Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
(Redirected from Commons:ANU)
Latest comment: 14 hours ago by 4300streetcar in topic User:LuvsMG481

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

Archives
28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
129, 128, 127, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Note

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

More of Alex Neman's problematic uploads

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago44 comments17 people in discussion

Hi admins, can we please delete more of the following. Yann and I dealt with this with Yann blocking Alex Neman Indefinitely and upon appeal the block was shortened by Taivo for three months. I was viewing this just to see what needed to be tidied up and saw a spam of Alex Neman's rear view photos.

I'll put it as a gallery

This has been an ongoing issue with Alex Neman, and it has not been limited to this project. He has been blocked as a sockpuppet and banned on the English Wikipedia. Quite frankly I don't think the reduced block of three months was justified, this has been an ongoing issue as cited on the previous ANI report by Jeff G. and also continued block evasion on the EnWp. Either he is to be banned indefinitely because it is clear he has competence issues. A large number of them were very unlikely he asked consent from the women he pictured. I've also requested for speedy deletion for these uploads FYI.

This has taken me hours to do up, I hope this helps. Put yourself in your partner's shoes (i can't because i'm single, and never dated, and don't wish to anytime soon). --LuvsMG481 (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@LuvsMG481: Do I understand correctly that you created a separate DR for each of these, rather than a mass DR? If so, why? Are there some of these that present significantly different issues than others? They look pretty parallel to me. - Jmabel ! talk 05:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey Jmabel. I'm not very sure how to do these 'mass deletion' requests nor never done them before. Thats why i brought it here for you guys to sort out. I'm new to this Wiki, so I'm trying to learn the ropes. I apologise but I figured it would be easier otherwise if we do a regular DR request it would take ages, if not months. I don't know a lot of the templates here, and would love to have some assistance with these --LuvsMG481 (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've created Commons:Deletion requests/Files on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems for you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
No worries The Squirrel Conspiracy. But to be fair, the 'creepshot' is only one aspect, he has been warned time and time again about these issues hence why I wanted these nominated plus based on past complaints as well and Neman's past blocks. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@LuvsMG481:
  1. Assuming "'creepshot' is only one aspect" refers to the DR, you can raise other issues there as well.
  2. I take it you are pursuing something other than just a DR, though, or you would not be here at COM:AN/U. Is there something you are bringing up here that you consider new, and that you thing Taivo may not have taken into consideration? If so, could you please be specific about that. Otherwise, I think that rather than extend the block, anything would more likely be a matter of setting conditions on the user's conduct after they are allowed to return and, again, if that's the case please spell out what you'd be looking for someone to impose.
  3. As for creating a mass DR: this would probably have been pretty easy with VFC. If you are likely to do anything similar in the future, that is a tool you should probably learn to use.
- Jmabel ! talk 06:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
True and thats why I think i would like to have autopatrol rights to enable for these :). Regardless, we will wait for Yann to handle this, because he dealt with a similar story last time. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@LuvsMG481: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
All good Jeff G., this was discussed already. I'm just doing what I can to clean up Wikimedia commons and ensure its a proper free respiratory system, thats why we are here! Also Jmabel sent me the instructions, so we are all good. Can we all focus on the issue at hand please, not on my inability to use mass deletion, we are wasting time here otherwise, when we have an issue with Neman's which is ongoing for the last 2-3 years. Thank you --LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@LuvsMG481: I have been aware of Neman's inappropriate behavior for over three years. I think indef is much more appropriate than a mere three months.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Jeff G.. I think we should do a community proposal on whether we should indef Alex Neman or should we keep the three months. I'm not sure how to do it mate, would you be kind enough to do it for me, or show me how to do it please --LuvsMG481 (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@LuvsMG481: A !votes subsection below would do the job.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry to tell you this Andy Dingley, but he's not gonna apologise and fix his errors. He promised to stop block evasion on EnWp but then was discovered by an admin using an IP to evade his block. Then we have more bullshit, pretend to be retired when he was blocked using an IP, which led to page being protected, more block evasion using IPs. This is literal proof that he's not going to keep his promises. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Indef Alex Neman (!votes)

