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.

COM:INUSE not a suicide pact?

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

• https://nl.wikibooks.org/wiki/Zelf_leren/Zelfontdekking
• https://nl.wikibooks.org/wiki/Onbewust_leren

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

The file in question is File:Unconscience learning.png, now at b:nl:Bestand:Unconscience learning.png. It is egregiously bad quality, with a monkey hanging in midair, and was used only for decorative purposes - it was not being used to illustrate anything. Commons is not obligated to become a webhost for garbage just because a local wiki is allowing garbage. The file can be hosted there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

For clarity (also for others reading this discussion), I would like to further explain how the image is being used on Wikibooks, as it may have been interpreted as purely decorative.

The image is intended to illustrate the concept of “unconscious learning” in a metaphorical way. The monkey represents instinctive, unconscious behavior, while the human child represents conscious awareness awakening. Their interaction symbolizes how learning can emerge naturally through observation and exposure, without deliberate instruction.

There is also a broader symbolic tradition in which monkeys are used to represent the untrained or unconscious mind, which reinforces the intended meaning of the image in this context.

While the image is not a literal or technical diagram, its purpose is to support conceptual understanding in an intuitive and associative way. This aligns with the accompanying text, which focuses on learning through experience rather than structured teaching.

Given that, I would like to better understand where the line is drawn between:

metaphorical/interpretive illustration, and

purely decorative use

This distinction seems important for correctly applying COM.

Kind regards, BeeBringer (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

As an additional question for clarification:

Is it correct to understand that part of the reasoning behind COM:INUSE is that sister projects are generally better positioned to assess the educational relevance of a file within their own context?

In other words, that Commons typically defers to the editorial judgment of the project where the file is actively used, rather than independently evaluating whether the content is meaningful or illustrative?

I would appreciate any clarification on this point, as it seems central to how the guideline is intended to be applied. BeeBringer (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The in use policy has the important point that the file has to be "legitimately in use". We for example delete spam that was added to Wikipedia articles instantly after upload. In cases where it is not typical spam with bad intention, but poor contributions to other projects, this is more difficult. If there are projects without proper patrolling of edits, we have a problem. GPSLeo (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all for the clarification and for taking the time to respond.

I understand better now that “in use” is interpreted as “legitimately in use,” and that this includes an assessment from the Commons side as well, rather than fully deferring to the sister project.

Given this, I think it might be helpful if the COM:INUSE guideline page could be clarified further, as it was not immediately clear to me as a newer contributor that usage on a sister project does not necessarily mean the file will be accepted on Commons.

For now, I will continue working with the file locally on Wikibooks, where the content and its intended meaning can be discussed with contributors familiar with the material. I have also taken the feedback into account and already created an improved version of the illustration there.

Since Wikibooks currently refers contributors to Commons for media files, I will also raise the question there whether this guidance should be nuanced, given that not all files considered useful are necessarily accepted on Commons so it is better to upload it locally to preserve the integrity of a wikibook.

Thank you again for your time and explanations.

Kind regards,

BeeBringer (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

COM:INUSE does not have a caveat "legitimately in use" - that's a different section, COM:NOTUSED. COM:INUSE is very clear: It does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. And later, in the "Discussion" section, it's reiterated: However, as indicated above, a file that is used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational, so a poor-quality file that remains in use is not eligible for deletion even if a better-quality file covering the same subject later becomes available. This novel view that Commons can override projects on COM:SCOPE has no basis in policy (at this time). -Consigned (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Consigned and others, thank you for the continued discussion and clarification.

After reviewing both the COM:INUSE guideline and the arguments presented here, I would like to address a remaining inconsistency that seems important for clarity and transparency.

The wording of COM:INUSE is quite explicit: files that are in use on a Wikimedia project are considered in scope, even if they are of poor quality or appear to lack educational value. It also explicitly states that Commons does not override other projects’ judgment on what is educational when a file is in use in good faith.

However, in practice, a different standard appears to be applied.

In this case, and also in other discussions such as administrators/contributors are clearly making an independent qualitative judgment about whether the usage is “valid,” “meaningful,” or “legitimate,” and are overriding the fact that the file is in use on a sister project.

This effectively introduces an additional, unwritten criterion: that usage must meet a certain subjective standard as assessed by Commons, rather than by the project where the file is actually used.

That raises a fundamental question about policy vs. practice:

If Commons in practice reserves the right to override sister projects on the basis of perceived quality or usefulness, then COM:INUSE as currently written does not accurately describe how decisions are made.

I am not arguing here about whether a specific file should or should not be kept. Rather, I am concerned with consistency and transparency:

Should contributors understand COM:INUSE as:

1. a strict rule that defers to actual usage on sister projects, or
2. a guideline that is effectively subordinate to a Commons-side evaluation of the quality and legitimacy of that usage?

At the moment, the policy text strongly suggests (1), while the actual application appears closer to (2).

If (2) reflects the intended or accepted practice, then it would seem important to explicitly document this, so contributors—especially newer ones—are not misled by the current wording.

Without that clarity, there is a real risk of inconsistent expectations between Commons and sister projects, which may affect contributor trust and cross-project integrity.

Thank you for considering this point.

Kind regards, BeeBringer (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I made a propopsal to change the description of the COM:INUSE policy here With kind regards, BeeBringer (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated images are fairly unpopular on Commons (and on a number of other wiki projects). They are "useful" to illustrate the capabilities of AI, but when used for illustrating anything other than AI itself then Commons often treats them as AI-slop. See COM:AI. The conflict between COM:INUSE and Commons' stance on AI-generated images is a topic of regular debates on Commons. Tbh, I cannot imagine that nlwiki is welcoming AI-generated images; I know for sure that enwiki and ruwiki are against such images. Nakonana (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

And this is part of the reason why files get gratuitously uploaded to projects instead of to Commons; because even if they're entirely legal and in use, some administrator may come along and just delete them. They shouldn't have to upload them locally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Assuming it was properly licensed, the file should not have been deleted. COM:INUSE exists precisely to prevent Commons from overruling other projects in this way. —Mx. Granger (talk  · contribs) 02:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

We kind of have a recursive logic hole here, I think. When one reads wikibooks:Wikibooks:Media, which is their official guideline, a clear reference and deference to Commons' policy can be found: Freely licensed or public domain media must be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia's shared media repository. Wikimedia Commons limits the scope of files that can be uploaded. So, I understand that it iss indeed, to break the recursive logic loop, more or less up to us to actually make redactional decisions for Wikibooks and to limit AI slop, for instance. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this perspective — I agree that this does indeed seem to create a kind of circular dependency between Commons and the sister project.

