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.

Dronebogus and another dogmatic crusade against all AI images.

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)

• File:Sopakaranavrishchikasana.png
• File:Utthita Trikonasana.png
• File:Karnapidasana.png
• File:Kraunchasana.png
• File:Prasaritapadottanasana.png
• File:Tadasana.png
• File:Cable seated rows 2.png
• File:Chakrasana.png
• File:Matsyasana.png
• File:Akarna Dhanurasana.png
• File:Pinchhamayurasana.png
• File:Upavishtagarudasana.png
• File:Dandasana.png
• File:Virasana.png
• File:Chamatkarasana.png
• File:Vajrasana.png
• File:Garudasana.png
• File:Dvipadaviparitadandasana.png
• File:Ardhamerudandasana.png
• File:Bhujavrishchikasana.png

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

What rules did Dronebogus break and what outcome do you expect here? As far as I see it he is in general willing to discuss (see User talk:Dronebogus#Please reconsider your approach.), but apparently has a history with you. As far as I see it the issue itself can be discussed in the DR (though I would have preferred a mass-DR and a single page to discuss this). Isderion (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I make no comment on any outcomes. I trust to the wisdom of AN/U. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

That user literally wants to bulk delete every AI generated image even when the uploader gave proper credit to the generative model.

A user need to send a warning message to him to stop doing that. Wmbata (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I fail to see how beautiful and young Malay woman, sharp chin, long face, black hair and glossy black nylon spandex suit are necessary parameters for these images, nor why we would want to replace images with a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicity with a homogenous set. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I've just left a note on Dronebogus's talk page pointing out that describing another user's uploads as being made "primarily for sexual gratification" or as "fetish" material, may be perceived as attributing improper motives and therefore risk being seen as a personal attack. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

AI context aside, and with no view on whether this is plausible yoga gear, a uniform collection of clean, well-lit, colour images of the same person demonstrating yoga poses against the same backdrop seems a useful resource for a category like this, compared to the disparate collection of photos and drawings it was based on. Belbury (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being disparate, as long as it’s accurate. These are consistent, but in multiple cases are demonstrably inaccurate. Dronebogus (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Those images need to be  Speedy keeped. It shows creativity and proper licensing credit. Wmbata (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Given the attitude of the user under discussion (and other users), I am wondering if there is actually any point of any contributor (long standing or potential) being part of a project, which claims to have ideals, but then apparently applies them randomly or inconsistently. There are many issues which the community on Commons and administrators could have resolved over a decade ago, but have apparently made a collective choice NOT to, resulting in 'crusading' users acting on their own iniative, misapplying "policy" in the process. If Commons breaks for some long standing contributors such as myself, I will not be suprised. Set a very tight editorial policy for media, and actually enforce it!. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: With all due respect, widely accessible generative AI didn’t exist a decade ago. Therefore no decisions on media produced by it could have been made that long ago. We are in uncharted waters here, still figuring out how to treat this area. The main controversy involving AI and longstanding policy is INUSE (particularly INUSE vs. AIIP) which you are welcome to discuss but has no real significance to this conversation. Dronebogus (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

You have genuine concerns about AI, I am not disputing that. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

• There's an older bulk DR too: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Areylle

The attack on the uploader is very clear here, "Weird AI generated/modified images of women [I] [sic] seemingly created to satisfy the uploader’s thinly veiled, oddly specific fetish for black unitards. We have plenty of photos of virtually all of these subjects illustrated by actual photographs and illustrations not intended for sexual gratification on the part of the uploader" Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, at least some of these images are deep into AI slop territory. Compare File:Karnapidasana.png to the file from which it is derived: File:Mr-yoga-ear-pressure-pose.jpg. The latter appears to be an accurate photograph of a very difficult yoga pose. The former is pure fantasy disguised by being photorealistic, a pose that I suspect could not be achieved by a human. - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Upavishtagarudasana.png effectively has no provenance, because it claims to derive from an image which it in no way resembles. - Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The "fetish" remark was uncalled for: @Dronebogus, there is really no reason in this case to speculate on a user's erotic proclivities. However, that's about the only thing I see wrong with the DR. I completely fail to see the basis on which these images would be in scope. - Jmabel ! talk 23:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Dronebogus should have created a mass DR to keep the discussion central. And the fetish remarks should be skipped.
Other than that, compare File:Kraunchasana.png with its claimed source, File:Kraunchasana (Leon black background.jpg. The man in the latter has his right leg folded to his right side, spandex girl folded her left leg across to have her left foot in the same spot on her right side. The man has his left leg up, spandex girl raised her right leg. The man uses his right hand to hold his left wrist across his foot. Spandex girl holds.. never mind she's just checking her nails. 😆 - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

If anyone who understands yoga wants to nominate any of these as 'not fit for purpose' that would put them outside SCOPE and that's a reasonable grounds for deletion. But that's not what Dronebogus has been doing here. A rubber stamp nomination on every one of "AI fetish slop" is a long way from that. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, if a series of images with consistent style is created for this at all (which I doubt AI is even capable of) without taking actual photos, it should be made in illustration/cartoon style, not photorealistic.
Granted that's not what Dronebogus said either, but these particular images do have quite a few problems. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

1) In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sopakaranavrishchikasana.png Andy himself says This is far from 'AI fetish slop'. Nor is that even a deletion policy here, as Dronebogus well knows, as he's uploaded plenty of it himself. Since speculat[ing] on a user's erotic proclivities is apparently uncivil that would already be problematic even if it wasn’t combined with a gratuitous ad hominem attack. 2) Anyone can see that in the first nominations I say “fetish slop” and in the latest ones I just say “slop”; I did take the advice given by ShakespeareFan on board. 3) I don’t bulk nominate because I check, remove, and replace each of these individually with the non-slop source images. I could check, remove, and replace them all then bulk nominate, but I might lose track of which ones I’ve already done. With large-scale cross-wiki cleanup and deletion operations like this you have to allow some leeway for the nominator’s workflow. Dronebogus (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: Andy’s remarks on my talk page weren’t exactly civil either, and neither is titling this Dronebogus and another dogmatic crusade against all AI images. Dronebogus (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I don’t bulk nominate because I check, remove, and replace each of these individually with the non-slop source images. - are you saying that a middle step of your AI deletion workflow is to remove the images from other projects? Were these yoga images COM:INUSE somewhere before you nominated them?

I'd repeat my advice to you from a month ago that you can use VisualFileChange for this kind of mass DR. It shows you which images are in use, and it would be very easy to bulk nominate all yoga images from a user by visually looking at the thumbnails, or automatically pulling up a particular keyword or category, and selecting the images which were not in use.

I'd also repeat my other observation that your two-word "AI slop" DRs are unhelpful. An image having been AI generated is not in itself a reason for deletion. It's also unclear whether you're using "slop" in a technical sense or just as an I-don't-like-AI pejorative: if the uploader reads it as an insult they might escalate their response, if they take it as a descriptive criticism they might waste their time (and other people's) explaining why the image can't technically be considered "slop". Belbury (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury: FTR, several large Wikipedia editions ban AI generated imagery. The German WP passed a RfC in February about the subject, the EN-WP also has a policy to that effect, the RU-WP at least has an informal agreement about (making) AI usage (unwanted) in the guise of a discussion on their VP. Hence, replacing AI generated imagery is a sound idea, even on smaller projects that may not have a procedure about AI yet. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: while I am opposed to most uses of AI imagery: are you saying that it is appropriate to apply de-wiki and en-wiki policies to wikis that have not adopted those policies? I would strongly disagree with that. Someone not generally active on a given wiki coming in and applying a policy from a different wiki seems to me to be treading in pretty dangerous territory. - Jmabel ! talk 07:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not advocating to apply such policies verbatim. But they are actually at least partly outflows of core universal policies, verifiability among them. Thus, I deem it acceptable to assume a kind of general validity of at least the idea that AI generated imagery is usually unsuitable, even if actual rules are lacking on any individual project, all the more when considering that EN and DE are the two biggest projects that are likely to have some kind of guiding role and will set examples (at least relevant to Wikipedias). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the motivation behind my posting: I had the feeling that Belbury may have had the intention of stating some criticism towards that Dronebogus is seemingly actually first actively creating the COM:NOTUSED scenario while formulating DR. I wanted to offer a counterargument as for why that is most likely a legitimate way of action. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I would have said it went against the intention of COM:INUSE policy, which says of poor quality images that It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope.

