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.

Banksulselbarmakassar

User: Banksulselbarmakassar (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reason for reporting: I don't know what to make of Special:Diff/1227868336/1227902358, read with Google Translate. These edits were IMO either made by an apparently helpless user misunderstanding the purpose of our help desk, a spambot or a kind of malicious advertiser. This report is mainly intended to gather some opinions about the case, thus I purposefully did not use the (currently red) user TP to notify them about the thread here. Possible outcomes may be ignoring the things after my revert, a REVDEL on privacy grounds, a block for spamming? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd say it's spam. Kind of similar to another spammer from a few days ago, but they were advertising a different PIN unblock service with a different phone number but also in Indonesian. Nakonana (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Their username gives it away because it has the name and location of the bank they are advertising: id:Bank Sulselbar [in the city of] Makassar. And their spamming is not limited to the help desk. Nakonana (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I was able to recognise a "Bank NAME" and the city name Makassar (the latter by having read en:Flight 714 to Sydney in my youth :-D) but I didn't get the advertising for such a somewhat dubious unblock service. OK, now I know what to do when I see similar postings through my watchpage. Thanks for your opinion, Nakonana! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, it's not that they're advertising for the bank; they're a scammer posing as the bank's helpdesk. This is a common spam pattern; it should be reverted on sight and the user blocked. Omphalographer (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

To whom it may concern and as reference: I've opened a CU case, Lymantria uncovered some socks: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Banksulselbar13. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Achim55. Yann (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Galaec1214

• Galaec1214 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues to reuploading copyvios after final warning. Jonteemil (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, copyvios deleted, except 2 pending permissions. Yann (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Anybody who is regularly involved in Commons:Deletion requests will recognize this user as a regular who deploys highly motivated reasoning to achieve maximum inclusion of old photographs. I come here because one of his regular methods is now adding fictitious details to file pages to bolster the files' public domain status.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Kid, a Hat, a Mission (3660418135).jpg is where I first came across it. Here RAN asks ChatGPT to date the photo and then adds that information. I explain why this is not adequate.

• Commons:Deletion requests/Jekelfalussy Here he adds "circa 1920" dates to several photographs of several different people, and explains his methodology as follows: "You can always work out plus or minus 5 years, the age of a person in an image, and we generally know their birth and death dates." I once again explain that AI or guesswork is inadequate for dating a photo, especially when the public domain status of a photo hinges on an accurate date.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ahnert.jpg Here he dates a photo of another person, yet again, to "circa 1920". Turns out he is only wrong by 35-40 years. I let him know of his mistake, using somewhat stronger language.

• Since all the cases above, RAN has added fictitious, unsourced dates to photographs again and again. "Circa 1920" appears to be his go-to.

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AustrianAlien Here he has switched it up a bit by assuming, without evidence, that a photo was scanned from a family archive and uploaded by a family member.

As mentioned before, this is on top of the general wikilawyering behavior in discussions which he is extremely well known for. Overall, anyone on here who is interested in investigating the copyright status of files is likely to find RAN an extremely frustrating person to work with. I don't know what the solution to this is, but it needs to be made clear to him that his current pattern of conduct is disruptive. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: One thing that might help is if you don't proactively draw RAN's attention to your deletion requests, and employ a little healthy skepticism when he "fixes" files (let the deletion request run the full seven days). Phillipedison1891 (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Fabricating "proof" with ChatGPT to legitimate that a photograph would be in PD is a form of disruptive editing. RAN has been blocked indef for related behaviour at enwiki and wikidata. --Lymantria (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Phillipedison1891, WTF.
After Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Grey721 I decided to start courtesy pinging RAN when it seems likely (but not certain) that files are PD as I can't fix all these files by myself.
I simply AGF. Can AI please stop poisoning, like, EVERYTHING? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

