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

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.

Transplanted copy from User talk:Jameslwoodward, about myself

A Wikimedian began the discussion below on User talk:Jameslwoodward. I have the opinion that that page is not the best venue to talk about the alleged issues, hence I'm grafting the message here. Grand-Duc (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Begin of copy.

Grand-Duc (talk · contribs) He has been filing excessively disruptive deletion requests. I kindly ask that you have him cease this behavior at once.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8183 B747-346 JAL Japan Airlines(Reso'cha) NRT 09JUL01 (7026968593).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boeing 747-400 - JAL - JA8183 (5723644644).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8183 Reso`cha Boeing 747-346SR Japan Airlines (JAL) (8637493082).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boeing 747-346, Japan Airlines - JAL Reso`cha AN0309058.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8183 (8087571163).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8183 Reso`cha Boeing 747-346SR Japan Airlines (JAL) (8639157327).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boeing 747-346, Japan Airlines - JAL Reso`cha AN0344534.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8149 (aircraft)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8183 (aircraft) --Y.haruo (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Far from having him cease, I encourage him to continue. These are all copyright violations and must be deleted. As I have said many times, the rule on de minimis requires that the copyrighted work be unimportant enough so that an average reader will not notice if it is omitted. That is plainly and clearly not true in these cases.

If you continue to make unfounded accusations such as this, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

All of these are de minimis. I believe I have valid grounds for that conclusion, and I kindly ask that you refrain from directing personal attacks at me Y.haruo (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

So, it is all right for you to make unfounded personal accusations against Grand-Duc, but it is not all right for me to warn you that your behavior will lead to your being banned? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I got the ping, so I hope I'm not bothering Jim by writing here too.

First of all, I'd like to know how you, @Y.haruo, come to the conclusion that my DR are "excessively disruptive". Judging by how often my argumentation convinces an admin to close them by deleting, I don't think that my interpretation of Commons' policies on which I base the DR are too far-fetched and disruptive. It's much more of quality-assurance work to better the repositories, isn't it?

Furthermore, I've read and re-read your Japanese posting of law texts and its English translation. I think that the basic intention of the law is to make it legitimate for people to engage in exchanges about hobbies on social network services (SNS) and fan communities, up to and including Otaku ways, also using fundamentally copyright protected works (like Pokémon sculptures or vehicle liveries). The inclusion of that "socially acceptable" wording points to such an interpretation, it being facilitating common communication.

But this media use is quite different from an image hosting service and media repository like Commons is. On social networks, any image is bound to slip into the oblivion of the unseen depths of old feeds after some time, whereas Commons is hosting images in curated archives. The visibility there and the influence, the encroachment upon third-party intellectual property, is much more pronounced than in some random SNS feed.

Trudging on such a borderline between copyvio and OK is hardly recommended in the light of COM:PRP. Unless an appellate court or the highest court of law of Japan (or any other country, for that matter) is interpreting and concretizing the law, we IMHO can't boldly assume that such imagery is OK to host here, not when the wording is still fuzzy (by including both "socially acceptable endeavours" and " legitimate interests of copyright holders"). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation does not seek new restrictions. What you are doing effectively narrows the previously accepted scope of De minimis, and that constitutes a new restriction. How many of the administrators who deleted files actually understand this point? Moreover, I am aware that you have distorted the Commons guidance on De minimis and misrepresented Japanese law when filing your deletion requests. This is by no means quality‑assurance work. Y.haruo (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

End of copy.

@Y.haruo: Please elaborate on how I "have distorted the Commons guidance on De minimis" in your eyes; and what exactly constitutes a misrepresentation of Japanese law. Especially the first point is hard for me to understand, I don't see anything in the wording on COM:DM that I have distorted. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

This would only be disruptive if they were closed as keep and Grand-Duc continued to nominate similar images. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You argued that the image does not qualify as de minimis because it is categorized according to Disney motifs, but that is not correct. File:Louvre at night centered.jpg is also categorized under Category:Louvre Pyramid at night, and yet it has never been considered problematic. Whether something is de minimis must be determined by examining the image itself, not by looking at its categories. Your statement — "COM:De minimis not applicable, image categorized according to Disney motifs." — is a distortion of the de minimis guidance. SeeCommons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8904 (aircraft), Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA873A (aircraft) in R2-D2 livery and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:C-GWSV (aircraft). Y.haruo (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you actually read Commons:De minimis#Guidelines? The sentence about categorisation is directly taken from the page you're saying I'm distorting. And, while I stayed quite short with "COM:De minimis not applicable, image categorized according to Disney motifs.", I meant to imply that the whole image impression was not covered by DM. If that was not concise and explanatory enough, then it's on me, but otherwise, the point still stands. The Louvre pyramid example is something maybe worth looking into, but you can't conclude, simply because nobody challenged the legitimacy of imagery within Category:Louvre Pyramid at night yet, the set is assuredly OK. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I certainly have read it. Although it has been in place since 2012, it is only a broad guideline and has not been applied as an operational basis for deletion. Claiming afterward that you “meant something different” does not strike me as a sincere or honest way to engage.

Moreover, in Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/07#Pokemon Jets deletion requests you stated that "a deletion from for instance JA8962 in Pokémon livery (that's the 747-400 example above) can be kept when it's from FRA and has to be deleted when it's made in Heathrow or Narita." This is an unfounded and factually incorrect view with no source whatsoever, expressed solely to strengthen your own position.

Disrupting discussions and making false statements are, of course, grounds for blocking. Y.haruo (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, threatening people you're talking to with blocking because you believe disagreeing with you is making false statements and being disruptive is actually a way people have got blocked.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

What a selective reading you've done in that VPC thread, @Y.haruo... You're apparently conveniently glossing over the actual explanation for "a deletion from for instance JA8962 in Pokémon livery (that's the 747-400 example above) can be kept when it's from FRA and has to be deleted when it's made in Heathrow or Narita." (-> it's the combination of Commons' way of doing things: a principle akin to a Home state regulation, combined with COM:FOP Germany#Permanent, the BGH Aida Kussmund case & COM:FOP UK & COM:FOP Japan) and also the analysis that JMabel did ("All of this is complicated by the fact that the risk involved is not just the risk of legal penalties, but also a certain dedication to intellectual honesty. We certainly often refuse to host material where there is a near-zero chance that the rights-holders would ever sue, and the PCP makes it very clear that we intend to keep to that policy, not just do anything we think we can get away with.")

