This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
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.
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.
Dronebogus and another dogmatic crusade against all AI images.
Latest comment: 4 days 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) block user. 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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 ! talk23:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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 ! talk23:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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 Jazzping plz23:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 Jazzping plz00:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
@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 ! talk07:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 Jazzping plz14:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 ! talk01:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
I can't argue with that. What you are describing here is a reasonable policy, which will almost certainly not ruffle many feathers. - Jmabel ! talk03:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 ! talk02:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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 Jazzping plz03:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
"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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 Jazzping plz10:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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.)..
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 agoLx 121 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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)Reply
They aren't shark teeth, it just looks like some artwork of a dolphin.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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".
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
“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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
Latest comment: 1 hour 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.
Agreed. I mentioned as an example that Krok6kola has added "unidentified men" to images all men in the image are clearly identified by name and category, eg File:CalderonDubyaHarperCommanders.jpg, File:Dali 2 Allan Warren.jpg a week ago, I asked the user to stop doing that and fix the clearly wrong edits they have done, but they have not. If they continue to refuse to undo their own bad edits, what is a solution? Perhaps a temporary block and bot reverse of all Krok6kola over the past month? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support further block of Krok6kola, preferrably indef. Eversince this legendary edit, I'm convinced for the rest of my life that this user is not able to be a net-positive for Commons. --A.Savin22:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Commons is about creating free media content (preferrably of decent quality), not about worshipping "saints", not about charity and the like. INeverCry was also considering kind of a "saint" by not few users, including admins, but we all know the rest of his story. --A.Savin08:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support per Infrogmation and A.Savin If possible, include a reverse of edits over some period of time to help reverse invalid categories, like the suggestion by Infrogmation. -Ooligan (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days 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?
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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.
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).
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.
HonysTorresArtHelp: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.
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 ! talk05:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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 ! talk05:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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 ! talk05:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 ! talk05:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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.
@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 ! talk17:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
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 ! talk03:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Ah. Nothing in the original complaint brought up that this was the return of someone who has been doing this repeatedly. - Jmabel ! talk17:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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 ! talk18:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Done indef-blocked for continued uploading of out-of-scope promotional content after warnings and 1-week block. - Jmabel ! talk04:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
"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)Reply
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 ! talk17:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 SenguptaTalk11:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
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}}.
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 notes08:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
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 ! talk17:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 ! talk02:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Conduct and harassment issue regarding User:Mohammed Qays
Latest comment: 1 day 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)Reply
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)Reply
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. Эlcobbolatalk19:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@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.
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:
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.
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)
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)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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.
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)Reply
If Didym had abused the patience of volunteers, the other editors would have prohibited himthem 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
Speedy keeped. It shows creativity and proper licensing credit. Wmbata (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC).svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I've requested replacement of the remaining uses of the yoga slop on mswiki: User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands (Diff ~1235729905)
Support further block of Krok6kola, preferrably indef. Eversince this legendary edit, I'm convinced for the rest of my life that this user is not able to be a net-positive for Commons. --A.Savin 22:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons that I am sadly not able to share due to confidentiality. - Jmabel ! talk 03:32, 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)
Done Three month block. If there are similar problems on return, please indef-block. - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC).jpg&action=delete&wpReason=Previously+deleted+file+%5B%5BFile%3ARaden+Liee+S.Bis..jpg%5D%5D){kind=small}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=Previously+deleted+file+%5B%5BFile%3ARaden+Liee+S.Bis.+%2876978%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=small}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=Previously+deleted+file+%5B%5BFile%3ARaden+Liee+Alhidayah.jpg%5D%5D){kind=small}
_-_IA_Midjourney_versió_2.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_–_(Honys_Torres).jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=Previously+deleted+file+%5B%5BFile%3ARaden+Liee+S.Bis.+%2843899%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=small}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=Previously+deleted+file+%5B%5BFile%3ARaden+Liee+%2865918%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=small}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2025.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