An outsider Commons user joining a project to remove an image so that they can delete it at Commons doesn't seem any different from a DR that acknowledges an image as INUSE but suggests deleting it anyway. In both cases, Commons is overruling that project on whether it's appropriate for them to use the image. Belbury (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That looks like a somewhat backwards thinking, like from 2010 or before. Since the introduction of the SUL, anyone of us is part of every project - evidenced by e.g. filemovers having the opportunity to replace any files they touch automatically across all projects. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Consider it as a Commons user "visiting a project that they don't otherwise contribute to", then, if you like. Belbury (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If the removal stands unchallenged, then the local community has effectively accepted it, even if only by fiat. If editors on that wiki disagree, they can challenge or revert the removal, and the contributor making it is then subject to that wiki's own policies and guidelines. A project could, in theory, require prior discussion before removing established images, although I am not aware of any Wikimedia project that has such a rule. While we may edit under the same unified account, the communities and governance of each wiki are distinct, and whether a removal is appropriate is ultimately for that local project to decide, not Commons. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree completely. A Commons user going to another project and removing content from use for the purpose of a DR is effectively overrul[ing] other projects about what is in scope, certainly going against the principle of the rule. -Consigned (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Consigned, we're not telling other projects that they can't nominate files for deletion here. Of course, one has to take responsibility for their own edits. this svwiki VP discussion is an example that my removals on projects where I'm not a regular are seen as productive.
But if someone removes a use while tagging a file for deletion here they should declare that. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I still feel like going and removing usages goes against the spirit of COM:INUSE. Someone added it to the project, the project's community didn't remove it, until a Commons person came along and removed it to enable a Commons deletion. However, I'm sure there are valid cases, e.g. spam.

I agree that when this is done, it should be declared in the DR so that other participants and the closing admin can evaluate if the removal was valid or not. If it isn't declared, the nominator is being disingenuous by claiming that the file is COM:NOTUSED, because the file was in fact in use before the nominator came along. -Consigned (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The whole “‘local’ community vs. Commons community” argument just seems like gatekeeping to me. There is no membership system for individual projects; every user is a member of the Wikimedia super-project as a whole. The point of being here isn’t to contribute to only your designated project and ignore the others (though you can certainly do that); the point is to improve Wikimedia as a whole. The AI images are bad, and should be removed from the wikis they’re used on and replaced with valid alternatives; they should also be deleted from Commons for the same reason. That is not system gaming; that is project synergy. That is part of the reason Wikimedia is an interlocking system and not merely a wiki farm; projects overlap and help each other. Another issue is that Commons isn’t enslaved to the whims of every wiki it serves; the only way to truly prevent decisions on Commons from affecting your wiki is to not use Commons (which as I’ve said before is completely possible by hosting media locally). Dronebogus (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The reason you're doing it is that the policy COM:INUSE prevents deletion until you remove it. That's gaming/wikilawyering. -Consigned (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Naa, it's just consistent Isderion (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I am obeying INUSE to the letter and nothing more. It’s the policy’s fault for being vague. INUSE talks about files currently in use but says nothing about removing them, or if it’s appropriate to nominate them immediately after removal. Commons is a nexus between so many projects but for some reason this critical aspect of its relationship was never ironed out. I have broken no policy; the policy itself is broken. INUSE needs to be rewritten because it doesn’t address this and it’s clearly reached a point where it needs to be addressed. Dronebogus (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no membership system for individual projects; every user is a member of the Wikimedia super-project as a whole. While there is some truth to that, in this case it strikes me as casuistry (and not in a good sense). Just as Commons does not welcome it when someone previously solely (or mainly) active in ru-wiki comes in here and starts by trying to modify map descriptions based on an ru-wiki consensus, a different wiki is likely not to be at all pleased when someone mainly from Commons barges onto their wiki to make editorial decisions driven by Commons policy. No, the communities do not have formal boundaries, but they are communities and they have both formal and rules, as well as a certain sense of who and isn't part of the community. - Jmabel ! talk 01:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

You make a lot of excellent points, but fail to address that INUSE doesn’t even provide suggestions on what is best practice here. I do agree that aggressive removal without replacement isn’t the right way to do it; however leaving any low quality image (AI or not) in use when an identical but better replacement exists doesn’t seem right either. The files discussed here are all based on superior preexisting images; in many cases the AI files appear blatantly incorrect compared with the original. This is a case where the best option is replacing the AI files with the superior originals and deleting them as redundant AI slop at best and potentially dangerous to recreate at worst. An official policy version of this could be “the removal of INUSE files should generally be discussed with the local community. Replacing low-quality files with superior alternatives generally does not need discussion unless the replacement differs substantially from the current file. In particular replacing a file with an improved version (i.e. one that is higher resolution) requires no discussion.” Dronebogus (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. What you are describing here is a reasonable policy, which will almost certainly not ruffle many feathers. - Jmabel ! talk 03:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic? I don’t like sarcasm that isn’t obvious. I’m sorry to have assumed that you were being sarcastic if you aren’t, but I’m autistic and certainly can’t infer tone through text. Dronebogus (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea why you think I am being sarcastic, and with that I think I will duck out of making further contributions to this thread. - Jmabel ! talk 02:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Jmabel, for what it's worth, it also read like sarcasm to me. But you don't use sarcasm very often, so I wasn't quite sure.
It's in the "which will almost certainly not ruffle many feathers" part. You're using a negative ("will ... not"), a colorful expression for a specific outcome (ruffling feathers) and a qualifier ("almost").
"Their campaign will most probably not crash and burn" -> sarcasm
"The food from that restaurant has a very good chance of not giving you the shits" -> sarcasm
"Ignoring these 'no trespassing' signs surely won't land us in jail" -> sarcasm - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

A big issue with a Commons user replacing images on an unfamiliar project is that they may be unaware of local policy, cultural norms or even an existing discussed consensus over which images to use. Resolution upgrades and replacement of objectively misidentified subjects would be fine, but the subjective replacement of an image with a "better" version is risky.

It's unclear how much it may have happened with these yoga images, but it's easy to imagine a situation where a project uses AI or photoshop to alter an image to respect some strong cultural norm (on a political symbol, a religious figure, an exposed part of the body). A Commons user obliviously overruling that to restore the unwanted version of the image because they regard it as "superior" would not be a good look for us. Belbury (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, this clearly wasn’t altering images to remove groundhogs (offensive to pastafarians). It was simply altering them to appeal to the author; or at the most generous interpretation create superficially appealing but unneeded consistency, and/or alter the subjects to be the same ethnicity as most of the readers of the wiki these are primarily used on. Visual consistency is not worth accidentally adding inaccurate details, and wikis should not pander to readers’ presumed ethno-cultural biases. This wraps back around to your original argument— we don’t use AI censor groundhogs to avoid offending pastafarians, so why is it okay to censor or alter anything else just to avoid even slightly challenging readers’ presuppositions about the world? That is commonly called “being dishonest”. Dronebogus (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that if a hypothetical Pastafarian wiki project used an image where they'd AI edited a groundhog out of a photo for religious reasons and under (local) policy, you'd edit their wiki to restore the original photo and then open a DR on the edited image? Belbury (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