That circularity is precisely what motivated my proposed clarification.

As COM:INUSE is currently written, it gives the clear impression that usage on a sister project is decisive for determining scope, explicitly stating that quality or perceived educational value should not matter, and that Commons does not override other projects in this regard.

However, in practice, we seem to apply an additional layer of evaluation on the Commons side — particularly regarding perceived quality, meaning, or legitimacy of use. This creates a discrepancy between policy and practice.

One possible way to resolve this tension would be to more clearly separate responsibilities:

• The sister project determines whether a file has educational relevance within its own context.
• Commons limits itself to general, objective criteria, such as:
  • the file is a media file
  • the format is allowed
  • the file is freely licensed or in the public domain

Additionally, Commons could include:

• a basic technical quality check of the media itself (for example: whether the image is visually coherent or usable as an illustration),

including cases where a file may be considered low-quality AI-generated output,

but without assessing the contextual or interpretive relevance of the content.

This would avoid requiring Commons to apply project-specific editorial judgment, while still maintaining a baseline standard for hosted media.

It would also align the written policy more closely with actual practice, or alternatively clarify that current practice involves criteria not explicitly reflected in the wording of COM:INUSE.

At the moment, the phrase “it does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value” seems difficult to reconcile with how these cases are being handled in reality.

Clarifying this distinction could help reduce confusion, especially for newer contributors navigating the relationship between Commons and sister projects. BeeBringer (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

As things currently stand, it seems that a lot of in-use AI uploads are on projects with no policy, or an ambiguous policy, on the use of AI images. With that in mind, would it be out of line for us to request that sister projects make explicit statements about what circumstances they consider AI images acceptable in? Omphalographer (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

It's interesting that Wikibooks policy says that Wikimedia Commons limits the scope of files that can be uploaded when this is contradicted by the official policy COM:SCOPE: It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. Those who disagree with our policy should move to amend it. And it should go without saying that we should follow our own policy on Commons rather than its (incorrect) interpretation at Wikibooks or anywhere else. -Consigned (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the best solution is simply exempting AI files that are not independently notable nor used to illustrate generative AI as a topic from INUSE. I’ve said this before, but projects can host their own AI slop if they want to use AI slop. Dronebogus (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

And a lot of other people have said "don't upload my files to Commons because then they get deleted locally and then get deleted for weird rules on Commons." Work with other people and they'll work with us; toss more rules in their path and they refuse to work with us and complain when we get in their way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I marked your statement in red. Thank you. - Erik Baas (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

If they confirm the file is intentionally in use, we defer. (Josve05a)
If there are projects without proper patrolling of edits, we have a problem. (GPSLeo)
After the deletion here, b:nl:Bestand:Unconscience learning.png was uploaded by Erik Baas who had also voted keep on the DR. I've seen his name before, this is an established user. And right now, he's administrator+interface administrator+bureaucrat on nlwikibooks. How the levitating monkey with its tail going through a tree trunk was illustrating unconscious learning is unclear to me. The overwrite is less "out there" and might be trying to illustrate w:en:Mirror neuron#Learning facilitation. Unfortunately the human child lacks a tail, so he can't learn climbing from a monkey very well. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't really understand this image either, but someone chose or even created this image for use on their book, and it's not up to me or anyone else to reject it. If commons is not a dependable storage space I won't use it anymore, it's that simple. - Erik Baas (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

User:LuvsMG481

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

• User is creating dozens of deletion requests that are really hit-and-miss:
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:You jerk! You dropped me! (5893307868).jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:2021 Perodua Bezza 1.0G auto Granite Grey Metallic front view in Brunei.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ford Kuga 1.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kia Cerato5 1.6 SX 2012 (14661129368) (cropped).jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:0-blonde-with-thong.JPG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tangara heading north from Tempe station.jpg
• Comes across as condescending as he tells users who registered their account using Internet Explorer 6 or Firefox 3 what Commons is all about:
• "Remember Wikimedia's goal is to try and have a high quality media respiratory."
• "Remember we are here to promote nice high qual files."
• Before this they were uploading AI slop so maybe it's a weird overcorrection?
• Righting great wrongs: "What is Wikimedia turning into? A place where any uploads can exist regards of educationally useful?"
• Removed comments from another user
• Being unhelpful
• User talk:LuvsMG481/Archive 1#Photo manipulation
• Recently asked me to "nuke all their uploads" during a literal mental breakdown ("Please help i'm in tears and my life is getting ruined because i cant contribute"), I forwarded this to T&S
• Aims to be an administrator "ideally next year" and is "working hard" to achieve this goal. This is a horrible mindset.
• "Ok no worries. What's the rule in trusting AI to help with forming deletion requests?" Lord help us

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

@LuvsMG481: If you are using AI to create DRs, please stop that at once. Yann (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Finally someone answered my questions. Ok will stop. Thank you LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, so I closed all DRs mentioned above. Clearly no AI is able to help here. Yann (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm here to contribute like everyone else. Appears I'm not getting anywhere with my uploads, users ignoring them for wikiprojects etc so I stopped uploading. I'm getting tired of this. Everyone wants to fit in. This was exactly like that at my old workplace where I got terminated, where fitting in is not recognised.

