Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 132

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard | User problems
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Lymantria in topic Gpkp

Category:Marcelo Valle Silveira Mello

Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

There is something very weird going on related to this category. Over the last month or two, a bunch of single-purpose accounts have uploaded various photomanipulated or AI-generated images of this person, including AI-generated wanted posters, AI-generated arrest photos, unconfirmed social media images announcing the subject's death, and so on.

Any chance someone can look into this? I've tagged a couple of the obvious fakes for deletion. Omphalographer (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Omphalographer these are definitely accounts of a well known ptwiki LTA, w:pt:WP:LTR, who has this weird obsession with this jailed channer. @Teles: pinging Teles who usually deals with him Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
btw, the mere fact Mello’s article exists in dozens of Wikipedias seems to be already a sign of wikispam Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/BUENO VORCARO. Yann (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting. Those accounts were created by the same person with difamatory content against many of those names, with harsh and perhaps illegal content, like wishing death, racism (calling them apes), and many more insults. The content is far from educational, merely demeaning or just false. Deleting and locking on sight.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 12:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done by Lymantria. Yann (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Raja King R K

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks, 2 files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Tfjt

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tfjt (talk · contribs) regularly uploads old photos and drawings. Many of them are PD-old or PD-old-assumed, some are not. However, Tfjt always claims that he is the author of the files he uploads and states a false CC license. I have asked him twice (in German) to correctly attribute the authors of the images. However, he continues to upload files as before.

Tfjt makes valuable contributions to Wikipedia and I am sure that the false statements are not done in bad faith. Could you please convince him in some way to change his behaviour? --Entbert (talk) Entbert (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

ایمیل ورمزعبورمیزنم با نمیکنه میگه کد 6رقمی اپلیکیشن بدهید ولی نمیدانم کجا میادتوایمیلم نیست

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

س ~2026-35819-24 (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Translation:

My email address is not working, it says give me the 6-digit code for the app, but I don't know where to get it, and my email is not there

S
translator: Google Translate via   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-35819-24: سلام، و خوش آمدید. آیا سعی کرده‌اید از Special:PasswordReset استفاده کنید و نتیجه را در تمام حساب‌های ایمیل خود بررسی کنید؟

Hi, and welcome. Have you tried using Special:PasswordReset and checking all your email accounts for the result.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

User:KUBWIMANA Bienvenu

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have been monitoring this user contributions for a while now and also have been nominating his duplicate files for deletions. It seems this user does not check his talk page and he has continued to upload the same exact scaled files over and over again even after I nominated them for deletion. Wmbata (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, These are not exact duplicate. So it is debatable whether they should be deleted or not. Yann (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Hello @Wmbata.
Instead of starting deletion discussions, it would be helpful you use {{Duplicate}} instead. Adminstrators can then check whether it is an actual duplicate or a case of COM:Redundant and can still convert the request into a regular deletion discussion if necessary. Best regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 22:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I've learnt from that. Nwa mbata (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Railway gauges and the return of a prolific sock, Tobias Conradi / HSRtrack

Latest comment: 3 months ago20 comments7 people in discussion

Nearly a decade ago now, we were troubled by a prolific sock, edit-warring over a single narrow topic. I suspect that they have returned. Certainly they're straight back to massive moves in the same area. There is no discussion here, just POV pushing and abuse of other editors. You don't get to refute other editors here as "Don't feed the troll". Even to me. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, a decade with strange "discussions" and with a clear tendency, what the only practicable solution can be... And Andy, you can suspect what you want, but i am no sock-account - but you are de facto the only one this topic, who stands stubbornly his ground, to hang on more or less long gone measurement-units... I don't want to redefine history here (after all, history is described on wikipedia and not in wikicommons) - but i want to change this gauge-chaos into something to work with and you raised no real objection against it, as at last there was found a solution to work it out! Now that the work has started, you start to object and troll around with strange questions, perfect... Hattori 15 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Hattori 15 is an account that has been active on Commons about 3-1/2 years with (as of this writing) 5,739 edits. They seem to have been (far less) active on en-wiki and wikidata for a comparable length of time.
Tobias Conradi~commonswiki was sporadically active on Commons 2 December 2004 through 20 September 2006 (475 edits in all) before being globally banned. They seem to have worked mostly on maps—I don't see anything rail-related at all—but I assume that the identification of HSRtrack as there sock is solid. I see that Tobias Conradi ran a lot of socks and caused a lot of chaos on multiple wikis.
HSRtrack was a short-lived account that first edited Commons on 14 May 2013, quite active for two weeks, then one more edit here on 11 June 2013, then globally locked. They were on en-wiki from 9 May until blocked as a Tobias Conradi sock on 23 May.
I notice that Hattori 15 has done a bunch of BSIcon work, also rail-related, but something it looks like this particular Tobias Conradi account and HSRtrack did not touch.
That's my start on looking at this. I don't have time to take it on in detail, but hope that saves someone else a little.
@Andy Dingley: could you be more specific on why you think this editor is a sock of this particular banned user? So far I'm open-minded either way, but a list like this and "I suspect" is pretty weak as a basis for anyone to even consider a block here, which sounds like what you want to have happen. - Jmabel ! talk 05:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The only "evidence" Dingley has, that i stand for some kind of similar opinion like Conradi, to sort this kind of data (like the felt majority in the discussion, especially in the last months after years of inactivity) - and that is all to call me out as a sock! Dingley wants steadfastly to keep the mess of imperial und metric units, which is ridiculous to work on (not only for users with intimate knowledge of railway science, bit in particular for the usual man from the street, who just wants to dump his pictures). I have made a new table with the new category names: User:Hattori 15/Track gauge sizes - in comparison with the actual chaos of ft, in, inch and mm and differing names: Track gauge sizes (it was even worse before doing some minor work). As you can clearly see, the measurement in feet is kept where needed, but as is usual now nearly everywhere on the world the main dimension is in millimetres. But Dingley doesn't want to accept that even after 9 years of "talk" and accordingly growing chaos because many, many categories are missing to sort the files and folders.
With the Category:Track gauges by metric units and in this Category:Track gauges by country (most of them new from the last days work) much organisation has become possible and now we would go on with the imperial units as well. And for oversight i have created a Category:Track gauges by imperial units for the loved units of Dingley (still with the old chaotic category names).
But in the event that everything here has to stay exactly as it’s always been – I’ll find other things to do with my life than to argue with stubborn people who can’t stand it when they can’t get their way for once, and who therefore start throwing around ridiculous and baseless accusations – I’m not in court here, after all!!
Have a nice day! Hattori 15 (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
If I had technical evidence to support this, it would have been a checkuser request. But Conradi is patient and persistent, and checkuser logs are short. But someone here has learned to quack exactly like thei predecessor.
For several years now, this has been a solved problem.
  • Gauge categories were sorted by metric units into a single parent. This gave one easy, ordered, list.
  • Gauges originating from imperial units were labelled as such. This gave a simple explanation, obvious even to those unfamiliar with the units, as to why they're a round number ('3 ft 6 in gauge railways' rather than '1067 mm')
  • Some of the naming was clumsy, suffering from the Commons' regular problem of German idiom (Conradi was German, editing from Brandenburg, despite an occasional fondness for a Japanese style to their sock accounts) translated word-by-word into English, but this was minor and I can't fix everything.
Now Hattori has appeared from nowhere and decided to 'fix' (it's not broken) the 'problem' (there was no problem) of any mention of Imperial units. With the aid of hysterical shrieking about how bad everything is, how bad I am (even before I'd even engaged with Hattori, but Conradi certainly knew how to carry an old grudge), ignoring all of the past consensus efforts that had been stable for years, and not even trying to hide that their desire was to remove "those annoying units" once and for all.
Now we have two partial size-sorted lists, split to metric and Imperial. They're stripping the Imperial mentions in category names, even for those with a deep Imperial basis. The Swedish (foot units, based on the Swedish foot) have lost all mention of why they're such arcane numbers of mm. Brunel's broad gauge is now labelled '2140mm'. Gürbetaler is now advocating 'Standard gauge in the United Kingdom', despite there not being such a single standard gauge.
All of these recent changes are disruptive, POINTy and have made a stable situation worse overall. That's little better even if they're not the same returned sock. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Paranoia can be a really bad thing - nobody is stalking you... If have not appeared out of nowhere, i was just increasingly anoyed about all this unit-mess - and as you can clearly see, i'm not the only one!
And for your feared dismission of your deeply, deeply beloved IMPERIAL units look for once closer at the new scheme - everywhere, WHERE THEY ARE RELEVANT, they are still mentioned (only recently even the Swedish foot and others - but for the complete history wikipedia is the place, not wikicommons !!). So look, before you rant (They're stripping the Imperial mentions in category names, even for those with a deep Imperial basis. is a blatant lie - we are just adding the nowadays norm, what was about time!):
Now we have two partial size-sorted lists, split to metric and Imperial. - again you are lying and spreading false accusations:
Brunel's broad gauge is now labelled '2140mm'.
Again a blatant lie, it is still Category:7 ft ¼ in gauge railways and would only become Category:2140 mm track gauge (7 ft ¼ in) (Oh, shocking - the empire will fall apart ;P!)
That's all we can do for you - accept it, the imperial unit system is mostly long gone and 95 % (or more) of the world's people don't use it any longer (not without a reason ;) )!
And i can only say, that you are a bad loser - you couldn't win your "argument" on the discussion, so you try it here again with false accusations... But after 9 years of standstill the ever exploding chaos has to be refurbished and apart from you every last argument of the last month' talk was not on your opinion.
PS: For the - only in your mind - not existing Standard gauge in the United Kingdom take a closer look here:
It seem's, you are the only one driving in the wrong way... Hattori 15 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
It's funny: I didn't see much evidence before this tirade, but I now strongly suspect Andy is right. I'd like at least a couple of other admins to weigh in before any action, though. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I don’t care what you think you do believe - but under no circumstances I want to be called or suspected of being German :D!
Everything else has been said and if you don't get the false statements and lies of Dingley, i can't help you further... Hattori 15 (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Yet German is your first choice language for user talk: pages, and you seem fluent in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Wow, Sherlock Holmes must be proud of you :D - ever heard of, that there are more than one (more or less) German speaking countries on this world ;) ?
By the way, i have known Gürbetaler before... Hattori 15 (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
By the way, Mr Dingley - are you one of those 1,3 per cent ? So that means an incredible 0,01 per cent of the total world population? I could understand it a little bit, if your strong desire would come from the US (making up at least a staggering 4 % of the world) - but after all, metric is now already for years mandatory in the UK...
At least here and on de facto all wiki-sites concerning railway gauges both values are given - they even made a special template, to avoid the usual mess when converting the units ;). The only stronghold are the categories on commons and WP:en - and after all this nonsense i begin to understand why :( ... So there is still one or the other solidly and stubborn standing their ground and making Don Quichotte proud :D ! Hattori 15 (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
I grew up in the US, basically ruled by the Imperial system. I was exposed to the Metric system in science classes, and then online. I still think in Imperial units, but some sizes have crept into my vocabulary: 500ml bottles of water, 2l bottles of soda, 3.5mm audio jacks and plugs, and 0.5mm pen nibs. I predict that many things here in the US will be slow to change, including "SPEED LIMIT 55" signs that mean 55 MPH (miles per hour) or 88 KPH (kilometers per hour), but are not denominated. Some drivers that emigrate from other countries and see those signs drive at 55 KPH or 34.2 MPH, much to my chagrin. But I am not participating in fights either way.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't want to imagine, what it means, to make technical calculations with this mess of units and conversion factors - i was already always annoyed with the still strong-living Horsepower instead of Watts...
But still, remnants are living on - a folding ruler is still named a "Zollstock" (word by word translated: inch-stick), pipe-dimensions still based on inches or a specific area, defined by the work done by a pair of oxen ;)! But in working together professionally SI-Units are the norm, more or less worldwide. At least already 20 years ago it was no problem to send foundation plans indicated in metric to the US - and there were no problems later when our plant was erected. The same in several African or Arabian countries with a British history... Hattori 15 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Looks indeed like a TC sock. Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Totally absurd, but somehow strangely fascinating, to watch such a witchhunt from the wrong side. So the Monty Pythons were right after all: [1] :D Hattori 15 (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Quite honestly, @Hattori 15, you are being sufficiently unpleasant and pugnacious right here on this thread that I'd say it merits a block. The only reason I'm not giving you a one-week block right now is that it looks like others are driving this toward an indef-block, and I don't want to prevent you from being able to defend yourself in the discussion of that. But if you continue in this tone, I'll let go of my scruples about that, block you for a week, and let the chips fall where they may. - Jmabel ! talk 22:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
I get your point - but how would you feel being unjustified accused of playing somebody else, all the more so on account of the mentioned "evidence"? We have had a lot of heresay and wrong statements, and some kind of feelings - but hard facts? Nothing... And as I tried to explain to you some of the (mostly wrong) "facts" claimed by Dingley (ok, in a rather very sarcastic way...), all i got from you was a rating as "tirade" - so you do think, this was either pleasant or unpugnacious??
I suppose, you are not to familiar with railway engineering? Altough the most facts mentioned here would be more or less common sense (with a technical background) and of pure logic, that it isn't extremly userfriendly to sort categories of railways in this way - all the more so, that the imperial unit system is only mandatory in 3 countries any longer on the hole world. And the objective of the renaming is not to eradicate the imperial units from the category-names completely - they are still included, altough not on the first character (what seem's to be a real big problem for Dingley, but this opinion was not pretty wide spread in this everlasting discussion). But after all - as I looked into Dingleys contributions from the last weeks, i could not see that he is doing a lot of railway-related work, so i understand his ranting even less (altough he really does spend a lot of time contributing to commons - perhaps there is a union for the savekeeping of endangerd unit systems ;) ? )... Hattori 15 (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked indef. Yann (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Now Hattori requested unblock. I consider myself neutral and I can close the request in beginning of next week, but I would be happy for your input in user talk:Hattori 15. Taivo (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done. After a lot of thinking I declined the request. As checkusers cannot help here, I decided by behavior only. Taivo (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Dolpina

Latest comment: 3 months ago39 comments8 people in discussion

User Dolpina (talk · contribs) has been systematically nominating almost every images related to Igbo and Ịchafú (headdress) for deletion. She has been doing this by dismissing the cultural nomenclature, labeling them as gele(which is a Yoruba word for headdress) and sometimes calling them mere scarves. She has also been altering the uploaders own work descriptions and captions to support her POV which is disruptive and a target focused disruption. Going through this user contributions, it is mostly focused on this disruptive edits, obviously targeting this specific cultural topic rather than a good faith clean up. Wmbata (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

An admin just gave me the link to report the disruptive and misinformative post by that user. But I guess you beat me the page but to accuse me. Its hard to maintain good faith when this is the same behaviour that got you banned on wikitionary and you are here with this again. I havent interacted with you in a while, so is it hard to assume meatpuppetry? Because this again...

Either ways, the details are there. I only correct misinformation, both purposeful ones and unknowing ones as well.

Here is Ifybekee, threatening me, insulting and accusing me of evil, because I said the misinformation should be corrected on the talk page. She also said that she has a large platform and that she will use her large platforms to spread more misinformation all over the Internet. Seems to me that she already did that and is claiming to do more. Her words: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Igbo_woman_styled_in_Igbo_Ichafu_(headscarf)_and_Akwete_obiakwa._Stunning.jpg#c-Ifybekee-20260625181700-Dolpina-20260625090400

For any admin or user reading this, this has been a multisite wide issues for months now with active investigations ongoing and blocks on wikipedia, blocks on wikitionary as well.