To answer the actual question: I’m honestly not sure. But I’m not sure it’s the right question to ask here. Yeah, groundhogs and pastafarians are silly. But where do we draw the line for what kind of cultural and religious censorship we tolerate before it’s fundamentally against the ideals of Wikimedia? We already know how this has gone with pictures of Muhammad. I would say that, in general, if you don’t want to use images containing material you consider offensive by the standards of your community (be it pictures of Muhammad or pictures of groundhogs) you don’t have to use them even if by objective standards it compromises the educational completeness of the article (or whatever). But you should not censor existing images to prevent cultural offense, and certainly shouldn’t alter them with AI to create a dishonest version of their content that isn’t even obviously altered. Or tl;dr: it’s better to include than to omit, better to omit than to censor, and better to censor openly than cleverly remove offending details in a way that makes it impossible to tell the image was even altered. Dronebogus (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely, no need for a full discussion of religious censorship. I'm trying to get a reading on how much you think COM:INUSE can ever actually constrain you from DRing images that are in use, in cases where you consider another version to be "superior". This is an ANI thread about you replacing inuse yoga images on another project, as part of a mass DR. Belbury (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I replaced the yoga images, which was valid. I DR’d them, which was also valid. DR’ing and replacing within an arbitrarily short timeframe is apparently invalid. INUSE at the very least needs to have an explicit grace period— a day? A week? A month? Otherwise INUSE could be extended ad absurdum to invalidate any DR of an image that’s ever been used legitimately where there is no copyright or legal concern. Dronebogus (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Why would rejecting the DR of any image that's ever been used legitimately where there is no copyright or legal concern be absurd? I'd certainly vote for that as a proposal. In any case, it's not really what's on the table, and it feels like you're wikilawyering. The issue is that when you delete an image and then immediately put it up for deletion, it makes INUSE moot, especially when you don't normally edit on that wiki. How about don't remove then DR any image? Let someone else DR it if you insist on removing it. That's the issue, that you're removing it from use with the intent that you can delete it from Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I actually rarely do the remove-then-DR thing now. See meta:User:Dronebogus/Global AI use tracking. I could have removed and DR’d all the images in the lower two categories, but I didn’t. The yoga images are an obvious exception because they’re just inferior duplicates of existing photos. I am trying to find a way of removing as much AI content on Wikimedia as possible that is uncompromising but fair. AI generated media needs to be held to a higher standard than other content. If it can be replaced, it should be. If it’s not used and isn’t independently notable, it shouldn’t be allowed on Commons. Dronebogus (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

"I am trying to find a way of removing as much AI content on Wikimedia as possible that is uncompromising but fair. AI generated media needs to be held to a higher standard than other content. If it can be replaced, it should be. If it’s not used and isn’t independently notable, it shouldn’t be allowed on Commons." - good that you are clear on your intended agenda.

HOWEVER, this is NOT common's policy.

IF you want to change commons policy on AI content, then you need to FOLLOW THE PROCCESS for discussing it (& ACCEPT the results.)

it is NOT appropriate to go all over this wiki AND OTHERS, making "pointy" edits in pursuit of your self-admitted agenda. that kind of action fairly & reasonably qualifies as disruptive editing. (& dealing with it makes more work for lots of other editors on here AND at the other wikis that you "parachute" into (for no other reason), to "cleanse" their offending use of ai materials that you find so objectionable) Lx 121 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, if you're noticing an erratically successful deletion pattern on Commons (you can DR any AI image as "slop" and an admin will sometimes delete it per nom even if it's in use), it's better to try to expand deletion policy to explicitly include that. More deletions will be successful, more people will open DRs, they can all be resolved more quickly, and users whose uploads are nominated will have less grounds to argue back. This is what I did with expanding the F10 criteria to include AI last year. Belbury (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

re: "I am obeying INUSE to the letter and nothing more. It’s the policy’s fault for being vague. INUSE talks about files currently in use but says nothing about removing them, or if it’s appropriate to nominate them immediately after removal." - now who is "wikilawyering"? the INTENT of the 'in use' policy is pretty clear. Lx 121 (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Belbury, are you saying that a middle step of your AI deletion workflow is to remove the images from other projects?
That is something I've done myself as well, but I declare that in the DR. I even ping the uploader when I do it. If an admin closes such a DR as "delete" they should check if the image is still unused. On a few occasions the uploader (never anyone else for some reason..) reverted me to re-insert their slop. This tends to be bad for your health.
And I've also nominated quite some files as "slop" when it's obvious the file is problematic. In that context I'm effectively using "slop" as a shorthand for "dubious accuracy, unsourced, not educational", often either depictions of people, historical images and/or images that could be classified as Category:AI misgeneration. In case of the yoga images where the uploader linked an actual photo that served as the source for the AI, simply saying "slop" is not sufficient imho. It's still trash, but it's not obviously trash to an average person. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The difference between 'AI slop to be deleted on sight' and 'Important historical documents that must be preserved at all cost' is whether Dronebogus uploaded them: File:On This Day… 1776 ΛAMEREEDD.jpg File:Wikipe-tan and Commons-tan meet the Slop.png Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The second example isn’t even AI. Dronebogus (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Is "slop" an acceptable deletion rationale? To me it sounds like a statement on quality. Most of these images seem to be in use, and COM:SCOPE is clear: It does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. Can Dronebogus use more clear deletion rationales which apply the applicable copyright law or Commons policies (per the guidance at COM:DR)? -Consigned (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That these are AI generated, and that certain users have concerns about that, is a perfectly VALID concern. Where the disupte lies as I see it is in the seeming characterisation of them using the specfic modern term 'fetish' to imply some kind of philia(?) by their uploaders. (Commons of course has countless examples of media connected to the original use of the term 'fetish', as well.)..

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• This conversation is effectively no longer about me. It’s about AI on Commons, when/if it’s appropriate to remove images from other projects, and proper DR process (among other things). I have not done anything sanctionable here. Everyone else is welcome to take their conversations to the VP or relevant policy pages, or discuss the merits of the relevant files here at the linked DRs. --Dronebogus (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

There's still the issue of you very clearly attacking not the images, but "the uploader’s thinly veiled, oddly specific fetish". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

And as I have demonstrated you have made similar personal attacks and aspersions against me, and as I have also demonstrated I stopped doing it when asked. Dronebogus (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any view on whether you're personally following or breaking the policy at COM:INUSE (It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope.) when you remove images from other projects for being AI generated, prior to DRing them on Commons as "unused"? Belbury (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

No, in two ways: 1) I am not breaking the literal text (the images cease to be in use when removed), and 2) I am not breaking the spirit by removing and replacing the images discussed with identical ones the images discussed were inferior derivatives of. INUSE should not be a barrier to improving other projects. INUSE needs to be rewritten to address this grey area; it’s not my fault it’s a grey area in the first place. Dronebogus (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

What about the spirit in cases where you remove an image from another project without replacing it with anything? Belbury (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I have generally stopped doing that on wikis other than Wikidata; I make an exception there because It’s one of my primary wikis. Dronebogus (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

There have also been image removals by this user on English Wikiversity (e.g., User talk:Dronebogus), which may provide additional context. -- Jtneill - Talk 00:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I frequently tried to discuss these without you. Dronebogus (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Ex. https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Jtneill#AI_slop,_ownership,_and_wikilawyering and https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:Empathy#AI_slop Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Dronebogus, IMHO you should declare on a DR when you do that. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I probably should. Dronebogus (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Dronebogus, but unfortunately you didn't. cswiki removal on 18 June: Hadí žena (Diff ~25972705), not declared here. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

To underline the context there, this was a silent removal of several images from cswiki while a DR was open about them, a DR which had mentioned INUSE as a relevant factor. Belbury (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