I'm here to edit, like everyone else. I've only been here like 1 month not 4 years. I will continue making mistakes. That's why feedback and mentoring is important. At my old workplace we scrapped the mentoring system and thats why a lot of my friends left, but beforehand mentoring made people feel settled in. I'm sorry for all this drama, as said being new, and inexperienced its important for me to leave a good mark. I got declined file mover rights which I could have used to help clear the backlog of files. I'm literally saving everyone time and energy, some people don't even bother, I'm just simply filling in the gaps. LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@LuvsMG481, once you say you've been here only for 1 month not 4 years. Then there is an older account which you say is yours, which was active for 8 years or something. You clearly take us as fools. If you haven't gained experience in this much time, and don't the how things work around here, and say things like I'll stop doing these deletion requests if my images are being used on articles and If you guys maybe didn't start these issues about my old account, none of this would be happening, then I am sorry you need to revisit your vision for this project. Only you know the truth behind "hacked" claim for your previous account. @Jmabel, I think if we go with the block log of the previous account and the issues highlighted here, an indef won't be disputed. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta: as I wrote (below, but earlier), I've blocked for six months. Any other admin is welcome to make that longer. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Let me add Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jersey sweater tourism advertisement.jpg, which makes pronouncements, some obvious and others inaccurate, and seems not to have checked on some basic facts. LuvsMG481: Was this another "AI" deletion request? Repeated examples of this sort of thing are likely to waste time and effort for both you and other users and annoy others. Not all tasks on Wikimedia are good matches for all users. If deletion requests are something you feel you need "AI" help with, working with deletion requests is probably not a good fit for you. From a quick look at your account I see you've taken some good photos of automobiles with proper identification and categorization - good job! If you're interested on contributing to Wikimedia, let me suggest more of this sort of thing. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  Well maybe lets get the images onto Wikipedia articles. I don't want to contribute anymore. It's pointless why I can't admin work on Commons without having users like Vauxford, Mr.choppers to a point rialling into my business. I've had enough, I'm not going to contribute anymore and I don't want to edit any longer. Would it be better if I just quit editing? I only joined to contribute images, but again nothing is being used. I'm tired of it. I want the files to be used like everyone else. I'll stop doing these deletion requests if my images are being used on articles. LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Infrogmation He's been doing photography and uploading them on here for over 10 years now. His original account is EurovisionNim and he did try to make a comeback on that account around 2021 before dipping out. I honestly don't know why he keeps denying it because he hasn't been blocked on that account and claiming that its been "hacked" is not a valid excuse. Having a look at his recent contribution, I agree with Alexis with how he seem to be causing more harm than good, mass nominating photos of girls in bikinis for deletion and pretending what I describe is a glorified hall monitor who doesn't know what they are doing but pretending they do. The fact he had a mental breakdown on both Alexis and Mr.choppers talkpage tells me that he is not mentally fit to edit on Wikipedia, let alone becoming an admin and continuing to edit on here is detrimental for his mental health. Even to this day it seems that I live rent-free in his head. Vauxford (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  Given the Commons account in question I had some blocks previously on the old account which were over 10 years ago (as of 2026). However I put myself as retired. I didn't have anything wrong, but I then took four years off. It is disappointing you came to this conclusion, because I was truly hacked. I had a mass email exodus where my password got leaked and had to transfer all my data. True story, I would certainly not have mentioned I was hacked when I wasn't. I don't know, it was you who was the cause for everything. Maybe you should have kept out of my business and edited your own things before throwing your 2c into the game. If I was indeed blocked on the old account, I most certainly not be using the new one. I'm doing everything within policy. Stuff like this you didn't need to get involved. LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

To me, he should be given some warnings. Many of the photos are absolutely excellent and will definitely find their way into various projects, but I don't know if his presence is worth the agitation. No matter what, he's definitely going to return under new alter egos - we are looking at a few decades of this person coming and going, uploading lots of images when they're in a good place and then demanding we delete them all when he experiences pushback. I guess my main interest is protecting the project, and protecting the photos they uploaded from future deletion requests. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 16:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

So... why aren't they used on the Enwiki then if you say they are 'excellent'? You're just putting yourself bluffing. It's honestly a shame we have to lead to this. You aren't any better, you add your own images to Wiki projects which is ridiculous despite its quality. Most in my view have the blurriness issue, which honestly is ridiculous. My images are crap and will remain. If you guys maybe didn't start these issues about my old account, none of this would be happening. Oh and about the "alter-egos" did you say the same stuff about GaryJAllen or Democfest or even Unicorn123SL?? No? You're wasting your breath. You think the crap that Alexander Migl and GaryJAllen are displaying are beneficial? At least you follow WP:CARPIX so i'm happy. You, Migl and GJA are no better. Migl noms his files for QI for just the excuse to push, but none of you say anything. I'm fed up. Maybe thats why OSX left, he couldn't stand the stuff that was occurring over here. LuvsMG481 (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

In my defence, I did bring up Alexander's editing habits many years ago on a RFC that turned ugly. At the time I felt it was unfair that I was getting criticised for adding my own photos in articles when Alexander was doing the same. I admit, looking back all these years, there are many photos I have taken that I wouldn't of added into articles today (or at least edit them to be less crooked like many of them were) but younger me insisted that they were "perfect", which understandably rubbed a few people the wrong way. I wasn't sure what to think when Alexander first began mass nominating his own photos for QI/VI in order to justified adding them onto articles. I remember nominating my own QI images and I got told that if I'm going to nominate my images frequently, I would have to vote on other images myself. Fortunately he dialled back on the nominating but I personally think there should be some inquiry or second review regarding some photos that did get promoted to QI. But seriously Nim, you can't keep trying to come back, upload photos, trying to be helpful and what not but then asked other users to "nuke" your photos when things don't go your own way. It just puts a lot of unnecessary work on both users and admins having to delete all your photos and fix your mess. Vauxford (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@LuvsMG481: There is quite an agreement that many of your edits are out of line with the project. So I kindly suggest that you back down, and take a rest for a while. Otherwise I (or someone else) will help you with that. Yann (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

FWIW: I believe I'm generally considered a good contributor here. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-12% of the pictures I take or upload find their way into a sister project, maybe half of those in the English-language Wikipedia. Unless you are precisely taking photos of subjects that have no previous photo in the English-language Wikipedia, don't expect some high percentage of your photos to end up there. - Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to look this up with the Glamorous tool. For example, only about 9.8% of my images (479 out of 4,880 uploads) get used in a non-Commons project, while for Jmabel it's about 10.4% (7,640 out of 73,339 uploads). I agree most uploads on the Commons don't get used, but that doesn't mean they aren't valued. People may use them in the future, for instance. A lot of non-Wiki projects also use them (e.g. I've seen my photos end up on random news websites). 4300streetcar (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I have 6,779 files used (33.91%) out of 19,990. Not too bad. ;o) Yann (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I also have about 33%, but I think a fair number of those are overwrites/reverts like File:Bill Clinton.jpg. w:Lies, damned lies and statistics. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

48.96% out of 11,494 photos. I didn't realised this tool existed. Wish there was a new tool similar to visualfilechanger.js since you can no longer check what projects a image is being used in. Vauxford (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Their comments so far are not really inspiring confidence:

"I'm not having spam conversations on my talkpage where I cannot join in."