Are we perhaps operating around a language barrier? I dont see where I expressed to mean something different, with "COM:De minimis not applicable, image categorized according to Disney motifs" I only shortened the reasoning about the inapplicability of DM, perhaps too much. But the categorisation argument is still a centrepiece of the DR rationale. Wasn't that visible?

Please let me ask you, Y.haruo: do you know some commentaries of or maybe court rulings about the Japanese DM law you've repeatedly quoted that speak about commercial usages of media produced under that statute? As written above, I think that the "socially accepted as legitimate and reasonable" does not cover commercial exploitations of imagery (besides those immanently happening on social networks). If I'm not mistaken, Japanese corporations and governmental bodies are actually quite strong against IP rights violations (examples: Sony and Nintendo using their might against game streamers, publishing houses having manga reading sites hosted abroad in e.g. Vietnam taken down, the ministry of agriculture, forestry and fishery fighting against "pirated" seeds and seedlings of Japanese-born crop varieties that are used in China and South Korea). This kind of politics present itself as reason to have a restrictive reading of "socially accepted as legitimate and reasonable".

That the Commons:De minimis#Guidelines allegedly hasn't been used as DR rationale in the 2010's is no reason to not do so currently. That idea is apparently quite convincing, most DR where I referred this guidelines actually ended in deletions (barring those still open). And last but not least: if you're making accusations like "[d]isrupting discussions and making false statements", you must be prepared to produce solid evidence for it, otherwise, it could easily appear like slander, I think. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You are diverting the discussion, but the fact remains that you have repeatedly made false statements about Japanese law, and the same happened in the deletion request. In that DR, you invoked the pre‑2020 version of the law from 2015 and claimed that “These character images cannot fulfil this ‘incidental’ clause, as they are objectively prejudicing the opportunity of their IP owners’ illustrations to potential customers wanting to illustrate the characters.”

In my response to that DR, I explained—citing the Agency for Cultural Affairs—that Commons has no such unreasonable requirement, and that the 2020 amendment clarified and expanded the scope of the provision.

Despite being aware of this, you continue to rely on the outdated statute and repeat unreasonable arguments based on it. This conduct clearly fails to represent current Japanese law accurately and serves to push the deletion discussion in your favor. I wonder how many people have been misled by your false statements. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANA B747-481D JA8964 Pocket Monsters (5314675945).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8964 B747-481D ANA All Nippon(Pokemon) HND 10JUL01 (7046345265).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8957 (aircraft), Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8965 (aircraft) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pokémon trains, Y.haruo (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's use your posting in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ANA_B747-481D_JA8964_Pocket_Monsters_(5314675945).jpg as base, OK?

You've posted what is apparently an excerpt of Japanese law (I'm a bit irritated by the "Copilot" part in the URL at the end, though. Copilot is Microsoft's AI system, can you guarantee that no hallucinations are included?).

In that translation, I do not see anything that is fundamentally different from what I said based upon older law revisions: this law says that a copyrighted element can be included when it constitutes a minor component of the material [...] —when considered in light of the proportion of the copyrighted work within said material, the precision of the reproduction of the copyrighted work within said material, and other factors; and [...]to the extent justified in light of whether there is a purpose of obtaining profit from the use of said incidentally included copyrighted work, the degree of difficulty in separating said incidentally included object or sound from said primary object or sound of reproduction or transmission, the role played by said incidentally included copyrighted work within said created or transmitted material, and other factors. Provided, however, that this shall not apply if such use would unreasonably prejudice the interests of the copyright owner in light of the type and purpose of said incidentally included copyrighted work and the manner of said use.

Please note that the part about unreasonable prejudice is still present! Furthermore, Pokémon liveries on planes and trains are certainly not minor to the usual spotter images, except when one has e.g. captured an airport overview where a Pokémon Jet is indeed a background feature. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd refrain from using translation tools like Google when there is one site with the translation itself or this to compare, unless already acquired near-native Nihongo. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 07:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

From a rigorous reading of past deletion discussions, there's apparent hypocrisy amongst the deleting/keeping administration being in play here: the JA8578 taking off was kept (Jcb, Ellin Beltz, and Abzeronow in that order), retired and blocked users (Russavia in particular) having the deciding votes (Jdforrester), and this keeping of a JA8578 (Yann) was dishonoured by your (mis)interpretation (Ellywa), to name a few. Might add more discussions so everyone can notice historical inconsistency from the recent development; sensing a Western bias from a similar experience in a related Wikimedia project.

Would also note that Wikipedia articles across languages have been deprived of PokéJet images because of Großherzog's (and probably a few more's) recent requests here on Commons with these un-ceremonial deletions. Current version of the English (archived 2023). This shouldn't be ignored; so if there's no other alternative, the non-free use rationale template must be utilized on the already-stricken (through temporary undeletion) and what is left untouched. Good luck in what to put on all eight parameters; Großherzogs precedent might be disagreed upon by past administrators. I have been trying to put this JA8357 but unsure of the next step(s) to be given towards the photographer: upload to Commons or individual WP articles by (a heck number of) language(s). Side note, Bulbapedia has been extracting some of them from here before this row! a few were under CC0 (Public domain), how to explain being trumped by your allegations? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 07:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

"sensing a Western bias"

Hold on. What the fuck are you saying? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Language please, Whyiseverythingalreadyused. Because of some "precendent" applied just last year, much of the files in Commons have been deleted unceremonally; and this has affected many Wikipedia articles across different languages. Seems that the OP is trying to use the Copyright Law of Japan against at least one native-speaker trying to preserve. Thus, can make a comparison with an experience in Wiktionary when I tried to deal with a controversial administrator there in regards to what considers either a "native reading" or "irregular reading" to a Chinese character. We're being overwhelmed here! ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 09:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Poketalker: Thanks for the official law translation page, that's a nice resource worth adding to COM:Japan IMHO. It doesn't read much different from the translation above, though.