My mistake. I need to actually make this a habit. Dronebogus (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I've opened a thread at Commons talk:Project scope#Interpretations of INUSE to get a wider view on the "grey area" that you're perceiving in this policy. Belbury (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Every one of these generative AI files is a possible copyvio. See "Now we know that Artificial Intelligences are being trained on modern nonfree works. Please read this: Generative AI Has a Visual Plagiarism Problem > Experiments with Midjourney and DALL-E 3 show a copyright minefield, by Gary Marcus and Reid Southen" at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2024/02#Ban the output of generative AIs. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

is this a sockpuppet? o__0 Lx 121 (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Doubtful, the copyright question is very off topic from the rest of the thread. Belbury (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

oh this is how anon ip editors are indicated/shown now?

it still seems odd that a single use anon ip editor with ONE contribution, would use that 1 contribution to jump into the middle of a discussion here AND cite not just an external link but also an obscure, ARCHIVED com:vp proposal from two years ago Lx 121 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Lx 121: Sorry, I forgot to login. I wrote that text, so I had it saved locally. Drone should have disclosed what he did in the subpages.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

There are some IP contributors who are clearly experienced and frequent contributors (with net-positive contributions, too). It's not too unusual. Nakonana (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

NO, this discussion is about your actions. YOU are trying to turn it into an "anti-ai crusade". & you are mistaken in thinking that your disruptive editing is "not actionable".

the fact that you are clearly indicating that you have no intention of stopping makes it worse. Lx 121 (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If you consider AI generated 'clothed models' as potential fetish, then I would also point out that 'fully frontal' crops illustrating sex positions to also be considered an indicator of a more conventional kind, perhaps you could consider adding fuller 'academic context rationale' to such images where they are in use? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? I already explained why I thought it was a fetish. I haven’t called it a “fetish” since, though I still think it’s obvious just from the language of the prompts (which requests “beautiful young women” in “glossy spandex”) that the edits are to make the images sexier rather than more educational. I’m not trying to insult the uploader by pointing this out; I’m pointing it out to refute claims that this set was created simply for consistency. Dronebogus (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

what "language of the prompts"? is it in the file descriptions? please demonstrate with links if so? Lx 121 (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Lx 121, File:Sopakaranavrishchikasana.png: "1. The outfit of the woman is glossy black nylon spandex suit, turtleneck, long sleeve, plain smooth surface. 2. A beautiful and young Malay woman, sharp chin, long face, black hair in ponytail" - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

SOOO, you don't actually have the actual language of the prompts used to create the images? you are just ASSUMING what was requested, based on your own subjective opinion that it is "fetish" -related? & THEN making up what you THINK the prompt was? Lx 121 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Bruh. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The uploader has stated these prompts in full on the individual file pages. Otherwise, yes, the fetish angle is an unconfirmed assumption by Dronebogus. Belbury (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

i stand corrected on this point, ty for the clarification. although i still don't see how the nominating editor reasonably extrapolated "fetish" (as the natural "default" conclusion/assumption) from a set of requests for a uniform series of images of yoga poses with the same "model" & the same full body-covering "gymwear" outfit, same bg, etc. Lx 121 (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Lx 121, the accusation is generally not appropriate or relevant for Commons but the hypothesis is not unreasonable. All but two of the other files that user has uploaded feature unitards or something alike. The odds of that happening by sheer chance are minuscule. This is further compounded by File:Women's Super G at Whistler Creekside, Tina Maze getting silver (Tina Maze edit).png where the uploader used AI to remove the "Vancouver 2010" number vest, the very thing that made this image relevant, to be able to see more of the unitard. Which the AI then hallucinated inaccurately as you can faintly see some of the lines through the number vest which the AI ignored when it drew its own lines. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The Women's Super G image is so blatant and impossible to justify in its gratuitous sexualization of a real person in a non-sexual image I think it violates COM:CREEP and should incur a ban of further uploading and modification of images for the creator. Dronebogus (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

A possible justification would be AI overreach without the uploader noticing, which happens. The more prominent edit to the image is the removal of another person walking in front of the subject carrying medals, so the prompt could have been intended to remove that person, but phrased in a way ("erase the person with the medals") that the AI somehow interpreted as also referring to the competitor's number vest. Belbury (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That’s a stretch when combined with the circumstantial evidence of almost every other thing they uploaded being pictures or crops of women in unitards, many of which are seemingly chosen for emphasizing their bodies. Dronebogus (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You were describing the image as "impossible to justify", but at a stretch, it can be justified. You should start a separate ANU thread if you think the user needs to be banned from Commons. Belbury (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

“Impossible” was hyperbolic. I really just meant very hard to justify without making absurd leaps in logic and good faith. I’m also pointing it out because part of my supposedly unacceptable conduct was calling the images fetishistic in nature; they are not only almost certainly that, but the uploader’s overall behavioral pattern is far less tolerable than mine. Dronebogus (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

btw, that is not really a "turtleneck". it's more like the collar on a "nehru jacket". a turtle-neck is more-usually where the tubular fabric of the collar is folded over (outwards, back-covering the original layer of the collar) to make (at least) a double-layer of material around the "ring" of the collar. (or, occasionally, the same type of collar UN-folded to partly cover the wearer's lower face xD) Lx 121 (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

AND i concede that the original prompt language used the term "turtleneck", although i do not think that is the most accurate term to describe this particular cut of collar. Lx 121 (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

general observation: - the user is clearly pursuing an agenda against ai generated materials. their own STATEMENTS make that blatantly obvious.

IF the user feels that strongly about it, then they should pursue a general policy discussion on the matter (& accept the outcome), NOT go "hunting" for files to delete in pursuit of this objective - to dr on an invalid, non-existent (i.e.: non-policy) rationale as "ai slop". on wikipedia they would describe this behaviour as "pointy editing" (& disruptive; not to mention using up other editor's time & resources dealing with it). Lx 121 (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This issue should be already over. Wmbata (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I've requested replacement of the remaining uses of the yoga slop on mswiki: User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands (Diff ~1235729905)
Mswiki admin said they were okay with it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

MuhammadAriLaw

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

This user has indication of uploading AI content (see this and this). The user also is spamming self-promo and AI generated content in Wikidata (already blocked), Indonesian Wikibooks, Indonesian Wikiquote, and Indonesian Wikipedia. Thank you. Yamato Shiya (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I would like to point out also that several of pictures he uploaded included copyrighted materials (political party logo). These works are solely created for self-promotion across Wikimedia projects. Yamato Shiya (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done and thanks. 3 accounts blocked... Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Yamato Shiya, this user seems eligible for a global lock. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I already requested that! Yamato Shiya (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

@~2026-35819-24: سلام، و خوش آمدید. آیا سعی کرده‌اید از Special:PasswordReset استفاده کنید و نتیجه را در تمام حساب‌های ایمیل خود بررسی کنید؟

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

Disruptive behavior, WikiHounding, and blind reverts of valid data by User:M.Bitton

I have been working on updating and standardizing various SVG visa policy maps to reflect correct layouts. User:M.Bitton has been aggressively tracking my edits across entirely unrelated files (including File:Visa policy of Colombia.svg, File:Visa policy of Paraguay.svg, File:Visa policy of the United Arab Emirates.svg, File:Visa policy of Thailand.svg) to disrupt my work and force arguments. On this file File talk:Visa Requirements for Ukrainian Citizens.svg , after long discussions and an explicit attempt to save the map layout according to the ongoing discussion consensus, User:M.Bitton retroactively rejected the compromise, stated on the talk page that they do not agree, and performed an aggressive revert pointing to COM:OVERWRITE (as seen in the file history).

"I want to be clear: I admit that in my initial edits regarding Western Sahara, I made a mistake due to a misunderstanding of the specific layout baselines and mapping standards used on these templates.

However, after analyzing the feedback, I recognized the error, corrected my technical approach in Inkscape, and uploaded a version that actually respects the required structure while incorporating important, updated visa policy data for 2026. Acknowledging a past mistake and fixing it is how we build a consensus.

