level first, and then we can discuss the issue about his uploads. I'm honestly disappointed; I don't know why I'm even fighting against these block evasions here. Taichi (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

That’s a very long non-explanation of why deleting tons of in-use, non-problematic files and thereby drawing attention to the LTA is in any way reminding the situation. Dronebogus (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

While I dislike deletion of all images from Marro vi and Jorse García (the main accounts) solely for these reasons, I also don't support the evasion blocks they've made and will likely make again and must to consider that they brought it on themselves. I contacted them personally to see how I can help with their situation without further ruining anything and what they can do while blocked, but if they don't respond and refuse help, there's nothing I can do. Reviewing every image from all accounts created by the same user (at least the main ones) would take considerably more time and be tedious than deleting them all, even though it would negatively impact other projects and their legitimate uses (like this one and this other one). We would have to check every image they uploaded to see if it could be restored. If someone is willing to do that, perfect. I've saved certain images (and all their information) from here on the Wayback Machine before they were deleted (like this one, whose current source doesn't exist, but there's a snapshot from 2020, since I believe the images should be visible, but not used unless appropriate), but I don't want to invest my time saving everything uploaded by users who have been blocked on new accounts, especially if they don't let themselves be helped. Lenis Felipe (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

None of them needed to be deleted. The whole point of the mass deletion seems punitive, or at least like a scorched-earth attempt to stop their disruption. Dronebogus (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

No one has responded to my question above beginning, "given that the uploader is not the rights-holder…" - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comment There was a community discussion years ago regarding this topic, in which the ultimatium was that deleting files because they are an LTA is not a valid reason for deletion. Unless there are other concerns besides that, these files should be restored. 1989 (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

No. Many admins, including I, delete files by LTA with DENY. These files can be reuploaded by users in good standing. Yann (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
So you are aware and even voted in this discussion and proceed to do them anyway? That’s not a good sign. Your views do not overrule community consensus. 1989 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yann, I’ve told you this before but you frequently act more like the nanny of Commons than a neutral enforcer of rules and consensus, particularly in regard to deletion. While obviously you’re not the only admin with this issue (see the rest of this discussion) that doesn’t justify your doing it. Dronebogus (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

You don't have to deal what repeated LTAs. The best way to deter some of them is “block and nuke”. Otherwise, they just create an account, upload some files, get blocked, and they start again with a new account. Yann (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
In this case, it wasn’t just "block and nuke". The account that did most of the uploads was blocked in October 2024, then way later, the same blocking admin out of nowhere deletes all the files that account uploaded with the reason being one word and linked to an essay on Wikipedia, not established policy on Commons. You or them have yet to explain why deleting hundreds of COM:INUSE files was a great idea, especially with the solution by the both of you is for folks who aren’t administrators to pick up the pieces. This is unacceptable, and I can see why the community voted against this. 1989 (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think maybe a few admins need to be banned from deletion decisions from now on. Dronebogus (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

This kind of questioning "Is block/ban evasion/sockpuppetry on..." has a significant flaw: it gives the misleading impression that the issue is whether having an account blocked (or banned), or sock puppetry should lead to the deletion of all uploaded content. However, it actually intends to ask whether alternative accounts used to circumvent a block (or ban) should have all their uploaded content deleted. At a glance, many who hold the opposing view likely mistake the question for the first interpretation. 0x0a (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@0x0a: this seems to be a distinction without a difference. What would be a case where one of these would apply, and the other would not? (Clearly we don't automatically delete all uploads previously uploaded by an account that has now been blocked, if that is the intended distinction; in what other case would this be a difference?) - Jmabel ! talk 07:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel See the first comment there? One might mistake it for: "Is being blocked, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry on its own a valid reason to delete media or reject a request for undeletion?" Folks opposed deleting all (previous) uploads by user's only account, or their master account. While Yann was referring to content created by user through sock puppet accounts after their master account had been blocked or banned. The timing of when a file was created is crucial. 0x0a (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC) (@Jmabel updated 05:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC))Reply