 Support per Lymantria.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

•  Oppose I think this report is quite harsh. We should be conservative when dating pictures, but there is nothing extraordinary about evaluating the date from the age of the person depicted. This can be done without any AI. I fixed the dates, licenses, etc., and closed the DRs above. Yann (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's one thing to say that a photograph of an obviously young person was not taken when they were 70+ years old. It's quite another to say that you can definitively tell that a man is younger than 57 years old, in a 150x250 digital image, when copyright status is on the line. I wouldn't bring this up if I didn't feel like RAN has exhausted AGF several times over, over a period of years, across (as Lymantria pointed out) several wikiprojects. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  I changed a bit the date of this one (1920s instead of ca. 1920), but this guy is obviously younger than 56 years old. Saying otherwise is where I can't AGF. RAN is a valuable contributor with useful contributions. That's where you have to AGF. Yann (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Note: such controversies can often easily be resolved with a little bit of research. RAN could easily earn some trust back if he was more explicit about his reasoning and sources. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, Thanks for adding the source, but please do not remove the license. {{Orphan work}} is useful, but it can't replace it. We usually assume that old pictures were published around the time of creation, as leaving the photographer's custody constitutes publication. Yann (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Under the old U.S. standards, publication was a low enough threshold that I think that is a reasonable assumption for clearly professional work. It is not for amateur work, and unpublished amateur work with no known author would be copyrighted for 120 years after creation. Also, for very old work, if first publication was 1931-2002 (with all appropriate formalities), it can actually mean that an even older work is still copyrighted. So it's really inconvenient (but perfectly possible) if the first publication of a circa 1900 anonymous work (or of a somewhat newer work with a known author who died over 70 years ago) was online in the early years of the web. I realize this is slightly off topic, but only slightly: I'm pretty certain I've seen RAN repeatedly ignore that possibility in DR discussions. - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  I referred RAN to essay User:Alexis Jazz/Assuming worst case copyright 19:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC) in a COM:VPC section later archived to Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/08#122-year old U.S. photo. Willful ignorance of it is disruptive. Pinging @Alexis Jazz as essay author.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  It is always possible to find a worst case scenario, but it is not useful. What we need are realistic and useful criteria to decide uncertain cases. Yann (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Jmabel, and if something was published without permission from the rights holder it actually wasn't published. See Commons:Publication.
  Jeff G., that's an essay containing advice primarily aimed at re-users. I wouldn't say that ignoring my essay would be "disruptive" in and of itself. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  In a lot of cases where publication is decades after the fact, it is very hard to tell whether it qualifies as authorized or not. For example, when a personal photo album ends up in the hands of a GLAM, it is often very unclear whether publication of all or part of its content is authorized or not. Among other things, it can be very difficult to determine whether an heir who donates a physical album is legitimately the heir to the intellectual property, and I think that many GLAMs would not really put much effort into determining that, because their own publishing probably falls under fair use even if they don't have a secured copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 05:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been on the opposite end from him in a few deletion discussions and he was quite persistent but I can't say he was wrong; I wouldn't call it wikilawyering (well really a lot of the whole business of finding copyright-free images can be wikilaywering), and on several occasions he's managed to sway me to his side in such discussions. There are a lot of grey areas here. I find him to be quite skilled at finding obscure files that are properly free.

But for everyone's sake, he should not be using AI for this. It is poor at understanding the subject. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: Yes, we butted heads over deletion debates, but we worked together amicably to resolve difficult copyright issues as we both researched online newspaper archives and searched through the copyright registration and copyright renewal databases to resolve the issue. In the end the best research won. --RAN (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

When I said wikilawyering, what I had in mind as an example were his efforts to upload AI-"enhanced" photos of non-notable individuals, and his arguments to retain the same, for example here. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any lawyering there, RAN is correct that COM:AIIP was being misapplied. Where an AI-modified image links to its original version and is marked as having been edited by AI, it falls to a question of COM:SCOPE instead. Belbury (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury: he argues that such images have an educational use of "illustrating the flaws of AI", when that's clearly not the purpose for which he uploaded them. The wiki equivalent of a legal fiction. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal

RAN should not use AI/LLM to determine dates or identify pictures. RAN should be conservative when dates are not mentioned in the sources. RAN should add a license for the source country and for USA which take into account all parameters. Yann (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Note that in practice we often turn a blind eye to files that are PD in the source country but with unclear copyright status in the US. That isn't policy, but in practice it happens quite a bit and the WMF doesn't mind. In the case of RAN however turning a blind eye to anything doesn't seem wise at all. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:01, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• When dating files, RAN should not choose a single "circa" date and evaluate copyright status based on that. Rather, he should select a date range broad enough that there is no significant possibility that the date of the photo falls beyond that range, keeping with the language of COM:PCP.
• RAN should generally be more responsive to discussion and input from others, and should take care to avoid wikilawyering and battleground behavior. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  At this point I'd just prefer that they were indefinitely blocked from Commons. They create big messes then take exaggerated "I'm being attacked" poses. Classic. Bedivere (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't comment here. @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): you have nothing to add or still pondering on a comment? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• The problem is that when you present a cogent argument in Commons by citing outcomes from previous debates, citing WMF decisions, and citing US copyright case law precedents, you get accused of the vague English Wikipedia concept of wikilawyering, then wikilawyering becomes the crime, no matter what the original accusations were. Determining the age of someone in an image isn't "fabricating proof", it is using visual context and the year the person was born and the year the person has died to estimate the date of the image to plus or minus five years, giving a range of ten years. I think most people can estimate a person's age within 10 years if you have looked at enough photos where the age of the subject is known. This is the same way the Library of Congress performs the task, using birth and death record research and visual context at their Flickr Commons project to add dates and context to the Bain Collection. The time I disagreed with Phillipedison1891 was when they restored the incorrect date (the upload date) and I asked for moderation of that debate and the moderator agreed with me based on the evidence presented. I would have had no objection if Phillipedison1891 had widened the estimation, or pointed out visual clues I might have missed that pointed to an earlier or later date. Instead they restored a date we both agreed was not correct by about 100 years (the upload date). The images I work on are mostly "circa 1920" to "circa 1930" because I look for images of that date range to research, the same date range as the ones at the LOC Flickr Commons project. As pointed out previously, I have no objection to someone widening the estimation, or presenting evidence that the date needs to be adjusted by pointing out details that I may have missed, or finding another source of the image with a better estimate. When someone modified the date of my estimation by 5 years based on the model car in the image I had no objection. In several cases someone found the image reproduced in a newspaper so a "circa 1920" can now become "before 1925" if the newspaper was published in 1925. If anyone in the deletion debate points out where I am wrong based on better visual evidence, or can offer a more precise date based on their research, I will usually agree with them. If I comment on 10 images a day, that is about 3,650 images a year, and in 10 years 36,000 estimations where the closing person has mostly agreed with that estimation. Ultimately it is up to the closer to weigh the evidence and make a decision. --RAN (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Richard Arthur Norton: so you have nothing to say about your use of AI? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The AI to estimate the age of the subject, was used, I believe, a single time as an experiment, to see if it confirmed my estimate or came up with a different value. That AI was used was made clear on the image page, because I pasted in the complete rational used by the AI and attributed it to the AI, there was no deception involved. While AI created images are currently being deleted, I am not aware of any ban on using AI to describe/caption images, or provide any other context to images or identify unlabeled people in images. There are several projects online where AI was able to correctly identify unlabeled Civil War soldiers (https://photosleuth.org/) and in another unlabeled Holocaust victims/survivors (https://numberstonames.org/). --RAN (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Nope. In the case I linked:

1. Knowing the age of the subject would not have helped date the photo, since the subject was not identified. ChatGPT was asked to date the photo based on no information extrinsic to the photo, which was the entire problem.
2. I indeed "restored the incorect date" by mistake and then fixed my error, as explained in the discussion.
3. "I asked for moderation of that debate and the moderator agreed with me based on the evidence presented." I literally have no idea what you are talking about. The file was deleted, nobody "agreed with [you] based on the evidence presented", and more importantly there are no "moderators" on Commons.

Let this serve as an example should anyone ever want to know the source of my frustrations with this contributor. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@RAN: You have once again done exactly what I am talking about. I have changed the dating on that file to show you how it should be done. Notice that I have: 1. chosen a range of dates that includes every reasonable possibility, and 2. used the edit summary field to explain my methodology. "Circa 1955" implies a precision that just cannot be supported with evidence. Thankfully for this file the copyright status does not hinge on accurate dating. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You reject my assumption and then add your own assumption: "assuming this is an official photo", you are just making a different assumption than I am. I have a question for you, when you see the word "circa" what does it mean to you? Does it mean +/- 1 year, +/- 5 years, +/- 10 years? Maybe you are assigning a mathematically rigorous value that is not hard coded into "circa". --RAN (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