[edit]
  •  Support, obviously per above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Oppose Current 3-month-length block is enough. Actually rear views of women is not the worst we can see in Commons. In small quantity, they have even educational value. Taivo (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Strong support, honestly not just these weird images. I have explained it in the above, with block evasion, uncredible promises, numerous complaints from other users across wikis (he's banned and indeffed on Enwp). This behaviour needs to be curbed. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Oppose Those don't look like creepshots to me: 1. some photos were taken with a flash, which the photographed person surely would have noticed, so the photos were not taken without the subjects knowledge; 2. some were taken with the subjects facing a wall, which means they were posing for the photo I front of a neutral background; 3. all / most of the photos show the subject standing still (even in busy surroundings), which also indicates that they were posing for the photo.
    The photos do have educational value in that they show different hairstyles. There appears to be an issue with duplicates, though, so maybe the uploader can commit to not upload so many duplicates in the future.
    As for conduct on other wikis, it can be relevant for assessment here, but generally speaking, people are not getting blocked on Commons just because they were blocked on another wiki project. The issue of sockpuppetry has been brought up, but I wonder whether the user was actually socking in on Commons, or whether the socking only occurred elsewhere. I also have to wonder whether the user has engaged in the reported problematic behavior after they already had been blocked for said behavior at least once? Or is this report just about the uploads the user had made before they got blocked? Nakonana (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Initially Nakonana mate, it was about the images, but that is now not a priority. The priority now I think is the sockpuppeting behaviour. If the images don't get deleted after this, its ok, which i mainly reported, but I think the socking is the major concern and in violation of Commons policies. Happy to discuss it on my talkpage or email, whichever suits --LuvsMG481 (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey Cutlass, the issue is no longer with the pictures, we are now talking about his socking behaviour. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
When did he sock on Commons? The ranges mentioned haven't been active since the block. CutlassCiera 15:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'll let Pi.1415926535 answer this. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't see any block evasion, but LOUTSOCKing is still socking even if they're not blocked here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Oppose. Per above. Thankfully we have someone specialized in consensual rear views of women Yacàwotçã (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Oppose per above. I don't think indef is suitable in this case. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Oppose for now, but if they do revert back to their old behaviour after their 3-month block expires then it should be an indef. //shb (t • c) 12:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Neutral for socking and generally unhelpful behavior, but on the other hand I and many others use their automobile photos. Getting blocked elsewhere (en.wp) did not make them change their behavior in either place, see sockpuppet investigations. Sadly, I do not think Alex Neman has any interest in being a positive contributor to the Commons. Open to change if they are able to communicate clearly and meaningfully about changing. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah and I have viewed that you have dealt with Neman in the past. He's not going to listen and very soon users like OSX are going to give up and quit uploading or editing Wikipedia or Wikimedia and next he's going to spam replace images on the english wikipedia with low quality duds LuvsMG481 (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
And you are an undeclared alternate account of EurovisionNim (not sure why; you were never blocked for bad behavior) so something about rocks while in a glass house. I think you should just come clean, it will be much better than pretending to be someone else which will likely come with eventual sanctions. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 16:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't have to declare here. In fact... this is a completely seperate account (yes location same sure, but anyone from WA as to speak can have the same mirrored behaviour). Anything EnWP remains on EnWP (unless the behaviour repeats, like in Neman's case), anything Commons remains on Commons (so the account in question the last block on Commons was in 2016). I'm doing so well as to speak. In fact my behaviour on Commons as to speak has been exemplar and so far my block log has remained clean and i'm helping people so much with backlog activities. How can you be sure its not the account in question. Before making such accusations please refer to [this policy (although we are on Commons)]. Same policy, whatnot. Sable232 is brainwashing everyone pretty much. I have autopatrolled rights in one month, so i am doing well i suppose. Enjoy. LuvsMG481 (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I do not really see the point in lying about who you are; as far as I know your EurovisionNim account never had any real problems and you could use it freely. And just so you know, the serial number of your Canon EOS 200D II (015070011963) is visible in the EXIF data of your photos. FYI, there is also a subsection called [Wikipedia:Clean_start#Returning_to_previous_articles_and_topics BADCLEANSTART]. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 18:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
No thanks, I'm happy with the account i'm using. I'm not breaking any Wikimedia Commons policies as far as i'm concerned. If I was blocked here however, I would not have created this account. In terms of the EurovisionNim account you are so obsessed with, it had several blocks from 2014-2016 for behaviour-related issues if you read the block log. These behaviours aren't repeated and figured this clean-start with the new account was the way to go. I'm not required to continue using the concerned account if i do not wish. In fact, i'm going to continue uploading content which is educationally useful and do not wish to engage in this discussion any further and revert vandalism, categorise images etc. as this is what we are here to do. Simply put, the account in question is not accessible and hacked. This is why the new account and to start again fresh and work my way to being the best Wikimedian here. LuvsMG481 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
That wasn't so hard, was it... mr.choppers (talk)-en- 14:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Focus on what you are here to do which is uploading images, reverting vandalism etc.. Here on Commons we respect everyone. Treat me with respect, i treat you with respect. Now focus on the issue at hand which is Neman's behaviour for uploading rear view of women and socking behaviour on Commons, he's got more shit than me. LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why are you doing reverts on enwiki Mr.choppers on images [1], [2], [3]. You are making false accusations, and thinking i'm replacing them when I'm not. I'm simply just uploading the photos. I have not accessed enwiki. You are being rogue now, that is unacceptable, just because you are making assumptions of the EurovisionNim account which Im not connected to. Do you want me to stop uploading automobile images here on Commons to avoid this drama because it is getting ridiculous. The ones there are actually improvements, and I did not do anything wrong, you just took an assumption. LuvsMG481 (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is getting pointless. If everyone doesn't want to indef Alex Neman, that's ok. I thought I was doing something to save everyone misery. I'm here to contribute like everyone else, it seems more/less a random past account was being used against me which I have no connection to, I severed all connections because it was hacked in 2024, and I don't know, no one has really actioned it. It seems having a cleanstart here is pointless. I'm just trying to improve like everyone else here, enwiki has enough drama but it appears my images are being discriminated against because it was based on a very very old account which has no connection or nexus to, rather all none of this would happened if you could understand not all sections of enwiki and beyond does not understand that a new user who wants to actively put his best foot forward, edit, get autopatrol rights, clean up, revert vandalism etc is now subjected to this inquest all because I simply called out a user who has had numerous complaints about his rear face cuts, which i'm sure everyone here should know. I'll contribute, but don't blame or come crying to me saying that you need more Malaysian or Australian images because I'm not going to give any until you stop blaming me for my past actions. I want to start anew, pretend nothing happened before and grow up and start again. If I was blocked here, I most certainly would not be creating new accounts like Alex neman. We are here to grow as a community, i'm getting fed up. I don't know, worth me taking a break? I'm happy for this to be withdrawn we aren't getting anywhere and we have a billion other things we can do--LuvsMG481 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

COM:INUSE not a suicide pact?

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago19 comments11 people in discussion

Hello, I am a relatively inexperienced contributor and would appreciate some clarification regarding Commons policy. A file I uploaded (File:Unconscience learning.png) was recently deleted following a deletion request. The file wass in use on another Wikimedia project:

From my understanding of the guideline at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#in_use files that are in use on other Wikimedia projects are generally considered in scope, even if they may appear to lack educational value or be of poor quality. However, in discussion with the deleting administrator, I was told that COM:INUSE “is not a suicide pact” and that the file was considered “AI-generated nonsense,” which seems to conflict with my reading of the guideline. I may be misunderstanding the policy, so I would kindly ask: How should COM:INUSE be interpreted in cases like this? To what extent can perceived quality or usefulness override “in use” status? Is deletion in such a case consistent with current Commons policy? Additionally, since the file is still needed on Wikibooks, I have temporarily uploaded it locally there. I am unsure whether this is the intended approach in such situations, or whether files like this are still expected to be hosted on Commons. For context, the discussion can be found here: [4] Thank you in advance for helping me better understand how this policy is applied in practice. Kind regards, BeeBringer (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The file in question is File:Unconscience learning.png, now at b:nl:Bestand:Unconscience learning.png. It is egregiously bad quality, with a monkey hanging in midair, and was used only for decorative purposes - it was not being used to illustrate anything. Commons is not obligated to become a webhost for garbage just because a local wiki is allowing garbage. The file can be hosted there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
For clarity (also for others reading this discussion), I would like to further explain how the image is being used on Wikibooks, as it may have been interpreted as purely decorative.
The image is intended to illustrate the concept of “unconscious learning” in a metaphorical way. The monkey represents instinctive, unconscious behavior, while the human child represents conscious awareness awakening. Their interaction symbolizes how learning can emerge naturally through observation and exposure, without deliberate instruction.
There is also a broader symbolic tradition in which monkeys are used to represent the untrained or unconscious mind, which reinforces the intended meaning of the image in this context.
While the image is not a literal or technical diagram, its purpose is to support conceptual understanding in an intuitive and associative way. This aligns with the accompanying text, which focuses on learning through experience rather than structured teaching.
Given that, I would like to better understand where the line is drawn between:
metaphorical/interpretive illustration, and
purely decorative use
This distinction seems important for correctly applying COM.
Kind regards, BeeBringer (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
As an additional question for clarification:
Is it correct to understand that part of the reasoning behind COM:INUSE is that sister projects are generally better positioned to assess the educational relevance of a file within their own context?
In other words, that Commons typically defers to the editorial judgment of the project where the file is actively used, rather than independently evaluating whether the content is meaningful or illustrative?
I would appreciate any clarification on this point, as it seems central to how the guideline is intended to be applied. BeeBringer (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
The in use policy has the important point that the file has to be "legitimately in use". We for example delete spam that was added to Wikipedia articles instantly after upload. In cases where it is not typical spam with bad intention, but poor contributions to other projects, this is more difficult. If there are projects without proper patrolling of edits, we have a problem. GPSLeo (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you all for the clarification and for taking the time to respond.
I understand better now that “in use” is interpreted as “legitimately in use,” and that this includes an assessment from the Commons side as well, rather than fully deferring to the sister project.
Given this, I think it might be helpful if the COM:INUSE guideline page could be clarified further, as it was not immediately clear to me as a newer contributor that usage on a sister project does not necessarily mean the file will be accepted on Commons.
For now, I will continue working with the file locally on Wikibooks, where the content and its intended meaning can be discussed with contributors familiar with the material. I have also taken the feedback into account and already created an improved version of the illustration there.
Since Wikibooks currently refers contributors to Commons for media files, I will also raise the question there whether this guidance should be nuanced, given that not all files considered useful are necessarily accepted on Commons so it is better to upload it locally to preserve the integrity of a wikibook.
Thank you again for your time and explanations.
Kind regards,
BeeBringer (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
COM:INUSE does not have a caveat "legitimately in use" - that's a different section, COM:NOTUSED. COM:INUSE is very 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. And later, in the "Discussion" section, it's reiterated: However, as indicated above, a file that is used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational, so a poor-quality file that remains in use is not eligible for deletion even if a better-quality file covering the same subject later becomes available. This novel view that Commons can override projects on COM:SCOPE has no basis in policy (at this time). -Consigned (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello Consigned and others, thank you for the continued discussion and clarification.
After reviewing both the COM:INUSE guideline and the arguments presented here, I would like to address a remaining inconsistency that seems important for clarity and transparency.
The wording of COM:INUSE is quite explicit: files that are in use on a Wikimedia project are considered in scope, even if they are of poor quality or appear to lack educational value. It also explicitly states that Commons does not override other projects’ judgment on what is educational when a file is in use in good faith.
However, in practice, a different standard appears to be applied.
In this case, and also in other discussions such as [5] administrators/contributors are clearly making an independent qualitative judgment about whether the usage is “valid,” “meaningful,” or “legitimate,” and are overriding the fact that the file is in use on a sister project.
This effectively introduces an additional, unwritten criterion: that usage must meet a certain subjective standard as assessed by Commons, rather than by the project where the file is actually used.
That raises a fundamental question about policy vs. practice:
If Commons in practice reserves the right to override sister projects on the basis of perceived quality or usefulness, then COM:INUSE as currently written does not accurately describe how decisions are made.
I am not arguing here about whether a specific file should or should not be kept. Rather, I am concerned with consistency and transparency:
Should contributors understand COM:INUSE as:
  1. a strict rule that defers to actual usage on sister projects, or
  2. a guideline that is effectively subordinate to a Commons-side evaluation of the quality and legitimacy of that usage?
At the moment, the policy text strongly suggests (1), while the actual application appears closer to (2).
If (2) reflects the intended or accepted practice, then it would seem important to explicitly document this, so contributors—especially newer ones—are not misled by the current wording.
Without that clarity, there is a real risk of inconsistent expectations between Commons and sister projects, which may affect contributor trust and cross-project integrity.
Thank you for considering this point.
Kind regards, BeeBringer (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Based on this discussion I made a propopsal to change the description of the COM:INUSE policy here With kind regards, BeeBringer (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
AI-generated images are fairly unpopular on Commons (and on a number of other wiki projects). They are "useful" to illustrate the capabilities of AI, but when used for illustrating anything other than AI itself then Commons often treats them as AI-slop. See COM:AI. The conflict between COM:INUSE and Commons' stance on AI-generated images is a topic of regular debates on Commons. Tbh, I cannot imagine that nlwiki is welcoming AI-generated images; I know for sure that enwiki and ruwiki are against such images. Nakonana (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
And this is part of the reason why files get gratuitously uploaded to projects instead of to Commons; because even if they're entirely legal and in use, some administrator may come along and just delete them. They shouldn't have to upload them locally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Assuming it was properly licensed, the file should not have been deleted. COM:INUSE exists precisely to prevent Commons from overruling other projects in this way. —Mx. Granger (talk  · contribs) 02:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
We kind of have a recursive logic hole here, I think. When one reads wikibooks:Wikibooks:Media, which is their official guideline, a clear reference and deference to Commons' policy can be found: Freely licensed or public domain media must be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia's shared media repository. Wikimedia Commons limits the scope of files that can be uploaded. So, I understand that it iss indeed, to break the recursive logic loop, more or less up to us to actually make redactional decisions for Wikibooks and to limit AI slop, for instance. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for this perspective — I agree that this does indeed seem to create a kind of circular dependency between Commons and the sister project.
That circularity is precisely what motivated my proposed clarification.
As COM:INUSE is currently written, it gives the clear impression that usage on a sister project is decisive for determining scope, explicitly stating that quality or perceived educational value should not matter, and that Commons does not override other projects in this regard.
However, in practice, we seem to apply an additional layer of evaluation on the Commons side — particularly regarding perceived quality, meaning, or legitimacy of use. This creates a discrepancy between policy and practice.
One possible way to resolve this tension would be to more clearly separate responsibilities:
  • The sister project determines whether a file has educational relevance within its own context.
  • Commons limits itself to general, objective criteria, such as:
    • the file is a media file
    • the format is allowed
    • the file is freely licensed or in the public domain
Additionally, Commons could include:
  • a basic technical quality check of the media itself (for example: whether the image is visually coherent or usable as an illustration),
including cases where a file may be considered low-quality AI-generated output,
but without assessing the contextual or interpretive relevance of the content.
This would avoid requiring Commons to apply project-specific editorial judgment, while still maintaining a baseline standard for hosted media.
It would also align the written policy more closely with actual practice, or alternatively clarify that current practice involves criteria not explicitly reflected in the wording of COM:INUSE.
At the moment, the phrase “it does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value” seems difficult to reconcile with how these cases are being handled in reality.
Clarifying this distinction could help reduce confusion, especially for newer contributors navigating the relationship between Commons and sister projects. BeeBringer (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
As things currently stand, it seems that a lot of in-use AI uploads are on projects with no policy, or an ambiguous policy, on the use of AI images. With that in mind, would it be out of line for us to request that sister projects make explicit statements about what circumstances they consider AI images acceptable in? Omphalographer (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think the best solution is simply exempting AI files that are not independently notable nor used to illustrate generative AI as a topic from INUSE. I’ve said this before, but projects can host their own AI slop if they want to use AI slop. Dronebogus (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
And a lot of other people have said "don't upload my files to Commons because then they get deleted locally and then get deleted for weird rules on Commons." Work with other people and they'll work with us; toss more rules in their path and they refuse to work with us and complain when we get in their way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I support the current wording in COM:INUSE that stresses "Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope." That principle is important for cross-project respect. At the same time, "legitimate use" is sometimes judged unilaterally on Commons, creating tension. A simple process could help, as in when someone questions the use on a sister project, notify the project (e.g. via Village Pump) and give them 7–14 days to respond. If they confirm the file is intentionally in use, we defer. Only with no response or clear bad faith would deletion proceed. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

That sounds like a reasonable compromise, but should probably also be incorporated into the COM:INUSE and COM:AI policies. Nakonana (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Haimylo

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Haimylo (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) Uploading multiple files only used for advertisement. MinhVN1863 (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Comment User warned x 2. Diagrams tagged. The pictures may be in scope with a neutral description. Yann (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
The pictures are AI-generated and have no practical use. Omphalographer (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done. User is warned, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:A_S_M_Jobaer

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

There has already been a prior discussion regarding the conduct of A S M Jobaer, particularly about very loose and incorrect categorization of uploaded files. In that discussion, the user was explicitly asked to improve categorization, to use the most specific relevant categories, and to avoid adding unrelated or overly general ones. The user acknowledged the feedback and stated that they understood the issues and would improve.