Dolpina (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I sent a strong warning to Ifybekee, and reverted that post. However Dolpina, you must stop creating deletion requests without any valid reason. If the description needs to be changed, then please propose a new one, but that's not a reason for deletion. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Noted. Deletion requests have gone through successfully for copyright infringements and similar issues. I'll try and propose new ones. It's just sad that people deliberately pushing vandalism have less "work" to do, than those who correct it. Thanks. Dolpina (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
If the description needs to be changed, then please propose a new one — does the description need to be changed though, if the difference is just a matter of language used? Is the word "dog" somehow correcter than the words "Hund", "le chien" or "собака"? Though, it isn't even a matter of translation but rather a matter of local variation: does it really matter whether the description says Barszcz (Polish writing) or Boršč (Czech writing) instead of Borscht when talking about a soup dish that is common across several Eastern European countries, including Poland and Czechia, and when the image in question is specifically depicting the Polish / Czech variant of the soup? Does it really need to be changed to Borscht (or even Борщ — the Ukrainian / Russian writing / variant)? Because that's the type of description change that Dolpina appears to be doing in this several weeks/months ongoing dispute regarding Ichafu vs. Gele. Nakonana (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Gele is a cultural headdress originating with the Yoruba. Ichafu is a loan word into igbo referring to anything tied on the neck or head. That is the key difference. That's a Gele. Dolpina (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
You said the same thing on that ANI on wikipedia, here i see you again. This issue like I said is an ongoing sitewide meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry investigations as well. A couple of accounts related to this ichafu creation topic has been blocked and the article taken down. It is not organic. I'm getting tired of repeating mmyself. This is like me trying to pass off the word for dress in Yoruba language to include as way to say that Ethiopian dress is also worn on the body and pose it as originating from the Yoruba culture and just happens to just be anEthiopian Amhara dress and look the same. Dolpina (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you, I only pointed out what you have systematically been doing. Pointing out what happened on Wiktionary is a matter of been inexperienced and totally new, i shouldnt have said this, but you brought it up.
You claimed to correct misinformation which i don't really seems to see the misinformation you are trying to correct. Should i also point out that this disruptive behavior of yours has been on almost all other wiki, targeting this specific cultural topics. Wmbata (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
This user also lied here in her nomination reasons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Eze_Obi_Ossai_and_wives_wearing_Ichafu_with_wrappers_and_elephant_tusk_Ivory_(Odu).jpg#c-Dolpina-20260403121400-File:Eze_Obi_Ossai_and_wives_wearing_Ichafu_with_wrappers_and_elephant_tusk_Ivor
She said it’s a drawing from a children’s book. And an admins also confirmed she lied. She has been fabricating reasons for nominating cultural items of this specific cultural group across all wiki.
Even while this issue is active, she has continued her mass alteration of file descriptions and has been submitting file rename requests to aggressively push her own POV, which constitutes disruptive editing and is labeling this cultural items as "meaningless or ambiguous". Wmbata (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
User Dolpina claiming to correct misinformation and ambiguously stating that "some people deliberately pushing vandalism have less "work" to do, than those who correct it" seems like a direct accusation.
I would love User:Dolpina and anyone reading this to carefully review this sources which describes ichafu as the headdress of Ndị Igbo (Igbo people) and conclude if Dolpina is "correcting misinformation" as she stated.
Thomas John (1923). Dictionary of Ibo Language: English-Ibo. Church Missionary Society. p. 72.
  • Source 5:
here where the British newspaper The Observer. It’s published here that Priya Ahluwalia's Spring/Summer 2026 collection noted that the designer's Jacquard knits drew inspiration from Nigerian Ichafu headwraps alongside Bollywood motifs
  • Source 6:
Godstime. I (22 October 2022). "The Interrelatedness of Different Cultural Practices in Selected Ethnic Nationalities in Nigeria". IKENGA International Journal of Institute of African Studies UNN: 48.
  • Source 7:
Identity: a technocultural analysis of igbo women designers’ self-presentation
The title ịchafu (or ịchafu ịsị) is the correct Igbo name for this headdress. Changing it to gele (a Yoruba word for the same term) overwrites this specific cultural heritage based on unverified claims. Wmbata (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Omg, stop dredging this up and accuse me of lying for one error on one image ages ago. Notice how I didn't push on that after but the other ones that i submitted for deletion got deleted. You appear to have a personal vandata because this is unrelated to the general issue, so stop trying to attack on my character.
I was already told separately to be careful when nomination images for deletion when there is no copy right vio and sorts, which I have complied. I was told by more experienced users or admins, idk which, that if my reason is misappropriation, or wrong name attributed that i should request name change. Which I did in some of the pictures, only for you to go ahead reverting my file name requests, gatekeeping the images and accusing me of vandalism. Dolpina (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
@Dolpina: Exactly which of our file renaming criteria apply to these name changes you requested of file movers, and exactly why (with what uses of the file renaming tool)?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Hello just so you know the issue here is that his user dolpina is try to rename a file into her own language while uploader who is in the image has made it very clear what she is wearing is called in her language (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Igbo_woman_styled_in_Igbo_Ichafu_(headscarf)_and_Akwete_obiakwa._Stunning.jpg&diff=1239613129&oldid=1238347308)
Also this is part of a broader online debate which often leads to bigotry in nigeria so for more context in Nigeria the Yoruba ethnic group call a head wrap gele while the Igbo ethnic group call it ichafu this often leads to online fights that devolve into bigotry. The uploader who owns the image has said it's ichafu in her language and that is valid there are no reasons for dolpina to constantly insisting it must be changed to her own language. Bonde maxx (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Igbo_woman_styled_in_Igbo_Ichafu_(headscarf)_and_Akwete_obiakwa._Stunning.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1238347308
right link to uploader confirming the name she calls it Bonde maxx (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
okay? So?? Dolpina (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
I will advice that Bonde maxx is directly on this site due to this topic and not a neutral commenter, even while always assuming goodfaith. His comment history show he would want to push an igbo pov anyways. That his what his account was here for. Anyways, let's look at facts not vague claims of bigotry on social media. Posts ive put shows gele as a distinct thing with the name gele being as it is in all languages of the word. When ichafu is used to describe other cultural garb on wikicommons the name is always maintained, when the item isn't a cultural garb or a generic neck piece that it is stated ichafu, when not the name is maintained. This is also not wikicommons igbo, hausas wear gele as well, and it isn't a scarf in their language. A gele is a gele, like a korean gat is a korean gat.

Dolpina (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC) The requested renames fall under Correcting an incorrect or misleading filename : Correct – The name should describe the file's content and convey what the subject is actually called. The current filenames identify the headwear as "ichafu", but the images actually show a gele, which is consistent with all neutral, notable and definitive sources, books, news, studies, etc. The file renaming tool is to correct this factual misidentification so that the filenames accurately describe the subject depicted, improving accuracy, searchability, and reducing confusion for Commons users.

What you are doing is not ok you are practically bringing in social media fights to commons and that is not right. Bonde maxx (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
And what is this supposed to mean?? Stick to the topic. Your post history and your rallying here with accusations suddenly makes me want to stop engaging you. Dolpina (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't know you tell me you are the one going all over this platform insisting that other peoples language has to make way for yours. Bonde maxx (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Also : Consistent , Common ,Neutral, Appropriate – Names should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic (one of the files has swagallicious girl in it... asides the ichafu debacle), Recognizable – As many as possible should be able to understand the name, whether they are an expert, someone familiar with the subject area, or someone on the street.

File move : To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image particularly displays.(To change from a word that can mean head scarf, neck scarf, russian scarf,jewish scarf, sleeping scarf, or anything else inbetween, to what the image actually displays, a Gele.)

Citations for statements (correct)/(common)/(consistent)/ (neutral)/ (recorgnisable):

The Gele is viewed as the National Nigerian Headdress by the average joe, ethnographers, encyclopedias, fashionistas, and art historians, etc. It has become commonplace among women all over Nigeria. Etiquette and Taboos around the World Design Objects Vogue Singapore

Gele etymology

The word ‘Gele’ means "to be elevated, raised above the surface", from (Yoruba: ga, ele) lit.: high, an eminence https://www.jstor.org/stable/1005346?seq=20

Ethnic Cultural Encyclopedia

Not a language dispute or same, Igbos, hausas, etc call it Gele) (recorgnisable)/ (correct)/(common)/(consistent)/ (neutral)/.:

Nicholas Freville in Nigeria (1985) made a comparative analysis with pictures of Igbo women and girls in headscarves where he observed that they were notably simpler than the turban-like Gele, whose height made Yoruba women recognisable at a distance. Freville, Nicholas (1999). Nigeria. Major World Nations. New York: Chelsea House Publishers. pp. 22, 23, 25....

Ichafu meanwhile doesn't fit those criteria nor the images, that's why the images are all over the place, the old ones (ichafu, scarf, headtie, necktie, for men women, etc word) and the recently added ones of Gele (A cultural headdress originating from the Yorubas, worn by anyone as Gele).

Ichafu :headcloth, handkercheif, headgear, neckscarf, is defined as a european loan word, from chiffon, a decorative piece of cloth for covering the head. What cloth covers the head in igbo it is ichafu isi, or sometimes called ichafu. Mbata, Carolyn Obioma (1996). "Borrowing in Igbo Language: A Sociolinguistic Survey". Retrieved 29 June 2026. Echeruo, Michael J. C. (1979). Ahiajoku Lecture 1979. Culture Division, Ministry of Information, Culture, Youth and Sports. p. 21.


Even when you search ichafu on wikicommons, it is used for anything in translations, including headscarf from different cultures, neck scarfs, pieces of fabric.

Eg: English: The Ghanaian Smock or Tani is a fabric worn by both women and men in Ghana.[1] It is the most popular traditional attire in the country. The fabric is called Tani in Dagbani, while the male and female wear are respectively called Bin'gmaa and Bin'mangli. The smock is formally worn with a hat (zipligu)/ scarf (bobga), footwear (muɣri), and a trouser (kurugu).[2] Igbo: Smock nke Ghana ma ọ bụ Tani bụ akwa nke ma ụmụ nwanyị ma ndị nwoke na Ghana na-eyi.[1] Ọ bụ uwe ọdịnala kacha ewu ewu na mba ahụ. A na-akpọ akwa ahụ Tani na Dagbani, ebe a na-akpọ uwe nwoke na nwanyị dịka Bin'gmaa na Bin'mangli. A na-eji okpu (zipligu)/ ịchafụ (bobga), akpụkpọ ụkwụ (muɣri), na uwe ogologo ọkpa na-eyi smock. This is an image with the theme "Africa Creates" from: Ghana Date 20 April 2024, 10:12:21

And Description Français : écharpe épaisse fait en coton local typique de la région d'odienné et des régions du nord de la Côte d'Ivoire Igbo: akwa ịchafụ siri na owu obodo a na-ahụkarị na mpaghara Odienné na mpaghara ugwu Ivory Coast

This is describing a man's scarf ...

Sorry if it was too lenghty, a bit fresh so I might have added extra things not needed.

.Dolpina (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems i need to correct you on something which you seems not to understand. Just like how you defined gele meaning "to be elevated", ỊCHAFÚ is entirely an Igbo word for headdress meaning "to gatter and wrap". When broken down, ịchị (to gather) and afú (to wrap, to tie). Ịchafu isi when broken down means to gatter and wrap the head, the word ịsị translated to English is head. Nwa mbata (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
This issue is not about gele or etymologies but Dolpina is trying to make it look so. Nwa mbata (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Wmbata reverting my sourced edits submitted for view

wmbata is literally gatekeeping certain images and edit warring my submissions to admins/users by reverting my suggested titles with sourced edits, as soon as he sees them so no other person sees. He calls me a vandal for no reason in comments while spamming sources that don't depict the images, while my Gele sources are all notable and a well researched subject. He isn't letting me breathe and I feel attacked. Will add instances of relevant diffs:

Relevant diffs and discussions:

He immediately slams me, accuses me, accuses me of being a "vandal" to a user who changed the name after seeing my request for name change and sources, then he had to change it back after he went to his talk page to smear me. He is unwilling to communicate with me and hides my suggested edits for the appropriate Wikipedians to see by reverting them himself.

Dolpina (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

To anyone who attends this thread, you might also wanna see #Dolpina. Shaan SenguptaTalk 08:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Also for more context the issue here revolves around head wraps in which an uploader added to commons the uploader has made it clear what head wraps are called in her language which is ichafu but dolpina wants it changed to her language and be called gele.
This is part of the broader online debate which often leads to ethnic hate in the online space in nigeria so for more context in Nigeria the Yoruba ethnic group call a head wrap gele while the Igbo ethnic group call it ichafu this often leads to online back and forth.
Regardless the uploader who owns the image has said it's ichafu in her language which is Igbo since she is Igbo and that is very valid there are no reasons for dolpina to constantly insisting it must be changed to Yoruba. If dolpina wants more images filed under gele she should upload more images under such name and not insist what the uploader's images must be changed. Bonde maxx (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
There is no debate. This is another sources and what the name is and always is. No twitter posts from the same accounts within the last 3 months. The uploader should write proper information and be reviewed by a neutral party, probably one who didn't just join a month ago and parroting the same views for no reason or evidence or circulate around the topic. The user's images of Gele is now being user to be "established" as an ichafu image source on wikipedia. Dolpina (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
there are enough social media posts and arguments online about this topic in regards to the debate if there were no debate this conversation wouldn't exist. For some reason to you anyone that calls it ichafu in their native tongue is suspicious.
https://www.facebook.com/NBGAfrica/posts/ichafu-vs-gele-same-or-different-who-really-started-itfashion-tribal-war-who-do-/1354270063405916/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CyNyixksVjN/
https://x.com/AfeezYusuf22162/status/2037021765109485580 Bonde maxx (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
And what does that have to do with me here? The person who created these images calling them ichafu, in tandem with another account wmbata and you, might probably know about whatever social media combat. According to her comments which were removed and she warned for attacks, she claims to be very powerful to fund and push certain narratives. So how am I to know (or care) about that Facebook post, twitter or whatever for its organicness. It also popped up when Gele images were started being attempted to be rebranded as ichafu here. Since you are into social media, Google keyword analytics and such will tell you how organic "ichafu" is, and how little (of it even ranks) over the years, compared with Gele. Cheers, her comment:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Igbo_woman_styled_in_Igbo_Ichafu_(headscarf)_and_Akwete_obiakwa._Stunning.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1238352589 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolpina (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Igbo_woman_styled_in_Igbo_Ichafu_(headscarf)_and_Akwete_obiakwa._Stunning.jpg#c-Ifybekee-20260625181700-Dolpina-20260625090400 Dolpina (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Saying that I am literally gatekeeping certain images and edit warring your submissions to admins/users by reverting your suggested titles with sourced edits, as soon as I sees them so no other person sees it is a direct accusation which i will advise you to refrain from. You have been targeting this cultural group across all wiki's, trying to reduce this cultural items, constantly labeling it a mere generic scarf or flat scarf while stating that gele is worn by all Nigerian certainly claiming that over 350 ethnic groups in Nigeria, no one had a headdress, only Yoruba.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DCB#c-Dolpina-20260629075300-DCB-20260627204000. Do i also need to remind you that a Yoruba dictionary documents gele as a pocket handkerchief, a napkin, an inuju(face wiper) and a sash [Dictionary of the Yoruba language (CMS)].
This source also documents ichafu as a big headtie, worn round with the end stickling boldly out. [The gold and silver trends].
Dolpina’s ethnically driven targeting of image names has not only drawn my attention but has also become a concern for numerous other editors [1], including the original uploaders of some of the affected images. Her repeated attempts to rename images to fit her preferred cultural interpretation have resulted in multiple edit wars and disputes with different editors. This pattern goes well beyond my own interactions with her and reflects a recurring effort to impose a particular cultural point of view through image renaming, despite objections from other contributors, including nominating those images for deletions on falsified grounds. Nwa mbata (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
You keep repeating yourself while replying to me. Stop responding to me several times, please. I've see your post(s). I posted several studies, including ethnographic works of different kinds, and I have more, all notable and several sources. You commented underneath it up there just recently. Cheers. Dolpina (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
If, as I understand it, the supposed basis for this rename is Commons:File renaming criterion 2 or 3, then all of these citations showing that the proposed new name would be correct are largely beside the point. Most files have more than one possible correct name. Commons strongly favors filename stability, and both of these criteria apply only if there is something actively wrong with the original filename. I realize that is not all of what has been discussed here, but it means that at least the majority of what Dolpina has said here (and in the thread above) is beside the point, and makes for a lot to wade through to find the part that might be on topic. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, there is something actively wrong here as the images are of Gele, a specific thing. Dolpina (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know if this simplifies it, but a Gele should be named a Gele across the board, just like a Korean gat is a korean gat. Both cultural and notable. Dolpina (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Thanks @Jmabel for stepping in to finally resolve this cross wiki conflict which Dolpina has carried through different wiki sisters project, I was personally checking her contributions across this other wiki projects and it has been against this specific cultural item, some editors has also stopped responding to her. She claim to be correcting misinformation and has been accusing me and the other editor of IGBO POV pushing whereas its the other way around, reducing Ịchafú to a mere generic scarf, calling it borrowed from English word scarf(whereas Ichafu is completely an Igbo word and its etymology can be broken down, as i explained here) while also elevating her gele claiming that its worn by all Nigerians(over 350 diff ethnic groups). This clearly doesn't seems to be a good faith edit, its obviously a target based disruptive editing and culture bias, I also pointed out a yoruba documentary which clearly described gele as a napkin, a pocket handkerchief and a sash.
I really hope Dolpina will change and learn to contribute in good faith and be helpful to the community.
Wmbata ~Nwa Mbata~ (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Also could you please remove the file renaming templates on those images or can I remove it Wmbata ~Nwa Mbata~ (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Why are you so eager to remove it. Let admins do their jobs patiently and review sources. Dolpina (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
What source are you talking about? Wmbata ~Nwa Mbata~ (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
No need to cook up a case against me to convince him or something. Let everything be done procedurally. Dolpina (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Samuelita Lopez Perez Lapuerca

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Samuelita Lopez Perez Lapuerca (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months: COM:LL, massive use of bogus license, etc., many files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

User:鹏哥大佬

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The user has been copying social media images regardless of copyright or licensing restrictions ~2026-30865-40 (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Suresh Jayachandhiran

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Continues to use Commons as a social medium after warning by Achim55 not to do so. Jonteemil (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Indef-blocked. I'm open to them returning, and if another admin thinks they've made a case for unblock, no need to check with me. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Spam/promo only accounts

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Spam/promo-only account. The former is already blocked on enwiki as spammer. The former uploaded File:FOREX EXPO.jpg, deleted as spam, and reuploaded by the latter as File:FOREX EXPO Award for best forex academy in dubai.jpg. The latter also uploaded File:Best forex academy in MENA region 2025.jpg which is blatant spam. Jonteemil (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

~2026-37040-84

Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done @Jeff G.: we rarely sanction anyone for how they use the sandbox, unless it is for seriously offensive content (which this is not). The only non-sandbox edit I see is in Category:Itsy bitsy spider, where the added content might be a bit excessive, but nothing at the level for an admin action; I personally would not have reverted it, I'd have edited it down. - Jmabel ! talk 03:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Achim55 thought differently.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
That's obviously a kid who adds the same article text "Itsy bitsy spider" or similar again and again for months now. Notifying them that our sandbox is reset regularly didn't help to stop their behavior. So I don't treat it as testing but as vandalism. --Achim55 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Ah. Nothing in the original complaint brought up that this was the return of someone who has been doing this repeatedly. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Sorry, I was unaware of the history of this LTA.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: as was I. - Jmabel ! talk 05:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

FrankDesignRD

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The user uploaded a bunch of copyvios 10 years ago and got two blocks for it, being threatened with indef block if they continued. Then they stopped editing for 10 years and last fall returned, and continued uploading copyvios, for example File:Leones De Santo Domingo Logo.png which is blatant. Now they haven't edited since last year but since they was threatened with an indef if they continued I report them here anyway. Jonteemil (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Chillpen.club

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sockuppet of already blocked account Cloud 9 Concierge. See w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cloud 9 Concierge. Jonteemil (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Dronebogus and another dogmatic crusade against all AI images.