"I'm literally saving everyone time and energy"

"Would it be better if I just quit editing?"

"I'll stop doing these deletion requests if my images are being used on articles."

"I don't know, it was you who was the cause for everything. Maybe you should have kept out of my business and edited your own things before throwing your 2c into the game."

"If you guys maybe didn't start these issues about my old account, none of this would be happening."

I've reviewed all their recent DRs and closed another 3: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Instagram app icon on smartphone screen (perspective render) (49897226292).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Advertisements in Jersey and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pexels-mentatdgt-1206059.jpg. This put a strain on me, so I do hope the shenanigans are over. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Of those, by far the most concerning to me is "I'll stop doing these deletion requests if my images are being used on articles." I basically read that as "Use a bunch of my pictures in Wikipedia, regardless of their merits, or I'll create chaos."

I'm imposing a 6-month block here, which seems to me to be the minimum of what is reasonable. If anyone wants to increase that, including even indef, I'm fine with that. I just want to block right now to end promptly what a lot of users are feeling as something one step short of harassment. - Jmabel ! talk 17:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

You might want to block his alt account LuvsHyuTucs214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (not used but is disclosed) and should be limited to one account. Bidgee (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I just created Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/LuvsMG481. Maybe nothing, but quite the coincidence. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: You forgot to transclude that, I did it for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Jeff G., thanks. I don't file CU requests very often. The transclude instructions are below the request button on Commons:Requests for checkuser, that's a UI flaw. Last time I requested CU was on enwiki, transclusions are done by w:User:Mz7 (bot) there. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

While that Wikimedian "LuvsMG481" apparently have some personal issues of whatever nature and used the wrong rationales in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nudist girl.jpg, they may have stumbled upon an image that indeed needs scrutiny. Not because of SCOPE, PORN, minor depicted or something similar, but due to concerns about copyright. It may be an undiscovered case of FLICKRWASHING (I wrote some evidence into the DR), but I'm unsure what conclusions out of those hints are to be drawn. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Grand-Duc, even a broken clock is right twice a day. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Grand-Duc, two wrongs don’t make a right. While they have found a very probable case of flickrwashing, editing (via IP or new account) is in violation of their block.

Next account or edit under a IP they make while block, should result in a permanent block. Bidgee (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Bidgee: I don't think there was any issue here (at least not recently) of editing with one account while blocked on another. The only reason EurovisionNim is currently blocked is that LuvsMG481 requested that it be blocked because (at least according to him) it is hacked, and I granted that request. - Jmabel ! talk 01:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Talking about Cgeeves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), which I agree with Alexis Jazz is likely EurovisionNim/LuvsMG481. And on EN they have clearly edited using an IP (to insert their images to articles). Bidgee (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Might the new Isidrolopez277 also be a sockpuppet? They edited one of LuvsMG481's comments on the help desk. - Jmabel ! talk 23:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────────┘
Jmabel, could be a coincidence, it looks like a random spammer that's inserting their name in random places. But of course you never know. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

User:MonicasHouse

MonicasHouse (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
Popcorn time. User:Allice Hunter made it very clear on their talk page that they don't appreciate being bugged by MonicasHouse: "Goodness gracious, what's going on with you? Could you please stop asking me these things?"
And that's when MonicasHouse stopped. Just kidding, MonicasHouse created another five (!!) new sections, to which Allice Hunter said "Stop disturbing me. I'm done with this."
And that's when MonicasHouse stopped. Or so you'd think. I rolled back another two new sections from MonicasHouse and left a warning on their talk page, saying that if they wouldn't stop they could explain themselves on AN/U.
And that's when MonicasHouse stopped. Is what should have happened, but you are reading this on AN/U so guess what? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I think those sections qualify as bludgeoning or harassment. That user also likes starting nominations when one is already ongoing, trying to change policy to remove "Images of sexualised women that do not appear to serve an educational purpose" and misusing Jmabel's comment at ANU about categorization twice.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe the user has already been warned enough. Perhaps the next step should be a temporary block, which, if ineffective, can be extended. − Allice Hunter ^(Hello!) 16:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

MonicasHouse STILL refuses to stop! - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:19, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done blocked for a week, with a warning that if this continues when they come back, the next block will be much longer. - Jmabel ! talk 05:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

They didn't even sign their work.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Jeff G., that may actually be the reason I missed it initially. Bot signs the comment with a minor edit and the page never appears on my watchlist. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Dronebogus and AI enhanced images.

@Dronebogus: User:Dronebogus is nominating the images in ChatGPT and other AI categories citing COM:AIIP but not applying the rules at COM:AIIP. We allow images modified/enhanced by AI if they are paired with the unaltered image and marked with one of the two AI templates. My worry is that uploaded images will no longer be added to the proper categories, since that will trigger a deletion nomination. I agree images that are not paired with the original should be nominated for deletion, and deleted if the original cannot be found and uploaded. See for example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Johann Jacob Lindauer (1725-1812) portrait (ChatGPT enhanced).png "Slopification" is subjective, and we need examples, warts and all as the software changes which each iteration. Gone already are extra fingers and four legs. The rules were written at COM:AIIP specifically to allow properly labeled images. RAN (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I don't readily see how this is a user conduct issue requiring admin interaction. Perhaps you could provide two or three concrete examples to make this clearer. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

My immediate reaction to the one example given is that the only thing it even imaginably illustrates is how bad a job ChatGPT did at this task. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