@0x0a: if by "the first comment there" you mean Dronebogus's original post, no, I cannot imagine how it could be read that way. If you meant something else, could you please indicate what particular comment you are talking about (a diff, or "such-and-such's post at such-and such time", assuming you mean something in the present discussion)? - Jmabel ! talk 19:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@0x0a: now that you've clarified your reference, I see. But still, I think there is very little chance that the bulk of the "oppose" votes shared this misconception. - Jmabel ! talk 23:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comment To clarify my opinion: I am repeating here what I said elsewhere in a typical case. I would not delete files if there are only one or two socks. But when we have a LTA with a huge farm, and there is a clear intend to circumvent Commons rules by socking, DENY is the best solution. Yann (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Proposal: Bedivere undeletes and restores (when practical) valid uses of mass-deleted logo images

Per the community discussion that established a broad consensus that the actions Bedivere has taken are unacceptable, Bedivere should reverse all deletions of files from the user/sock they targeted that were not based on the merits of the files themselves. Bedivere should also restore any uses of the files that were automatically removed after the deletion if there are no subsequent conflicting edits. An alternative solution, if Bedivere refuses to revert their deletions, is that they upload replacements themself. I think this is a reasonable solution because Bedivere is essentially expecting the community to laboriously repair the collateral damage from a decision that goes against established community consensus and speedy deletion policy. Not only should that decision be reversed as patently wrong, it should fall on Bedivere to clean up a mess they made. Dronebogus (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support The outcome of the proposal made was clear that blanket LTA deletions are not allowed, and if that were to happen, an admin could not refuse to restore the files. Since my comment, the admin in question has not responded. They either restore them or resign. 1989 (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Funny how you essentially were inactive since September (bar a few edits on October) only to come and support this literal witch hunt. No prejudice in restoring the files if the community thinks it should be so (I don't agree with such an outcome) but it wasn't that I did not want to respond you. I have to attend IRL things that are far more important than editing and freely collaborating here. Having said that, I am yet to know from you, and Dronebogus, how are we going to dissuade PITA LTAs from uploading files using other accounts, letting them stay, and when deleted, having them restored just because they were free. If the materials weren't theirs in the first place, someone else could and should upload another version. This whole discussion seems to me rather bizarre, but whatever the outcome, I'll abide by it. Bedivere (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I’ve come to remind you on what the community agreed upon in a RfC, and you have yet to abide by that. If you see that as a "witch hunt", then administration may not be for you, because you will be criticized by the actions you take, whether you agree with them or not. 1989 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not against being criticized. It's not the first time it's happened here and elsewhere. I disagree with your interpretation of facts. But then again, I will abide by the community decision about what to do with these particular files uploaded by a LTA. Bedivere (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not against being criticized yet you attempt to discredit criticism of you by calling it a witch hunt (imo anyone who uses this term automatically loses the debate a la godwin) and making ad hominem attacks against 1989, a user with 300,000+ edits who’s been active since 2014 (which is far more and far longer than you), for not being active enough recently to criticize you(?) when your excuse for not responding is that you were too busy IRL to edit? That’s a very strange train of logic. Dronebogus (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not to mention they were editing elsewhere during this discussion, but OK, they were "too busy". BTW Bedivere, I’ve linked to the community decision regarding actions like yours multiple times, waiting for you to abide any time now or at least some recognition. For some reason, you can’t even do that. 1989 (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