But please stop the nonsense of a Western bias (for what it's worth, politically, Japan is Western-aligned anyway as far as I'm aware) or that I aim to persevere against a native speaker. This is easily disproven as I already tried to raise more awareness from natives, see ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers#Information in copyright matters requested, "De minimis", to get the best possible fact-founded outcome. Any particular desire for Wikipedia illustrations is totally irrelevant in regard to copyright matters, though. There should be admins who're officiating both on Commons and EN-WP, so you could get in touch with them to (try to) have a selection transferred to EN under en:WP:NFCI / en:WP:NFCC, although I admit that it may be difficult to comply with en:WP:NFCC4 as a lot of Pokéjet images were sourced from Flickr. Simply bear this in mind: Commons:Derivative works#But how can we illustrate topics like Star Wars or Pokémon without pictures? with its first sentence, Admittedly, it may be difficult or even impossible to illustrate such articles. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not aware of any legal precedent in which the depiction of an aircraft’s livery in a full‑view photograph has been found to violate copyright law. I also do not see any indication that Japanese copyright law diverges from international standards in this regard. Y.haruo (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Even though the user’s own issue is currently being discussed here, he has submitted several new deletion requests. As usual, his claims are inconsistent with the current international standards for evaluating aircraft photography. However, this situation has revealed something new. I will explain this step by step. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:B-18007@PEK (20200403123859).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:B-18916.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:B-18007 (aircraft), Commons:Deletion requests/File:B-18007@PEK (20200403123859).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:China Airlines MD-11 (N489GX) departing Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:B-18916 (aircraft) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:B-18916 (aircraft),

Commons follows the principle of being a Free Content Repository, and the introduction of Commons:De minimis in 2008 shows that it has long adopted the policy that content is acceptable as long as it is freely reusable, even when it falls under de minimis. Moreover, aircraft photographs showing the full airframe have consistently been considered de minimis worldwide, even when painted designs appear in the frame. Naturally, no court cases can be found in which such photographs were judged to constitute copyright infringement.

However, he has repeatedly filed deletion requests that go far beyond actual copyright law and established practice, and he has continued to distort the de minimis Guidelines while making false claims. This is an attempt by someone dissatisfied with the current application of policy to force a change in that policy, and the rapid succession of deletion requests is clearly aimed at undermining Commons’ fundamental principles.

As with the URAA discussions, this is a matter that must be decided through proper community debate, and such deletion requests cannot be accepted. Please do not allow continued attacks on the official policy. Regarding this matter, Commons:Deletion requests states that ‘Deletion requests are not the place to attempt to change Commons policy, nor may requests be made simply to make a point. Any such requests may be speedily closed. Please use the Village Pump or the policy talk page if you wish to propose a change in policy.’--Y.haruo (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The sentence Commons follows the principle of being a Free Content Repository, and the introduction of Commons:De minimis in 2008 shows that it has long adopted the policy that content is acceptable as long as it is freely reusable, even when it falls under de minimis. is quite the red herring. Nothing in my actions hint at me not fully endorsing the project goals and respecting our guidelines and policies. Naturally, this also encompasses COM:De Minimis.

However, he has repeatedly filed deletion requests that go far beyond actual copyright law and established practice - well, the contents of Category:Pokémon related deletion requests/deleted (especially the pages having titles with airplane immatriculations, like JA***) show that there's not really an established practice in keeping such livery images (compare that with Category:Pokémon related deletion requests/kept).

To further foster my respect and endorsement of COM:DM, look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8956 (aircraft): Nota bene: I did not nominate the whole content of the category, as I think that images like File:AllNipponAirways B747-400 fukuoka 20040926111804.jpg are obviously totally fine and something like File:ANA B747-400D(JA8956) (4262892086).jpg or File:All Nippon Airways Boeing 747-400D Breidenstein-1.jpg is not having enough precision (angled views, not sideways) in showing copyrighted material, so a defence of De minimis is more likely to be successful. In my opinion, File:ANA B747-400D(JA8956) (5699289759).jpg (not included) sets a good borderline between "keepable" and "to be deleted".

This is an attempt by someone dissatisfied with the current application of policy to force a change in that policy, and the rapid succession of deletion requests is clearly aimed at undermining Commons’ fundamental principles. has the look and feel of a bad faith assumption. In fact, I assert that it is the complete opposite, I'm doing the things I do just because I deeply respect Commons’ fundamental principles, including the COM:Precautionary principle. As few if any at all other people have challenged such imagery in deletion requests, the sheer amount of DR I opened is the obvious outcome of having a huge stack of allegedly problematic images all over the place. It's simply the result of the relationship between available manpower and stock of possible copyright violations.

Your sentence Moreover, aircraft photographs showing the full airframe have consistently been considered de minimis worldwide, even when painted designs appear in the frame. Naturally, no court cases can be found in which such photographs were judged to constitute copyright infringement is easily negated (when using scientific standards, with a counterexample being sufficient to disprove a theorem). I assert that there's a technical similarity between a Pokémon livery on a plane and the Aida cruise ship livery with the Kissing lips (the amount of hull / airframe covered by artwork is by percentage similar or higher for the jets). As it stands, the cruise ship livery was subject in a German copyright court case which went to the highest court of law, the Bundesgerichtshof. And far from denying it protection or referring to the De minimis excuse, the court ruled that the work is protected, but could be depicted under the FOP statute; references: COM:FOP Germany#Permanent. With this, everything in your assumption is disproven, as there is a copyright court case known (and documented on Commons) about vehicle liveries in an industrialised country.

The policies / guidelines about COM:DM, COM:FOP, COM:PRP, COM:CSM and COM:CRT are already quite good as they are, there's no need for a change, only the specifics in CSM and CRT could and should be updated whenever new information gets known. In fact, the person who's unhappy by the situation appears to be you, Y.haruo, so it would be upon you to advocate for a more lenient view/interpretation of COM:DM et al., not upon me to work on any change in policies or guidelines. The issue certainly does not reside within myself. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment There are areas (and this is one of them) where Commons has to weigh among conflicting goals, and whereas] we may at any given time have a more or less clear policy, we will always have outliers on both sides, probably even among the admins. On the one hand, we want to carve out strong, broad arguments for legitimate free use. On the other hand, we do not want to overstep and put ourselves or our reusers at risk of violating legitimate copyrights. There are downsides to being either too bold or too timid, and we are never going to all have exactly the same level of boldness.