+1, thanks @Dronebogus: --Isderion (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done and DR closed as delete Bedivere (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest a BOOMERANG report for User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and User:SomeFancyUsername. Such misuse of noticeboard waste the community time and caused disruption for User:Dronebogus. I'm 100% support for what Dronebogus had done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-22687-11 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The user also neglected to notify ACHE94 of the report about that user in Special:Diff/1200698859.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

It happens. From what I've seen, he usually does this sort of thing right. Yes, he could do better. @Jeff G.: are you saying this reaches the level of calling for administrative action? - Jmabel ! talk 22:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Not by itself, but it is relevant to this discussion of the behavior of this user in ignoring rules.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Why have rules if we choose to ignore them? The rules are clear at COM:AIIP, to be kept the image must be marked as AI altered using one of the multiple templates, and then paired with the original. If you want to get rid of the rule, then lobby to change the rule. Don't ignore the rule. --RAN (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): You yourself gave a rationale on the DR in question that amounted to keeping this as an example of AI doing something poorly. I've said before: I would support a focused project that would repeatedly give the same prompts (or variants upon) to a set of AI engines over time to track the evolution of what various engines do with a well-defined set of tasks over time. But as long as this is utterly scattershot, no, we don't need to gather a bunch of scattershot examples of AI tools doing things poorly.

Yes, what you indicate here is necessary to keep an AI-enhanced image, but it is not sufficient. Otherwise, we could be flooded with millions of these. - Jmabel ! talk 22:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• That is the difference between objective and subjective criteria. Sufficient/insufficient is subjective. The rulebook gives objective criteria that have been met. We have about 50 examples in the category, we have over 5,000 images of puppies. We could be flooded with millions of images of puppies, but have not. If you want to change the rules, lobby to change the rules at COM:AIIP, but honor the rules we have. --RAN (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

These three empty section headers were added at the top of this page by User:Kalianouk

• Nominated For Deletion|User:Kaynouky|reason=problematic uploads contribs|block user|False contribs
• Nominated For Deletion|User:Nironen|reason=problematic uploads contribs|block user|Finnish Wikipedia
• Nominated For Deletion|User:Askeuhd|reason=problematic uploads contribs|block user|AskeBot

It's obvious that Kalianouk is at least somewhat confused, but there might be some actual issues here worth looking into.

Convenience links:

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

- Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Nironen hasn't edited Commons in over 6 years so clearly no valid issue there. The other two are active users. - Jmabel ! talk 02:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi ! Excuse my bad English...

There is a lot of falses pictures and falses informations in all the pages about astronauts, space and landing on the moon... : There is only one landing on the moon by mens in july 1969. Others by machines ok but by mens only in 1969. Check on old books (books or encyclopedies of 1995's years for exemple...) All my rectifications were deleted...

A lot of falses pictures and informations also about space stations.

These three accounts seems to be specialists of disinformation by many falses uploads !

For example Askeuhd : 14,562,138 contributions ! It's clearly a robot who want to discredit Wiki to causes is closure... Kalianouk (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

A link in Nironen :

w:en:Finnish Wikipedia

Can you explain me what this mean ??? The Headquarters is in Miami, Florida

Contributions only in 2020, 2023 and 2025. Not the others years : 2021, 2022, 2024 ???

What means Uralic language ? Kalianouk (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I have notified Kaynouky and Askeuhd. @Kalianouk: , would you please either explain more clearly what is your issue about these users, or withdraw your complaint? - Jmabel ! talk 02:08, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jmabel, this user has been vandalising articles related to spaceflight on the french Wikipedia, deleting informations about lunar orbit rendezvous without proper justification for example. I cancelled them and warned him on his discussion page. Kaynouky (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Kaynouky: I still don't understand. By "this user" do you mean Kalianouk? Linking an en-wiki article to talk about an fr-wiki issue does not exactly make things clear. Are you referring to fr:Special:Diff/235138254 or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 06:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

And may I assume you are saying this here on Commons was some sort of retaliatory thing? - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, yes sorry I was exactly referring to this. It's the first time I have to discuss an issue on another project than the one it is coming from. And yes I imagine they filled this complaint out of frustration, and they seem to be more attune with Commons than fr-wiki, hence why they made it here. Not much else to say about this, it's the first time I remember interacting with them. Kaynouky (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I must say, I have no idea what the user is referring to? --Askeuhd (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Kalianouk hasn't edited since the creation of this section, but this is beginning to look to me like a boomerang situation. I will notify them of that, and leave this section open until they are back on Commons and have a chance to respond. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi ! Excuse my bad English...

There is a lot of falses pictures and falses informations in all the pages about astronauts, space and landing on the moon... : There is only one landing on the moon by mens in july 1969. Others by machines ok but by mens only in 1969. Check on old books (books or encyclopedies of 1995's years for exemple...) All my rectifications were deleted...

A lot of falses pictures and informations also about space stations.

These three accounts seems to be specialists of disinformation by many falses uploads !

For example Askeuhd : 14,562,138 contributions ! It's clearly a robot who want to discredit Wiki to causes is closure. Kalianouk (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done : absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing by any of these three users. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Ricardalovesmonuments

The user was blocked in German WP on April 12 , keeps ranting at me here . I don't know anything about Obersendling. Ailura (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC) P.S. also look at the sourcecode

@Ailura: Did you not see "Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this." above? I notified them for you, this time.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Ailura (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment For the benefit of anyone reading this and following up: the diffs in Ailura's initial comment here each cover a large number of successive edits by multiple users. I mention this because at first they didn't make any sense to me at all as diffs. - Jmabel ! talk 06:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Ricardalovesmonuments has continued to edit on Commons and has not engaged here. If that continues, I see no option except to block for some period of time. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

that seems a little bit too easy. Not engaging here is not a blockable offense. Also which edits exactly seem blockable offenses? I read some, but couldn't tell. That being said, I don't think Ricardalovesmonuments makes much sense :( Isderion (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Isderion: importing drama from another wiki is enough for a block, unless there is reason to think the person will stop. - Jmabel ! talk 04:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