Latest comment: 3 months ago115 comments18 people in discussion

Dronebogus (talk · contribs) is having another campaign to bulk delete content for being AI, despite that not being a policy here. This time he's going after Areylle (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Despite it being a bulk deletion run, they're also doing them as individual DRs (they've been here long enough to know that this makes it harder for anyone to deal with them that way). They're listed on Areylle's talk: page.

This is a set of images where Areylle has used a variety of existing images of yoga positions and used AI to turn them into a consistent set with a matching model and outfit. It's a reasonable use of AI, within our AI policies.

Or, as Dronebogus describes it, 'AI fetish slop'. Well, everyone needs a hobby. But it's no reason for deletion and these crusade-based bulk deletion campaigns are never a good idea. As usual, they're refusing to discuss it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Andy Dingley (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

What rules did Dronebogus break and what outcome do you expect here? As far as I see it he is in general willing to discuss (see User talk:Dronebogus#Please reconsider your approach.), but apparently has a history with you. As far as I see it the issue itself can be discussed in the DR (though I would have preferred a mass-DR and a single page to discuss this). Isderion (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
I make no comment on any outcomes. I trust to the wisdom of AN/U. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
That user literally wants to bulk delete every AI generated image even when the uploader gave proper credit to the generative model.
A user need to send a warning message to him to stop doing that. Wmbata (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
I fail to see how beautiful and young Malay woman, sharp chin, long face, black hair and glossy black nylon spandex suit are necessary parameters for these images, nor why we would want to replace images with a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicity with a homogenous set. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
I've just left a note on Dronebogus's talk page pointing out that describing another user's uploads as being made "primarily for sexual gratification" or as "fetish" material, may be perceived as attributing improper motives and therefore risk being seen as a personal attack. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
AI context aside, and with no view on whether this is plausible yoga gear, a uniform collection of clean, well-lit, colour images of the same person demonstrating yoga poses against the same backdrop seems a useful resource for a category like this, compared to the disparate collection of photos and drawings it was based on. Belbury (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with being disparate, as long as it’s accurate. These are consistent, but in multiple cases are demonstrably inaccurate. Dronebogus (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Those images need to be  Speedy keeped. It shows creativity and proper licensing credit. Wmbata (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Given the attitude of the user under discussion (and other users), I am wondering if there is actually any point of any contributor (long standing or potential) being part of a project, which claims to have ideals, but then apparently applies them randomly or inconsistently. There are many issues which the community on Commons and administrators could have resolved over a decade ago, but have apparently made a collective choice NOT to, resulting in 'crusading' users acting on their own iniative, misapplying "policy" in the process. If Commons breaks for some long standing contributors such as myself, I will not be suprised. Set a very tight editorial policy for media, and actually enforce it!. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: With all due respect, widely accessible generative AI didn’t exist a decade ago. Therefore no decisions on media produced by it could have been made that long ago. We are in uncharted waters here, still figuring out how to treat this area. The main controversy involving AI and longstanding policy is INUSE (particularly INUSE vs. AIIP) which you are welcome to discuss but has no real significance to this conversation. Dronebogus (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
You have genuine concerns about AI, I am not disputing that. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
The attack on the uploader is very clear here, "Weird AI generated/modified images of women [I] [sic] seemingly created to satisfy the uploader’s thinly veiled, oddly specific fetish for black unitards. We have plenty of photos of virtually all of these subjects illustrated by actual photographs and illustrations not intended for sexual gratification on the part of the uploader" Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
FWIW, at least some of these images are deep into AI slop territory. Compare File:Karnapidasana.png to the file from which it is derived: File:Mr-yoga-ear-pressure-pose.jpg. The latter appears to be an accurate photograph of a very difficult yoga pose. The former is pure fantasy disguised by being photorealistic, a pose that I suspect could not be achieved by a human. - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
File:Upavishtagarudasana.png effectively has no provenance, because it claims to derive from an image which it in no way resembles. - Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
The "fetish" remark was uncalled for: @Dronebogus, there is really no reason in this case to speculate on a user's erotic proclivities. However, that's about the only thing I see wrong with the DR. I completely fail to see the basis on which these images would be in scope. - Jmabel ! talk 23:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Dronebogus should have created a mass DR to keep the discussion central. And the fetish remarks should be skipped.
Other than that, compare File:Kraunchasana.png with its claimed source, File:Kraunchasana (Leon black background.jpg. The man in the latter has his right leg folded to his right side, spandex girl folded her left leg across to have her left foot in the same spot on her right side. The man has his left leg up, spandex girl raised her right leg. The man uses his right hand to hold his left wrist across his foot. Spandex girl holds.. never mind she's just checking her nails. 😆 - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
If anyone who understands yoga wants to nominate any of these as 'not fit for purpose' that would put them outside SCOPE and that's a reasonable grounds for deletion. But that's not what Dronebogus has been doing here. A rubber stamp nomination on every one of "AI fetish slop" is a long way from that. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, if a series of images with consistent style is created for this at all (which I doubt AI is even capable of) without taking actual photos, it should be made in illustration/cartoon style, not photorealistic.
Granted that's not what Dronebogus said either, but these particular images do have quite a few problems. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
1) In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sopakaranavrishchikasana.png Andy himself says This is far from 'AI fetish slop'. Nor is that even a deletion policy here, as Dronebogus well knows, as he's uploaded plenty of it himself. Since speculat[ing] on a user's erotic proclivities is apparently uncivil that would already be problematic even if it wasn’t combined with a gratuitous ad hominem attack. 2) Anyone can see that in the first nominations I say “fetish slop” and in the latest ones I just say “slop”; I did take the advice given by ShakespeareFan on board. 3) I don’t bulk nominate because I check, remove, and replace each of these individually with the non-slop source images. I could check, remove, and replace them all then bulk nominate, but I might lose track of which ones I’ve already done. With large-scale cross-wiki cleanup and deletion operations like this you have to allow some leeway for the nominator’s workflow. Dronebogus (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Addendum: Andy’s remarks on my talk page weren’t exactly civil either, and neither is titling this Dronebogus and another dogmatic crusade against all AI images. Dronebogus (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
I don’t bulk nominate because I check, remove, and replace each of these individually with the non-slop source images. - are you saying that a middle step of your AI deletion workflow is to remove the images from other projects? Were these yoga images COM:INUSE somewhere before you nominated them?
I'd repeat my advice to you from a month ago that you can use VisualFileChange for this kind of mass DR. It shows you which images are in use, and it would be very easy to bulk nominate all yoga images from a user by visually looking at the thumbnails, or automatically pulling up a particular keyword or category, and selecting the images which were not in use.
I'd also repeat my other observation that your two-word "AI slop" DRs are unhelpful. An image having been AI generated is not in itself a reason for deletion. It's also unclear whether you're using "slop" in a technical sense or just as an I-don't-like-AI pejorative: if the uploader reads it as an insult they might escalate their response, if they take it as a descriptive criticism they might waste their time (and other people's) explaining why the image can't technically be considered "slop". Belbury (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
@Belbury: FTR, several large Wikipedia editions ban AI generated imagery. The German WP passed a RfC in February about the subject, the EN-WP also has a policy to that effect, the RU-WP at least has an informal agreement about (making) AI usage (unwanted) in the guise of a discussion on their VP. Hence, replacing AI generated imagery is a sound idea, even on smaller projects that may not have a procedure about AI yet. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
@Grand-Duc: while I am opposed to most uses of AI imagery: are you saying that it is appropriate to apply de-wiki and en-wiki policies to wikis that have not adopted those policies? I would strongly disagree with that. Someone not generally active on a given wiki coming in and applying a policy from a different wiki seems to me to be treading in pretty dangerous territory. - Jmabel ! talk 07:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not advocating to apply such policies verbatim. But they are actually at least partly outflows of core universal policies, verifiability among them. Thus, I deem it acceptable to assume a kind of general validity of at least the idea that AI generated imagery is usually unsuitable, even if actual rules are lacking on any individual project, all the more when considering that EN and DE are the two biggest projects that are likely to have some kind of guiding role and will set examples (at least relevant to Wikipedias). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
I forgot to mention the motivation behind my posting: I had the feeling that Belbury may have had the intention of stating some criticism towards that Dronebogus is seemingly actually first actively creating the COM:NOTUSED scenario while formulating DR. I wanted to offer a counterargument as for why that is most likely a legitimate way of action. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
I would have said it went against the intention of COM:INUSE policy, which says of poor quality images that It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope.
An outsider Commons user joining a project to remove an image so that they can delete it at Commons doesn't seem any different from a DR that acknowledges an image as INUSE but suggests deleting it anyway. In both cases, Commons is overruling that project on whether it's appropriate for them to use the image. Belbury (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
That looks like a somewhat backwards thinking, like from 2010 or before. Since the introduction of the SUL, anyone of us is part of every project - evidenced by e.g. filemovers having the opportunity to replace any files they touch automatically across all projects. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Consider it as a Commons user "visiting a project that they don't otherwise contribute to", then, if you like. Belbury (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
If the removal stands unchallenged, then the local community has effectively accepted it, even if only by fiat. If editors on that wiki disagree, they can challenge or revert the removal, and the contributor making it is then subject to that wiki's own policies and guidelines. A project could, in theory, require prior discussion before removing established images, although I am not aware of any Wikimedia project that has such a rule. While we may edit under the same unified account, the communities and governance of each wiki are distinct, and whether a removal is appropriate is ultimately for that local project to decide, not Commons. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
I agree completely. A Commons user going to another project and removing content from use for the purpose of a DR is effectively overrul[ing] other projects about what is in scope, certainly going against the principle of the rule. -Consigned (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Consigned, we're not telling other projects that they can't nominate files for deletion here. Of course, one has to take responsibility for their own edits. this svwiki VP discussion is an example that my removals on projects where I'm not a regular are seen as productive.
But if someone removes a use while tagging a file for deletion here they should declare that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
I still feel like going and removing usages goes against the spirit of COM:INUSE. Someone added it to the project, the project's community didn't remove it, until a Commons person came along and removed it to enable a Commons deletion. However, I'm sure there are valid cases, e.g. spam.
I agree that when this is done, it should be declared in the DR so that other participants and the closing admin can evaluate if the removal was valid or not. If it isn't declared, the nominator is being disingenuous by claiming that the file is COM:NOTUSED, because the file was in fact in use before the nominator came along. -Consigned (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
The whole “‘local’ community vs. Commons community” argument just seems like gatekeeping to me. There is no membership system for individual projects; every user is a member of the Wikimedia super-project as a whole. The point of being here isn’t to contribute to only your designated project and ignore the others (though you can certainly do that); the point is to improve Wikimedia as a whole. The AI images are bad, and should be removed from the wikis they’re used on and replaced with valid alternatives; they should also be deleted from Commons for the same reason. That is not system gaming; that is project synergy. That is part of the reason Wikimedia is an interlocking system and not merely a wiki farm; projects overlap and help each other. Another issue is that Commons isn’t enslaved to the whims of every wiki it serves; the only way to truly prevent decisions on Commons from affecting your wiki is to not use Commons (which as I’ve said before is completely possible by hosting media locally). Dronebogus (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
The reason you're doing it is that the policy COM:INUSE prevents deletion until you remove it. That's gaming/wikilawyering. -Consigned (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Naa, it's just consistent Isderion (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
I am obeying INUSE to the letter and nothing more. It’s the policy’s fault for being vague. INUSE talks about files currently in use but says nothing about removing them, or if it’s appropriate to nominate them immediately after removal. Commons is a nexus between so many projects but for some reason this critical aspect of its relationship was never ironed out. I have broken no policy; the policy itself is broken. INUSE needs to be rewritten because it doesn’t address this and it’s clearly reached a point where it needs to be addressed. Dronebogus (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
There is no membership system for individual projects; every user is a member of the Wikimedia super-project as a whole. While there is some truth to that, in this case it strikes me as casuistry (and not in a good sense). Just as Commons does not welcome it when someone previously solely (or mainly) active in ru-wiki comes in here and starts by trying to modify map descriptions based on an ru-wiki consensus, a different wiki is likely not to be at all pleased when someone mainly from Commons barges onto their wiki to make editorial decisions driven by Commons policy. No, the communities do not have formal boundaries, but they are communities and they have both formal and rules, as well as a certain sense of who and isn't part of the community. - Jmabel ! talk 01:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
You make a lot of excellent points, but fail to address that INUSE doesn’t even provide suggestions on what is best practice here. I do agree that aggressive removal without replacement isn’t the right way to do it; however leaving any low quality image (AI or not) in use when an identical but better replacement exists doesn’t seem right either. The files discussed here are all based on superior preexisting images; in many cases the AI files appear blatantly incorrect compared with the original. This is a case where the best option is replacing the AI files with the superior originals and deleting them as redundant AI slop at best and potentially dangerous to recreate at worst. An official policy version of this could be “the removal of INUSE files should generally be discussed with the local community. Replacing low-quality files with superior alternatives generally does not need discussion unless the replacement differs substantially from the current file. In particular replacing a file with an improved version (i.e. one that is higher resolution) requires no discussion.” Dronebogus (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I can't argue with that. What you are describing here is a reasonable policy, which will almost certainly not ruffle many feathers. - Jmabel ! talk 03:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Are you being sarcastic? I don’t like sarcasm that isn’t obvious. I’m sorry to have assumed that you were being sarcastic if you aren’t, but I’m autistic and certainly can’t infer tone through text. Dronebogus (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea why you think I am being sarcastic, and with that I think I will duck out of making further contributions to this thread. - Jmabel ! talk 02:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Jmabel, for what it's worth, it also read like sarcasm to me. But you don't use sarcasm very often, so I wasn't quite sure.
It's in the "which will almost certainly not ruffle many feathers" part. You're using a negative ("will ... not"), a colorful expression for a specific outcome (ruffling feathers) and a qualifier ("almost").
"Their campaign will most probably not crash and burn" -> sarcasm
"The food from that restaurant has a very good chance of not giving you the shits" -> sarcasm
"Ignoring these 'no trespassing' signs surely won't land us in jail" -> sarcasm - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
A big issue with a Commons user replacing images on an unfamiliar project is that they may be unaware of local policy, cultural norms or even an existing discussed consensus over which images to use. Resolution upgrades and replacement of objectively misidentified subjects would be fine, but the subjective replacement of an image with a "better" version is risky.
It's unclear how much it may have happened with these yoga images, but it's easy to imagine a situation where a project uses AI or photoshop to alter an image to respect some strong cultural norm (on a political symbol, a religious figure, an exposed part of the body). A Commons user obliviously overruling that to restore the unwanted version of the image because they regard it as "superior" would not be a good look for us. Belbury (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Well, this clearly wasn’t altering images to remove groundhogs (offensive to pastafarians). It was simply altering them to appeal to the author; or at the most generous interpretation create superficially appealing but unneeded consistency, and/or alter the subjects to be the same ethnicity as most of the readers of the wiki these are primarily used on. Visual consistency is not worth accidentally adding inaccurate details, and wikis should not pander to readers’ presumed ethno-cultural biases. This wraps back around to your original argument— we don’t use AI censor groundhogs to avoid offending pastafarians, so why is it okay to censor or alter anything else just to avoid even slightly challenging readers’ presuppositions about the world? That is commonly called “being dishonest”. Dronebogus (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Are you saying that if a hypothetical Pastafarian wiki project used an image where they'd AI edited a groundhog out of a photo for religious reasons and under (local) policy, you'd edit their wiki to restore the original photo and then open a DR on the edited image? Belbury (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