However, I am currently observing that the same problems persist, and in fact appear at scale. The user is uploading multiple files with clearly unrelated or misleading categories, often reusing the same categories regardless of the actual subject of the image.

A few examples found after just a minute of review:

These are not borderline cases but clearly incorrect categorizations.

Importantly, the previous discussion indicates that the user already understands the categorization rules and what is expected. Despite that, the same behavior continues. This suggests that the issue is no longer a lack of understanding, but rather a deliberate disregard of the guidelines.

Given the prior warnings and lack of improvement, I would like to ask administrators to review the situation and consider appropriate action. -- Jakubhal 20:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Seconded.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can an admin please delete some files

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Atwngirl (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) User has multiple copyrighted files which claimed as own work. However upon analysing TinEye and found that for the Ford GT images, were copy-pasted from this site and for the Ferrari ones came from this site. User has also been warned twice about posting copyrighted photos.

Please let me know if this can be actioned. I don't want Wikimedia Commons to be able to host unfree images. These images are all copyrighted from the websites. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

The usual way to have such files deleted is to nominate them for {{Speedy deletion}} or tag them as {{Copyvio}}. (though that's probably not necessary for this batch anymore since you've already reported them here). Nakonana (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm aware mate. Because these are in batches I couldn't do a batch speedy deletion request. This copyright is a lot more complex so i want an admin to view these and erase them ASAP before the next minute we get in trouble for hosting unfree images. LuvsMG481 (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@LuvsMG481: Thanks, I think you came to the right place. VFC can do many things, including copyvio tagging, if one source is sufficient for tagging a group, or creating a mass DR that you can annotate later.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sorry I won't be touching this tool. I don't want to have an overwhelming amount of tools. LuvsMG481 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done DR closed. Yann (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Nominatedfordeletion-Db1

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Suspected relation to previously confirmed Sikh-related sockpuppets (Truthfindervert LTA).
This account appears to follow the same pattern:
  1. Single-purpose account making deletion nominations on Sikh Empire-related files
  2. No valid policy-based rationale provided
  3. Similar unusual writing style, including long incoherent sentences, misuse of abstract terms, and consistent grammatical patterns observed in previously confirmed accounts
JaydenChao (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please file a COM:SPI not publish it here. Also can you supply us diffs as required by COM:SOCKLuvsMG481 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Pinging @JaydenChao as advised OP.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done, Same behavior as the other socks from User:Truthfindervert. Sock blocked, and also User:Del"tag"--Noindex & User:NOINDEX-(Googlesearch.txt). זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wait I thought policy for suspected socks is to go to COM:SPI. Isn't it similar to enwiki? LuvsMG481 (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@LuvsMG481, hello! From Commons:Requests for checkuser:

Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases; pursue other options first, such as posting on the administrator's noticeboard

Deltaspace42 (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
There you go :)--LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:A.Savin

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago24 comments8 people in discussion

Although this user knows I don't want any contact with him, he's been stalking me for hours across all my projects. First on the German Wikipedia, now here, on my talk page (see the talk page here, as well as my talk page on de:WP and the vandalism prevention page on de:WP: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2026/04/06#Benutzer:A.Savin_(erl.)). I find this increasingly terrorizing and exhausting. And this guy seriously wants to know why I'm avoiding him. He's just proving why once again. I won't even start on the fact that he unjustifiably poisoned my account log, and on a personal mission at that. Please make it absolutely clear to this user that he has to leave me alone. This simply cannot continue. Or the U4C needs to review his decision and block this person permanently. He's already bothered me four times in the last few hours on the German-language Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Marcus_Cyron&action=history), and now twice here. This is just not normal anymore. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Absurdistan... --A.Savin 23:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Marcus Cyron, is there an IBAN on any project between you two? What are the matters that A.Savin is contacting you about?
@A.Savin, can't you try to minimize contact with Marcus to avoid drama? What are the matters you are contacting Marcus about? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is not of importance, why he's doing this. I don't want ton interact with this person. Period. Six times in what? 2 hours? 3? I don't have to explain why I don't want to be stalked. A. Savin refuses to accept that I don't want any contact with him. Therefore, I expect this project, through its elected representatives, to protect me from him. His behavior is well-known; he didn't lose his admin rights on Commons for no reason. Furthermore, I know this person personally. I've already experienced his personality in all its glory. I don't want any more of it. It makes me extremely uncomfortable. I expect him to be kept away from my pages. He's welcome to run riot anywhere else. But at least in my own private sanctuary, I don't want any disturbance from him. Is it really that difficult? Is it really that hard to get protection? Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Marcus Cyron, is there a reason you brought this to commons, rather than the appropriate noticeboard on dewiki or to the U4C? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 02:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
A.Savin re-posted a comment to Marcus Cyron's user talk page on Commons after MC deleted said comment from his dewiki user talk page and requested to not be contacted anymore by AS.
From what I've read in the linked conversations, the interaction itself was fine, so, if just going by this little background, this report boils down to MC not wanting to interact with AS in any way, and AS circumventing being banned from MC's dewiki user talk by going to his Commons user talk. Going by just this interaction, I don't think that's enough to justify a permanent block as requested, but AS should really stay away from MC's user talk pages on any Wiki projects as requested by MC. Nakonana (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Are you able to read? He follows me from de:WP to Commons with his bullshit! Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Marcus Cyron, This is not of importance, why he's doing this. No that is important. If he's notifying you of a template you broke, files you miscategorized or legitimate problems with your uploads, you don't get to say "I don't want contact with this user". If I got reported on ANU every time I dumped 6 {{Copyvionote}}s on someone's talk page, we'd be here.. well, occasionally. Without a list of diffs with timestamps and a note of what that edit is about, if not a full (machine) translation of the contents, what are we supposed to do? Do we have to build a case for you? With seemingly most of the edits in question being on dewiki, what are Commons admins supposed to do anyway?
A. Savin refuses to accept that I don't want any contact with him. Therefore, I expect this project, through its elected representatives, to protect me from him.
Um, no. As far as I'm aware, we have no w:WP:IBAN policy, and even if we did, the IBAN would have to be established first. If you want to invoke Commons:Civility and/or Commons:Harassment, you need to present your case better. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Don't talk nonsense. I have the right to live in peace even on Commons. If a User don't let me live in peace and follows me here with his harassing nonsense, so I have a right to protection. Perhaps that's precisely why you're not an admin on Commons, because you don't know about these things. So why are you interfering on this admin page? There's quite a large number of non-admins here again, while admins are few and far between. Thanks for nothing. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
What the fuck.
Let me tell you why I'm not an admin. Because I never ran. You are responding to fair inquiries from both myself and User:Alachuckthebuck with personal attacks. Are you soliciting a boomerang? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Alexis Jazz, You've got everything mostly correct, however, commons does have IBANs, however, they are VERY rare. The project has only ever imposed 2 IBANs, and one of them was a duplicate of an enwiki ARBCOM sanction. Also, conduct like this is the reason A.Savin had a U4C case filed against them, where they were de-sysoped and banned from holding advanced rights for 1 year on commons. Marcus did have good reason to file things to commons, but did not link to diffs showing misconduct here on Commons. Thank you to Nakonana for actually explaining the situation calmly.
Marcus, you're an admin here, and if you look at this page, there's quite a bit of discussion by nonadmins here, and as an admin, you are held to a higher standard than normal community members. I've had my fair share of issues with A.Savin, but you're not helping your case by getting angry and attacking people who are just trying to understand the issue at hand because the initial report didn't have enough information. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Alexis Jazz: Of course if there would be a valid IBAN threatened with block in case of violation both for me and for MC, including the mandate of me keeping away from any discussions related to MC and of MC keeping away from any discussions related to mine, I would be fine with that. However, what we currently have, is: MC don't wish to interact with me, but at the same time feels perfectly free to jibe at me whenever there is an occasion: see this or this or this fully unprovoked attacks for example. I wanted to ask as politely as I'm just able, why does he have to spread as much hatespeech about me and what have I done to deserve this — but he deletes all discussion attempts and tries to intimidate me by legal threats. --A.Savin 16:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
A.Savin, "Stop it, or I will ask the Foundation for a global ban. Last warning." is not a legal threat. You need to strike/edit that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Actually it's even worse than a threat of legal measures in a functioning Rechtsstaat. Both MC and me live in Germany and I'm not hiding in anonymous nicknames. So if he is convinced that I'm committing a criminal offence he should go ahead and file a police report against me -- otherwise it's clearly a libel -- "stalking" is definitely German StGB criminal offence. That would be at least a transparent and fair procedure, unlike a "WMF Office Ban on demand". --A.Savin 19:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
So you're implying that MC is guilty of both libel and stalking, and yet he's the one making legal threats? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Leaving aside the specifics of what may have happened on the German Wikipedia, there can't be a much clearer case of importing drama from another wiki than Special:Diff/1192770639, which begins, "Auf der sogenannten Deutschen Wikipedia ist mir unter Sperrandrohung verboten worden, mich dir anzunähern…" (rough translation via my non-fluent German: "On the so-called German Wikipedia I've been forbidden, under threat of suspension, from contacting you…" As a former Commons admin, there is no way A.Savin does not know how utterly out of line that is.