This was added after this thread:, this makes two personal accusations without a comprehensable reason. Ailura (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

On de.wp the block was lifted on the same day (see ), but here we 1 month for a first-timer; seems a bit high Isderion (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. Two admins had blocked this user almost simultaneously — with different block durations — and as a result, the second block was lifted for exactly that reason, while the first block remained in effect. Stepro (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Block circumvention is never a first time block and using a different Wiki that is not an appeal board on Meta is block circumvention. But I can imagine an earlier unblock if she writes a convincing unblock request. GPSLeo (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Was soll der Nonsens von einer Umgehung der Sperre? Auf Commons war sie noch nie gesperrt: . Und hätte sie nicht antworten dürfen als Rufus46 auf ihrer Benutzerdiskussionsseite einen Thread eröffnete bzw. sie ansprach: ? Und jetzt forderst du einen Canossagang für diese vollkommen überzogene Sperre? -- Bwag (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Sie hat einen halben Tag nach der Sperre im dewiki einen Beitrag mit direktem Bezug auf die Sperre im dewiki erstellt und dabei die Beleidigungen genauso wiederholt. Commons ist nicht die Widerspruchsstelle von Wikipedia. Wenn es Beschwerden gibt, müssen die in dem entsprechenden Wikipedia-Projekt oder dem U4C geklärt werden. Auf Commons dulden wir solche Diskussionen, die sich auf Sperren in anderen Projekten beziehen, ganz generell nicht. Zusätzlich war das auch abseits der Sperre im dewiki ein ganz klarer Verstoß gegen Commons:Civility, Commons:Harassment und Commons:No personal attacks. Rufus46 hat mit dem Kommentieren der Diffamierungen nicht zur Beruhigung beigetragen. Das ist aber keine Ausrede dafür, dass wofür man einmal im dewiki gesperrt und einmal auf Commons ermahnt wurde ein drittes mal zu wiederholen. GPSLeo (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Sie hat nach der Warnung eh das Ding von ihrer Diskussionsseite wieder runter genommen: , leider kam dann Rufus46 wieder vorbei und startete die Diskussion neu: . Dafür und als "Ersttäterin" gleich ein Monat aufzubrummen ist schon ein starke Stück - meine bescheidene Meinung. -- Bwag (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: I gave a 1-month block 16 April 2026 06:54 UTC. I see I failed to mention that here. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikiuser9876543212022

• User: Wikiuser9876543212022 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Parti Bangsa Malaysia new logo.jpg after final warning for doing so. Making incomplete DRs.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Indeed, for most files, there is no evidence that the license is valid. Yann (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Pablo4788545

• User: Pablo4788545 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning 22 June 2025 for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him for a week and will delete some uploads. Taivo (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Souljah100 - A.K.A. Michael Charles Miller

Souljah100 - A.K.A. Michael Charles Miller (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user created today and account having the sole purpose to advertise his business (Google search). I left a message in his account but an administrator should keep an eye on his activities. Pierre cb (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

3 edits, and it's not like they are promoting some business (at least not on Commons). Yes they should have waited until they had substantial contributions before uploading a personal picture. I'd give them a few days to see if they intend to contribute in any substantive way before taking any admin action. - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I doubt the intention to contribute

"I do not understand why I am being blocked for creating a Wikipedia Page. Do you have to have the entire page complete when you upload, or can it be created continually until completion. This is discrimination, I have not violated anything from looking at other Wikipedia profiles." Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 00:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Well, maybe someone will explain these projects to him. Meanwhile: uploading one photo, which got deleted, is not really a big deal, and unless he start barraging us with the like a block really isn't needed.

@Souljah100 - A.K.A. Michael Charles Miller: if you are reading this, you might do well to read COM:SCOPE and COM:How to and work out whether this is something you want to be doing at all. - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. You warned him and that's enough. Taivo (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Yuzo722

Yuzo722 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continues to upload copyrighted images despite being warned. --Krorokeroro (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Krorokeroro: Did you not see "Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this." above? I notified them for you, this time. Yann sent them a final warning.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done No activity since that final warning. I think that will do for now. Obviously, further such activity would mean a block. - Jmabel ! talk 22:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

User:4wikin9

4wikin9 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

• It's not certain that the categories Fimenary and Elfenary, related to “self-referential positional numeral systems that came from aliens” (more in Category:Self-referential positional numeral systems), and the files in there (more to come?), are relevant in here --Kontributor 2K (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

What? We are aliens. (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I really may misunderstand that it's actually not a hoax. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying aliens do not exist? We are aliens. (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Unless there's a proof for P61 on d:Q139379347 (diff.), I'll start mass deletion requests of wd items and related images and commons categories.

Any objection? --Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course we object, but do what you will. We are aliens. (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I've indeffed as NOTHERE. Commons is not the place to roleplay as aliens nor to propose new number systems. @Kontributor 2K: I'll handle the cleanup on Commons; if you could do the deletion requests on Wikidata that'd be great. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

So Already done - Jmabel ! talk 22:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Coskh2O15

Coskh2O15 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user appears to be uploading nothing but copyright violations. Looking through the files they have uploaded I see nothing but "pictures from the Internet" and company logos, all of which are claimed as 'own work'; File:4thSCMLogo.jpg, File:Star-Movies-Taiwan-2011.webp. and File:Flag-of-Slowjamastan.webp (to list just three) are clearly not cases of the uploader creating the image and owning the copyright. - The Bushranger (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Hadn't been warned at all before this, so I don't think a block is in order unless they continue now. - Jmabel ! talk 00:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted multiple complex logos speedily. Taivo (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Burfchunt

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

• Nasty image on helpdesk. - Erik Baas (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Wiki and commons aren’t censored. Burfchunt (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Indef as NOTHERE is what I would  Support. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

•  Done indef-blocked. To put it bluntly, either this person is trolling (most likely) or they do not have sufficient common sense and judgement to contribute usefully to this site. I don't really care which it is. - Jmabel ! talk 05:13, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  TPA revoked, thanks to Achim55. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 15:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

XtraJovial and Chyutokuu-Shinsei

• XtraJovial (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Chyutokuu-Shinsei (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Context: COM:ANV#SKERQ872873 (Special:Permalink/1199880736#SKERQ872873 in case that gets archived.