"You reject my assumption" What assumption? I don't see anything from you in the edit summary, the file talk page, or the deletion discussion. You just plopped in "circa 1955" without elaboration and called it good. I think most people seeing "circa 1955" would assume that it is precise within a couple of years. In the world of science, we assume that significant figures are... significant. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• If you want to start a thread on creating an exact mathematical definition of the word "circa" when used in the WikiUniverse, we can have a period of commenting and perhaps reach a consensus on whether it means +/- 1 year, +/- 5 years, or +/- 10 years. However, I think we all agree that the default of leaving the upload date as the creation date is more problematic since it is off by 100 years in these circa 1920 or circa 1930 cases. I don't think we should be deleting these public domain images because the uploader used the upload date instead of the creation date. Perhaps watching a mandatory video tutorial for new uploaders, before they make their first upload, would help. I also have never seen significant figures used by an archive like the Library of Congress or the National Archives. They use "circa 1925" or "1920s" (both give a span of 10 years depending on your definition of "circa") and that seems to be dependent of the archivist, not the institution. --RAN (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't think we can have a single definition of circa, because (1) it is used by GLAMs in ways we cannot control and (2) it is used by Wikidata in ways we cannot control and where templates such as {{Art Photo}} can pull data directly from Wikidata. That said, when you are stating an approximate date based on your own knowledge and research, I really recommend using {{Other date}} and either trying to give limits on the earliest and latest date, or confine it to a decade or century where you do not need "circa". "Circa" is probably best when the date is close to certain but you just might be wrong, e.g. for a supposedly "current" photo in the May 1927 issue of a magazine, you might say {{other date|between|{{circa|1926}}|1927-05}}, producing "between circa 1926
    date QS:P,+1926-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1480,Q5727902
    and May 1927". We should be especially cautious where the date in question affects copyright status. - Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and lock-evasion

The following users are Sockpuppets and lock-evasions of User:Didicher/User:Supermohi. The person behind these accounts is abusing Wikimedia-projects (mainly dewiki) since 2005 (POV-pushing, harassment, doxing, sockpuppetry, incivility/insults, account-sharing, see de:Benutzer:NDG/SG-A)

• Didicher (talk · contribs)
• Wienerschmäh (talk · contribs)
• Ungereimt (talk · contribs)

Please consider to block them, most of them were inactive for years but it is possible that the accounts might be reactivated. In the past, some of the CU-confirmed socks were also blocked here, even with zero edits. Thank you NDG (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done @NDG: What is the master account? Yann (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: That would be de:user:Supermohi. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc @Yann Supermohi was the most prominent account at the time when sock puppetry and account sharing with 3 other LTAs was at its peak. The original account was Didicher NDG (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done All tagged: Category:Sockpuppets of Didicher. Yann (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Andrés Fernandi

Andrés Fernandi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
If you understand Asturian (or at least Spanish) please have a look at this user. I don't quite understand w:ast:Skincarlismu and machine translation is sketchy for Asturian. I'm worried this is possibly promoting racism. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: FWIW: I 'm a pretty strong non-native Spanish-speaker. I can more or less read Asturian, but have no specific knowledge of the dialect/language. The article looks quite under-referenced (at least by en-wiki standards) and I'd say almost certainly written by someone on the political right (though it doesn't appear to be written by a member of the faction, unless they were writing surprisingly neutrally for someone so engaged). But I don't think it is any more biased than plenty of articles in various Wikipedias about relatively small political and quasi-political factions. I'd probably write similarly about a Marxist faction. It describes their ideology as «ultranacionalistes, racistes y contrarrevolucionarios», which would only be a positive to someone who shared those views.

As for Commons issues: File:Skincarlistes cuelgamuros.jpg and File:Carlistes skinheads.jpg appear to be duplicates. Above all: if File:Comunicau skinetu.jpg is really "own work", including the text, then apparently the user is within the faction, and that could be an issue on several counts. - Jmabel ! talk 04:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Reminds me of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexcarusoalqaeda.png. There could be scary people around here. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Tagged one file, and deleted another as copyright violation (copied from X). As for all extremist groups, it is very doubtful that we would ever get a permission from the copyright holder. Yann (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Dmitro vl

Dmitro vl (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dmitro vl (Diff ~1229886542)

Machine translation: "The files listed on this server are verified and used to provide information on Wikipedia. They should not be deleted. If you think otherwise, we can meet, and law enforcement officers will be with us."
Surely Bing botched the translation. Let's try Google translate instead: "The files listed on this server are verified and used to provide information on Wikipedia. It should not be deleted. If you think otherwise, we can meet, we will be accompanied by law enforcement officers."