To answer the actual question: I’m honestly not sure. But I’m not sure it’s the right question to ask here. Yeah, groundhogs and pastafarians are silly. But where do we draw the line for what kind of cultural and religious censorship we tolerate before it’s fundamentally against the ideals of Wikimedia? We already know how this has gone with pictures of Muhammad. I would say that, in general, if you don’t want to use images containing material you consider offensive by the standards of your community (be it pictures of Muhammad or pictures of groundhogs) you don’t have to use them even if by objective standards it compromises the educational completeness of the article (or whatever). But you should not censor existing images to prevent cultural offense, and certainly shouldn’t alter them with AI to create a dishonest version of their content that isn’t even obviously altered. Or tl;dr: it’s better to include than to omit, better to omit than to censor, and better to censor openly than cleverly remove offending details in a way that makes it impossible to tell the image was even altered. Dronebogus (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Absolutely, no need for a full discussion of religious censorship. I'm trying to get a reading on how much you think COM:INUSE can ever actually constrain you from DRing images that are in use, in cases where you consider another version to be "superior". This is an ANI thread about you replacing inuse yoga images on another project, as part of a mass DR. Belbury (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I replaced the yoga images, which was valid. I DR’d them, which was also valid. DR’ing and replacing within an arbitrarily short timeframe is apparently invalid. INUSE at the very least needs to have an explicit grace period— a day? A week? A month? Otherwise INUSE could be extended ad absurdum to invalidate any DR of an image that’s ever been used legitimately where there is no copyright or legal concern. Dronebogus (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Why would rejecting the DR of any image that's ever been used legitimately where there is no copyright or legal concern be absurd? I'd certainly vote for that as a proposal. In any case, it's not really what's on the table, and it feels like you're wikilawyering. The issue is that when you delete an image and then immediately put it up for deletion, it makes INUSE moot, especially when you don't normally edit on that wiki. How about don't remove then DR any image? Let someone else DR it if you insist on removing it. That's the issue, that you're removing it from use with the intent that you can delete it from Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I actually rarely do the remove-then-DR thing now. See meta:User:Dronebogus/Global AI use tracking. I could have removed and DR’d all the images in the lower two categories, but I didn’t. The yoga images are an obvious exception because they’re just inferior duplicates of existing photos. I am trying to find a way of removing as much AI content on Wikimedia as possible that is uncompromising but fair. AI generated media needs to be held to a higher standard than other content. If it can be replaced, it should be. If it’s not used and isn’t independently notable, it shouldn’t be allowed on Commons. Dronebogus (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
"I am trying to find a way of removing as much AI content on Wikimedia as possible that is uncompromising but fair. AI generated media needs to be held to a higher standard than other content. If it can be replaced, it should be. If it’s not used and isn’t independently notable, it shouldn’t be allowed on Commons." - good that you are clear on your intended agenda.
HOWEVER, this is NOT common's policy.
IF you want to change commons policy on AI content, then you need to FOLLOW THE PROCCESS for discussing it (& ACCEPT the results.)
it is NOT appropriate to go all over this wiki AND OTHERS, making "pointy" edits in pursuit of your self-admitted agenda. that kind of action fairly & reasonably qualifies as disruptive editing. (& dealing with it makes more work for lots of other editors on here AND at the other wikis that you "parachute" into (for no other reason), to "cleanse" their offending use of ai materials that you find so objectionable) Lx 121 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, if you're noticing an erratically successful deletion pattern on Commons (you can DR any AI image as "slop" and an admin will sometimes delete it per nom even if it's in use), it's better to try to expand deletion policy to explicitly include that. More deletions will be successful, more people will open DRs, they can all be resolved more quickly, and users whose uploads are nominated will have less grounds to argue back. This is what I did with expanding the F10 criteria to include AI last year. Belbury (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
re: "I am obeying INUSE to the letter and nothing more. It’s the policy’s fault for being vague. INUSE talks about files currently in use but says nothing about removing them, or if it’s appropriate to nominate them immediately after removal." - now who is "wikilawyering"? the INTENT of the 'in use' policy is pretty clear. Lx 121 (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Belbury, are you saying that a middle step of your AI deletion workflow is to remove the images from other projects?
That is something I've done myself as well, but I declare that in the DR. I even ping the uploader when I do it. If an admin closes such a DR as "delete" they should check if the image is still unused. On a few occasions the uploader (never anyone else for some reason..) reverted me to re-insert their slop. This tends to be bad for your health.
And I've also nominated quite some files as "slop" when it's obvious the file is problematic. In that context I'm effectively using "slop" as a shorthand for "dubious accuracy, unsourced, not educational", often either depictions of people, historical images and/or images that could be classified as Category:AI misgeneration. In case of the yoga images where the uploader linked an actual photo that served as the source for the AI, simply saying "slop" is not sufficient imho. It's still trash, but it's not obviously trash to an average person. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
The difference between 'AI slop to be deleted on sight' and 'Important historical documents that must be preserved at all cost' is whether Dronebogus uploaded them: File:On This Day… 1776 ΛAMEREEDD.jpg File:Wikipe-tan and Commons-tan meet the Slop.png Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
The second example isn’t even AI. Dronebogus (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Is "slop" an acceptable deletion rationale? To me it sounds like a statement on quality. Most of these images seem to be in use, and COM:SCOPE is clear: It does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. Can Dronebogus use more clear deletion rationales which apply the applicable copyright law or Commons policies (per the guidance at COM:DR)? -Consigned (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
That these are AI generated, and that certain users have concerns about that, is a perfectly VALID concern. Where the disupte lies as I see it is in the seeming characterisation of them using the specfic modern term 'fetish' to imply some kind of philia(?) by their uploaders. (Commons of course has countless examples of media connected to the original use of the term 'fetish', as well.)..
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • This conversation is effectively no longer about me. It’s about AI on Commons, when/if it’s appropriate to remove images from other projects, and proper DR process (among other things). I have not done anything sanctionable here. Everyone else is welcome to take their conversations to the VP or relevant policy pages, or discuss the merits of the relevant files here at the linked DRs. --Dronebogus (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
There's still the issue of you very clearly attacking not the images, but "the uploader’s thinly veiled, oddly specific fetish". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
And as I have demonstrated you have made similar personal attacks and aspersions against me, and as I have also demonstrated I stopped doing it when asked. Dronebogus (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Do you have any view on whether you're personally following or breaking the policy at COM:INUSE (It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope.) when you remove images from other projects for being AI generated, prior to DRing them on Commons as "unused"? Belbury (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
No, in two ways: 1) I am not breaking the literal text (the images cease to be in use when removed), and 2) I am not breaking the spirit by removing and replacing the images discussed with identical ones the images discussed were inferior derivatives of. INUSE should not be a barrier to improving other projects. INUSE needs to be rewritten to address this grey area; it’s not my fault it’s a grey area in the first place. Dronebogus (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
What about the spirit in cases where you remove an image from another project without replacing it with anything? Belbury (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
I have generally stopped doing that on wikis other than Wikidata; I make an exception there because It’s one of my primary wikis. Dronebogus (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
There have also been image removals by this user on English Wikiversity (e.g., User talk:Dronebogus), which may provide additional context. -- Jtneill - Talk 00:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I frequently tried to discuss these without you. Dronebogus (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Ex. https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Jtneill#AI_slop,_ownership,_and_wikilawyering and https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:Empathy#AI_slop Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Dronebogus, IMHO you should declare on a DR when you do that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I probably should. Dronebogus (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Dronebogus, but unfortunately you didn't. cswiki removal on 18 June: Hadí žena (Diff ~25972705), not declared here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
To underline the context there, this was a silent removal of several images from cswiki while a DR was open about them, a DR which had mentioned INUSE as a relevant factor. Belbury (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
My mistake. I need to actually make this a habit. Dronebogus (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I've opened a thread at Commons talk:Project scope#Interpretations of INUSE to get a wider view on the "grey area" that you're perceiving in this policy. Belbury (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Every one of these generative AI files is a possible copyvio. See "Now we know that Artificial Intelligences are being trained on modern nonfree works. Please read this: Generative AI Has a Visual Plagiarism Problem > Experiments with Midjourney and DALL-E 3 show a copyright minefield, by Gary Marcus and Reid Southen" at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2024/02#Ban the output of generative AIs. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
is this a sockpuppet? o__0 Lx 121 (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Doubtful, the copyright question is very off topic from the rest of the thread. Belbury (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
oh this is how anon ip editors are indicated/shown now?
it still seems odd that a single use anon ip editor with ONE contribution, would use that 1 contribution to jump into the middle of a discussion here AND cite not just an external link but also an obscure, ARCHIVED com:vp proposal from two years ago Lx 121 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
@Lx 121: Sorry, I forgot to login. I wrote that text, so I had it saved locally. Drone should have disclosed what he did in the subpages.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
There are some IP contributors who are clearly experienced and frequent contributors (with net-positive contributions, too). It's not too unusual. Nakonana (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Dronebogus's stated intention to get into the habit of mentioning their removal of AI images from other projects during "not in use" DRs doesn't seem to have taken, a week on. They speedy DRed some old AI dolphins as only used in user's shitpost fake article in their sandbox, despite an unrelated editor having used one of the more innocuous images to illustrate a Saraiki Wikipedia about dolphins in 2024. A while after opening this DR, Dronebogus removed that image from the Saraiki Wikipedia, without noting this in the DR.
The discussion at Commons talk:Project scope#Interpretations of INUSE (which Dronebogus has responded to some of) seems to have a consensus that deleting images from other wikis during or prior to a "not in use" DR, without mentioning this in it, is not acting within the spirit of the policy. Belbury (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
You are seriously going to argue I was wrong to remove an AI image of a dolphin with shark teeth from an article? Is this really the state of Commons? Putting bureaucracy over even the most basic application of common sense? We have to tolerate the propagation (accidental or otherwise) of utterly blatant hoaxes in order to slavishly obey both the letter and alleged spirit of policy? Dronebogus (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
They aren't shark teeth, it just looks like some artwork of a dolphin.
I'm saying you were wrong not to note this removal in the DR. Belbury (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Okay, correction; it’s Concept art for Finny McTeeth, Deadpool IV (both of which were made up by a vandal in a hoax article). It depicts a fictional species of dolphin covered in weird tattoo-like markings in a highly implausible situation, jumping out of the water surrounded by leaping fish during a sunset out of a Thomas Kinkade painting. But at least it doesn’t have shark teeth (even though the supposed Indian Ocean Bitey Dolphin (Delphinus mordax) apparently has such teeth. Or maybe not?). Tl;dr it’s still a garbage image, I should have mentioned it, but didn’t because I thought it was basically the equivalent of reverting vandalism (even if it was added in good faith) because it’s an AI-generated hoax/shitpost. Dronebogus (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Dronebogus (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not calling it a masterpiece, or opposing its deletion.
COM:INUSE says that It does not matter if [the image] is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. When you DR an image as "not in use" and unilaterally delete it from another project that's using it, is this your continued belief in INUSE being a "grey area" on this issue? Belbury (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
I should have mentioned it in the DR. I’m not denying that. An AI dolphin hoax just seems like a weird hill to die on. If ever there was an exception to INUSE, it’s this. There’s a difference between “appears to lack educational value” and “is blatant misinformation”. Dronebogus (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
The exceptions given at INUSE are just for copyright, legal and identifiable people issues. I don't think we'd overrule another project on a hoax, outside of that, although if we wanted to it should be done acknowledging that another project seems to consider it usable.
If you're accepting that you should have mentioned the removal in the DR and will do so on all AI deletion cases in future, then okay, please do this. Belbury (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Saying "it's a weird hill to die on" is exactly my problem. It's the idea that if you dislike an AI illustration enough, that following the rules is silly. The fact that you skipped that step while you were in the middle of a relevant AN/U discussion about you and then try and make it about the image is deeply concerned; it does not make me feel that you are going to note this on DRs in the future.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
I am going to note it in the future no matter what you feel. Dronebogus (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
NO, this discussion is about your actions. YOU are trying to turn it into an "anti-ai crusade". & you are mistaken in thinking that your disruptive editing is "not actionable".
the fact that you are clearly indicating that you have no intention of stopping makes it worse. Lx 121 (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
If you consider AI generated 'clothed models' as potential fetish, then I would also point out that 'fully frontal' crops illustrating sex positions to also be considered an indicator of a more conventional kind, perhaps you could consider adding fuller 'academic context rationale' to such images where they are in use? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
What are you even talking about? I already explained why I thought it was a fetish. I haven’t called it a “fetish” since, though I still think it’s obvious just from the language of the prompts (which requests “beautiful young women” in “glossy spandex”) that the edits are to make the images sexier rather than more educational. I’m not trying to insult the uploader by pointing this out; I’m pointing it out to refute claims that this set was created simply for consistency. Dronebogus (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
what "language of the prompts"? is it in the file descriptions? please demonstrate with links if so? Lx 121 (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Lx 121, File:Sopakaranavrishchikasana.png: "1. The outfit of the woman is glossy black nylon spandex suit, turtleneck, long sleeve, plain smooth surface. 2. A beautiful and young Malay woman, sharp chin, long face, black hair in ponytail" - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
SOOO, you don't actually have the actual language of the prompts used to create the images? you are just ASSUMING what was requested, based on your own subjective opinion that it is "fetish" -related? & THEN making up what you THINK the prompt was? Lx 121 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Bruh. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The uploader has stated these prompts in full on the individual file pages. Otherwise, yes, the fetish angle is an unconfirmed assumption by Dronebogus. Belbury (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
i stand corrected on this point, ty for the clarification. although i still don't see how the nominating editor reasonably extrapolated "fetish" (as the natural "default" conclusion/assumption) from a set of requests for a uniform series of images of yoga poses with the same "model" & the same full body-covering "gymwear" outfit, same bg, etc. Lx 121 (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Lx 121, the accusation is generally not appropriate or relevant for Commons but the hypothesis is not unreasonable. All but two of the other files that user has uploaded feature unitards or something alike. The odds of that happening by sheer chance are minuscule. This is further compounded by File:Women's Super G at Whistler Creekside, Tina Maze getting silver (Tina Maze edit).png where the uploader used AI to remove the "Vancouver 2010" number vest, the very thing that made this image relevant, to be able to see more of the unitard. Which the AI then hallucinated inaccurately as you can faintly see some of the lines through the number vest which the AI ignored when it drew its own lines. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The Women's Super G image is so blatant and impossible to justify in its gratuitous sexualization of a real person in a non-sexual image I think it violates COM:CREEP and should incur a ban of further uploading and modification of images for the creator. Dronebogus (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
A possible justification would be AI overreach without the uploader noticing, which happens. The more prominent edit to the image is the removal of another person walking in front of the subject carrying medals, so the prompt could have been intended to remove that person, but phrased in a way ("erase the person with the medals") that the AI somehow interpreted as also referring to the competitor's number vest. Belbury (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
That’s a stretch when combined with the circumstantial evidence of almost every other thing they uploaded being pictures or crops of women in unitards, many of which are seemingly chosen for emphasizing their bodies. Dronebogus (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
You were describing the image as "impossible to justify", but at a stretch, it can be justified. You should start a separate ANU thread if you think the user needs to be banned from Commons. Belbury (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
“Impossible” was hyperbolic. I really just meant very hard to justify without making absurd leaps in logic and good faith. I’m also pointing it out because part of my supposedly unacceptable conduct was calling the images fetishistic in nature; they are not only almost certainly that, but the uploader’s overall behavioral pattern is far less tolerable than mine. Dronebogus (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
btw, that is not really a "turtleneck". it's more like the collar on a "nehru jacket". a turtle-neck is more-usually where the tubular fabric of the collar is folded over (outwards, back-covering the original layer of the collar) to make (at least) a double-layer of material around the "ring" of the collar. (or, occasionally, the same type of collar UN-folded to partly cover the wearer's lower face xD) Lx 121 (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
AND i concede that the original prompt language used the term "turtleneck", although i do not think that is the most accurate term to describe this particular cut of collar. Lx 121 (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
general observation: - the user is clearly pursuing an agenda against ai generated materials. their own STATEMENTS make that blatantly obvious.
IF the user feels that strongly about it, then they should pursue a general policy discussion on the matter (& accept the outcome), NOT go "hunting" for files to delete in pursuit of this objective - to dr on an invalid, non-existent (i.e.: non-policy) rationale as "ai slop". on wikipedia they would describe this behaviour as "pointy editing" (& disruptive; not to mention using up other editor's time & resources dealing with it). Lx 121 (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
This issue should be already over. Wmbata (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
 Comment I've requested replacement of the remaining uses of the yoga slop on mswiki: User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands (Diff ~1235729905)
Mswiki admin said they were okay with it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
 Comment I wouldn’t participate here but do we need this sort of comment while this thread is still alive? What has been learned from all this? Yacàwotçã (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
I stand by that comment. AI slop is a cancer on the Internet. Most of it is rightfully deleted. Look at the sea of red links directly below in this very thread. Dronebogus (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
@Dronebogus, I agree and if it were upon me they would be banned from Commons, but you absolutely should be more diplomatic in your answers, because not everyone thinks AI-generated images are “cancer” that should “be destroyed”. Remember someone wasted their time to upload it here. You can simply say, not being in use, it’s out of scope and blah, blah, blah. You are only maximizing conflict this way (it appears to me that’s the reason for this topic to exist, isn’t it?). Yacàwotçã (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Also, Category:AI-generation related deletion requests shows at least ~90% of AI images are deleted in DRs. That isn’t checking to see which kept images were later deleted, or how many were recently kept for reasons divorced from INUSE (I’ve counted two in the latter category) Dronebogus (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

AEO Design Consultants

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Arrived on Commons at the end of March and immediately started uploading promotional content. They got blocked for that by EugeneZelenko in mid-June, but returned today to upload the now-deleted File:Revit Architecture Working Professional Training.pdf.