@XtraJovial: stated that they were "pretty convinced" that Chyutokuu-Shinsei is the same person as the blocked SKERQ872873. Chyutokuu-Shinsei replied by saying that the charge was being raised on the wrong page, and there there is no evidence to prove this, but did not deny the charge. I asked directly @Chyutokuu-Shinsei: will you state categorically that what XtraJovial says is not what is going on here? They continued to dance around the issue and did not give me a direct answer. So: here we are in the right place. I'm inviting XtraJovial to make their case and Chyutokuu-Shinsei to respond. One of two things is the case: either XtraJovial owes Chyutokuu-Shinsei an apology, or Chyutokuu-Shinsei should be blocked. I don't think there is a middle ground here. - Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I will only respond if XtraJovial gives an evidence. 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 03:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Because right, I would not treat the same way as SKERQ872873 when I talk to people. I need the evidence first. 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 04:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Because if there is no appropriate response from XtraJovial, he need to apologise to me. If not, I will come to a result. 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 04:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way I

== AM NOT AND DO NOT POSSESS ==

the SKERQ872873 account. 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 04:12, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I want to preface this by saying I'm primarily familiar with SKERQ872873 from their behavior and sockpuppetry on enwiki (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SKERQ872873/Archive). Chyutokuu-Shinsei appears to act in a similar fashion to them. The account appears to be named taking inspiration from Japanese railway lines – much like many of the socks. Further, there's a similar focus on policy (vandalism on enwiki, copyvios here). Chyutokuu-Shinsei also has very little contribution history beyond/before engaging with SKERQ872873, only uploading a copyvio train image before yesterday; that file was named similarly to what SKERQ uploaded here before the tirade of personal attacks and whatnot (see here and here for some examples). XtraJovial (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Well I need to come up with an answer. I will respond to you by latest this Wednesday. 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 05:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Because I was trying to see if Wikimedia accepts copyrights, so I picked a photo from the web to test. 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 05:04, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way the files of April 2036 has been uploaded. Take a look at my uploads for info. 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 05:57, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chyutokuu-Shinsei 10 years in the future?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Oops sorry mistyped, April 2026. 😣 Sorry 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 06:28, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chyutokuu-Shinsei: Please follow COM:SIGN#Rules on customized signatures policy "If nicknames are used, make sure they can be attributed to a specific user".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I will do so ASAP. Thanks for reminding me, and also sorry about that 中徳新星 (Access to my talk page can be directed via user page.) 09:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

That's not how that works. Commons's licensing policy is very clear - all media must be freely usable. Moving foward, please limit experimentation to the Commons sandbox, or your personal one. XtraJovial (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh thanks for the advice. ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 22:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

But let’s stick to the topic here. ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 22:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

What do you want to say about me? ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 22:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Chyutokuu, I already confirmed that SKERQ872873 is not you. Don’t panic anymore.

I checked with you already. GokuraNoMori (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

So is it possible that XtraJovial apologizes to Chyutokuu in that case? GokuraNoMori (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This account was created the day this discussion started. Its only edits are related to Chyutokuu-Shinsei. I don't know why a brand new user would be interested in this discussion or this user specifically; it's possible, sure, but not exactly probable. XtraJovial (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Gokura is actually one of my friends, so they are concerned about me 😣 ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 06:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way, it was created before this discussion started ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 06:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

See here. XtraJovial (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

GokuraNoMori is a brand new account all of whose edits so far are related to Chyutokuu-Shinsei. I think someone is trying to play us. - Jmabel ! talk 05:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

They explicitly said they were "Chyutokuu's friend". I'm not as familiar with Commons' policies on such things as en.wiki's, but assuming good faith that that is a true statement, on en.wiki this would almost certainly be considered meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This is Commons, not English Wikipedia. We are to abide to each page’s policies. ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 06:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Please do not get confused. ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 06:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to take a stance here that means I am not the admin who should deal with this. I believe Chyutokuu-Shinsei is a troll operating several accounts (though it is possible that we are dealing with several trolls who know each other; I don't really care about the distinction). They are wasting a lot of people's time and producing nothing of any significant value to Commons. If it were left entirely to me, I would indef-block Chyutokuu-Shinsei rather than keep wasting time on something that has no apparent benefit to the project. I'd probably do the same with GokuraNoMori, though admittedly on less evidence; still, their only contribution here has been in relation to Chyutokuu-Shinsei, which does not bode well. It seems like other admins are still extending some benefit of the doubt, and that is their prerogative. I've said my piece and I'm done here. If anyone else wants to keep discussing rather than reach what to me seems like a foregone conclusion, have at it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Syoufzan9a

Syoufzan9a (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Uploaded some band promo images, now wants them deleted as out of date, keeps repeatedly tagging them for deletion while the request is still running (just pointless duplication) and is now uploading new promotional images.

Requesting a block to stop further duplication and a rapid closure of their deletion requests. No opinion as to deletion (I've just opened it) on the new promo image. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

ACHE94

• ACHE94 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

user:ACHE94 is a COM:PORN/exhibitionist account. Their files have been repeatedly deleted in the past but they still insist on uploading them. Dronebogus (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: Did you not see "Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this." above? I notified them for you, this time. You have been here long enough to know better. Note that the user already had a block from Yann for the same behavior.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot about that. Dronebogus (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ACHE94, especially the current discussion there. I think some images were deleted that probably should not have been, and I think the current batch are fine. I strongly oppose a block here, but I won't unilaterally close the thread. - Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Santo Crew

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

This editor is routinely uploading images they find on the Internet somewhere and claiming the images are their own. I've nominated quite a number of their images for deletion, and then attempted to discuss the issue with them at User talk:Santo Crew#Your image uploads. They've ignored that, and have continued to upload images that are blatantly not their own. These include the follow images nominated for speedy deletion by other editors:

• File:Dato' Sri Dr. Ismail Sabri bin Yaakob.jpg
• File:Tan Sri Muhyiddin bin Haji Md Yassin.jpg
• File:Dato' Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak.jpg

Requesting a block of this user and blanket deletion of their images. User has been notified of this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Since starting this thread, the user has continued their copyright violations and ignoring conversation. They've now uploaded File:Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.jpg, which the metadata clearly shows is not copyrighted to the uploader, but to Jabatan Penerangan Malaysia (Department of Information Malaysia). The above three images have all been speedy deleted as implausible self ownership claims. When I posted User talk:Santo Crew#Your image uploads, I also placed a translation of my comments into what I believe to be their language. They're ignoring it. User simply doesn't appear to care about copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Partially done. I've blocked them for a month and let them know they face a much longer block if they do the same after returning.