Instead of accepting this constructive step, he chose to retroactively reject any compromise, refuse to look into the actual data being updated, and execute a blind revert. By doing this, he is simply erasing valid, critical information from the map just to prolong a personal conflict. Admitting an initial error shouldn't be an invitation for systematic hounding and the destruction of useful project data."

Furthermore, the user User:M.Bitton is currently posting retroactive comments on my page in the ‘Discussion’ section, solely to repeat the same accusations and step up the pressure. This clearly shifts the situation from a regular content dispute to bad-faith psychological harassment and project disruption. I refuse to be dragged into fragmented interrogation threads across the wiki and kindly ask administrators to step in." Please look into this editor's behavior. Thank you.

Notification: M.Bitton (talk · contribs) Sobac49 (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's the ink to the discussion that showcases Sobac's evasive answers. Basically, Sobac49 is changing the base map of Ukraine in various world maps (by removing the mention of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk) while strangely referring (in their edit summaries) to a discussion, which according to them, is only about one map. This makes no sense to me, and nor does the fact that their edit summaries are also misleading (see File:Visa policy of the Schengen Area.svg for instance) even though this was highlighted to them and they promised to leave descriptive ones (see discussion).

Attempts to get them to explain their contradictory statements and inconsistent approach fell on deaf ears. M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

 Info since Sobac49 has resumed the edit warring and I don't want to follow suit, could an admin please ask them to clarify their position? To recap:

1. Sobac49 made it clear from the get go that they have an issue with the borders of Ukraine.
2. They started changing various maps to make them in line with what they think is right.
3. I reverted them (because their changes didn't make any sense) and started a discussion about their broad changes.
4. They admitted to making a mistake and refused to discuss the broad changes (claiming that the discussion in question is only about the Visa Requirements for Ukrainian Citizens).
5. They then restored their changes to other maps while referring to the discussion that they claimed is only about one map.
6. When reverted again, they dragged me to this board.
7. Two days later, they resumed the edit warring again while referring to the same discussion.

I think an explanation is warranted. M.Bitton (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for any actions that may have been perceived as escalating this dispute. My edits were intended to improve the quality of the SVG map data, not to engage in an edit war.

I have fully paused all edits to the disputed files while awaiting administrative review. My primary concern is the pattern of behavior where User:M.Bitton tracks and reverts my edits across entirely unrelated files (such as visa policy maps for Colombia, Paraguay, the UAE, and Thailand), which appears to be a form of wiki-hounding rather than a constructive discussion on content.

I kindly ask the administrators to review the conduct of the edits in question, as I remain committed to working constructively on the project." Sobac49 (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I have fully paused all edits to the disputed files while awaiting administrative review no, you have not. In fact, you resumed the edit war.

Care to explain the contradictory statements that I highlighted above? M.Bitton (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge that my recent uploads were a mistake while this dispute is pending, and I apologize for this lapse in judgment. I have now ceased all editing of the files in question and will make no further changes until an administrator provides guidance. I request that the administrators review the situation and the pattern of behavior previously described. Sobac49 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

In other words, you imposed your POV through an edit war while refusing to either discuss your broad changes (that are all about the same thing) or provide an explanation for your contradictory statements (claiming that the discussion was only about one map, to avoid discussing your broad changes, and then referring to the same discussion while making changes to other maps). M.Bitton (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know the merits of this report, but some relevant context for admins is en:WP:ARBMAG Kowal2701 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That's pure nonsense (and cross-wiki hounding to boot). I suggest you address the points that have been raised. M.Bitton (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Yousiphh

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

This user put on many files "no permission" tag, but due to sometimes he put that tag on files what undoubtfully are own works he's edits are borderline to be a vandalism. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@SomeFancyUsername, please provide more information and evidence about your complaint. Kadı Message 12:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

There's examples of files what are own works, but tagged with "no permission" tag:

File:Shahriyar Majidzade.jpg

File:Fəqan Xudaverdiyev.jpg

File:MRN7031.jpg

Also a question for @Kadı: do you even noticed what many files where he put "no permission" tag was kept per no valid reason? SomeFancyUsername (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Because previously these files were nominated as COM:ADVERT or wrongly licensed out of scope Yousiphh (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

SomeFancyUsername, File:Fəqan Xudaverdiyev.jpg looks like a photo of a photo. File:MRN7031.jpg was taken with an expensive (in January 2020) camera and not-terribly-cheap lens (85mm F1.4 DG HSM) at $600 used today, taken in a professional photo studio. Unlikely "own work" claim if she's not a professional photographer. User uploaded only two files and File:Məhsəti Hüseynova1.jpg is similar.
For File:Shahriyar Majidzade.jpg your point would be valid, that's not obviously a false own work claim. No statement on whether or not it is, but "no permission" is not appropriate. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

That examples are tip of the iceberg, you should check other edits by this user. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Please investigate. Most of the images implement the usage of Template:No permission since tag. Yousiphh (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

SomeFancyUsername, you dragged them to AN/U, I didn't. If what you say is true it should be easy to produce a list of 10 wrongly tagged files. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I remember several pages of DRs a while ago when I kept a great many (100s?), almost all, of Yousiphh's DRs. I thought at the time that Commons would be better off without Yousiphh. I just looked through their recent DRs and deleted most, but not all, of them. It is clear that they are a very active contributor, but I do wish they had better judgement, particularly on Scope issues. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Saikat4

Saikat4 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This editor has again resumed uploading copyright images. The editor was previously blocked by @Pi.1415926535: for the same behaviour. Agent 007 (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed; if they want to be a useful contributor, they need to convince us in an unblock request rather than waiting out a block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

User:副代表

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

This user made mass copyvio and had an indef block once. When releasing from indef block, this user made a oath which is that he confirm the license carefully. But the recent upload (File:Yoshimasa Hayashi Yūsuke Nakano and Minoru Kiuchi and Daisuke Inaba and Yohei Wakabayashi 20260420 1.jpg) was removed due to unfree licensing. Despite there are an oblivious description in source website. Especially this user has a misusing or misunderstanding trend in GJSTU and PDL in recent one year. We cannot expect his attention ability anymore. Netora (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Several hundred uploads, of which 20 or so have been deleted. I don't think anything like a long block would be in order at this time, but there may be something that needs to happen here. - Jmabel ! talk 03:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Halvarik

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

This user has been, for a long time, using Commons as a web:host for their personal creations/proposals of coat-of-arms, furthermore inserting them on the corresponding articles on fr:wiki, which was discovered relatively recently and is now routinely reverted.
After several deletion requests: 1 processed on 6 June 2026, 1 pending (reupload of the previously deleted file), 1 pending (reupload of the previously deleted file), another pending (flagrant copyvio), they continue to upload unofficial and unsourced personal creations; the 10 files uploaded yesterday have been added to Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Halvarik.
Regarding the “flagrant copyvio” DR above, perhaps it should be noted that when their own works are used without permission, the user's approach is less nuanced (the file concerned is the No 2 of the pending DR No 1 above).
I'll add here this deletion request, that concerns a file that was uploaded by, obviously, a User:Halvarik's secondary account, DR which has been opened by the user themselves, on the grounds that their “coat-of-arms project for this commune has changed”, and where the user had been informed (8 june).
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

He seems to be freely editing frwiki , adding some Héraldique information to articles. I only see one recent warning from an admin on frwiki in his discussion on frwiki. If he gets blocked on frwiki, I think it would be advisable to block him on Commons as well. Until then, I don't think there is much to do other then to inform about copyright and other laws. Nux (talk··dyskusja) 11:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually, the user has been first warned here (8 june) and on fr:wiki here (9 june) then here (18 june, on the same article), among other reversions, not to mention this DR (30 May), nor the fact that several of their files had been classified in there for a long time, for being personal, non-official. i.e. not stated by any admissible reference – and removed from all articles on the fr:wiki.