Following up on that: I don't particularly see and administrative issue here, and would be inclined just to let the DRs play out. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the outputs, here is my further  Comment as the request discussions are being stalled or in moratorium: this seems no longer a clash of Commons and differing countries' lawfare or that of West and (being-ruled-unfavorably) East, but tolerating such files for maybe future use. Those currently under the deletion request template will affect God knows how many Wikipedia articles and continuing on the path won't end well for (today's and future) photographers/uploaders here. Some of them have been slapped with the public domain template such as the B-18916 file. If Commons has no place for those, perhaps the Bulbagarden Archives is a safer bet than separate X-language Wikipedias for matching the latter's counterpart plus the non-free template (more time-consuming and potentially counterproductive than here); I'll have to contact my fellow POKéTalkers there regarding the recent and controversial deletions; who knows when the counterpart article will match or exceed in quality that of Wikipedias', tables and all. Is there even at least one for the related DisneyPlanes? The aviation community on WP has its own tolerance issue; many airline, fleet, and destination article being prone to misinformation due to lack of sources is just the tip of the iceberg. Already planned my future departure from the Wikimedia projects one-by-one because of what just happened a few months ago there...

On the derivative works page, LX revised that section back in 2007. Before that, the word "impossible" wasn't yet mentioned. So there must be more engagement and awareness to new uploaders: OK here or to other Wikimedia project? We've seen enough ignorance of the precautionary principle on their end, methinks. Much under the "deleted" category before Großherzog's starting 2025ish were not of PokéJets or otherwise lack of extra defense. It's time that Wikipedians interested join the remaining discussions while the files aren't yet acted upon.

And please, let more administrators past and present voice their opinion Y.haruo's interpretations before deciding on the critical next steps. The Japanese embassy notice still has yet to have a meaningful response as of this reply. How would we know a nominator doing similar is no different from someone like, a copyright troll? Domo, the first ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 05:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Poketalker: I'm a native English speaker, and I cannot make sense of even half of what you just wrote. Is there some language in which you can express yourself more clearly? If there is, could try rewriting this in that language? - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

"It's time that Wikipedians interested join the remaining discussions while the files aren't yet acted upon."

@Poketalker: beware of the curse of canvassing. It has taken down a great many before you. By the way, that hall of infamy includes the pain-in-the-ass co-founder of Wikipedia, who was permanently banned after calling for his Twitter base to hijack the consensus-making process in favour of a failing WikiProject that he had proposed. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 17:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Poketalker: As you've linked a Bulbapedia talk thread in Commons:Deletion requests/File:OSAKA ITAMI 26 OCTOBER 2002 ALL NIPPON BOEING 747-400 JA8964 (50633729578).jpg, I have kind of a technical advice. You will often see a chain of ciphers in parenthesis in the filenames, in the curent example, it's (50633729578). This is a telltale sign that the image in question has been sourced from Flickr, it's a Flickr ID that is Google-able. You'll find images that have been deleted here but may still be available on Flickr with that ID. So, if you're endeavouring in going the fair-use route, either on EN-WP or Bulbapedia, you can find illustrations still hosted on Flickr that were previously used on en:Pokémon Jet (refer to the CommonsDelinker entries in the page history) or cited in other DR.

Back to the main thing, about On the derivative works page, LX revised that section back in 2007. Before that, the word "impossible" wasn't yet mentioned. Yes, "impossible" wasn't used, but the page before that inclusion read "Admittedly, it is difficult. You'll probably have to refrain from illustrating such Wikipedia articles. However, there is plenty of photo opportunities for many topics that do not violate third party copyrights." Advising to probably have to refrain to do something because of third-party copyrights is substantially the same as saying that it's impossible. Second thing: if you happen to know some other Wikimedia universe venues frequented by people interested in copyright matters and ideally knowledgeable in Japanese, name them here, please. I likely won't object to extending an invitation for participation similar to ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers#Information in copyright matters requested, "De minimis", I see some value in gathering more opinions. And the remainder of your rant doesn't really feel fitting to a copyright-based dispute, I have to concur there with Jmabel. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

"Probably have to refrain" is just a suggestion, otherwise it's just promoting a sort of self-censorship. Bulbapedia is ready to embrace these files regardless of the outcome(s), but I stress on retaining whatever Creative Commons licenses applied whether from Flickr or taken by uploaders themselves. Let's take this photo of JA8357 as a test case, shall we? It's been three years, but can continue correspondence with standard procedure in uploading to either here, a Wikipedia language(s) of choice, or Bulbagarden Archives. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 10:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Mary Joanna

Mary Joanna (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Per the advice of EugeneZelenko, I'm bringing this here. Mary Joanna reverted my edit on the user page of Moataz1997, the edit being a fix of one of my bot's prior edits which was reverted because it broke a table. Their edit summary was "don't edit other user pages, stop it now", when I asked them about the revert on their talk page, they reverted my message with the edit summary "you should accept reverts like Special:Diff/1252111844 and don't edit user pages". I believe this is disruptive, given my bot previously edited their user page, and after I stated my opinion on the replacements they threatened to report me/my bot to COM:AN/V if it edits their user page, and their failure to provide a substantive reason to revert the edit reinstating the bot edit without issues. Tenshi Hinanawi (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

self report. see User_talk:Tenshi_Hinanawi#Your_bot_editing_my_talk_page_archive., his edits are unwanted. and this is clearly an editwar from Tenshi Hinanawi against the user page owner. --ɱ 21:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

As I had explained earlier in my message to you, "It seems apparent that the revert was because of the malfunction, not because they didn't want it." Tenshi Hinanawi (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mary Joanna: That is an archive of the user talk page allocated for communicating with you; it is not yours. Tenshi Hinanawi's bot was authorized by a Bureaucrat and Admin here to make such edits at Commons:Bots/Requests/TenshiBot.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Wait, that was a user page, but it wasn't yours. Who elected you as the defender of the user pages?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The admin wrote: "If there are no objections". The objections you can find here. If a bot causes this trouble, the botflag should be reconsidered. And do you really protect editwar like this against the will? --22:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Aside: personally I prefer <center> even though it is now deprecated by the current HTML standard, but I see the value in having the site conform to the standard. - Jmabel ! talk 21:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

the site is not conformed to the standard. for the User:Tenshi_Hinanawi-page it shows zero lint errors. but this is not true: https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser%3ATenshi_Hinanawi - The LintErrors-tool is only good for bossing others around in their user area: User:Tenshi Hinanawi is doing editwar about his bot edits. I'm going sleeping right now, it's late in germany. --ɱ 22:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC) PS: there is princip like en:Error-tolerant design. browsers don't have a problem with <center>. there is no need to remove this from user pages.