Yandex! Of course Yandex. Yandex is Russian. They probably understand the language of their neighbor!

"The files that are listed on this server are verified and used to provide information to Wikipedia. It should not be deleted. If you think otherwise, we can meet with law enforcement officers."

Oh noes! @Ahonc: I hope Bing and Google and Yandex all botched the translation. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

He suggests meet: you, he and police, if you disagree that files should not be deleted.--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

That looks like a threat.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Needs to be indeffed for legal threats, obviously. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I think, as usual, they should be given the chance to withdraw the legal threat: Special:Diff/1230458855. - Jmabel ! talk 04:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I gave them another chance and some links in Special:Diff/1230689032.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

They have withdrawn the legal threat here. Nakonana (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done With the legal threat withdrawn, there is no current need for administrative action. - Jmabel ! talk 17:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

w:uk:Вікіпедія:Запити до адміністраторів#Special:Contributions/Dmitro vl
User:Шабля wrote Да щось дивне відбувається... особливо враховуючи останні правки на ВП:Статті-кандидати на вилучення/12 червня 2026, де присутні також прямі порушення ВП:Е та ВП:НО. З іншого боку якась ламана мова, яка складає враження що пише або людина яка не є носієм мови, або дитина. Ну або все це якийсь стьоб. (machine translation: Yeah, something strange is happening... especially considering the recent edits on WP:Articles for deletion/June 12, 2026, which also include direct violations of WP:E and WP:NPOV. On the other hand, there's some broken language that gives the impression that it's written either by someone who's not a native speaker or a child. Or maybe it's all just some kind of joke.)
Shortly after that Dmitro vl was indeffed by User:Mykola7 with the block summary reading Обхід блокування: Dmitrii Vlasov (machine translation: Bypass blocking: Dmitrii Vlasov). This likely refers to User:Dmitrii Vlasov. I don't know if any of their socks are indeffed here (is there a list?), so it's theoretically possible there is no block evasion on Commons. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

there's some broken language that gives the impression that it's written either by someone who's not a native speaker or a child. They might not be a Ukrainian speaker. While their initial posts were in Ukrainian, the rest of the conversation on the DR was in Russian.

One thing to note: their original account was blocked on ruwiki for (legal) threats, and on ukwiki for self-promotion. That's two things they've engaged in on Commons now with their new account. Nakonana (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

User:ProtoplasmaKid

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

• At Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Amelia Fuentes Marin this user replaced the actual license with {{FoP-Mexico}} for many files, for example File:Fragmento del Mural La historia de la Justicia en México de la SCJN (Luis Nishizawa) 2.jpg (Diff ~1229081445).
• They also moved many of the files while the DR is still open which can cause problems when the DR is eventually closed. For example File:Fragmento del mural La Historia de la Justicia en México (Rafael Cauduro, 2009).jpg.
• I performed a bunch of rollbacks and added the FoP template correctly.

We all make mistakes, so I explained the issue with their edits on their talk page and asked ProtoplasmaKid to add all the new filenames to the DR. Their response was that there is no need to consult anyone because the matter has already been resolved. Yeah, it's partially resolved, because I cleaned up after you.
At this point they decided to ghost me. When asked again they said Hi, I've decided not to continue this discussion—it's World Cup time. One would expect better from an eswiki crat. But alas. They still haven't added the new filenames to the DR and don't seem to understand the mess they created. Please remove their filemover right. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

No entiendo (desde inicio) cual es el problema aquí. Pero vamos por partes.

1. Una usuaria que ha tomado unas fotos espectaculares las dona para ser subidas en Commons. En México la ley permite subir artworks. Siempre y cuando sea en un espacio público como es el edificio de la Corte Mexicana.

2. A solicitud de la usuaria original en un correo electrónico cambié el nombre del autor de uno de los autores de los murales en el cual tuvo un error.