The idea that a single edit on the same day demonstrates avoidance of this discussion strikes me as a weak argument. Selective activity is not evidence of bad faith. What remains unanswered by you and by Dronebogus is my central question: how do we meaningfully deter LTAs from repeatedly uploading files through alternate accounts, letting them persist, and then restoring them after deletion simply because they are technically free? Bedivere (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are creating a false dichotomy of your solution vs. doing nothing. Your inability to come up with a less destructive method of deterrence and unwillingness to at least clean up the damage makes me question whether you are capable of performing your administrative duties adequately. Dronebogus (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not promoting "my solution" (which was already executed). I am asking for your input on another solution that could effectively do the same thing: dissuade LTAs. You haven't responded yet. Bedivere (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
A) there’s no point in proposing it now when your solution has been implemented for better or worse. B) My solution to your “solution” is you reupload and replace all the files and uses of files like you and your fellow admins keep suggesting we, the plebs, do. If you’re going to use extreme measures you should at least be willing to fix the inevitable collateral damage from those measures and not put the responsibility on everyone else. Dronebogus (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
You still won't respond. How does your solution dissuade effectively LTAs? Bedivere (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don’t have a solution because it’s not my job. But I don’t have to be an admin to see your solution is bad. Dronebogus (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK, then you’re effectively admitting that you're criticizing without offering any solution to the problem. No alternative approach at all, just criticism (which is valid, but certainly an alternative would help). That's fine, but it confirms there's no constructive proposal on the table, only disagreement. Bedivere (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Like I said, it’s not my job to deal with LTAs or figure out solutions. But you don’t need to be a plumber to see a toilet isn’t properly fixed, and I shouldn’t have to propose a solution as a prerequisite for the plumber fixing it properly. Dronebogus (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. So the problem is obvious, the fix is someone else's job, and any attempt to address it is wrong by default. Noted. Bedivere (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have told you how you should address it with this very proposal, but you keep diverting attention away from it with your “if you cannot propose a solution to stop LTAs you must acquit” Chewbacca defense. Dronebogus (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
And despite my reiterative comments, you have still failed to understand my sole inquiry: how is that going to dissuade this and other LTAs from doing all over the same things? Bedivere (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose as per Bedivere above. Yann (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Nothing to be done here. --A.Savin 19:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Any user in good standing can reupload these images themselves. We don't need to reward LTAs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why don’t you do it then instead of forcing us plebeians to pick up the pieces left by Bedivere’s indiscriminate scorched-earth campaign? Dronebogus (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you claim something to be a "scorched-earth campaign", couldn't you try to see such LTA upload actions as salting Commons' fields, poisoning image wells or spraying Agent Orange or tear gas onto crowds of benevolent contributors, to keep the military metaphors? The deletion would then be something like en:Operation Pacer IVY. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
No. Because the files were harming no-one and were actually helping Wikimedia as a whole by being used legitimately on many wikis. Bedivere is the one spraying “agent orange” in a clumsy attempt to flush out the vandals, harming uninvolved bystanders in the process, and then refusing to clean it up. Dronebogus (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Shark2272

Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shark2272 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User continues modifying licenses on various flags, emblems, coats of arms: diff., diff., diff., etc., or even the author field (diff.), although this has already been discussed on admins' board about the Flag of the state of Maine license.
Furthermore, it's likely that Ice743 and Shark2272 are one and same person, since both acted in the same way, and both came to my talk page to discuss about the said Flag of the state of Maine: Ice743 (nov. 2025), Shark2272 (dec. 2025).
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done Shark2272 is

Confirmed to Ice743, as is America63. I blocked both for abusing multiple accounts (block evasion). --Lymantria (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mifiin

Latest comment: 5 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Mifiin (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
Continues to upload copyvios even after previous deletions and warning. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comment There seems to be a different conclusion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dignitaries on the dias watching Republic day parade 2023.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mifiin. Yann (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yup, I withdrew from this DR bcoz I had nominated 100s of files which included both, uploads by depts and people. But the conclusion mentioned in this DR is based on GPSLeo's summary at Revision #963085895 in that DR. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for the precision. Mifiin was already blocked for Intimidation/harassment by me, and certainly not cooperative after the block. And as they were already warned for copyright violations on 11 November 2024, a block is in order. Yann (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

FTR, I've added the conclusion in that very DR at Revision #1153811387 to avoid future confusion. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Shaan Sengupta Please could you give an example of the problematic uploads? This does seem a bit like wikihounding- you nominate files for deletion then withdraw it and now bring the user here? Gbawden (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Gbawden, that nomination and withdrawal happened more than a year ago. This report is for continuation of what was termed as not acceptable in that very DR. As for the recent problematic uploads, you can refer to his/her talk page. It is full of deletion notices. And the recent deleted files, uploaded in Dec 2025 follow the same reason earlier files were deleted. For example, File:INSV Kaundinya Coir Stich visible.jpg, File:INSV Kaundinya Sea Voyage.jpg, File:INSV Kaundinya Motif.jpg. As for my withdrawal, it was based upon the advice I was given in the DR itself. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I will leave it up to another admin as to whether this deserves a block. I would however like to see a response from Mifiin Gbawden (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Bogdanov-62

Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

User: Bogdanov-62 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Khvorostin Gavriil Kirillovich.jpg after final warning for doing so.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Errors are possible in my productive work. They are being corrected. We apologize. Bogdanov-62 (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not done. Almost a year has passed since last problematic upload. Taivo (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Aramean vs. Assyrian

Latest comment: 4 days ago16 comments7 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 [2]. 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 [3]. 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 [4], files an overwrite request for an edit the DavidKaf account made [5]. This account has been suspected as a meatpuppet of Wlaak [6].

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 [7] [8] [9]. 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 [10] 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 [11] and this one [12].

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: [13] [14]. 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 [15], I leave a talk page message to the filemover to discuss the edit [16] 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 [17], as I have done before [18], and Wlaak leaves me a talk page message [19], 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 [20], and then goes to change some of mine [21] 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)Reply

Link given above leads to [22]. Yann (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

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[23] 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)Reply

@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)Reply

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 [24], and not to mention the overwhelmingly big portion of them that claim this as well. Wlaak (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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: [25] (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: [26]

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: [27] [28] [29].

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

A few minutes prior/after he tried getting me blocked, he removed my rename requests on my uploads: [31] [32] [33].

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: [34] [35] [36].

I go on his talk page to tell him to quit messing with the redirects and to respect the self-identification of the images: [37]

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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

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)Reply

Phenombasketball

Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

User: Phenombasketball (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: COM:NLT re Special:Diff/1155248199.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't really see that as a problematic legal threat. They are not threatening any user with a lawsuit. They are saying that they believe a photo here violates privacy rights, and presumably they will go through WMF's channels for reporting such a violation. This is no more problematic than if a Commons user were to pursue a DMCA takedown for a work of theirs on Commons that they haven't licensed.

(Their incompetence at filing a DR is another matter, and at some point similar actions could become CIR issues.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel Fine, CIR. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Caroline Lösche

Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Caroline Lösche (talk · contribs) has once again uploaded a photo by a professional photographer from Erfurt (according to metadata, Michael Reichel / ari) to Commons and presented it as her own work. The first upload was locally to deWP, the second upload here, and the third upload today here. Stepro (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done Warned, file deleted. Yann (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Yutyo77764

Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Yutyo77764 (talk · contribs) 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Randomguy12236 - just another basic vandal

Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Randomguy12236 (talk · contribs), block please. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done Next time, please use Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism for such cases instead. GPSLeo (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Uploads by Fabe56

Latest comment: 5 hours ago13 comments7 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment I've processed hundreds of valid file rename requests from this user, and I've seen them doing category work as well, so they're definitely currating the images they upload. The user looks to be a native French speaker, so perhaps another French speaker is needed to communicate with them regarding any issues or problems with their contributions. Geoffroi 04:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you that information. I have left them the following message below the AN/U notice:
It is extremely important that you take part in the discussion at the location linked to directly in the notice I am replying to.

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

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

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

------

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

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

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

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

While this is imperfect, and while the AN/U notification is itself translatable into French, it should help. I am also seeking to attract their attention with this: @Fabe56: . We are looking for a good solution to this rather than a block. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
If Fabe56 begins to engage in this discussion here and if that happens to be in French, then Yann who was involved in November '25 and also myself are able to use French, too. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Either it is coincidence, or the fact of this discussion existing appears to have had the effect of their ceasing contributions at all on the date of the first posting. I have not analysed their contribution window. The time of their last activity for 29 January may be their normal close down time, but they have not restarted.

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

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

User:Kontributor_2K

Latest comment: 1 hour ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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