See this history. this diff is another edit war by User:Tenshi Hinanawi --ɱ 22:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

My revert was because there was no valid reason given to revert, and neither bots' edits were errant. The second edit was to prevent the bot from editing the page, but the user reverted it, which means the bot is not prevented from editing. It's impossible to follow both "do not edit this page" and "do not let your bot edit this page" when the method my bot excludes pages is via the {{Bots}} template that's on all major wikis. Tenshi Hinanawi (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Unarchiving, this still needs to be resolved. Tenshi Hinanawi (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

You can resolve this by declaring doing no edit wars anymore. Your content contribution to this project is zero. Let other in peace, who're using this project as described here. --ɱ 👽 12:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It's clearly not edit warring, and no one else has come forward to say that either. Even on dewiki (your home wiki), you would be in the wrong here on Moataz's user page, since reverts without explanation don't count. Yes, I edited Rockfang's archive afterwards against their wishes, but it was an inevitable result. On dewiki as well, you have a history of reverting lint fixes as well (1) and reporting people for it (2). Stop your baseless accusations. Tenshi Hinanawi (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I can only see one thing: you want to dictate to others what they should do in their User pages. --ɱ 👽 14:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC) PS: and on dewiki, lint error fixes to the user pages by third parties are not welcome: „Only the user in question may edit their own user pages.”. The link from 2024/01/17 is too old, see de:Special:Diff/241364835. The Admin later revoked his decision.

Where have I dictated anything exactly? Tenshi Hinanawi (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

1, 2. --ɱ 👽 20:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

1, first sentence of 2. Tenshi Hinanawi (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

According to this page, as recently as 22:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC), the user was using "[[File:7-3-3 Hyperbolic Honeycomb Rotating.gif|20px]]" (File:7-3-3 Hyperbolic Honeycomb Rotating.gif) in her signature, in violation of policy COM:SIGN#Images in signature.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

You see my last edit from 12:35 without using of images? there is no violation anymore. my signature is since the notification conform with this policy: „One possible alternative is to use Unicode characters instead.“ removed --ɱ 👽 --ɱ 👽 13:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mary Joanna: Kindly retract that, nothing I wrote above is false.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

You’re trying to pin a behaviour on me that I’ve stopped doing. That’s unfair. ɱ 👽 14:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It might even imaginably be unfair, but it is certainly not "false flag". I am sure Jeff is neither pretending to be someone else, nor is he acting on someone else's behalf, nor is someone else impersonating him. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly; my English isn’t the best. But I have put a stop to the behaviour that was criticised, so there’s no need to make a fuss about it here. --ɱ 👽 11:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mary Joanna: Alright, but still a warning is in order: actual "false flag" behavior usually merits a block or ban. It is not an accusation to make lightly. I will presume from what you said that you used the term without understanding it, but if you use it again, expect it to boomerang. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

In fact I chose my words poorly there, and I'd like to apologize to Jeff for that. I've edited my comment accordingly. --ɱ 👽 09:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Jeff G

It has been claimed by this user I have violated wiki copyright. This is untrue. The images are my own and I own the copyright for the image in question. I live near the area. I feel that I am being made a target. Please can this be investigated? Accusing anyone of lying is serious and designed to cause harm on me. I said things in gest and I apologise. But why didn’t Jeff G ask me politely about the images before he accused me of copyright violations. I would have given an explanation. But I’m sure you will block me. Which further ignites my mistreatment. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

See above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The information you have provided is simply untrue and there has been no good faith principles in anything you have suggested. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@MatthewDavid41: it is genuinely difficult to work out what you are saying. There is no such thing as "wiki copyright" and I doubt that Jeff (in some unspecified place) accused you of violating it. "The images" => what images? "the image in question" => what image? Etc.

If you actually have a grievance here, please state it in a clear way, with links to pages (and, ideally to specific sections and/or diffs) you are talking about. Otherwise, I'm inclined to close this section on a procedural basis as simply incomprehensible. Neither I nor any other admin is likely to put in a bunch of research trying to work out what you mean if you don't express yourself more clearly. - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Given that User:MatthewDavid41 has apparently been blocked as a sock of a blocked account, I think this can be considered resolved. - Jmabel ! talk 05:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel. As seems to happen often, I saw the thread, resolved the issue, and then forgot to circle back and note that here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both. Note the lack of attention to detail in the spelling of the header.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

TheWitold

• User: TheWitold (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

The user removed the copyright violate template regarding a photo they had uploaded, without any valid reason . I would appreciate it if you could speak to him about it. ~2026-42483-84 (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

They didn't really remove it in the linked diff because there are two copyvio templates there. They only removed one of them. Removing duplicared templates is not necessarily an issue. Nakonana (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Fixing duplication is not an admin issue. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

HoluwadamilareStudio

HoluwadamilareStudio (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Promotional AI slop, advertising the 'work' of a graphics 'digital creator'. Except that they don't even seem to create anything, it's just generic slop.

It might be harsh and arguably premature, but I'm inclined to an indef block and nuking all contributions as just NOTHERE. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked (already indeffed on enwiki and meta) and nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Pedu0303

• Pedu0303 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This account has uploaded at least one blatant copyvio, but most of their recent uploads are 20th-century photographs uploaded as their own, most colored using AI or, worse, possibly entirely made up.