I leave it to someone else to do what it takes to track down the copyvios. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks for the block. Maybe it will get their attention. I've done a fair bit of the copyright checking. In many of the searches, I've come across the images on images.google.com searches, attributing them to this or that site. But, when I got to the site, the image isn't there. Still, in every case I've checked I've yet to find a single image that they took themselves. They're just grabbing them off the Internet. They're also always adding coordinates for images that place the camera over 100km off the coast of Nigeria, in Nigeria, or in Niger...all of this is 10 thousand kilometers from Malaysia...yet all of the images are of Malaysia or people of Malaysia. That's why I suggested the blanket deletion. None of their uploads are their own work. None of them indicate where the camera was actually located. In essence, they're lying about the source and location in every case. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I just found the source of File:Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.jpg

What is this? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 22:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

"100km off the cost of Nigeria" - perhaps on w:Null Island? If so, that's more likely to be a software glitch than a deliberate choice by the user. Omphalographer (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Considering that it was frequently not the same, but somewhere in that region, I doubt that. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Armanum Luwian

Armanum Luwian (talk · contribs) has uploaded a file two years ago and perceives all actions taken by other users in regard to that file as harrassment and quasi-hostile acts. In my case, this concerns removing overcategorization.
In two subsequent discussions on their talk page they stated that our policies of OVERCAT and OWN are merely my personal opinion and should not be considered since they are of a different opinion. I hope this is due to a cultural misunderstanding, but I am out of my depths on how to explain things to them. --Enyavar (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment One more warning. @Armanum Luwian: Please listen to advices, or you will get blocked. Yann (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Block for what, that I defend the file that I created and my opinion on which categories it should be placed?

I created that file and my opinion is going first on which categories it should appear.

Since when you guys are such an expertise on that. I don't see that at all.

It just looks like, that you both gang up to block me by any means possible with absolutely unsubstantiated reasons, so others can later screw with this file and ruin it.

That's already not even harassment from you , it is the bullying, because this file have total right to be in those categories that I choose.

For other users, you strictly defending their work on files that they downloaded , but for me you acting right opposite, siding with those who bring wrong reasons to open all this fuss over this file. Armanum Luwian (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Armanum Luwian: you need to read wikipedia:Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The project rules should be applied fairly. If you feel you were treated unfairly, please feel free to point out where/when "we" gave so much preferential treatment to others. I have no idea what you may have seen or experienced, this is a vast platform. / To everyone: maybe someone understanding Armenian could assist here. --Enyavar (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

User:漣 樋井

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

This user repeatedly upload copyvio portraits and AI-generated illegal portraits without legitimate permissions while receiving some warning. Additionally this user recently made a sock for en:WP:SCRUTINY.

• じゅきや0807 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Both accounts uploaded same women copyvio portaits and used in jawiki; ja:愛来.

Notice: in jawiki other accounts were used for pasiting copyvio image in article; ja:User:樋井 漣 and ja:User:じゅきや. See the above article revisions. Netora (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Netora: You do not seem to have informed the user on their talk page that you've started this discussion. I will do that for you this time, but please try to remember to do that if something like this arises again. - Jmabel ! talk 17:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

User:MR. JOSÉ IVON R. DA CRUZ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES "WASHINGTON, DC, USA"

• MR. JOSÉ IVON R. DA CRUZ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES "WASHINGTON, DC, USA" (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Username issue: User has created new accounts with this username on Wiki Commons (27 March 2026) and on English Wikipedia (20 April 2026). The name is contrary to Commons:Username policy, as it is "misleading" as it includes the name of an organization (the Supreme Court of the United States) for which there is no evidence that the user is part of. — ERcheck (talk). 16:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Given that the account has not been used, I am going to block on the basis of an inappropriate name, without any prejudice against the same person returning with an appropriate account name. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks. You could wear your enwiki hat, too.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I could; I mostly choose not to. I'm not active enough on en-wiki these days to feel like I am current on policies there. I find it convenient to remain an admin there because I can look at deleted content when we need to see it for Commons purposes, and I occasionally help out there, but mostly I try to show a lot of restraint on a site where I am no longer a day-to-day participant. - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, they have no contributions there, either (not even deleted ones), nor any visible contributions anywhere else. They might have deleted contributions on some other wiki where I don't have the ability to see those. - Jmabel ! talk 05:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Fair enough.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Vehbikerem2010

• User: Vehbikerem2010 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Disruptive editing practices like scorched earth and hiding problems under the rug. Copyvio uploading. Incomplete DR creation. Indeffed on enwiki for disruptive editing. See Special:Permalink/1201221317 and user talk page history.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Hopefully they will get the message. Yann (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

~2026-24677-65

~2026-24677-65 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I could be missing something, but this looks to me like someone just creating bogus DRs. After responding on Commons:Deletion requests/File:(MAN IN STRIPED SHIRT SHOWING TATTOO) (2987738572).jpg I noticed the identical odd claim on:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:(NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY) (2987740376).jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wall st. (2987740410).jpg (poorly formatted)
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:(WOMAN AND WINDOW DISPLAY) (2986883373).jpg

Also, this weird claim: Commons:Categories for discussion/2026/04/Category:Photographs in the George Eastman House Collection (secondary copyright??) Maybe this is just honest confusion (which might raise a CIR issue, anyway)? I don't know, but I'd like another set of eyes on this. - Jmabel ! talk 05:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I will ping the TA at the first DR subpage to see if they respond (from what I know, a person is not automatically alerted, unless subscribed or manually pinged, to any DR subpages) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 07:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)