I am here because EugeneZelenko suggested that I report the user after I requested on his talk page that he indef them. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable measure: account seems to be corporate one and all uploads were of advertisement kind. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done indef-blocked for continued uploading of out-of-scope promotional content after warnings and 1-week block. - Jmabel ! talk 04:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

User:HonysTorresArt

Latest comment: 3 months ago24 comments7 people in discussion

She has uploaded more than 2000 files from her personal archive, see here. She sent "permission" to VRT per Ticket:2026062310008551, but obviously she does not have the exclusive copyright for all of the material. There are certainly photos among which are taken by other persons.

I am not implying bad faith, but it is impossible for VRT to deal with such a large volumeon an image-by-image base. I also doubt that such a mass is within Commons:Project scope. I mean, Wikipedia is not a personal photo album, not even for notable artists?

So what should be done in this case? Thanks, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Relevant category: Category:Honys Torres. Yann (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment A couple minutes web search suggests they are an artist of some notability - though some online results are due to their skill in social media promotion, the artist has has exhibitions in multiple countries. However there are no Wikipedia articles about them. In principle, if a notable artist agrees to free license their work, that's a good thing for Commons. However I am unsure if such a large number of files in in COM:SCOPE. Also quick spot checks show many uses of pop-culture figures that may be fair use in art but might be COM:DW copyright problems for Commons (eg, characters from the notoriously litigious Disney Corp, File:Top Angebot! (Honys Torres, 2024).jpg, File:The Piety of Donald (2016) – (Honys Torres).jpg) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Infrogmation There is no doubt that the artist is notable. The problem is the mere size of her upload, with the practical impossibility to figure out each single photo for which another photograph also has a copyright. Mussklprozz (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
    File:Works by Honys Torres in the exhibition “Islas Flotantes” (2011) 03.jpg is another illustrative example of the copyright issues in play - Torres cannot possibly grant permission for us to reuse (e.g.) the Starbucks logo, SpongeBob, Mickey Mouse, the Wendys logo, a Newsweek cover, etc, etc. And I agree that there are scope issues as well; photo sets like Category:Honys Torres transporting artworks are unlikely to have educational use. Commons is not a personal photo album, even for notable artists. Omphalographer (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment the user apparently had not been notified on their talk page about this discussion. I have done so. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Infrogmation I had informed her via VRT. But thanks anyway for informing her on her user talk page es well. Mussklprozz (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
    Hello, and thank you for the notification and for reviewing my case.
    I would like to briefly explain the context of my contributions. Since April, I have been working on the construction of a reasoned and well‑documented portfolio of my work, with the goal of presenting it as an institutional archive in curatorial and museum processes in Switzerland. My intention was never to use Commons as a “personal photo album”, but rather as a space for structured documentation, with complete metadata, coherent categories, and verifiable traceability.
    A very important part of this project is related to the situation in my home country. Venezuela has no official, centralized, or reliable documentation of exhibitions, art institutions, art contests, or cultural events. Many exhibitions I participated in have no public record, no catalog, no website, and in some cases not even a basic institutional category existed on Commons. This lack of documentation has pushed many artists, including myself, to reconstruct our trajectories from personal archives. In addition to documenting my own work, I have also contributed by creating institutional categories, organizing historical information, and filling gaps in the cultural record that simply do not exist elsewhere. This was done in good faith and with the intention of contributing to Commons as a global repository of cultural memory.
    Until now, I had not received any indication that the volume or type of documentation was not acceptable, so I continued developing the project in good faith and following the policies I was aware of, including sending permissions to VRT.
    Regarding the content of my artworks: I work within Neo Pop, a movement based on the critical appropriation of images from popular culture. I now understand that, although these works are entirely original and created by me, Commons cannot host images that include copyrighted elements, even when they are part of an artistic collage. I appreciate the clarification and understand the difference between artistic practice and COM:DW policies.
    About the volume of files: Indeed, the project is large because it includes artwork documentation, processes, exhibitions, and historical archive. I am fully willing to reduce, reorganize, or relocate the parts that do not fall within COM:SCOPE, and to clearly separate what is freely licensed artwork from contextual documentation.
    I truly appreciate that you have taken the time to review this case, and I am open to any specific recommendations to adjust the archive to Commons policies. My intention is to collaborate and adapt the project in the best possible way.
    Thank you again for your guidance. HonysTorresArt (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • A suggestion here:
    1. It would seem that the bulk of these uploads are in scope. I think we should lay aside the scope issue for the moment—that can be handled later on a case-by-case basis where it may arise—and focus on the copyright issue(s).
    2. All: are there any apparent copyright issues here besides the derivative works issue? If we can enumerate all such issues that are likely to arise for this set of files, I'm guessing that HonysTorresArt can take it on themself to go through their own uploads and mark the files that should be deleted on a copyright basis. Assuming they do that in good faith, I don' think there would be any further issue here that amounts to an admin issue.
      • HonysTorresArt Help:VisualFileChange.js describes a tool that, among other things, makes it pretty quick to mass-nominate files for deletion. In a case like this, where all of the files in question were uploaded by a single account, it is a very efficient process, so the " ask" on your time is mostly just the time you need to review your uploads in terms of copyright, which clearly someone has to do.
  • Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for the review and the guidance. I have taken note of the points mentioned and will proceed to review my uploads from a copyright perspective, marking for deletion any files that I identify as problematic.
    My project on Commons is part of the construction of an institutional archive of my work, and I appreciate the clarity on how to properly handle cases that may require removal. I will act in good faith and with transparency throughout this process. If any specific questions arise during the review, I will consult the appropriate channels.
    To avoid any ambiguity, I am outlining the concrete criteria I will apply during the review of my files and subcategories:
    Image authorship: I will verify that each photograph was taken by me or has clear permission from the author.
    • For Commons' purposes "clear permission" here necessarily has to mean "a sufficiently free license, and sufficient evidence of that license." Please do read COM:THIRD if you have any doubt what that would mean. - Jmabel ! talk 05:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
    Works by third parties: I will identify whether works by other artists appear in the frame and evaluate whether the image should be kept or removed.
    • Assuming those works are copyrighted and are at all significantly visible, the only choices for keeping the works on Commons are: (1) get an actual license for the inclusion of those works (same as for third-party photos), (2) crop them out, or (3) cover them with a Gaussian blur or other concealment. Otherwise, they need to be deleted.- Jmabel ! talk 05:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
    External copyrighted elements: I will review the presence of logos, trademarks, posters, or non-free graphic material.
    Documentary relevance: I will distinguish between essential documentation of my work and redundant or non‑relevant material for the institutional archive.
    Licensing and metadata: I will confirm that each file has the correct license and complete metadata.
    Duplicates or unnecessary versions: I will detect multiple versions of the same work or process and mark redundant ones for deletion.
    Group exhibitions: In photographs of group exhibitions, I will verify that my work is the focus and that the rights of other artists are not infringed.
    I will review each of my subcategories systematically applying these criteria, and I will report the status of each one as I progress, so that the community can see the ongoing work and confirm that the process is being carried out in an orderly, transparent manner aligned with Commons policies.
    • I don't think that level of reporting will be needed; as long as you are steadily marking the ones that need deletion, people can see you are progressing. If you want to post any tracking, it's probably best to do that on your own user page or user talk page. It would be good for you to come back to this page with a short note when you are done so that someone can review, but this particular conversation will presumably have been archived long before that. - Jmabel ! talk 05:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
    If you believe I should add any additional criteria or adjust the approach, I am fully open to guidance to ensure that the review meets all expectations. HonysTorresArt (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
    • I've taken the liberty of interspersing my remarks above, instead of having to reproduce the bulk of what you wrote and ending up with the potential confusion of two lists. Please feel free to continue the discussion here if any of this is unclear. - Jmabel ! talk 05:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
    @HonysTorresArt: Marking them for deletion as in Special:Diff/1241740571 and five other edits without creating subpages fills Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage and is against the instructions in the {{Delete}} template, including the "Click here to show further instructions" portion (or Commons:Deletion requests/Listing a request manually policy or the "By hand" portion of COM:CFD#Starting requests, normally collapsed). Please clean up your own mess. See also {{DR problem warning}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
    Hi Jeff, Thank you for your message. I have reviewed all the edits you pointed out and have completed every deletion request according to the full instructions of the {{Delete}} template, including creating the required subpages and replacing the template with {{#invoke:Autotranslate|autotranslate|1=|2=|4=|5=|6= |base=Delete|9={{#if: | false | true }}}}{{Deletion template tag}} on each file.
    The category Incomplete deletion requests – missing subpage is now clean, and all nominations are properly structured.
    Regards, Honys Torres HonysTorresArt (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
    @HonysTorresArt: No, that's not how to do it, especially on this page. Don't subst.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
    Hi Jeff, thanks for the note — understood. HonysTorresArt (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
    @HonysTorresArt: You're welcome. You also filled Category:Deletion requests - No timestamp given by not filling in the year, month, and day.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
    • @HonysTorresArt: please, please, please: if you have more deletion requests to make, either use "Nominate for deletion" in the Tools menu or (if doing a mass deletion request) use VisualFileChange as described above. These tools will do all of the required steps correctly. As I'm sure you can now see, doing this correctly manually is a very tricky and boring process. (There are other tools that also do this correctly; my point is not to do this manually.)- Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
    In addition, you neglected to transclude the subpages. I did that and cleared Category:Deletion requests - No timestamp given for you, as it remained undone after you made many many edits since I wrote the above. I  Support action against you as per the OP.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for the explanation and for organizing the discussion. I have no further comments for now. HonysTorresArt (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
    @HonysTorresArt: You seem to think of Commons as "my institutional archive" per Special:Permalink/1242005884. Why?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Liatleibo

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Reuploads File:Pini eden.jpg over and over again despite being warned by Hedwig in Washington not to do so. Jonteemil (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Three month block. If there are similar problems on return, please indef-block. - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
I've now unblocked them, but all of the warnings still stand, and if there are similar problems, a long block would be in order. FWIW, in my estimation they may have used AI assistance in the discussion on their user talk page, but they are basically saying all the right things. Blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive, and it is clear that they understand the issue. It is simply a matter of whether they are here to contribute or not, and I imagine we will know soon. - Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
I checked the user's page, the block and its template still seem to be there. Wmbata ~Nwa Mbata~ (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Unblocked since. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Bakeduranium

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Bakeduranium (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Every single upload by this user is a fake "own work". They did not make any of these. Especially note File:Jmason.webp, which has been uploaded and deleted several times by various editors, falsely claimed as own work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned, files deleted. Yann (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Elzen96

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Blatant sockuppet of Raden liee alhidayah, see evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp File Uploader Deleted file Uploader
Jul 03 2026 06:22 PM File:Raden Liee (77799).jpg Delete Google image search Elzen96 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 18 edits) File:Raden Liee S.Bis..jpg (Und | Log) Ranwjyaaa (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jul 03 2026 04:13 PM File:Raden Liee (33453).jpg Delete Google image search Elzen96 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 18 edits) File:Raden Liee S.Bis. (76978).jpg (Und | Log) Ranwjyaaa (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jul 03 2026 04:13 PM File:Raden Liee (33453).jpg Delete Google image search Elzen96 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 18 edits) File:Raden Liee Alhidayah.jpg (Und | Log) Raden liee alhidayah (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jul 02 2026 06:21 AM File:Raden Liee.jpg Delete Google image search Elzen96 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 18 edits) File:Raden Liee.jpg (Und | Log) Ranwjyaaa (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jul 02 2026 06:21 AM File:Raden Liee.jpg Delete Google image search Elzen96 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 18 edits) File:Mengenal Raden Liee Alhidayah CEO & co-founder PT KAYZEN SUKSES BERSAMA.jpg (Und | Log) Febyrastantyyyyyyy (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)

Jonteemil (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Initial block was by Yann.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done indef-blocked, will nuke uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Whyiseverythingalreadyused

Latest comment: 3 months ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Unfounded accusations at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: [2] and attempts to administer pages where the user is not authorized to do so: [3] + [4]. ~2026-37742-40 (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

You are the one making the unfounded accusations
"All those of you who treated him this way, can you explain why, under the same rules, which have not changed even a single letter since then, such mass contradictory decisions are being made? Can you explain why you're making such offensive attacks against someone who carefully studied the deletion history of similar files and came to you with the same justification that has led to hundreds of file deletions? Does the Commons community consider all those deletions to be a mistake? Why then have all those files still not been restored? So is he guilty? Or is there something rotten in the state of Denmark?" – plucked straight from this comment made by the reporter Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Teensy bit of respect for quoting Shakespeare.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
quoting => paraphrasing. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I was referring to my memory of English class in high school, but see q:Denmark#S.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Distinguishest thou not a quote from a paraphrase, knave? Wouldst thou have the words of the Immortal Bard subjected to such malleability? (Methinks I have got a bit off topic here...) - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
 Comment In this case I would ignore this issue and close as not done. If someone wants to lodge a complaint they should not hide behind an IP. Besides, I don't see an issue with Whyiseverythingalreadyused's behaviour Gbawden (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
 Not done I blocked this TA. Yann (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Sogo100111100

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Uploads the same file over and over again despite it being deleted everytime. Has twice asked for its undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-12#File:黃晴雯 個人照.jpg and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-10#File:黃晴雯.jpg, respectively, denied both times and yet despite this keeps uploading the file time and time again. This is so blatantly against the rules and done so many times that it is obvious for the user that hey has done wrong. Therefore bringing them here instead of just tagging them with {{Dont recreate}}.

Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp File Uploader Deleted file Uploader
Jun 30 2026 02:22 AM File:黃晴雯照片.jpg Delete Google image search Sogo100111100 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 30 edits) File:黃晴雯圖像.jpg (Und | Log) Sogo100111100 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)
Jun 30 2026 02:22 AM File:黃晴雯照片.jpg Delete Google image search Sogo100111100 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 30 edits) File:黃晴雯個人照.jpg (Und | Log) Sogo100111100 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)
Jun 30 2026 02:22 AM File:黃晴雯照片.jpg Delete Google image search Sogo100111100 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 30 edits) File:黃晴雯 個人照.jpg (Und | Log) Sogo100111100 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)
Jun 30 2026 02:22 AM File:黃晴雯照片.jpg Delete Google image search Sogo100111100 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 30 edits) File:黃晴雯 個人照.jpg (Und | Log) Sogo100111100 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)
Jun 30 2026 02:22 AM File:黃晴雯照片.jpg Delete Google image search Sogo100111100 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 30 edits) File:Sophia Huang.jpg (Und | Log) Sogo100111100 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)
Jun 30 2026 02:22 AM File:黃晴雯照片.jpg Delete Google image search Sogo100111100 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 30 edits) File:Sophia Huang.jpg (Und | Log) Sogo100111100 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)

Jonteemil (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File deleted. The only question now is what to do with the user. The account's only activity has actually consisted of re-uploading the same image again and this has been going on since December 2024. A one-week block, the usual first step in such copyright cases, likely won't achieve much, as they will probably just upload the image again once the block expires. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps indef until the user addresses the issue and requests an unblock? Jonteemil (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: I was thinking similarly. I notified them anyway.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Indef. This user was already blocked for one month, so we can't assume misunderstanding forever. Yann (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Māori M

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

User has been disrespectful and discussion between me and user in question has noticeably became incivil in DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tino Rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty movement flag.svg. User has also not directly disclosed connection between themselves and the author of the file in connection. Also mentioned a DMCA as an option here. TansoShoshen (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@TansoShoshen I refute this. I have not been uncivil. I have asked the user to provide evidence.
I have disclosed that the copyright holder is a friend.
I was asking about DMCA as that will be the next step for action. I am starting at the lowest level which is removal of this image as it does not meet the free requirements for Wikipedia.
There is no dispute, however if @TansoShoshen feels as if there has they have made no attempt to discuss it resolve it with me. Māori M (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
 Not done I don't think this calls for administrative action at this time, but I do think Māori M needs to extend more of an assumption of good faith toward other users here, and to consider that on a site where we have been dealing with complex copyright issues for over two decades with almost no interventions by WMF's lawyers, there might be a fair number of people who, while most are not lawyers, have a pretty strong working knowledge of copyright law. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Aristoxène (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Latest comment: 3 months ago14 comments5 people in discussion

I was threaten by this mass uploader ([5]). An administrator should do something. Pierre cb (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I concur.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I just got out of a long discussion and slept a bit for the first time in a week. I want to say that I am sorry for acting like that; I reiterated my clear willingness (as I was already noting) not to intervene; I hold a strong personal grudge against the person concerned, but it will lead to absolutely nothing. I am a victim of child abuse and I am bipolar, which pushes me to prefer violent actions toward people who insult me and my loved ones; but after discussion and having taken some rest, I think I acted badly toward this person, who is just an idiot who wanted to show off out of a desire for power. What particularly annoyed me was his hypocritical attitude in managing the document; he was ready to keep it and had no problem with it, but when he saw that I reinstalled the category that was relevant against his wishes (even though he knows nothing about anarchism and is a total nobody), he requested a deletion. There will be no action from our groups toward anyone affiliated with WM, especially since, as I had pointed out, rapists or harassers have been quieted down by WM lately, which personally proved me right in the position I had tried to get the movement to adopt, which was a conciliatory position. If I run into him, of course I wouldn't like him, but I won't run into him; and even though we control Paris and the police are incapable of protecting anything, no action will be taken on our part; I just signaled this to several comrades after waking up. I haven't slept lately and I am burying a loved one, so I hope you can understand the particularly strong symbolic violence I have just suffered from this arbitrary procedure. He wanted to exercise a will to power, which goes down very badly with me and us, but frankly I am neither the most violent nor the most radical, and people who have met me will all tell you that I am a friendly person. I just lost the person who raised me and who spent their life helping and educating me, so I am in a particularly difficult emotional state—which I hope you can understand. I will hold a grudge against him, that's for sure, but no initiative will be taken on my part or on the part of any group (at least those I associate with, I cannot commit for the whole movement) either toward him, whom I assume to be probably a Quebecer boomer who doesn't have the codes of how to behave when dealing with French or Parisian people, nor with anarchists, but I hold neither a fierce hatred toward him, nor anything at all, and as I said when I was very angry and deeply hurt by his unilateral and, it must be said, arbitrary actions, I have no interest in seeking confrontation or ruining things for him or WM; and I have been a moderating factor within the movement toward them. Paris is ours, and I tried to bridge the gap between the conference and the movement, and the AFAPB, which would have probably acted differently—and the comrades from the AFAPB don't mess around. So I apologize to the person for my gut reaction and, it must be said, not very friendly behavior, even though I hold a significant grudge against him that I will keep until my death; but the interest of both myself and the movement is not to attack random groups, especially since I myself have been very active on Commons. I hope you understand that my emotional state is not very clear during this period; when you lose a man who was so close and so good to us, and who loved us so much, you are not very rational. So I apologize to the person for my reaction (but not for the grudge that I will keep until his own apologies, if they ever come) and to the community for this mess, but I think you can understand my reaction a bit. See you around (or not). Aristoxène (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
threat
I ask for the deletion of all my uploaded files on Commons (pseudonym:Aristoxène). You have no respect for me and the fact that I'm burying my loved ones, I have no respect for you neither, I was just talking to one of you to say I was feeling chill those last months with WM, it's not the case, bye. If I stay I will become violent and will do stuff I shouldn't. You are not friends and you are not helpful and so you can go f yourself. Aristoxène (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Protecting rapists, deleting my photograph, asking for identities of activists to give them to the cops, these are your methods. I moderated the anarchist desire to fuck up your convention in Paris I said 'No it's not the focus ok they protect rapists but let's not destroy them because it's still a good project' and this is how you act when I'm burying my loved ones. You are a piece of shit and it's best that I leave this shit. Aristoxène (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
All of this because I readded the category 'Anarchism in France' (of which 98% of files are mine) when you had removed it ; at first you didn't want to delete it at all but when things weren't going in your way you asked for speedy deletion. This is so hypocritical and hatefull on your part and I'll act accordingly. Aristoxène (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
How much time and effort and days of my life did I lose here Aristoxène (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
I take risks within the movement to say that protecting rapists is ok, this is not a random stance to take, I took risks I said like 'Ok but if we do this we'll be arrested, better to focus on other things than their convention, I don't think WM is a focus right now, even though they protect rapists, I think most of them are geeks and random people we don't care'. I take risks for your ass and this is how I'm being repayed. Aristoxène (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
By you shitting on the people I'm burying as we speak for a matter of personal honour. Aristoxène (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
They even wanted to tag all your headquarters last year and find back the rapists. Why didn't it happen ? Who told them to not do it ? :) Aristoxène (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete this one too, my dying grandfather who adopted me. I swear these people ; bureaucracy and no awareness of what happens or how people can feel. Aristoxène (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
It's been 10 years I'm here on my former and new accounts and I was never treated with such hatred and disgusting behaviour. So yes I won't search you actively or whatever ((hence why I removed my message after being too angry) but don't let me meet you because I swear I go to jail ; oeil pour oeil dent pour dent. Aristoxène (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeffed without talk page or email access due to the violent threats. I have also emailed T&S. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Good, thanks. I have hidden the threat on Pierre's talk page. Yann (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

TexasOutlawsSoccerFan

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

One of the user's uploads (File:Solution to the System (album).png) is below TOO. Another one is a Wikipedia screenshot that might not contain copyrightable elements. These files may still be out of COM:SCOPE, though. Qzekrom (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
I'm not saying these are good uploads, but they don't seem to me to call for any admin action beyond deleting them, which has already happened. Re-upload of something already deleted would merit a long block. Upload of more than a handful of files like this might merit some sort of block. - Jmabel ! talk 02:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Conduct and harassment issue regarding User:Mohammed Qays

Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I here report a conduct issue involving User:Mohammed Qays, who is an administrator on the Arabic Wikipedia. This user is using hostile language, making false accusations of lying, and attempting to intimidate me to drop a valid copyright nomination on File:Whataboutism.svg

I flagged File:Whataboutism.svg as a copyright violation because the character design is an exact match for a copyrighted commercial vector asset on VectorStock (Asset ID: 33139742). The uploader claimed the file was entirely "Own work."

When I opened a formal deletion request, the user responded with an aggressive personal attack on the deletion page:

"@Cipher Nox ما هذا الكذب!! قلت لك الصورة متوفرة بصيغة حرة (free) بموقع... توقف عن ترشيحها للحذف... وكذلك توقف عن تزييف كلامي بأسلوب غير صحيح ودلالات غير دقيقة، وكذلك أكتب بالعربية لأنك تجيدها."

  • False Accusations of lying and distorting Words: The user loudly accused me of "lying" and "twisting his words." However, in his own previous edit summary, he explicitly admitted to using a transformation tool on existing assets ("مع تعديلات"), which legally constitutes an unauthorized derivative work. Pointing out his own admission is not "twisting words."
  • Failure to Provide Proof / Deflection: In his hostile response, he provided a link (https://www.magnific.com/vectors/arabic-clothes) claiming the image is available there for free. However, checking that link reveals the image does not exist there. He has completely failed to provide any evidence to back up his claims, using aggressive rhetoric instead of proof.
  • Language Gatekeeping: The user is demanding that I write exclusively in Arabic because he knows I am capable of it ("وكذلك أكتب بالعربية لأنك تجيدها"). Wikimedia Commons is an international project where English is the standard lingua franca for deletion requests so that global administrators can follow the case. Demanding a specific language to obscure a discussion or make it harder for the broader community to audit is highly inappropriate.

As a local project administrator, User:Mohammed Qays should be modeling the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). Instead, he is using hostile accusations of dishonesty and language demands to deflect from a clear violation of Commons copyright policy. I request that an administrator step in to review this behavior and ensure the deletion discussion remains safe from personal attacks. - - Cipher Nox (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The statement makes no sense regarding the license. If my translation is correct the message is not formulated in a friendly way, but not to be considered harassing. GPSLeo (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
There is no harassment here. This complaint is overwrought, and not something yet requiring admin involvement. Mohammed Qays' status on other projects is of no relevance; it does not subject him to additional duties here, which seems to be the purpose of its mention--verily, all users are subject to the UCoC, which is not something adjudicated on the Commons anyway. The accusation of lying is indeed a failure to COM:AGF, but is not a personal attack. Mohammed Qays is welcome to request writing in another language, just as Cipher Nox is equally welcome to decline to do so. Mohammed Qays' comment was not appropriate, and instead "deflection" as noted. It is likely to harm his position at the DR, as he's chosen to pound the table rather than address the copyright concern, which is telling. Эlcobbola talk 19:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
I've deleted the file in question under CSD F3. It was pretty open and shut. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
@Elcobbola@GPSLeo@The Squirrel Conspiracy وفق ما ورد أعلاه، أحب أن أوضح بعض النقاط التي تحتاج توضيح للزملاء الأفاضل، الشخص المعني @Cipher Nox قام سابقاً بتوليد صور باستخدام أدوات (AI) عني وعن زملاء بمشروع ويكيبيديا العربية وكانت الصور المولد ذات دلالات غير لائقة وهجوم شخصي عليّ تحديداً، وقد ضايقني بحساباتي على منصات التواصل الاجتماعي، وهو ما لا تسمح به جميع قواعد المؤسسة، وأيضا شاركها مع عدة أشخاص خارج الموسوعة وبسبب ذلك منع من المشروع منعاً دائماً، وما زال يعمل على مضايقتي في مشروع ويكي كومنز، واعتبر جميع نقاشاته هي استفزازية وتصيد.
بخصوص الصورة بحثت عنها ولم أجدها ربما حذفت من موقع (www.magnific.com) لكنها بالفعل كانت هناك، لكن على أيه حال كان قرار الحذف سليماً، ولكنه حرف كلامي بطريقة غير سليمة وقد أشرت في ملخص التراجع أنها كانت في الموقع المشار له في الأعلى، ولم أشر إلى أي أداة (AI)، وأنا ملتزم بقواعد وسياسات الموقع، لكن هذا الشخص تحديداً لا أريده أن يتحدث معي ولا أن يناقشني أبداً.
(وصلات إضافية: link1، link2)
chatgpt translation
::@Elcobbola @GPSLeo @The Squirrel Conspiracy, as stated above, I would like to clarify a few points for my fellow colleagues.
The individual in question, @Cipher Nox, previously generated images using (AI) tools depicting me and several colleagues from the Arabic Wikipedia project. These generated images contained inappropriate content and constituted a personal attack specifically targeting me. He also harassed me through my social media accounts, which is a clear violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's policies. Furthermore, he shared these images with several people outside the Wikimedia projects, and as a result, he was permanently banned from the project. Despite that, he continues to harass me on Wikimedia Commons, and I consider all of his interactions with me to be provocative and targeted harassment.
Regarding the image in question, I searched for it but could not find it. It may have been removed from the website (www.magnific.com), but it was indeed available there at the time. In any event, the deletion decision was appropriate. The issue is that he misrepresented my statement. In my edit summary, I simply indicated that the image had been available on the website referenced above. I did not mention any (AI) tool, and I remain fully committed to complying with the site's policies and guidelines. However, I do not want this particular individual to communicate with me or engage with me in any discussion whatsoever.
For additional context and supporting information, please see:

 Mohammed Qays  🗣 11:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The image was not removed from Magnific. I found several assets of where it was stolen used from, on the website from the same artist (https://www.magnific.com/author/stockgiu), and it is a premium, copyrighted asset requiring a paid commercial license.
link1: https://www.magnific.com/premium-vector/parents-cute-daughter_36101263.htm
link2: https://www.magnific.com/premium-vector/family-parents-with-daughter-standing-together-cartoon-character_9835774.htm#from_element=cross_selling__vector
I also searched deeply on the website and the artists page for free assets, and none of the artist's free assets had the two men design where the uploader used from.
This proves that by the uploader's own admission, they took several copyrighted assets from an external website, modified it a little bit and uploaded it to Commons, and falsely labeled it as "Own work"
Bringing up irrelevant off-project disputes from Arabic Wikipedia is a clear attempt to deflect from this pattern of copyright violations. For the admin's reference, here is the diff where the uploader explicitly admits to sourcing the file from Magnific while attempting to downplay its status: diff (image of the history on imgur)
Plus another case of copyright violation here Commons:Deletion requests/File:شعار الملف الاستنادي للمؤلفين العراقيين.svg. - - Cipher Nox (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

DisneyFanMF

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Reuploads the same file, File:StoryToys Software Company Logo Image File Capture.png, a third time despite having been warned by me not to do it again. When they asked for help as a response to my {{Dont recreate}} tagging, I also instructed them to upload the file to upload the file locally to Wikipedia AND explicitly once again told them NOT to upload the file here a third time. Despite this they have now uploaded the file here a third time disregarding everything I wrote. Jonteemil (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Rasyaaldi

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yet another sock of Raden liee alhidayah. Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp File Uploader Deleted file Uploader
Jul 05 2026 05:29 PM File:Raden Liee (57092).jpg Delete Google image search Rasyaaldi (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 17 edits) File:Raden Liee S.Bis. (43899).jpg (Und | Log) Ranwjyaaa (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jul 05 2026 05:29 PM File:Raden Liee (57092).jpg Delete Google image search Rasyaaldi (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 17 edits) File:Raden Liee (65918).jpg (Und | Log) Raden liee alhidayah (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)

Jonteemil (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Krok6kola

Latest comment: 3 months ago10 comments7 people in discussion

This user continues to add incorrect categories to photos, even though he has been warned multiple times to stop doing so. According to his user talk page, his categorization behavior has actually been problematic for years.

In recent weeks, he has been warned multiple times to stop doing so and to first correct the mistakes he has made. However, he does not respond to these requests but continues undeterred. This kind of behavior is simply destructive when the person’s name is even included in the file name, and the photo is used in his biographical article and Wikidata entry.

I don’t think numerous well-meaning requests will suffice anymore. Stepro (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Sock/meatpuppetry

Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp File Uploader Deleted file Uploader
Jul 02 2026 06:19 AM File:Coder.jpg Delete Google image search Mahmoud code (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 4 edits) File:01pdcvl.jpg (Und | Log) محمود محمد محمد مرسي جاد (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jul 02 2026 06:14 AM File:Mahmoud.jpg Delete Google image search Mahmoud code (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 4 edits) File:محمود محمد محمد مرسي جاد.jpg (Und | Log) محمود محمد محمد مرسي جاد (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)

Jonteemil (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Deleted files courtesy of Ziv.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked the sockpuppet and deleted both his uploads. Taivo (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
@Taivo Now the master reuploaded the same files again. Jonteemil (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done. Thanks to Shaan Sengupta for deletion! I also blocked the master temporarily. Taivo (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
I have deleted both the files and had issued an indefinite block for two reasons, one Abusing multiple accounts and second reuploading content deleted per community consenus and personal files generated by AI. I still think that the user is NOTHERE. But I have removed my block bcoz @Taivo: had handed the user a one week block just seconds ago. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Usually I am kind do not give indefinite blocks easily, except for sockpuppets. There is an essay en:Wikipedia:ROPE for it. Taivo (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Kontributor 2K

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Kontributor 2K (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user has been consistently reverting my edits and leaving comments on talk pages (both on files and three on my own within the past two days) that I perceive to be passive-aggressive in nature. I have already contacted the user on their talk page regarding their behavior, which I believe falls under COM:HOUNDING. The user admitted that they are following my edits and has accused me of "not being concerned with the consequences of my edits." I have attempted to ignore the comments, in an effort to disengage in the conversation, as many of them appear to be passive aggressive; in particular, this thread in which they warn me "not to collide" with them; this thread in which they mention they "surprisingly" had to "sort out" my edits; and this Revision of File:Valle di Cadore-Bandiera.svg, in which they verbatim tell me "don't approach [their] files"—despite not even being the original uploader of the work. While I recognize that I have made mistakes in using simpleSVGcheck, and have looked at these automated edits more carefully, I still believe that this conduct constitutes COM:HOUNDING because of the sheer number of reverts to my edits over the past two days and numerous talk page discussions on my own user talk page and on other files, some of which I feel are not within the scope of "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of local policy"; refer to the posts here and here for examples. ForeverFlying (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