@A.Savin: Will you simply promise to leave Marcus alone? That is certainly the outcome I would prefer, but if you won't commit to that I really don't see any other choice here than to block your account. - Jmabel ! talk 22:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC), edited 05:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think a formal IBAN would be better here. GPSLeo (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I also suspect a two-way IBAN would be better. A.Savin already agreed to a two-way IBAN, would you agree to that too @Marcus Cyron? We should probably make an exception for accidental contact, for example when starting a mass deletion request for files in a category VFC will notify all uploaders which might include the other user. I never know beforehand which users will be notified. Such an exception should of course not be abused, it should be extremely rare if it ever happens at all. Finally, in my view it's rather problematic that A.Savin refused to take back his accusation that Marcus would have made a legal threat, and Marcus' personal attacks here ("Are you able to read?", "Perhaps that's precisely why you're not an admin") aren't great either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel I see a few options here short of a ban, but I'm unfamiliar with dewiki and how they handle user conduct issues, but my understanding is that there is an IBAN on dewiki between these 2 people. If we don't indef A.Savin for this, and that is a big IF, a page block on all of marcus's userspace is the bare minimum, if not a full formal (one or two way) IBAN, with the understanding that any violations of the IBAN will be an automatic indef. Or we could just indef, I think we've given A.Savin enough ROPE to hang themselves 2 times over, so anything short of an indef is being kind. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 19:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Alachuckthebuck, I assume "a page block on all of marcus's userspace" includes Marcus' user talk? That's a problem because it'd prevent notification of deletion tagging. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Alexis Jazz: obviously, there is the mass-deletion edge case you mentioned above, but other than that, if there is an IBAN, A.Savin should not be deletion-tagging Marcus's uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 02:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wie kommen Sie eigentlich darauf, dass ich vorhätte, Marcus' Uploads für Löschung zu nominieren? --A.Savin 08:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
A.Savin, nobody says you're planning to, we're just saying that anyone who starts a mass deletion request doesn't know in advance all the users that will be notified by VFC. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I normally define userspace as anything in the user namespace (not user talk or archives), but in this case it would include anything in the user talk namespace EXCLUDING the main user talk page. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Leo ab1981

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Leo ab1981 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log)

Many problems with source and probably AI-generated content. heylenny (talk/edits) 03:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've blocked for two weeks and deleted a number of obvious copyvios and Commons:AIIP violations. A careful look at the other uploads is needed; I suspect almost all are copyvios and/or horrible AI upscales. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I deleted multiple copyvios. Likely I did not catch them all. Taivo (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Pi.1415926535 and Taivo: I've tagged more false 'own' works. Romano1981 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Pi.1415926535, Taivo, and Romano1981: user said, "How can I prove that I have the original photographs of the author Cecília de Assis Brasil in my family albums? These are photographs of an author who passed away more than 90 years ago." (translated from Portuguese) heylenny (talk/edits) 00:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Heylenny and Leo ab1981: several separate issues here. (1) You would upload faithful scans, not derivative AI-colorized works. If someone still doubted you, you could upload an album page or two as a whole. (2) In terms of copyright and licensing, you would have to deal with who was the photographer, not who was the subject; the subject's relatively young death has no bearing on the matter.
Commons is mainly concerned with the copyright status in two countries: the country the work is from (Brazil, I assume) and the United States. If the pictures have never been published, then I believe that in all cases the U.S. law is either identical or more strict, so that is the one we need to concern ourselves with. The situation for the U.S. is:
  • If they are photographed by a known person who died before 1956 (70 years ago) then they are in the public domain and anyone can upload them.
  • If they are photographed by a known person who died later than that, then they are still copyrighted regardless of when they were photographed, and the only person who can legitimately offer a license is the legal heir of the photographer.
  • If there is no way to know the photographer (or to know their date of death), then they are copyrighted for 120 years from creation, so photos from before 1906 are public domain but any others (except for the edge case of known photographer with known heir but unknown death date) are basically "orphaned works" until 120 years after they were photographed, and there is no way we can accept them.
If the works were previously published, with first publication being in Brazil, then the "known photographer, known death date" case above is still a consideration (because of Brazilian law); the U.S. side of this is:
  • If the work was published before 1931, then it is in the public domain in the United States.
  • If the work was published in 1931 or later (95 years ago), then the work is copyrighted in the United States, and the only person who can legitimately offer a license is the legal heir of the photographer.
Note that mere possession of the photos proves nothing in its own right. More than one person could easily have a copy of any given photo. Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

user:AlexanderWik

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

AlexanderWik (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Recent copyvio (File:Гаишники (Сериал).jpg) after multiple warnings, including the last one. Quick1984 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