So all of their new files are unofficial coats-of-arms, more precisely: personal “coats of arms proposals”, and indeed the user seems to act freely on fr:wiki, taking care to point out that every file they insert in articles are a « Projet de blason à valider » – “Proposed coat of arms to be approved”, per example diff. above, or any other from recent weeks, which is, of course, systematically reverted, since it does not fall within the project scope of the fr:wiki, which is not intented for self-promotion. Older edits have been reverted or cancelled too, over time.

I wait for starting a mass deltion request on today's user uploads, for perhaps the user can tell us more in the discussion that was started on Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Halvarik#Files uploaded by Halvarik 2. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

DR  Done. We’re still at the ‘letter A’, which gives us plenty of time to fully assess the situation. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done I blocked Daawall (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) indef. as an obvious sock, and Halvarik for a week. Yann (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Agustin Hurtado M

Agustin Hurtado M (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I deleted multiple empty categories. Taivo (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

User Mizgel

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

Please look first at my disk page User talk:Ziv#Files to be deleted. The user seems to be completely unaware of copyright law. Since many of the low resolution files without EXIF ​​data uploaded by this user have now been tagged with speedy deletion templates, for example: File:Ismat Kuchiev Rakhmatovich 01.jpg, previously declared as own work, an attempt is now being made to circumvent the deletion of the file by asking the original author to upload the files to Flickr. Provided that these are the original authors and the account was not created in some way to prevent deletion and COM:FLICKRWASHING files. I think all uploads of this user needs an extracheck and maybe nuked per COM:PCP and the user should be blocked (for short time or longer). Mizgel was blocked from @Taivo: for one week per Intimidation/harassment, see also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 110#h-User:Diniyar Khasanov-20240204084300 but not for Copyvio. Ping to @Romano1981: , who marked many of the files with speedy deletion templates. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 14:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, the thing is, I had a verbal agreement with these people; they gave me permission to publish these photos under my authorship, but now I want to make amends and fix the licenses, asking these people to post the photos themselves according to the rules. I had no bad intentions, and I didn't mean to do anything against the rules. I'm currently actively addressing the issue with these photos because I realized my mistake. That's why I'm turning to you, as an experienced member, to help correct my mistakes. I'd like to be helped, not blocked. That's why I'm doing all this to ensure everything is according to the rules. When I asked if posting the photo on Flickr would help, I wanted to make sure I was doing it correctly. If I did it wrong, the copyright holders would write a letter to COM:VRT. I haven't given up on resolving the licensing issues; I'm actively trying to do everything legally. Please help me out by meeting my needs. Mizgel (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mizgel: You're trying to correct your mistakes now, which is very commendable, but you incorrectly listed the files as your own when you uploaded them, which is completely wrong. Why not do it correctly from the start, perhaps using Ticket? זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't fully understand the COM:VRT system. I thought it was a last resort, a last resort, when nothing else worked. You can see my uploads; I used this tool to help the son of an artist (Category:Genrikh Asafov), who has unfortunately since passed away, upload his paintings. He inherited all rights to the paintings after his father's death, and I considered this a very important reason for using this method. But now I realize I was mistaken and how responsible I am for having only made verbal agreements with others and not through COM:VRT. However, if I have the opportunity to correct my mistakes, I would like to do so. I wouldn't mind, and would even agree with the decision, if a reviewer were assigned to monitor the files I upload in the future and examine their licenses. Or suggest some ways I could correct these errors. I'm ready to fix them and get back on track. Mizgel (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This perhaps explains not going through VRT. I don't see how it explains making false claims that this was your own work. - Jmabel ! talk 03:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest something, because I don't think a block would be helpful. Mizgel would stop making any new uploads for the foreseeable future, until they are done cleaning up the mess they made. This would mean: (1) correcting authorship on uploaded files. (2) Getting the VRT process under way where possible to salvage their prior uploads. (3) Nominating their own uploads for deletion where #2 is not possible, for whatever reason. - Jmabel ! talk 03:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

 Support, that's a good suggestion. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 05:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I have finally been contacted regarding this photo: File:Golovkin, Danil Nikolaevich 01.jpg. They have posted it on their website and specified the license. Please check it; I have updated the license. Regarding some other files, a letter from the rights holders was sent to VRT. So, for now, I am waiting. Mizgel (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good for me. Thank you. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm working on now. Then I'll follow the COM:VRT path and keep you updated. Thank you. Mizgel (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Zemen

User: Zemen (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reason for reporting: the user keeps removing deletion tags not following policy, as I do not want to get into an edit war, could someone take a look at this? Shouldn't the user who disagrees change the tag rather revert and remove? Épine (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

and again, I will stop engaging here. What is your advice? Épine (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I am the uploader of the file, why should I be the one requesting its deletion? Is it really that difficult for you, the one who actually wants it deleted, to change the tag to the correct one yourself? Zemen (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Zemen, since I understand that English is not your first language, I’ll provide a translation of the text on the speedy deletion template.

"Appeal: If you disagree with this media file's speedy deletion, replace this tag with a regular deletion request."

Which means: "ئەگەر پێتوایە نابێت ئەم پەڕگەیە بسڕدرێتەوە، ئەم تاگە بە داواکاریی سڕینەوەی ئاسایی ئاڵوگۆڕ بکە"

In short, the correction is yours to file as the contestant, not the requester. I could ask you the same question: was it challenging for you to adhere to the policy instead of engaging in edit wars? Considering your pattern, the answer is undoubtedly yes. So, what’s the truth? Do you genuinely lack the knowledge to file a regular deletion, which is clearly outlined on the same tag you keep reverting, or do you intentionally make disruptive edits? Épine (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

As always, you are constantly misrepresenting things and spreading false claims. Yes, I understood what you meant, and I simply said: "though I don't know how to start a regular deletion request". When it comes to dealing with those templates and tags, I admit I don't know how to use them well. Zemen (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Zemen then why do you engage in edit wars and demanding someone else takes over a responsibility which you clearly know is yours? Why are you saying "A regular deletion request must be opened by the user seeking deletion, not the uploader," when you clearly know that is not the case? I understand how this might be confusing for you, but you shall simply ask for assistance rather than reverting and leaving provocative edit summaries. This is a collaborative project, not your personal playground. Épine (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Zemen, you say you don't know how to start a regular DR. Please read COM:DR to understand the process if you want to do it manually. Otherwise we already have a "Challenge speedy deletion" button which does it for you. You must STOP NOW and not remove any nominations from other users of the files that you have uploaded. I have notified you formally on your talk page to not do that. If you do so any further, we would be counting it as a deliberate policy violation. Plus, reverting @Épine multiple times is already EDITWAR which both of you have been engaged in. Though I would give it to Épine for taking the initiative to report. So long cut short, do not remove any CSD nomination (of your uploads) without starting a DR. I have restored the SD nomination and would expect you not to remove it this time. If you do, I'll make sure it doesn't go unnoticed. And, even if the file is deleted and you think it was wrongly deleted, you have the option to file a COM:UR for it. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Quite simply, I have previously seen this administrator's handling of a case on this deletion request page, so I assumed this case would follow the same principle and that a speedy deletion nomination was inapplicable here. However, you all know the technical procedures better, and I will step back on that front. And @Shaan Sengupta, you have already warned me here on this open discussion to avoid edit warring, and we are actively addressing what is appropriate and what is not. There is no need to duplicate the warning and put on my talkpage, though I do appreciate your message and understand it comes from a good faith. Zemen (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That request above I figured was one of the allowable User files by an active contributor. Abzeronow (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Zemen, there is absolutely a need for talk page warning. This thread would go away in archives and maybe we will not remember. But when it is on the talk page, it stays. Even if it is removed by you or someone else, it is easy to find it there rather search for in noticeboard archives. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Strong support for that last statement. - Jmabel ! talk 05:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Mamouri