   First, I have corrected the “maintenance burden” that has been inserted (in “other fields”) on File:Valle di Cadore-Bandiera.svg (correction diff.), since, after the file was overwritten a second time, the code no longer displayed the corresponding information (last uploader & exact file size).
Leaving the original code as is—as is customary on many files—would have ultimately avoided all the additional steps.
I'd like to add, by the way, that while the latest upload highlights the risk of a non-binary {{Image generation}} code in a file page SVG information field, i.e. other than simply w3c valid/invalid, overwriting a 233-octet file with a 160-octet one is generally pointless, since both files take up the same amount of space on the server's storage device —at least 512 octets, probably 2kb each— but it does require storing an additional webp/png preview in the file history; depending on the image, not only might there be no benefit, but the overall impact could actually be negative.
That said, I was indeed in the process of grouping a user's files into a specific category, so that they could easily access their files for maintenance purposes, when a new Image generation code was inserted on one of those files by a scripted action —was I hounded??—, the file overwritten, then the next Image generation code placed.
Usually, within a user category, an effort is made to maintain a certain degree of consistency among the files; I would also add that it may not always be well-received to point out in the description that a file was originally larger than 40 MB when it is now a few octets, in the sense that it isn't necessarily very considerate to highlight the mistakes of contributors who may not be well-versed in these kinds of issues and who, in the end, are quite capable of resolving them on their own.
On the other hand, the file size comparison shown on the image page may be relevant in the case, for an example, of a 233-byte file that has been reduced to 160 bytes, but this would only apply to example files, intended for a specific type of user —not all users, who, above all, need to have access to a user-friendly tool, i.e. as simple as possible. That is why it seems to me far more sensible to keep the original tool per original uploader, so that the said uploader remains completely independent on this matter, without having to get involved in considerations that fall outside their area of expertise or even interest.
Eventually, I admit that this comment: “also, don't approach my files”, wasn't very appealing, but in my defence, if I may say so, it happened after several reversions, and during the work I mentioned earlier. So I'll put it another way: Please @ForeverFlying, don't you ever approach my files, thank you.
   I do not think it is necessary to revisit the matter of my involvement with this file – I mean, as far as I am concerned, since I personally have nothing further to add on the subject, other than to say that the fact that the result was not taken into account, nor even looked at, is exactly of the same approach as the the intervention that has been revoked here (July 3rd) for having removed the codes “gf” (French graphic Lab) and “s=d” (“diagram”), and therefore the associated categories.
The reason I've taken a while to explain my reversals on the user's page is that I believe, first and foremost, that when using this kind of scripts, one should ensure, above all, that everything is working perfectly before using it, and also be prepared to take on board any criticism in order to improve their tool; nevertheless, it is a mistake I will not make again.
   As for this other file, for an example, I have removed the source code from the image page, as explained on its talk page.
It goes without saying that if the original uploader overwrites the file, they will most likely not know what to do with this information, or even what it refers to – it's hard to imagine how many Inkscape users are scared by the mere, absurd idea of opening an SVG file in their Notepad – or SimpleText. Furthermore, this is certainly not a change that can be considered as minor, as it adds a significant amount of height –not to say weight–, to the page, and is not necessarily the most aesthetically pleasing; here again, this is intended for specific users and files, and not all.
Then the {{Unbulleted list}}, placed by the script has been removed, for the mere reason that althought the field {{Author|design|unknown}} is used by certain users, it is not essential, in the sense that a coat of arms, especially in this particular case, is not an exact vectorisation of a document, but an original representation created by the user, based on a description –the blazon– which is itself in the public domain.
There is therefore no obligation to cite the author of the description, moreover, the information is not always available; when it is available, generally the files are placed in a dedicated category, example Category:Coats of arms by Jean-François Binon, where it can be seen that few files credit the author of the description, who, in any case, is never the author of any image reproduced here, since the images –the representations– themselves are not in the public domain – unlike the blazon (description), that is.
Eventually, whilst the time a photograph was taken is important, the time this kind of file was uploaded is of no significance, therefore it was removed too.
Not only it is of no significance, but it has to be systematically removed, since the only result of its presence is that it clutters up the search engine with useless keywords, thereby weighing down the database. That said, I also admit that it is possible to view servers' capacity, just like their storage space, as being as infinite as it is free.
To conclude the discussion which would have been interesting to have, the question arises as to whether there are any plans to run a similar script, some day, for an example on the 2,000 files of this category, or even on just a few, or one or more files from that one, for another example, in which case it would no doubt be advisable to give notice before carrying out any work, however minor, even if it's only a test.
That's what I might call “coordination”.
   Just like, perhaps, in the fact that we have been reverted several times, the key point to remember is not that we have been reverted but why, in this topic, the key word to remember, in my opinion, is rather “coordination” than “collide”. But it's true that in both these examples, one is free to choose.
If any specific questions – or less specific – I'd be glad to answer them.
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

SERGIO PRO215

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Uploaded File:Roger Lukaku-1994.png falsely claiming it as own work in December after having been tagged with {{End of copyvios}} in October. No blocks were given then so reporting them now. The user has uploaded 7 photographs, that yet aren't deleted, only one of which has any Exif information. Given the uploaders history of uploading copyvios, would {{No permission since}} on these seven file be in order? I've tried TinEye/Google lense to find the source of these photos but to no avail. I however suspect they might be very zoomed in, given the very bad quality of most of the photographs. Jonteemil (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@SERGIO PRO215: you claim File:Francesco Pio Esposito Inter (cropped) 2025.jpg as "own work". Offhand, it looks like a screen grab. Would you please sum up how it was created? - Jmabel ! talk 02:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks and problematic uploads nuked Gbawden (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Fdanielbic

Latest comment: 3 months ago23 comments6 people in discussion

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

Making unfounded allegations against admin Didym at COM:UDR § File:Dorel-Popa-senator-Arad-2008.jpg. Also did that at User talk:Fdanielbic § Please do not recreate deleted content after being called out for re-uploading the UDR file with mild discrepancies in capitalisation (File:Dorel-popa-senator-arad-2008.jpg). Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 05:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

It is a constitutional right to express our opinion in Europe. I stated that Didym is making statements without legal basis, I did not upload the photo against the common WIki policy. Yes, I consider it an abuse to intervene in a person's work without analyzing the actual situation. Fdanielbic (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Fdanielbic: the First Amendment of the United States, even if imported to the European Union, does not override the policies of Wikimedia Commons or any of the myriad other platforms operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. In fact, as an American online platform, Wikimedia Commons enjoys the legal right, granted by that very law, to moderate your content.
Your use of the services provided by Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests does not confer upon you the right to make personal attacks, one method of which comprises accusations that lack evidence. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Isn't deleting the same file twice without reading the license distribution notices an abuse? Are you authorized to abuse the patience of volunteers? Please answer! Fdanielbic (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
”Serious accusations require serious evidence” (Accusations).
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused I believe I have a solid argument for my statement. Fdanielbic (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
If Didym had abused the patience of volunteers, the other editors would have prohibited him them from being an administrator, not to mention an interface administrator. You have, on the other hand, abused the patience of volunteers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 times, in a conservative count inferred from your talk page. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:24, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Whyiseverythingalreadyusedyou are so wrong! some photos (1-5) are waiting for permission from the Moisescu family, and the volunteers in Romania did not have the patience to validate it. Fdanielbic (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
"I believe I have a solid argument for my statement."
And? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
was deleted abusively and the conversation with you ends because you don't want to accept the truth. Fdanielbic (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused I agree, but you have an administrator's opinion, not a judge's decision in law. Fdanielbic (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
I have published in Romanian on Ro.Wikipedia.Org, so I address the content to European readers. Fdanielbic (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Fdanielbic, the file has been available on this webpage which attributes the photo to

Foto: stareanatiunii.com

It is evident and obvious for anyone to believe that the file is copyrighted and since it is already available on internet, the copyright holder must send the permission to COM:VRT.
You asked, "Isn't deleting the same file twice without reading the license distribution notices an abuse?" Not, when the file in question is clearly a copyright violation, and fails to provide the evidence of copyright information. So, you comments here and here are highly inappropriate and might result in blocking of your editing privilege. However, I'll leave that decision to another administrator and ask you to read policies and guidelines. Ratekreel (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
 Comment This appears IMO to be a new user who wants to contribute but doesn't understand how commons works. The bigger issue is the lack of civility and threats/accusations. Whether that behaviour is bad enough to merit a block or a stern warning I will leave to another admin to decide Gbawden (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
I have this account for 11 years, I don't understand what means old or new for you, @Gbawden Fdanielbic (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Fdanielbic: have you read COM:THIRD? If not, it may make it clearer to you what is going on in terms of copyrights and Commons policies. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Why You don't understand that some files were my own work (Popa, Voicila), and some files were sent by the families of the subjects about I have wrote? Why are you trying to impose an imaginary reality? Fdanielbic (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
I respect all of you and this community policies but I will spread just the clean truth. Fdanielbic (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Gbawden@Jmabel Please note, this user @Ratekreel does not allow me to reply, I cannot respond to his message accusing me of copyright infringement. Fdanielbic (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Fdanielbic: Exactly where and when did this happen? Please include logs of such.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
I can't reply to this sentence of @Ratekreel https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#c-Ratekreel-20260706104900-Whyiseverythingalreadyused-20260706052900 Fdanielbic (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Fdanielbic: When I tried to do that, something in this section was too complicated, so I got 'The "reply" link cannot be used to reply to this comment. To reply, please use the full page editor by clicking "Edit ".'. Please do the suggested edit for this section instead.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Fdanielbic: Asta nu răspunde la întrebarea mea dacă ai citit sau nu COM:THIRD. - Jmabel ! talk 22:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
I will respond this week, promise! Fdanielbic (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

REINCARNATEDSETFILES0001

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

COM:NOTHERE. Jonteemil (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

They are already blocked on 3 other wiki projects. Looks like a candidate for a global ban. Nakonana (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Indeffed, everything deleted. Also reported at Meta:SRG for global lock. Shaan SenguptaTalk 15:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Very similar usernames, further evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp File Uploader Deleted file Uploader
Jul 07 2026 06:05 AM File:Alessandra Quarto, Direttrice del Museo Poldi Pezzoli di Milano.jpg Delete Google image search Antonioquarto05 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 3 edits) File:Alessandra Quarto.jpg (Und | Log) Alessandraquarto (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)

Jonteemil (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done indef-blocked Antonioquarto05 as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet.
Left a message on the user talk page of Alessandraquarto attempting to correct her notion that this image has no copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

TheTrvxillano

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Continued uploading of copyvios after final warning. I've tagged a few of the uploader's file for deletion but likely more are copyvios, please help with going through them. Jonteemil (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Houssam Atlas

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Continued uploading of copyvios after final warning. For example File:Bourse de Casablanca logo.png and File:Coupe du Trône logo.png seem like blatant copyvios. It's likely more are copyvios, please help with going through them. Jonteemil (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Amir-Iran992/3

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Amir-Iran993 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

@SilverLocust: Hi, and thanks for sharing here. Such information should also be helpful on cuwiki.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Sure, done. SilverLocust 💬 09:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Jcb

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to request review of Jcb’s handling of copyright-related (speedy) deletion nominations. My concern is not simply that we disagree on the copyright status of a file, but that speedy deletion is being used in situations where the legal/policy interpretation is genuinely disputed.

In the case of File: Maurice Henri du Croo.jpg, I provided a detailed explanation on Jcb's talk page based on the source's own copyright information and the relevant anonymous-work provisions. Regardless of which interpretation is ultimately correct, the issue is clearly not an unambiguous copyright violation suitable for speedy deletion. A regular deletion discussion would have allowed the community to evaluate the competing interpretations.

Jcb's response did not address the specific evidence provided about anonymous works and publication-based copyright terms, but instead asserted that there was 'no indication' of anonymous authorship and treated the source’s copyright notice as sufficient evidence of continued protection.

I am concerned that this reflects a broader pattern of wrongfully filing deletion requests, particularly (though not exclusively) involving uploads by me. Examples of previous cases concerning myself where I believe similar issues occurred include:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Louis Davids Kleine Man.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Herman Heijermans 1923.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Willy Corsari 1921.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wijze Kater 1918.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tropenadel scene 1916.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Intieme Kunst Nap de la Mar.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:August Kiehl 1915.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Henri van Wermeskerken 1929.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:August Theodoor Cornelis Kiehl.jpg

Given the number of disputed copyright assessments involving my uploads, I am concerned that there may be a personal element influencing the way these cases are being handled. I cannot determine Jcb's intentions, but I am concerned that the listed mistakes on his behalf may have contributed to the decision to now use speedy deletion to avoid the kind of community discussion that these disputed cases require.

I kindly request that you review whether the approach in the Du Croo case is consistent with the purpose of speedy deletion, and whether this case should instead be handled through normal deletion discussions. I would also appreciate a review of whether Jcb's approach in all of these cases reflects an appropriate use of editorial discretion and whether there is a pattern of dismissing reasonable copyright discussions.

My concern is not that Jcb reached a different conclusion than I did, but that disputed copyright questions are systematically treated as unambiguous and objections supported by policy-based arguments are not being meaningfully addressed. Goran.Mont (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Converted to regular DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maurice Henri du Croo.jpg. Yann (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Jcb's own interpretation of copyright rules is indeed disconcerting. File:Maurice Henri du Croo.jpg may be deleted due to URAA, but other cases mentioned above are clearly in the public domain. Nevertheless, Jcb created DRs with weird arguments. Yann (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Just a reminder that anyone can contest a speedy deletion tag and turn it into a normal DR instead. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Parallelepiped09

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Parallelepiped09 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

I would like to report a possible pattern of copyright violations by the user @Parallelepiped09

Over the past year, this user has uploaded what appears to be hundreds of photographs, many of which are claimed as their own work. Based on my review, I believe that a significant number of these files are not actually his own photographs and have been uploaded with incorrect authorship information.

Last year, I contacted the user on their talk page regarding one specific file (File:Condominio La Casona Sc.jpg), which was a cropped version of File:Northern Skyline Santa Cruz.jpg, and asked them to correct the attribution or source. Unfortunately, I have not seen any change in his upload practices. Some of their uploads have already been deleted as copyright violations, but many others remain on Commons. I believe this may warrant an administrative review of the user's uploads and, if appropriate, further action.

– Ruditaly at COM:ANV § Parallelepiped09

I am bringing this to ANU per Jmabel's advice below that vandalism report. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Aegis0416

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Reuploads the same file a third time despite being warned not to. Jonteemil (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks, most files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Sock/meatpuppetry

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The second account uploaded a lot of files which I which I tagged with {{No permission since}}. By pure coincidence one if these files I happened to find just now and I thought it looked familiar, didn't I tag this file a few days ago?, I thought. And looking at the history I did, but the first account removed by taggings from all files. Looking into the users I found w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/4267salar moradi and w:fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست بازرسی کاربر/Mehrdad ebrahimi 0813, where I found all the rest of the accounts. Jonteemil (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jonteemil Since they're causing issues on multiple projects (some are blocked on EnWiki as well, and now here), I'm going to go ahead and bring this to Meta:Steward requests/Global. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Okay. Jonteemil (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done All except SarbZ2201 are now blocked locally since the SRG is taking too long. SarbZ2201 isn't registered locally. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

مدحت ماهر الإدريسي

Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Feels like spam only account. I created Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by مدحت ماهر الإدريسي yesterday which @George Chernilevsky closed as delete. Now the user has uploaded more OOS files. Jonteemil (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: I added to that DR for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Warned x 2, all files deleted. Not sure if a block is needed at this point. Yann (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done. In my opinion currently block is not needed. All uploads are now deleted, that's enough. Taivo (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
@Taivo @Yann The user has uploaded a new file now that seems like out of scope as well. Jonteemil (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a month, file deleted. Yann (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Agustin Hurtado M

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Agustin Hurtado M (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has continued to upload copyrighted files, despite being previously warned and blocked. --Ovruni (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user (second block). Taivo (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

السيد الشريف الأمير إبراهيم العزي الأعرجي

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sockpuppet of El-Naîmî El-Azzî El-Araji El-Hasani Vel-Hüseyni El-Haşimi. Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files and also their contributions:

Timestamp File Uploader Deleted file Uploader
Jul 13 2026 02:59 PM File:File Milli - Milan Federasyonu.png Delete Google image search السيد الشريف الأمير إبراهيم العزي الأعرجي (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 2 edits) File:Milli Aşireti Federasyonu.png (Und | Log) El-Naîmî El-Azzî El-Araji El-Hasani Vel-Hüseyni El-Haşimi (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jul 13 2026 02:59 PM File:File Milli - Milan Federasyonu.png Delete Google image search السيد الشريف الأمير إبراهيم العزي الأعرجي (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 2 edits) File:7 ABRİ-GAMREAN - GAMREANK HANEDANI - MİLAN FEDERASYONU.png (Und | Log) El-Naîmî El-Azzî El-Araji El-Hasani Vel-Hüseyni El-Haşimi (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)