Pinging @Chronus: , ptwiki sysop, who will be able to confirm essentially all their edits on ptwiki are now AI generated. Yacàwotçã (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

(They claim to have been born in 1990, so the images are obviously not their own, and the AI artifacts are also very obvious.) Yacàwotçã (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

And they have continued editing after Yacàwotçã posted this, but not addressed it at all. If they continue further without addressing this, a block is certainly in order. - Jmabel ! talk 20:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I think a permanent block is inevitable. Bidgee (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Falakat

• User: Falakat (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: After final warning and block for uploading copyvios, the user admitted in Special:Diff/1256049233 that they had uploaded a netcopyio in File:Poori at the opening party of the lucifer store in Tehran; photographed by Falakat.jpg and claimed "uploader removed speedy deletion tag". That edit was also incomplete.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Besides that being a completely useless photo, I see that as basically being a sloppy way of doing an {{SD|G7}}. I don't think any particular admin action is called for, other than deleting the file, which I will do. - Jmabel ! talk 20:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Whybleedinside

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

Reuploads deleted copyvio after having been given final warning the other day. See evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp	File	Uploader	Deleted file	Uploader
Aug 04 2026 01:22 PM	File:Теплообменное оборудование АО «Бугульминское ПТС».jpg	Whybleedinside (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 32 edits)	File:Foto-69-iz-75-1.jpg (Und | Log)	Whybleedinside (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)

Jonteemil (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user against recreation of deleted files and will delete the mentioned file. Taivo (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Taivo That annoys me quite a lot. {{End of copyvios}} includes This is your last warning. The next time you upload a file that violates copyright, you will be blocked. The user not only uploads a new copyvio, which would be stupid enough, but recreates the exact same copyvio that's already has been deleted once. That's a so blatant breach of policy and you just give them another warning, when the template already says LAST WARNING. Jonteemil (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Dabmasterars

Dabmasterars (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Could some other admin also have a look at the files uploaded by this user I just deleted. I think the Hitler poster and the porn comics justify an immediate infinite block. GPSLeo (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@GPSLeo It is not a threat, it is a poster used in internet memes and supported by sources (1, 2. Undelete these images immediately.

Edit: Undelete the other ones too, per my words below. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to see an actual reaaaaly long block. The edit in Special:Diff/1256642866, "*{{vk}} The Volunteer Response Team has confirmed that the file is under a free license. {{Dummy signature|VRT-positive|w:HIV-positive}} should justify it (per the part before the double }}), and also the remainder "jokes", that's an utterance in really bad taste. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

If you don't like the jokes, remove them and explain in the bar why you think this was inappropriate. It's an essay, not a policy. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

In a page addressed to the general public and per the Principle of least astonishment, you imperatively must avoid making allusions that may be understood as equating VRT agents with unfortunately sick people (HIV positive). But by that I need to spell it out, you're demonstrating a state of cluelessness that is IMHO unfit for further project participation. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, this was in poor taste, I'm sorry. I did not intend to offend anyone, I just thought it was an interesting rhyme. Feel free to revert my edit. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 19:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I would support anything up to an indef block for Dabmasterars for those 'jokes', under NOTHERE. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Specifically, undelete File:AI Disney poster 'Caust 1.jpg and File:AI Disney poster 'Caust 2.jpg. They're used for an educational purpose, one of them was used on w:AI slop before your erroneous deletion. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You added the link to the image to the page after it was deleted. Not every "meme" some person posts somewhere on the internet is in scope. I do not see any reputable publications about this image. GPSLeo (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

How is it not reputable? I literally linked the sources. May not be in the perrenial sources list, but it doesn't make them unreliable.

Edit: The image was deleted while I was editing, that's why the redlink happened. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

As for the porn. I have a subfolder in my wikipedia folder full of Newgrounds porn and other naughty freely-licensed stuff. I could upload it all if I wanted to, but I don't. I understand that Commons is not a porn repository, and I only upload explicit files that have clear educational use. Erotic Mei fan art? Example of w:Overwatch and pornography. Guy having sex with a bird? Example of feral subgenre of furry art. Super Forbidden Love category? Examples of lolicon, shotacon and the aformentioned genres together. Plus, I try to pick the highest quality stuff, so I skip erotic images of low resolution and/or poor drawing skills due to project scope. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 19:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Finally and most importantly. I am an active and prolific editor who uploaded various files other than porn or weird images used on websites. I have contributed over a hundred files, with most of being in use and all of them being uploaded for an educational purpose, even if that doesn't seem apparent sometimes. I spend my time contributing both here and on Wikipedia, with hope to make these places better. Obviously, that includes uploading files that some may perceive as offensive, but they have a purpose. So no, I don't this out of vandalism or because I think it's "funny". I care.

Anyway, undelete everything you just deleted or cite a specific policy that prevents you from doing so. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 19:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I just seen this COM:AN/U. I initially set up Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Super Forbidden Love Drawings 09 crop.png as that specific file was COM:INUSE with some consensus to use that file. In regards to the other pornographic comic files I don't see much of an educational use for them. While Commons is not a COM:CENSOR, on en wiki there was a recent RFC, that was covered en:WP:GRATUITOUS. This might be useful for this matter. See en:Talk:Clop (erotic fan art)#RFC about images on this page. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Gratuious is a policy for using images on Wikipedia articles, not for hosting images on Commons. Also, I believe that the images do have an educational use. There are currently no images that show both lolicon and shotacon genres combined. Also, the shotacon examples are, in my opinion, of medium quality (in terms of drawing skill, not resolution) and could be replaced with higher-quality alternatives (that I uploaded). Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 19:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

While that policy is tailored to Wikipedia; if such files have no chance of ever being used on that project. It can also be assumed they would also not be useful for the other projects. If I were to assume that to be the case, what educational use does it really have? Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I already outlined. While they may not be used on Wikipedia for gratuitous reasons, they are still helpful as illustrations of their respective genres. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 19:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

From my understanding Commons is not a COM:HOST. While do think that Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Super Forbidden Love Drawings 09 crop.png should be undeleted as that file has an educational use. That being said, I am highly dubious about the files in that collection. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

See w:Talk:Shotacon#Why I uploaded SFL. This was not promotional, I just couldn't find a non-fan art, freely licensed example of lolicon and shotacon, so I asked permission from an artist who has a comic with OCs. This info is for @GPSLeo too, as he deleted the files for "Content created as advertisement". Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 20:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

For the most part, I'm keeping out of this, but one thing: Commons' scope is by no means limited to files likely to be useful on sister projects. For example, most files related to hyper-local history have no such potential, but they can be absolutely invaluable to someone working on a history of that particular place. The same can be true of documentation of marginal subcultures. - Jmabel ! talk 00:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Likewise for File:Mei from Overwatch by nikuriii.png?