Mamouri has re-uploaded File:MotherlandCalls1984.jpg twice after it was deleted by deletion request here. They were already warned the first time not to do this by admin @Magog the Ogre. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 18:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for this. The two re-uploads were not a deliberate recreation — both happened through the en.wikipedia file-transfer tool while I was moving images across, and it copied the file without flagging that this exact filename had previously been deleted here. I understand now that the statue ("The Motherland Calls") has no Freedom of Panorama in Russia and cannot be hosted on Commons even though the en.wikipedia copy is kept under a US-only rationale. I won't re-upload it, and going forward I'll check the Commons deletion log before transferring any file and avoid anything tagged FoP-US-only or fair-use. Sorry for the trouble. Mamouri (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I will assume good faith from you here given your explanation and otherwise clean record, but I advise that you should respond to warnings the first time they are given. Given that you acknowledge your error, I recommend no further administrative action than simply deleting the image. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 18:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33 Understood and appreciated it. Many thanks Mamouri (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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

• Hattori 15 (talk · contribs)
• Tobias Conradi~commonswiki (talk · contribs)
• HSRtrack (talk · contribs)
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/10/Category:Track gauge by size
• User_talk:Gürbetaler#Zoll-Spurweiten

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

Yes, a decade with strange "discussions" and with a clear tendency, what the only practicable solution can be... And Andy, you can suspect what you want, but i am no sock-account - but you are de facto the only one this topic, who stands stubbornly his ground, to hang on more or less long gone measurement-units... I don't want to redefine history here (after all, history is described on wikipedia and not in wikicommons) - but i want to change this gauge-chaos into something to work with and you raised no real objection against it, as at last there was found a solution to work it out! Now that the work has started, you start to object and troll around with strange questions, perfect... Hattori 15 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hattori 15 is an account that has been active on Commons about 3-1/2 years with (as of this writing) 5,739 edits. They seem to have been (far less) active on en-wiki and wikidata for a comparable length of time.

Tobias Conradi~commonswiki was sporadically active on Commons 2 December 2004 through 20 September 2006 (475 edits in all) before being globally banned. They seem to have worked mostly on maps—I don't see anything rail-related at all—but I assume that the identification of HSRtrack as there sock is solid. I see that Tobias Conradi ran a lot of socks and caused a lot of chaos on multiple wikis.

HSRtrack was a short-lived account that first edited Commons on 14 May 2013, quite active for two weeks, then one more edit here on 11 June 2013, then globally locked. They were on en-wiki from 9 May until blocked as a Tobias Conradi sock on 23 May.

I notice that Hattori 15 has done a bunch of BSIcon work, also rail-related, but something it looks like this particular Tobias Conradi account and HSRtrack did not touch.

That's my start on looking at this. I don't have time to take it on in detail, but hope that saves someone else a little.

@Andy Dingley: could you be more specific on why you think this editor is a sock of this particular banned user? So far I'm open-minded either way, but a list like this and "I suspect" is pretty weak as a basis for anyone to even consider a block here, which sounds like what you want to have happen. - Jmabel ! talk 05:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The only "evidence" Dingley has, that i stand for some kind of similar opinion like Conradi, to sort this kind of data (like the felt majority in the discussion, especially in the last months after years of inactivity) - and that is all to call me out as a sock! Dingley wants steadfastly to keep the mess of imperial und metric units, which is ridiculous to work on (not only for users with intimate knowledge of railway science, bit in particular for the usual man from the street, who just wants to dump his pictures). I have made a new table with the new category names: User:Hattori 15/Track gauge sizes - in comparison with the actual chaos of ft, in, inch and mm and differing names: Track gauge sizes (it was even worse before doing some minor work). As you can clearly see, the measurement in feet is kept where needed, but as is usual now nearly everywhere on the world the main dimension is in millimetres. But Dingley doesn't want to accept that even after 9 years of "talk" and accordingly growing chaos because many, many categories are missing to sort the files and folders.

With the Category:Track gauges by metric units and in this Category:Track gauges by country (most of them new from the last days work) much organisation has become possible and now we would go on with the imperial units as well. And for oversight i have created a Category:Track gauges by imperial units for the loved units of Dingley (still with the old chaotic category names).

But in the event that everything here has to stay exactly as it’s always been – I’ll find other things to do with my life than to argue with stubborn people who can’t stand it when they can’t get their way for once, and who therefore start throwing around ridiculous and baseless accusations – I’m not in court here, after all!!

Have a nice day! Hattori 15 (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If I had technical evidence to support this, it would have been a checkuser request. But Conradi is patient and persistent, and checkuser logs are short. But someone here has learned to quack exactly like thei predecessor.

For several years now, this has been a solved problem.

• Gauge categories were sorted by metric units into a single parent. This gave one easy, ordered, list.
• Gauges originating from imperial units were labelled as such. This gave a simple explanation, obvious even to those unfamiliar with the units, as to why they're a round number ('3 ft 6 in gauge railways' rather than '1067 mm')
• Some of the naming was clumsy, suffering from the Commons' regular problem of German idiom (Conradi was German, editing from Brandenburg, despite an occasional fondness for a Japanese style to their sock accounts) translated word-by-word into English, but this was minor and I can't fix everything.

Now Hattori has appeared from nowhere and decided to 'fix' (it's not broken) the 'problem' (there was no problem) of any mention of Imperial units. With the aid of hysterical shrieking about how bad everything is, how bad I am (even before I'd even engaged with Hattori, but Conradi certainly knew how to carry an old grudge), ignoring all of the past consensus efforts that had been stable for years, and not even trying to hide that their desire was to remove "those annoying units" once and for all.

Now we have two partial size-sorted lists, split to metric and Imperial. They're stripping the Imperial mentions in category names, even for those with a deep Imperial basis. The Swedish (foot units, based on the Swedish foot) have lost all mention of why they're such arcane numbers of mm. Brunel's broad gauge is now labelled '2140mm'. Gürbetaler is now advocating 'Standard gauge in the United Kingdom', despite there not being such a single standard gauge.

All of these recent changes are disruptive, POINTy and have made a stable situation worse overall. That's little better even if they're not the same returned sock. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Paranoia can be a really bad thing - nobody is stalking you... If have not appeared out of nowhere, i was just increasingly anoyed about all this unit-mess - and as you can clearly see, i'm not the only one!

And for your feared dismission of your deeply, deeply beloved IMPERIAL units look for once closer at the new scheme - everywhere, WHERE THEY ARE RELEVANT, they are still mentioned (only recently even the Swedish foot and others - but for the complete history wikipedia is the place, not wikicommons !!). So look, before you rant (They're stripping the Imperial mentions in category names, even for those with a deep Imperial basis. is a blatant lie - we are just adding the nowadays norm, what was about time!):

• With additional explanations: Category:Track gauges by metric units
• New: Category:1067 mm track gauge (3 ft 6 in) (3 ft 6 in, which is equivalent to 1067 mm track gauge) - still at work, but more or less the scheme for the other categories
  • Instead of the mess before - everything was chaotically and without any system split up into 3 seperate categories (even worse with Standard gauge, 1435 mm and 4 ft 8 1/2 in !!):
  • Category:Cape gauge railways
  • Category:1067 mm track gauge
  • Category:3 ft 6 in gauge railways

Now we have two partial size-sorted lists, split to metric and Imperial. - again you are lying and spreading false accusations:

• The complete list: Category:Track gauges by size and the coming new names: User:Hattori 15/Track gauge sizes (i have even added 4 gauges with an imperial past, which were mentioned as metric before: 775, 825, 1524, 5486)
  • and to make clear their differences and their origins:
  • Category:Track gauges by metric units
  • Category:Track gauges by imperial units

Brunel's broad gauge is now labelled '2140mm'.