Jonteemil (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

JannahBerdaiOthmaneAtos

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As JannahBerdaiOthmane01, also a sockpuppet of IPhone17ProMaxSteveJobs, evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp File Uploader Deleted file Uploader
Jul 13 2026 12:30 PM File:Adam and Eve from a copy of the Falnama Berdai Othmane.jpg Delete Google image search JannahBerdaiOthmaneAtos (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 6 edits) File:AdamandEvefromacopyoftheFalnama.jpg (Und | Log) JannahBerdaiOthmane01 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jul 13 2026 12:27 PM File:Islamic Adam & Eve Berdai Othmane.jpg Delete Google image search JannahBerdaiOthmaneAtos (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 6 edits) File:IslamicAdam&Eve.jpg (Und | Log) JannahBerdaiOthmane01 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)

Jonteemil (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Bildersindtoll

Latest comment: 2 months ago14 comments7 people in discussion

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no problem. In my opinion the file was PD-Simple. Now it's deleted and that's ok. So why are you reporting? Bildersindtoll (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
The other files are Requests because they weren't clear cases. Usually I always upload PD-Simple, and if a different decision is made, that’s fine too. Bildersindtoll (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Blanking your user talk page doesn't help matters. You also changed the {{Delete}} subpage parameter badly (including too much) and omitted transclusion in Special:Diff/977076192.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Yes, because I just happened to notice it. That doesn't change the fact that this report is completely unnecessary. Bildersindtoll (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week. Last warned on 6 August 2023, but without effect. Yann (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Yann: Thanks. Now, they are abusing TPA.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
 Comment I strongly disagree with the deletion of File:Nuke grey dark.svg (this logo) as a copyright violation. It is in my view certainly below COM:TOO US, which applies here & it should not have been speedily deleted. COM:F1 states This does not apply whenever there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research or a plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality. - uploader correctly tagged using {{PD-textlogo}} & {{TM}}. Pinging User:Alno, User:ShakespeareFan00. ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
I'm not absolutely certain it is below TOO, but I am certain that it should not have been a speedy deletion on that basis. Speedy deletion over copyright should be used only in clearcut cases. - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
@TheImaCow, Jmabel, Alno, and ShakespeareFan00: OK, undeleted and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nuke grey dark.svg. Yann (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Hi there, I decided to delete the file as the site from which it was reproduced clearly claims copyright on anything it contains. Apart from that, it's difficult for me to say whether this logo is or isn't below the threshold of originality, as for example the 'nuke' symbol in the logo is somewhat distorted in an artistic way, which seems to be an attempt of its author to provide some originality. I just hope I didn't harm by deleting the file... -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 15:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
FWIW, claim by the source site is irrelevant to whether it is above or below TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Do we have a list of sites that we don't trust to provide truthful info about copyrights, provenance, etc.?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Commons:Bad sources and Commons:Problematic sources. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Malicovekiz

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

User reuploading a file that has been deleted several times ; previous DRs are Commons:Deletion requests/File:Old Coat of arms Todorovic.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blason de la maison des Todorović.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grb Kuće Todorović 2025.jpg. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned Malicovekiz about scope. Taivo (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Ryuji takeda

Latest comment: 2 months ago20 comments6 people in discussion

User: Ryuji takeda (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Reason for reporting: Repeatedly uploading copyright violations and not properly indicating sources --grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Demonstrate? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 15:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Look at their talk page. Their rate of copyvios is too high imo, theyre not taking seriously enough grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Could have said that from the start of the report, but yeah, I see Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 23:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Don't snark please. Looking at talk page for this is normal. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Bro I get it Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 23:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Also they keep using generative AI without disclosing it grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
I am also very confused by that page User:Ryuji takeda which seems to imply some official organizational status. @Ryuji takeda, can you explain what is going on there? - Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Is anyone else interested in their re-uploads? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 00:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Really? My first idea was that this user is living a kind of gamification of their Commons contributions; something like a fan club or deeper, as a Commons Otaku. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
I took about 10 minutes to look around. Definitely some positive contributions, but on the whole what I see does not leave a good taste in my mouth. I'm pretty sure this doesn't call for an indef-block, but some lesser sanction is probably in order. I don't feel able to evaluate in a timely manner quite what would be appropriate. Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
The user has not participated in this thread or acknowledged past feedback about copyright and AI issues and keeps doing it. Could you block them indef but on condition of reverting if they acknowledge the feedback? Leaving them without anything will just make them keep doing this grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Dear Jmabel, grapesurgeon, and administrators,
I am deeply sorry for my late response. I was not ignoring this thread; as a newer contributor, it took me some time to fully understand the situation and translate the feedback here.
I completely acknowledge all the issues raised, and I take full responsibility for my mistakes:
1. Regarding Copyright & Licenses: I sincerely apologize for the confusion regarding the Ro Jai-bong photo and my past uploads. I am still learning the intricate copyright laws of Commons. I will not upload any new files for now and will focus on reviewing my existing uploads to ensure they strictly comply with free licenses.
2. Regarding AI: I want to clarify that I do not use generative AI to create fake files or images. I will be more transparent with my sourcing to avoid any future misunderstandings.
3. Regarding my User Page: I have completely wiped out the confusing layout on my user page (User:Ryuji takeda). It was meant as a personal gamification/joke ("Commons Otaku"), but I now realize it looked highly misleading and implied an official status. It is now replaced with a simple, standard user description.
I truly appreciate your patience and feedback. I want to be a helpful volunteer here and will strictly follow the community guidelines from now on. Please guide me on how I can correct my past mistakes. Thank you. Ryuji takeda (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
@Ryuji takeda: (1) would you please also be transparent here about the extent to which you used AI in composing this response? (I'm guessing from its style that at least some AI was involved.) Whenever you are using AI, it would behoove you to be transparent about that. (2) I'm not going to block you at this time; I can't prevent another administrator from doing so. What I'd like, and it sounds compatible with what you've written, is for you to: (a) take it upon yourself to nominate for deletion any of your remaining uploads that have copyright problems, so that no one else has to slog through them. (b) Get all of your sourcing and licensing as accurate as you can. You can hit me up with questions (ping or use my user talk page) if there is something where you are not sure. (c) Not do any further uploads until you've dealt with that. (d) Circle back here when you've done that, so that someone can review once you believe the issues have been fixed. If this thread is no longer open by the time that happens, please start a new one, and link to this one in the archives when you do so.
One further very specific question: what exactly is the relation between File:Prime Minister Kim Min-seok.jpg and File:Kim Min-seok 54826197712.jpg? It says it is "extracted from" which is clearly not the case, though I imagine it is at least in part "derived from" (and at the very least the file page should be modified accordingly). Where did that background in File:Prime Minister Kim Min-seok.jpg come from? - Jmabel ! talk 06:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Dear Jmabel, thank you for your patience. I want to be 100% honest and transparent about everything:
1. Regarding AI usage: Yes, I use an AI assistant to help me find reference materials for articles, and because English is not my first language, I frequently use it to translate my words into English. Sometimes I do not fully grasp the exact nuance of the translated terms, and I apologize for not being upfront about it earlier.
2. Regarding the Kim Min-seok files: I must apologize for making a major mistake. The background in File:Prime Minister Kim Min-seok.jpg is actually copied and composite-edited from the official background of File:Park Geun-hye presidential portrait.png. I combined them to make it look like a clean official portrait.
I was inspired to do this because I noticed that several high-profile infobox photos on the English Wikipedia (such as certain altered portraits of Moon Jae-in and others) used similar background modifications without any issues, so I mistakenly assumed it was a common and accepted practice on Commons. I now fully realize that doing this is a serious violation of historical accuracy and documentation rules here.
Since I know exactly which of my uploads are composite manipulations like this, I will self-nominate all of them for deletion immediately to clean up my gallery. I will never upload any edited or altered historical portraits again. Thank you for helping me understand the guidelines. Ryuji takeda (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
How did you get the pic of Kim Min-seok to be higher resolution than the original? The background transfer is easily possible with conventional image editing, but the upscaling is a lot harder. I don't believe your claim. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
To clarify the resolution issue: I did not use any AI upscaling software on the face of Kim Min-seok. The change in resolution was an accidental technical byproduct of how I used the PhotoRoom mobile app.
Before editing the Kim Min-seok photo, I was working on a separate, much higher-resolution photo project in PhotoRoom to remove its background. When I finished that first project, instead of closing the app and creating a new canvas from scratch, I simply deleted the previous subject from the existing canvas and imported the Kim Min-seok photo into that same high-resolution template.
Because PhotoRoom preserved the canvas dimensions and output settings of the previous high-res project, the exported Kim Min-seok file was saved with those inherited larger canvas dimensions, making the overall file resolution appear higher than the original source photo. It was a workflow oversight on my part, not an intentional attempt to upscale or falsify the image. I hope this technical explanation clears up the misunderstanding. Ryuji takeda (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Your explanation does not make sense. The photo does not look like just resized beyond the original resolution. GPSLeo (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
I was under the impression that PhotoRoom's upscaling uses AI. Amy I wrong? - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
@Ryuji takeda could you reply to above? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

LeZyzz

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

They have continued to upload copyright violations despite warnings and their uploads being removed. I just tagged this image as a copyright violation, which is the same image I tagged as a copyright violation a month ago, ([7]) but with a different name. They also started a deletion request for the image that was used on the English Wikipedia article for Blank Street Coffee, the only reasoning given was "page vandalism". ([8]) Going through their edits on English Wikipedia, it's obvious that they only tried to have this image deleted because of their personal preference on what should be used on that article. ([9], [10], [11], [12]) As another editor pointed out, this is irrelevant for deleting files on commons. ([13]) Streetr4 (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Blank Street 6th avenue.jpg is not the same image on the website. However, Fytrdy (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) is probably a sock of LeZyzz. Yann (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, it looked the same image at first glance. I haven't been able to find a source yet but it does seem suspicious given their history of violations. I'd also agree that Fytrdy is probably a sock. Even if they aren't, they still likely knowingly uploaded a copyright violation, since they said that they "added back" the image in their edit summary on English Wikipedia. ([14]) I'm not sure if this is something that can be acted upon but I just wanted mention it in case it can be. Streetr4 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Dssfsfdgds

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I wouldn't worry about the COM:IU aspect. A few letters longer than I generally like for nonsense names, but probably harmless. No comment at present on the other aspects of this. - Jmabel ! talk 20:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The only upload and the only created category are deleted. I feel, that the user will not return. If that's wrong, then (s)he can be blocked. Taivo (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Bakeduranium

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

en:WP:NOTHERE. Re-uploaded File:Nubian republic flag.jpg (log entry). Reverted me after being warned on their user talk page. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 00:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

They were warned here 16 days ago: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 132#Bakeduranium. - Jmabel ! talk 03:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done blocked for 1 month, if this continues on their return it will be longer or indefinite. - Jmabel ! talk 03:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Impromptu

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

This account has uploaded many images from TheAHL (75205285@N06) which does massive license laundering. I added this Flickr account to the black list. I wonder if we should nuke all uploads, or review the files. Yann (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: I see some uploads (e.g. related to the band The Darkness) that are clearly below TOO, so any "nuking" should be selective. Also (for example) File:Roger Melin 2013.jpg looks legit to me. So any "nuking" should be confined to that particular source.
Offhand, I see no reason to think the user understood that the site was Flickrwashing. Yes, a fair number were nominated for deletion, but I see nowhere on their talk page that anyone said, "Don't trust this source," and they may not have understood that. Am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
 Not done per Jmabel. Yann (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
As I understand it, the concern originates from a specific album containing some NHL images, where AHL may not have had the rights to release the material under a free license. However, the Flickr account contains many other albums that appear to consist of AHL-related photography. If the problem is limited to a specific album or a specific set of images, would it be possible to consider whether the blacklist should be limited accordingly rather than applied to the entire account? Impromptu (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Taowiki12345

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Removes {{No permission since}} from their files, see log and also filter log. Also blanks their user talk page twice but not entirely so it looks weird. Jonteemil (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment: FWIW, I've always found it weird to use {{No permission since}} as a way to mark a probable copyvio with a false claim of authorship that probably invalidates its license. Very easy for a newer user to have no idea what is going on. It's a lot clearer to mark it as a copyvio and point to the apparent source. - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
I can't be 100% sure that the uploader isn't the copyright holder, that's why I use No permission since unless I 100% know it's a copyvio, then I use {{Copyvio}}. Jonteemil (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
The remedy suggested in {{No permission since}} (basically, VRT) doesn't seem to me to be "on point" for this. When an uploader says "own work" and offers a license, then either they are telling the truth and the license is valid, or they are not, and they can't solve that by telling the same lie in an email. What you want, I presume, is for them to provide some evidence that they hold the copyright. In this case (even laying aside what could have been learned here with a reverse image search), I would have thought it was vanishingly unlikely that they were the copyright-holder, and would just have gone straight to {{Copyvio}}, but in the more general case, it seems like we need a different template that specifically asks for evidence that the work is really their own, because that is the issue here. - Jmabel ! talk 04:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
I wouldn't object if someone blocks them anyway, but I really think we need to do a better job of helping new users understand what is going on, rather than possibly prematurely block their accounts, which (regardless of our intent) is a somewhat punitive way of dealing with them. I really don't like doing that when it's possible that they are just new and clueless. - Jmabel ! talk 04:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Duraisamy manivel

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Has several copyvio and No permission since notices since last block. Many of their uploads seem to have been just taken from Google/Bing images and uploaded here. Jonteemil (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Was blocked by @Yann on June 20th. Jonteemil (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Most files deleted, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Duraisamy manivel. Yann (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Jamesfrontier

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Jamesfrontier (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information): Recent copyvio (File:Lionelmessi2022.jpg) after multiple warnings, including the 'last' one. Please note that among the previously uploaded files there are also many questionable ones, which are most likely not their own works, for example, File:Troféus do paysandu.jpg or File:Torcida em Salgueiro.jpg. Quick1984 (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Partially done 3 months block and the recent upload deleted, I would request someone else to review the files. Shaan SenguptaTalk 01:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

SignBot SPI

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I used the Template:Noautosign function on my page and the SignBot didn't detect it and subsquently almost deleted my talk discussions. Contokapeanits-579442 (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Side question: why is the edit where you deleted content from your talk page tagged as "Blocked user editing own talk page"[15]? You don't appear to be blocked and your block log is empty as far as I can see. Nakonana (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
@Contokapeanits-579442: Might I guess you mean {{NoAutosign}}? Can you point at the revision where you added it (and possibly where it was removed), since I don't see it anywhere on your current user page or user talk page and there is no explicit mention of adding or removing it in any edit summary?
Also: what is with all the nonexistent categories on your user page? Makes me feel like we are being trolled here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Request to Delete adult content/videos

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Kindly delete adult videos (porn) from Wikimedia please ~2026-40995-87 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-40995-87: No; see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
 Not done. If they offend you, I recommend not spending your time looking at them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Samuel Abraham Steinberg

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

While receiving copyvio warns in short time, this user repeatedly uploads copyvio Windows software screenshots. Netora (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done 3-month block. - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Sesangengucci

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Continues to upload copyvios after final warning. Jonteemil (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. They had a final warning in 2023, and should have been blocked shortly after. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Atswabnd

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Fortunately, every user is entitled to close uncontroversial DR when they feel up to it. There's no need to clutter the list of open DR with such a useless nomination, I closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sex women on top 51654.jpg. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Thanks to Grand-Duc for closing the DR, I've warned the user with {{Not censored}}. No action for now. Shaan SenguptaTalk 03:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan SenguptaTalk 03:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Joel2f1

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Joel2f1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploaded an unfree Flickr image after a final warning. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked for 2 weeks. I hop he gets the message. - Jmabel ! talk 06:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Sobhan0010

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sockpuppet of Frisianca. Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp File Uploader Deleted file Uploader
Jul 22 2026 03:59 AM File:Frisianca flag.jpg Delete Google image search Sobhan0010 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 8 edits) File:Micronation flag Frisianca.jpg (Und | Log) Frisianca (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jul 22 2026 03:59 AM File:Frisianca flag.jpg Delete Google image search Sobhan0010 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 8 edits) File:Frisianca.jpg (Und | Log) Mars 2097 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)

Jonteemil (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Gpkp

Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Was tagged with {{End of copyvios}} on June 1 2014 by EugeneZelenko. Since then the user has uploaded a bunch of copyvios, see User talk:Gpkp and User talk:Gpkp/Archive 2. Some more forgivable than others. Some very obviously not PD-textlogo despite so claimed. Jonteemil (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done. Since the warning was more than 10 years old, I warned the user again. But Gpkp was license reviewer. The user has really problems with own uploads. I do not trust his/her license reviews anymore and I revoked that right. Taivo (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Gpkp didn't archive their warning to their user talk archives, but simply removed it. --Lymantria (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
@Taivo, are you ok with patroller being granted, otherwise we need to revoke TAIV from the user per our policy and maybe grant just autopatrol. Also, just to note, I am not ok with the user not caring to participate in this thread and also about the point Lymantria mentioned. Shaan SenguptaTalk 01:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with patroller. Taivo (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done added. --Lymantria (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_132&oldid=1254097436"