где нарушение авторских прав? Я сделал скриншот из серии. AlexanderWik (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@AlexanderWik: The episode is still copyrighted. Are you the copyright holder of the episode? Do you have permission from that person or group of people? See COM:DW.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done. 1 week block / блокирован на 1 неделю. скриншот из серии – вот это и есть нарушение авторских прав. Нельзя это делать. Taivo (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Uomo del Mondo

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Uomo del Mondo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  removes SD templates [6] [7] while the source provided is All Rights Reserved. Romano1981 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Removing the template was not the right way to do it, but for File:Андрей Литягин.jpg at least, "Данную фотографию можно распространять, изменять и использовать в любых (в том числе коммерческих) целях при сохранении данных об авторе в соответствии с лицензией Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International" on the source page https://mirage.su/mirazh/702-andrej-lityagin.html is pretty clear. @Pi.1415926535: may I guess you did not check that before deleting? - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel: I actually couldn't get the site to load. Should have checked archive.org, whoops. I'll undelete those. However, this user does appear to have numerous obvious copyvios, as well as File:Участники ВИА Ариэль.jpg which is a rather dishonest photomanipulation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Pi.1415926535: I have no idea whether the other deletion was OK or not (the picture is no longer on the referenced source page, and nothing currently on the page is marked as free-licensed). I was just remarking that one SD was wrong. Unless you want me further involved, that was all. - Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel: I appreciate you catching my error! I just wanted to note the other issues for whoever happens to look at this, since I'm on mobile right now which isn't ideal for most admin tasks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@User:Dronebogus

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago24 comments11 people in discussion

Dronebogus (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
This user make mass DR requests for AI generated images.
The problem is what user seems like intentionally ignore previous DRs of images what kept and possibly ignore COM:EDUSE.
Examples of ignoring prev DRs (see the nomination pages):
File:Black skull front view wearing a tiny medieval helme 28110c69-ac02-45f4-b9a8-17065a674755.png
File:DALL·E 2023-04-24 21.48.18 - two pigs, hearts, valentine's day.png
File:Awful aberration d4abca6b-53e2-429c-a8c8-03fc2ea7c0a1.png
And there's example of possible ignoring COM:EDUSE (in the nomination page):
File:Illustration of grief by AI; 'Recently Widowed'.jpg
SomeFancyUsername (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Being kept in the past doesn’t make them immune or exempt from deletion. And EDUSE is not the end-all-be-all of scope on Commons. From COM:NOTUSED: The fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Common mistakes in photography" does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs. The fact that an unused snapshot of your friend could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Photographic portraiture" does not mean that we should keep all photographs of unknown people. The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep low quality pornographic images Dronebogus (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I can agree with this, but your mass DRs are too borderline for vandalism. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Dronebogus is on a personal crusade to en:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS relentlessly nominating increasingly large numbers of files regardless of how useful they can be or their quality (often indeed low) with subjective invalid slightly-uncivil "AI slop" nonrationales based on the production method which he hates (and there's lots of kinds of files people hate but that in itself is not a good reason for deletion). Some housekeeping is good but the user doesn't seem to pay attention to actual quality or usefulness and just appears to try to delete as much as possible that's produced with the tool he dislikes; I doubt this is a pattern good to allow users to engage in. Maybe next some users for weeks mass-nominate all artistic files that are made with computers or portraits made with photocameras or files that in their view insult Islam or whatever else some sizable fraction of society disliked or dislikes a lot. It's more disruptive than constructive imo. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment from what I can tell, over 90% of Dronebogus's nominations for DRs are upheld. (If someone can present evidence that it is less than 80%, you may have a case here.) Yes, he's probably on a bit of a crusade here, but others appear to me to be on a crusade to upload AI slop and see what sticks. I don't see this as requiring admin intervention. - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
"a crusade to upload AI slop and see what sticks" you say? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
  •  Comment the first case, image was nominated as a copyright violation in 2022; it was closed as kept as not being a copyviol. The recent nomination was for entirely different reason, as being out of scope. Nominating 4 years later for an entirely different reason does not seem to be "intentionally ignore previous DR". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Of the four DRs listed in original post, two had past DRs kept solely on copyright grounds with no mention of scope, one kept as INUSE because Prototyperspective created a marginal Wikidata item to put it in (which it has now been correctly removed from), and one is unused with no actual use cases found. I don't see any of that as evidence of abuse (and IMO all four images should be deleted). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    It's a very important concept. Is it such a strange concept that animals can have affection for their conspecifics, and not just their pet owners?
All the more important there is at least one free-licensed file about that subject on Commons. It's currently the only visualizing this concept. Maybe it's not good enough for the item, but I think even an image that is not perfect but helps understand a concept is useful and it was removed without replacement. If it's not used, it can and is still useful.
Disregard whether or not it's used: don't delete useful stuff. Dronebogus also nominate other files that are useful such as the only free-licensed short film about climate change, useful as for example as an example of what's possible with AI video and what AI short films are etc. He also called the "Illustration of grief" file "slop" when it's of high-quality and just debatable whether it's useful and whether it should be used (I think it's useful enough to be kept). Prototyperspective (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
A low-quality AI-generated image of two cartoon pigs with hearts floating over them is not an educationally useful illustration of this subject. If it were in use, I suspect it'd be more of a distraction than it is helpful. Omphalographer (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why wouldn't it? The image is not really low-quality either. And it's not just the floating heart but also their entire expression. How would you visualize it? A photo of two pigs being located somewhere near each other? If there's a better image, the use could be replaced with it and I'd have no issue whatsoever with that. Even then, there's no need to delete this image and neither would it be a good thing to do; not everyone has to make the same choice of which file to use as Wikimedians in the wikiprojects. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Some things just don’t have or need visualizations, and even things that do or should have them certainly don’t need AI slop visualizations (and make no mistake, a low-quality AI cartoon of two pigs with hearts is textbook slop) Dronebogus (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
certainly don’t need AI slop visualizations disagree on you on that. It's not "certainly", it's the opinion of you and clearly some admins, particularly an opinion where you did not substantiate much or at all why it would be that way. Call it slop if you want, but it's still useful to understand and quickly see the concept. Maybe it shouldn't be used – I see how maybe it shouldn't be used in a large English Wikipedia article or on Wikipedia overall – but that doesn't mean it's not useful. Once again, Commons isn't just there for files that can be on Wikipedia or are used on a wikiproject, the scope is much broader and about general realistic educational use. This is the only image actually visualizing this important subject, and it does it well despite of neglectable imperfections. And if it wasn't clear enough, just calling sth "low-quality AI cartoon" is not a particular good point and doesn't negate all that. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
All files mentioned above are clearly out of scope. There are on abusive deletion requests here. The only misconduct are the false accusations against the nominator. GPSLeo (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to second GPSLeo here, while Dronebogus isn't perfect, this section is not an issue and is Dronebogus creating valid DRs regarding out of scope content.
Could the threads be more civil? Probably.
Are the DRs themselves invalid, malformed, or retaliatory? No.
I don't see any major issues with Dronebogus's conduct at this time. However, Prototyperspective needs to remain more civil, casting aspersions about someone's personal views in a SCOPE DR is absurd. This is not the first time DB and Proty have butted heads here, and it's getting ridiculous. Dronebogus and protyprspective should both take a good read of MELLOW. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 22:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I was not casting aspersions about someone's personal views. If you do not see the point I was making then that doesn't mean I wasn't making a point and it was that, as clarified there already, which kind of images can or can't have "soul" in them and the assumption that they'd have to is [Dronebogus] personal opinion and not a good point. Calling indiscriminately many things "AI slop" is somewhat uncivil and in contrast to that I made a concrete point that just points out how Dronebogus claim is not making much sense and tries to get the DR more on the grounds of calm rational deliberation instead of what's increasingly taking place. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Prototyperspective, if I am not mistaken, is topic banned from AI on enwiki. I’m not sure what exactly led to that sanction but it’s easy enough to guess given their conduct here. Dronebogus (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Iirc, and I asked for a precise reason, it's because I commented too often based on the bludgeoning guideline there. Here I left 2 comments and replied to a reply to one of it as well as corrected a user who falsely claimed I was "casting aspersions about someone's personal views". May misinformation about what I did may please not stand uncorrected; it's important this is corrected. That all images need to have "soul" in them to be useful (per COM:EDUSE and not just on Wikipedias) is not a good point and it's fine to clarify it; I don't think the way I wrote that is easily misunderstood but probably it could be written better and clearer. You continue the crusade to en:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and the uncivil accusations of indiscriminately everything AI as AI slop among other things; I did not start this thread. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also I can note that it's Dronebogus, not me, who casts personal view aspersions about others, and repeatedly so (plus they are false). e.g. "You are free to have your robot buddies draw the sparkly techno-utopia you believe generative AI will usher in as a symbolic counterpoint." at here (and after I just clarified I have a nuanced neither just-indiscriminately-negative nor not-just-positive view of genAI). This is happening frequently instead of a) being respectful and civil and b) seeing and considering or addressing the actual point. Additionally, I don't think it's good conduct to accuse others of "casting aspersions about someone's personal views" when they didn't do so but named a fallacy in the explanation(s) for why to delete a useful file. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