Again a blatant lie, it is still Category:7 ft ¼ in gauge railways and would only become Category:2140 mm track gauge (7 ft ¼ in) (Oh, shocking - the empire will fall apart ;P!)

That's all we can do for you - accept it, the imperial unit system is mostly long gone and 95 % (or more) of the world's people don't use it any longer (not without a reason ;) )!

And i can only say, that you are a bad loser - you couldn't win your "argument" on the discussion, so you try it here again with false accusations... But after 9 years of standstill the ever exploding chaos has to be refurbished and apart from you every last argument of the last month' talk was not on your opinion.

PS: For the - only in your mind - not existing Standard gauge in the United Kingdom take a closer look here:

• w:Rail transport in Great Britain (...had a network of 9,848 miles (15,849 km) of standard-gauge lines...)
• w:Standard-gauge railway (...The British gauges converged starting from 1846 as the advantages of equipment interchange became increasingly apparent. By the 1890s, the entire network was converted to standard gauge....)
• w:Category:Standard-gauge railways in the United Kingdom

It seem's, you are the only one driving in the wrong way... Hattori 15 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It's funny: I didn't see much evidence before this tirade, but I now strongly suspect Andy is right. I'd like at least a couple of other admins to weigh in before any action, though. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I don’t care what you think you do believe - but under no circumstances I want to be called or suspected of being German :D!

Everything else has been said and if you don't get the false statements and lies of Dingley, i can't help you further... Hattori 15 (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yet German is your first choice language for user talk: pages, and you seem fluent in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Wow, Sherlock Holmes must be proud of you :D - ever heard of, that there are more than one (more or less) German speaking countries on this world ;) ?

By the way, i have known Gürbetaler before... Hattori 15 (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

By the way, Mr Dingley - are you one of those 1,3 per cent ? So that means an incredible 0,01 per cent of the total world population? I could understand it a little bit, if your strong desire would come from the US (making up at least a staggering 4 % of the world) - but after all, metric is now already for years mandatory in the UK...

At least here and on de facto all wiki-sites concerning railway gauges both values are given - they even made a special template, to avoid the usual mess when converting the units ;). The only stronghold are the categories on commons and WP:en - and after all this nonsense i begin to understand why :( ... So there is still one or the other solidly and stubborn standing their ground and making Don Quichotte proud :D ! Hattori 15 (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I grew up in the US, basically ruled by the Imperial system. I was exposed to the Metric system in science classes, and then online. I still think in Imperial units, but some sizes have crept into my vocabulary: 500ml bottles of water, 2l bottles of soda, 3.5mm audio jacks and plugs, and 0.5mm pen nibs. I predict that many things here in the US will be slow to change, including "SPEED LIMIT 55" signs that mean 55 MPH (miles per hour) or 88 KPH (kilometers per hour), but are not denominated. Some drivers that emigrate from other countries and see those signs drive at 55 KPH or 34.2 MPH, much to my chagrin. But I am not participating in fights either way.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to imagine, what it means, to make technical calculations with this mess of units and conversion factors - i was already always annoyed with the still strong-living Horsepower instead of Watts...

But still, remnants are living on - a folding ruler is still named a "Zollstock" (word by word translated: inch-stick), pipe-dimensions still based on inches or a specific area, defined by the work done by a pair of oxen ;)! But in working together professionally SI-Units are the norm, more or less worldwide. At least already 20 years ago it was no problem to send foundation plans indicated in metric to the US - and there were no problems later when our plant was erected. The same in several African or Arabian countries with a British history... Hattori 15 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks indeed like a TC sock. Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Totally absurd, but somehow strangely fascinating, to watch such a witchhunt from the wrong side. So the Monty Pythons were right after all: :D Hattori 15 (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Quite honestly, @Hattori 15, you are being sufficiently unpleasant and pugnacious right here on this thread that I'd say it merits a block. The only reason I'm not giving you a one-week block right now is that it looks like others are driving this toward an indef-block, and I don't want to prevent you from being able to defend yourself in the discussion of that. But if you continue in this tone, I'll let go of my scruples about that, block you for a week, and let the chips fall where they may. - Jmabel ! talk 22:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I get your point - but how would you feel being unjustified accused of playing somebody else, all the more so on account of the mentioned "evidence"? We have had a lot of heresay and wrong statements, and some kind of feelings - but hard facts? Nothing... And as I tried to explain to you some of the (mostly wrong) "facts" claimed by Dingley (ok, in a rather very sarcastic way...), all i got from you was a rating as "tirade" - so you do think, this was either pleasant or unpugnacious??

I suppose, you are not to familiar with railway engineering? Altough the most facts mentioned here would be more or less common sense (with a technical background) and of pure logic, that it isn't extremly userfriendly to sort categories of railways in this way - all the more so, that the imperial unit system is only mandatory in 3 countries any longer on the hole world. And the objective of the renaming is not to eradicate the imperial units from the category-names completely - they are still included, altough not on the first character (what seem's to be a real big problem for Dingley, but this opinion was not pretty wide spread in this everlasting discussion). But after all - as I looked into Dingleys contributions from the last weeks, i could not see that he is doing a lot of railway-related work, so i understand his ranting even less (altough he really does spend a lot of time contributing to commons - perhaps there is a union for the savekeeping of endangerd unit systems ;) ? )... Hattori 15 (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. Yann (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Now Hattori requested unblock. I consider myself neutral and I can close the request in beginning of next week, but I would be happy for your input in user talk:Hattori 15. Taivo (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

DenisJ7

• DenisJ7 (talk · contributions · Statistics)

This user is a obvious DUCK of Harry Bernard (talk · contribs), using socks with modified images from The Watchtower magazine to push a crazy conspiracy theory. Taichi (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Already done indef-blocked by User:The Squirrel Conspiracy. - Jmabel ! talk 05:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Remove doxxing uploads and warn user

User: IIXZER0XII (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, who I assume is a sock of Zemen previously also engaged in doxxing behavior, has uploaded these images and used them in a thread to link a Wikipedia account to a real life identity:

1. File:بەکارهێنەر(ژیار عەلی) لە وێبگەی ئۆڵ ئاوت.png
2. File:درووستکەی پەڕەی ویکی ئینگلیزی ژیار عەلی.png
3. File:پەڕەی بەکارهێنەر ئیپین.png
4. File:وێنەیەک لە پەڕەی ژیار عەلی لە ویکی ئینگلیزی.png

While I have requested oversight and reported this in meta, I request their deletions here as they are attack uploads, and request the user to be warned not to use commons to harass Wikipedia users. Épine (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Indef., all files deleted. VOA, harassment, NOT HERE, etc. Yann (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Category:Marcelo Valle Silveira Mello

• Advogada Patricia Lelis (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• HISTÓRIA UFJF DCE (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Policia do DF (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Pollyane cunha f parreiras bh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Rádio e Jornal Campo Grande Notícias (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• SSC18WWII (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

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

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

@Omphalographer these are definitely accounts of a well known ptwiki LTA, w:pt:WP:LTR, who has this weird obsession with this jailed channer. @Teles: pinging Teles who usually deals with him Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

btw, the mere fact Mello’s article exists in dozens of Wikipedias seems to be already a sign of wikispam Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/BUENO VORCARO. Yann (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. Those accounts were created by the same person with difamatory content against many of those names, with harsh and perhaps illegal content, like wishing death, racism (calling them apes), and many more insults. The content is far from educational, merely demeaning or just false. Deleting and locking on sight.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 12:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done by Lymantria. Yann (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Raja King R K

• User: Raja King R K (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: False allegations in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poojappura Sree Chithira Thirunal Stadium entrance.jpg. Recreated upload File:Raja King R K.jpg. Spammed Commons talk:First steps in Special:Diff/1230634436.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks, 2 files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Tfjt

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

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

User:Krok6kola

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

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

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

• 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)