I am deeply concerned about this report. The 'Hitler poster' is offensive. But that's not relevant here. And it should certainly not be presented, as this ANU report comes far too close to, as if it was Dabmasterars's own invention! All they are doing here is recording the existence of a poor taste online 'joke' for the purpose of commentary upon it. That sits within Commons' remit.

The anime fan art is tedious. I would delete it under IDONTLIKEIT. But per Commons policy and many precedents, we don't delete this stuff, no matter how tawdry. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I would personally say that the majority of the anime pornography has no educational merit. Most of those images I would fully support staying deleted per COM:HOST. And even going upon on grounds of COM:CSAM. See en:Talk:Shotacon#Source where Shotacon is very closely tied to that matter. However, one of the files was a valid COM:INUSE across projects. I say this, only for that specific file; it seemed acceptable, (per the rationale gave on en-wiki) Furthermore, it was a valid cropped that removed a qr code, watermark. It seemed that Dabmasterars wasn't trying to promote the file but have an actual encyclopedic intention. Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

We might both agree on deleting a whole bunch of stuff, but it ain't going to happen today.

I cannot see any justification for this though: File:Super Forbidden Love Drawings 09 crop.png - that's GPSLeo using a G10 speedy deletion 'as advertisement' to get around opening a DR on a file that's obviously contentious, for an irrelevant and fabricated reason, uploaded by someone who they've simultaneously opened an ANU dispute on. They should lose admin rights for pulling tricks like that. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this file should have had an DR, especially considering it was COM:INUSE. For all the files, they are very contentious; I personally would even say some cross into CSAM territory because of en:Talk:Shotacon#Source. However, there needed to be consensus. And for File:Super Forbidden Love Drawings 09 crop.png there was consensus fot it's use on a sister project. Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I did not open a regular DR to not have a Streisand effect on this porn comic with children. This is why I deleted it first and then immediately after this asked other admins for comment on this board. Of course, discussing this on a non public board first, would have been better but we do not have such a board and only this page. GPSLeo (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I restored this one as there are no nude people on it. GPSLeo (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

What's stopping you from restoring the other photos? As I (and others) said, they're high quality, weren't uploaded for promotional purposes and illustrate a variety of topics. And I don't just want you to give your opinion, I want to see the exact policy or guideline that facilitated the deletion, as G10 was clearly irrelevant. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 09:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I still think they should stay deleted. I have no veto if some other admin wants to restore them. GPSLeo (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: I did not open a regular DR to not have a Streisand effect on this porn comic with children except you literally created a Streisand effect by irregularly speedy-deleting the offending comic, then advertising that you did on a board which has far more activity than any given DR. Now people who would never even think of looking at this comic even on Commons are probably going to look at it on the original website just to see what was so unacceptable. If you had just made a DR you probably would have seen these uncontroversially deleted and immediately forgotten among the countless thousands of DRs. Instead you made yourself look like the villain in a fight against a child porn comic. Dronebogus (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It is totally different if problematic content is on Commons visible to every user or might be found somewhere based on the file name. We only hide the log if the file name contains a direct url . GPSLeo (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any CSAM. There are no real children getting hurt. It says nothing about lolicon, so it is automatically presumed to be allowed (otherwise, there would be no Category:Lolicon in anime and manga). Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 08:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• BTW, I've just opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lead shits in Crunchy's mouth by Lordcuckness.png Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  • See also Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:AI Disney poster 'Caust 1.jpg and File:AI Disney poster 'Caust 2.jpg and Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Super Forbidden Love Drawings 09 crop.png

  Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Clear case of administrative overreach from user:GPSLeo, using blatantly incorrect speedy deletion rationales to get rid of in-scope files they don’t like. I actually agree with Andy Dingley, a user I otherwise don’t get along with or agree with, that GPSLeo should lose admin privileges for obvious system gaming to target a specific other user. Dabmasterars may be an edgelord, but they are still a productive contributor who is unafraid to upload material that may be shocking or offensive but is nonetheless in scope. We shouldn’t tolerate breaking the rules to silence users for breaking taboos— we need people to break them, and there’s enough of a chilling effect from reputational damage already. The only actionable offense here was making jokes in very poor taste, which they have apologized for. The files should be undeleted, unless there is a serious legal concern about the lolicon examples, and the report should be closed without action, or better yet converted to a W:WP:BOOMERANG against GPSLeo (albeit the latter is highly unlikely since admins in short supply and are generally considered above reproach even in egregious cases like this). Dronebogus (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you for addressing my other contributions and doing something seemingly unprecedented for anyone else here: assuming good faith.

Oh, and I'm neutral towards boomeranging GPSLeo. I'm understandably pissed off that a bunch of the files I got the artist's permission for got deleted, but at the same time I want to stay rational. Plus, what would other admins do if they see a user uploading loli porn and AI hitler images within a relatively close timeframe? They would probably assume similar things. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 08:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

GPSLeo should be boomeranged because they outright broke policy to delete the files and targeted you in a way which borders on harassment. They did not bother looking at your contribution history or reasoning with you before taking this to ANU and requesting a block (which they were unwilling to implement themselves). Dronebogus (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Good point. I stated this before, but the vast majority of my contributions are not pornographic, with my history showing both explicit and non-explicit media uploaded for educational purposes. I even created some project pages for direct use on Commons, such as COM:Free depictions of non-free works, COM:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and COM:AI-generated media laws by country. This is a clear indication that I'm here to make Commons better first and foremost. I still think Leo deadminship is a bit harsh (at least a permanent one), but if it does happen, I won't protest it. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Admins almost never get punished on Commons because nobody watches the watchers and we’re running on a sysop skeleton crew anyway, but if you blatantly abuse your tools they should be taken away. We need a stronger precedent of not tolerating incompetence or misbehavior from admins. Dronebogus (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

There are areas in which admins typically use discretion independent of formal policy, and this is one of them. I'm not sure whether I would have done exactly what User:GPSLeo did here, but only because he seemed to find the image more objectionable than I do. He reported the matter publicly: he wasn't trying to act in darkness. I have certainly at times done the equivalent with material that I considered to be CSAM or gratuitously pornographic and almost certainly out of scope. If there is a discussion as to whether this aspect of his conduct (deleting before bringing the matter to a noticeboard) is a reason to remove GPSLeo as an admin, I will consider that equally a referendum on whether I should be an admin, whether someone adds me formally on the basis of this remark or not. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Admins (or anyone) are at liberty to convert a DR to a speedy. Admins also (policy is vague here, practice isn't) delete files immediately on their first encounter by tagging files as CSD while they're deleting them.