As a general statement, I find the wording of Dronebogus's deletion rationales to be poor ("AI slop" isn't a good deletion rationale, "Out of scope: [fill in one of: COM:AIIP/unused personal art/severe misgeneration issues prevent this from being usable/etc.]" is). However, I almost never see them file a DR where the outcome isn't deletion.

On the other hand, quite a lot of the time, I see Prototyperspective reply to those DRs with arguments that have no basis in Commons policy or guidelines (appeals to emotion, convoluted and highly improbable fictional scenarios, etc.). I've run out of patience trying to respond to them, because it doesn't seem to do any good.

I'm not a huge fan of either user, going back to previous rounds of interpersonal conflict (back before Adamant was indeffed for their role in said conflicts), but I find Prototyperspective's selective [seemingly knowing] disregard of policies vastly more disruptive than I find Dronebogus's rapid fire DRs with insufficient rationales. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not making appeals to emotion; if I did I apologize but ask you to point to it. The scenarios of usefulness are not improbable and there to make a clear point that one can agree or disagree with. And they have a base in policy eg because EDUSE asks for a realistic educational use and what I describe is what I argue such a case which again may not be shared. If I disregarded any policy, please explain which and how/where. Arguing in DRs is common and the purpose of DRs. If you often disagree with my arguments that's not a general issue. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
+1 to convoluted and highly improbable fictional scenarios Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Another +1. As I've said more than once, simply asserting that an image is "useful because it is the only AI-generated image of [something highly specific]" does not actually make it so. Omphalographer (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Not done Every single one of the DRs that was mentioned in the initial complaint here has resulted in deletion of the file in question. It is clearly not the consensus of the community that these were "bad" DRs. Clearly there is no basis for administrative action here.

@Dronebogus: The Squirrel Conspiracy is probably right that you would ruffle fewer feathers if you would take very slightly more time to state clearer DR rationales than just "AI slop." I hope you take that advice. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Đinh Hoàng Bảo Khanh

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

Đinh Hoàng Bảo Khanh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – Uploading unfree files after warnings. Kim Nito (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week and will delete some more copyvios. Taivo (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Milan Szymon Szulc

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

note: reinstating this because there was no outcome when I put this up a few weeks back, he has also since started pushing me to upload his files or grant him autopatrol. This behavior has continued, and I also note that Verdy p suspects Hillsilo to be a sock of MSS, despite this edit from them implying they are separate people. note: taking back this comment, while they edit in similar fields and both have the same habit of repeating requests at Verdy p, they are most likely different people.

original comment: User has repeatedly demanded that @Verdy p fulfill their requests to change various Unicode-related files, also demanded Autopatrol rights when questioned by @Abzeronow over at COM:RFR. applecuckoo (he/him) 20:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

My own take: about the only time it is OK for Person A to press Person B to do particular work when Person B has asked Person A to stop doing so is when the work is about fixing a problem Person B has caused (e.g. "you uploaded 3000 files without categories, fix them before you do more uploads). This is not that sort of case, and Milan is out of line. If he won't stop, this merits a block. - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Milan Szymon Szulc WHAT? NO! I’M NOT A SOCKPUPPET OF YOU AND I JOINED EARLIER THAN YOU! Hillsilo (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Roxas345

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

Roxas345 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
I tried at User talk:Roxas345#Notification about possible deletion but I'm clearly not getting through. (assuming Special:Contributions/~2026-22259-21 is indeed also Roxas345) They continue to upload copyvios. Courtesy ping @Omphalographer - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:32, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:LuvsMG481

[edit]
Latest comment: 14 hours ago15 comments8 people in discussion

LuvsMG481 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Honestly I don't know what to do about this one. I can't keep up with this.

Other than the barrage of DRs, none of these points individually would warrant a discussion here, but it's everything all at once. Reviewing all their DRs isn't fun. And their mindset is really unhealthy, I don't want to think about what might happen if their RfA doesn't succeed.
I suggested they try commenting on existing DRs instead which would be helpful for administrators without creating more work for them. It would also probably give the user a better shot at getting a mop one day. They weren't interested and wished to stop talking, so user talk page discussion has been exhausted. Now we're here. Courtesy Pinging @Jmabel, Jeff G., Infrogmation, Yann, 4300streetcar. To be clear, I'm not calling for a block. I just don't know how to handle this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:01, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@LuvsMG481: If you are using AI to create DRs, please stop that at once. Yann (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Finally someone answered my questions. Ok will stop. Thank you LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK, so I closed all DRs mentioned above. Clearly no AI is able to help here. Yann (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm here to contribute like everyone else. Appears I'm not getting anywhere with my uploads, users ignoring them for wikiprojects etc so I stopped uploading. I'm getting tired of this. Everyone wants to fit in. This was exactly like that at my old workplace where I got terminated, where fitting in is not recognised.
I'm here to edit, like everyone else. I've only been here like 1 month not 4 years. I will continue making mistakes. That's why feedback and mentoring is important. At my old workplace we scrapped the mentoring system and thats why a lot of my friends left, but beforehand mentoring made people feel settled in. I'm sorry for all this drama, as said being new, and inexperienced its important for me to leave a good mark. I got declined file mover rights which I could have used to help clear the backlog of files. I'm literally saving everyone time and energy, some people don't even bother, I'm just simply filling in the gaps. LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Let me add Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jersey sweater tourism advertisement.jpg, which makes pronouncements, some obvious and others inaccurate, and seems not to have checked on some basic facts. LuvsMG481: Was this another "AI" deletion request? Repeated examples of this sort of thing are likely to waste time and effort for both you and other users and annoy others. Not all tasks on Wikimedia are good matches for all users. If deletion requests are something you feel you need "AI" help with, working with deletion requests is probably not a good fit for you. From a quick look at your account I see you've taken some good photos of automobiles with proper identification and categorization - good job! If you're interested on contributing to Wikimedia, let me suggest more of this sort of thing. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Well maybe lets get the images onto Wikipedia articles. I don't want to contribute anymore. It's pointless why I can't admin work on Commons without having users like Vauxford, Mr.choppers to a point rialling into my business. I've had enough, I'm not going to contribute anymore and I don't want to edit any longer. Would it be better if I just quit editing? I only joined to contribute images, but again nothing is being used. I'm tired of it. I want the files to be used like everyone else. I'll stop doing these deletion requests if my images are being used on articles. LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    @Infrogmation He's been doing photography and uploading them on here for over 10 years now. His original account is EurovisionNim and he did try to make a comeback on that account around 2021 before dipping out. I honestly don't know why he keeps denying it because he hasn't been blocked on that account and claiming that its been "hacked" is not a valid excuse. Having a look at his recent contribution, I agree with Alexis with how he seem to be causing more harm than good, mass nominating photos of girls in bikinis for deletion and pretending what I describe is a glorified hall monitor who doesn't know what they are doing but pretending they do. The fact he had a mental breakdown on both Alexis and Mr.choppers talkpage tells me that he is not mentally fit to edit on Wikipedia, let alone becoming an admin and continuing to edit on here is detrimental for his mental health. Even to this day it seems that I live rent-free in his head. Vauxford (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Given the Commons account in question I had some blocks previously on the old account which were over 10 years ago (as of 2026). However I put myself as retired. I didn't have anything wrong, but I then took four years off. It is disappointing you came to this conclusion, because I was truly hacked. I had a mass email exodus where my password got leaked and had to transfer all my data. True story, I would certainly not have mentioned I was hacked when I wasn't. I don't know, it was you who was the cause for everything. Maybe you should have kept out of my business and edited your own things before throwing your 2c into the game. If I was indeed blocked on the old account, I most certainly not be using the new one. I'm doing everything within policy. Stuff like this you didn't need to get involved. LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
To me, he should be given some warnings. Many of the photos are absolutely excellent and will definitely find their way into various projects, but I don't know if his presence is worth the agitation. No matter what, he's definitely going to return under new alter egos - we are looking at a few decades of this person coming and going, uploading lots of images when they're in a good place and then demanding we delete them all when he experiences pushback. I guess my main interest is protecting the project, and protecting the photos they uploaded from future deletion requests. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 16:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
So... why aren't they used on the Enwiki then if you say they are 'excellent'? You're just putting yourself bluffing. It's honestly a shame we have to lead to this. You aren't any better, you add your own images to Wiki projects which is ridiculous despite its quality. Most in my view have the blurriness issue, which honestly is ridiculous. My images are crap and will remain. If you guys maybe didn't start these issues about my old account, none of this would be happening. Oh and about the "alter-egos" did you say the same stuff about GaryJAllen or Democfest or even Unicorn123SL?? No? You're wasting your breath. You think the crap that Alexander Migl and GaryJAllen are displaying are beneficial? At least you follow WP:CARPIX so i'm happy. You, Migl and GJA are no better. Migl noms his files for QI for just the excuse to push, but none of you say anything. I'm fed up. Maybe thats why OSX left, he couldn't stand the stuff that was occurring over here. LuvsMG481 (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
In my defence, I did bring up Alexander's editing habits many years ago on a RFC that turned ugly. At the time I felt it was unfair that I was getting criticised for adding my own photos in articles when Alexander was doing the same. I admit, looking back all these years, there are many photos I have taken that I wouldn't of added into articles today (or at least edit them to be less crooked like many of them were) but younger me insisted that they were "perfect", which understandably rubbed a few people the wrong way. I wasn't sure what to think when Alexander first began mass nominating his own photos for QI/VI in order to justified adding them onto articles. I remember nominating my own QI images and I got told that if I'm going to nominate my images frequently, I would have to vote on other images myself. Fortunately he dialled back on the nominating but I personally think there should be some inquiry or second review regarding some photos that did get promoted to QI. But seriously Nim, you can't keep trying to come back, upload photos, trying to be helpful and what not but then asked other users to "nuke" your photos when things don't go your own way. It just puts a lot of unnecessary work on both users and admins having to delete all your photos and fix your mess. Vauxford (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@LuvsMG481: There is quite an agreement that many of your edits are out of line with the project. So I kindly suggest that you back down, and take a rest for a while. Otherwise I (or someone else) will help you with that. Yann (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
FWIW: I believe I'm generally considered a good contributor here. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-12% of the pictures I take or upload find their way into a sister project, maybe half of those in the English-language Wikipedia. Unless you are precisely taking photos of subjects that have no previous photo in the English-language Wikipedia, don't expect some high percentage of your photos to end up there. - Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's pretty easy to look this up with the Glamorous tool. For example, only about 9.8% of my images (479 out of 4,880 uploads) get used in a non-Commons project, while for Jmabel it's about 10.4% (7,640 out of 73,339 uploads). I agree most uploads on the Commons don't get used, but that doesn't mean they aren't valued. People may use them in the future, for instance. A lot of non-Wiki projects also use them (e.g. I've seen my photos end up on random news websites). 4300streetcar (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=1196005987"