But COM:CSD still applies. Including the broad policy on speedy deletion (it's there for simple deletions that aren't expect to be controversial, not just to save time or effort) and the narrow policies as to why. They could delete files as COM:CENSORED or COM:PORN, except that both of these are quite narrow. Other editors might even question these and push it back to a regular DR (a reason why CSD needs to stay a two-step process, not just one), but that's reasonable on both parties.

What they can't do is to give a false CSD reason to mislead other editors here. Choosing one of the least controversial CSD reasons, COM:CSD#G10 (nobody likes spam, so it's one of the least contentious CSDs) but applying it to a file that's so obviously contentious yet is a long way from "created as advertisement" is not acceptable admin behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, deleting CSAM and blatantly out of scope images (like the one I reported today) could be done instantly without warning, and I don't think that would be controversial. Expect lolicon isn't CSAM. AI Disney posters aren't either. Both examples were uploaded with educational motive in mind (which I have stated like five times already, but still) and are in scope due to that. I even inserted the news link as source to further clarify that the files were notable. If Leo thought that the images shouldn't be on Commons, the correct course of actions would be to open a regular DR and precisely explain his position, instead of speedying with a vague reason, confirming one's own speedy and ANUing the uploader without looking at his other contributions.

Oh, and your "consider that equally a referendum on whether I should be an admin" comment sounds like COM:BLACKMAIL. I'm not disregarding your entire opinion, just pointing at things I find uncommonslike.

Anyway, I'm goingto sleep. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 22:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I strongly have the stance that most of those files are in CSAM territory. However, the stance on what lolicon even is considered, differs heavily between regions.

That being said this very recent discussion at en:Talk:Shotacon#Source, has a consensus to consider lolicon as CSAM.

With all that being said, one should have assumed good faith. All the files in that collection were on a very controversial line. That did not warrant speed deletion. I agree with Dronebogus that this whole matter is unacceptable admin overreach. Deleting files that had a consensus and were covered under a valid COM:INUSE is unacceptable.

As pointed out by Andy Dingley, I too cannot see any justification for the deletion of the files. If there was 'truly' the concern for CSAM, the files could of been marked as a such. Or, go by Commons COM:CSAM policy. However, that doesn't appear to have happened. This notice bord is not the place to report depictions of child sexual abuse or other potentially illegal content. There is the: e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org to do that instead. Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I fail to see how lolicon can be CSAM (child sex abuse material) because no child was sexually abused in the process of making it. I can see how it is potentially illegal child pornography, but unless we are referring to a specific law that uses that exact terminology (stating lolicon is considered and handled as CSAM) we shouldn’t be calling it something it isn’t (and even if it’s being legally treated as CSAM it still is not literally CSAM for reasons I already stated). Dronebogus (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with you. That what's makes this speed deletion so unacceptable. For instance, under w:Child pornography laws in the United States, and w:Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors specifically cite "drawings". However, none of this really matters; because this matter should have been taken to a DR not to this noticeboard. Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

XYRIYSX

XYRIYSX (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
User creating doubtful categories and uploading doubtful images, see User:XYRIYSX#Gallery, File:Coat of arms of Fidel Castro.svg, or :File:Gun Emblem “lol” “Who Don't Ever Exist”, etc.; see also File talk:Coat of arms of Fidel Castro.svg.
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Gmyazbeckk

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

Appears to be less here to create useful images than he is in uploading photos of his patented dome design or whatever that is. His name is Ghaouss Yazbeck (he literally said so at Category:Photographs by Ghaouss Yazbeck). The promise of improvement that he made at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive 29#Gmyazbeckk has no practical meaning, as he has continued to upload the tent stuff. I presume that's what got him indeffed on arwiki. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 05:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused,  Done Indeffed as promo only account. I would have gone for a shorter block in the previous report but the user promised to improve, so I wanted to extend the ROPE. This time I am convinced for indef bcoz, one, arwiki block (Indef without TPA) and not acting per the promise made last time. I have deleted some content, plz let me know if something else needs to be taken care of. Thanks for the report. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I declined unblock request. Still self-promotion-only account, no promise to improve. Taivo (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Orkideh he

User: Orkideh he (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reason for reporting: Please monitor if this user is continuing in posting content that is not pertinent to Commons. They repeatedly wrote walls of text on the COM:VPC in Arabic script that, according to a quick glance using Google Translate, may be fitting for a private blog or the like, but that content is certainly not suitable for Commons and likely not for any other Wikimedia project. I already posted a scope info and a vandalism warning on their talk page; this report is meant to raise some more awareness about their likely spamming endeavours. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked Orkideh for a month. Taivo (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Alisahib2001

• Alisahib2001 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Their third block, this time of six months, has just expired and they immediately starts recreating lots of their previously deleted copyvios. I think indef seems appropriate this time. Jonteemil (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Indef. It's not even as if these are interesting content, they're just commercial logos. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that a couple of specific examples would get some admin to focus on this much more readily than just saying "lots of their previously deleted copyvios". As it says at the top of this page, "include links as evidence". You presumably already found something, or you wouldn't be reporting here. - Jmabel ! talk 05:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

All the deletion notices with files in blue links on their user talk page have been deleted and now recreated. I believe admins are competent enough to realize that without needing links. Jonteemil (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Every bluelink in their deleted uploads. They also made an incomplete DR in Special:Diff/1148720640.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I probably could have worked it out. My point is: don't make other people take the time to work out what you already worked out. Nearly every active admin is someone with too much on their plate. Most of us will work on what is either obviously important or obviously easy. You'll notice it's not just me that didn't pick this up: in the 20+ hours since the original complaint, no one did. I'll do it now. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Indef-blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Zatony118

• Zatony118 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Yet another sock of Zatony2016. Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp	File	Uploader	Deleted file	Uploader
Aug 06 2026 06:00 AM	File:Sen. Tommy Tuberville Official Portrait, 118th Congress.jpg	Zatony118 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 22 edits)	File:Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Official Portrait, 118th Congress.jpg (Und | Log)	Zatony101 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)

Jonteemil (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done indef-blocked - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)