3. Para evitar la eliminación, cambié el template correspondiente de FOP-Mexico.

4. Cree una categoría específica para los murales y trasladé los archivos. Todas las acciones anteriormente descritas no incumplen ninguna regla.

5. Como le dije en la discusión, estoy tomando un tiempo para mi estos días por la Copa del Mundo, tiempo de calidad que ha sido interrumpido por el escalamiento innecesario de un asunto meramente administrativo. ¿Qué de malo hay en eso y en mi experiencia y habilidades como voluntario y como admin? Yo esperaría también otro tipo de comportamiento de un usuario experto, de hecho, en las comunicaciones de Alexis no hay maneras básicas ni hay evidencia de espíritu colaborativo y colegial, un asunto importante para mi de acuerdo a mi formación cultural y mi contexto. El usuario tiene un tono que no es adecuado para mi y en el que me siento exhortado de manera intimidante. El amenazarme con poner este aviso es un ejemplo.

Se sabe que en los proyectos Wikimedia no hay fecha de entrega ni plazos forzosos. Pude haber contestado hoy o mañana o en un año. A eso el usuario le llama "ghosting", ¿de verdad?.

Finalmente el usuario busca castigarme, proponiéndome que me quiten los derechos de filemover, una propuesta fuera de toda proporcion. A mi me preocupa seriamente que los usuarios autodenominados expertos o que hacen acciones que involucran el trabajo de los demás, tengan como solución castigar a otros. Eso no abona a la buena fe en lo absoluto. ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

"Threatening me with putting up this notice is an example. It’s well known that in Wikimedia projects there are no deadlines or forced schedules. I could have responded today, tomorrow, or in a year. The user calls that “ghosting,” really?" (machine translation)
No, you ghosted me by your own admission. When I asked you again (after waiting two days) to please respond you said "I've decided not to continue this discussion". From that I gather you weren't planning to ever respond if I hadn't reminded you. If you were busy you could have simply said you'd get back to me later this week. If something was lost in translation and you meant something else I apologize for that.
The photos were taken somewhere indoors, and they are photos of 2D works. That could be FoP, but it's never a clear-cut case of FoP. The source country was not clearly indicated, only by category on a portion of the files, which I overlooked.
Commons:File renaming states "Files with copyright issues should NOT be renamed until copyright issues are resolved. There is no reason to rename a file if it is going to be deleted on copyright grounds." and I explained to you this can cause problems when the DR is closed, depending on the outcome and the tool (if any) that is used to close the request. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Desde inicio no deseé establecer una discusión con usted porque me parece tiempo valioso invertido en algo que está muy claro. A eso me refiero, no a ignorarlo ni a no dar importancia a su petición. Y sigo pensando lo mismo. He estado entrado intermitentemente sólo a subir fotos para disfrutar el tiempo allá afuera y sus notificaciones me hacen volver.

2. Comprendo la confusión inicial con lo que aquí señala usted, pero la excepción de ley en México es clara y someterlo a interpretación es algo que usted está haciendo, no la ley en si misma. En todo caso este último mensaje confirma que usted inició la consulta por falta de información y no porque sea un asunto no permitido, es decir no hay problemas por derecho de autor más que para usted. La usuaria tomó fotos en un espacio público y la ley en el país permite reproducir, yo le dije directamente a la usuaria que podía hacer lo que hizo. No hay más. Puedo entender que es el FoP es más bien negativo a la reproducción en casi todos los países y que por eso usted pensó que los archivos no podía subirse. Eso es comprensible, pero usted hace sospechas adicionales como en este caso a una foto que subió la usuaria en cuestión con su nombre y con su cuenta. Si usted observa la metadata de esa foto y de esta otra corresponde a la misma cámara que usa Amelia, misma que yo observé en sus manos. No comprendo por qué usted le ha indicado a la usuaria que demuestre el origen de la foto.

3. Quiero insistir que yo no observé falta alguna en la subida de las fotos, por eso con confianza y con la petición de la persona decidí renombrar. En todo caso que yo haya cometido un error de falta a la política, me parece francamente fuera de proporción que usted venga a este tablón con una actitud punitiva a pedir que me saquen los permisos. Como usted debe saber, somos una comunidad que tiene el pode enmendar las cosas como un principio, no cómo una excepción. Todos cometemos errores, pero la diferencia es la intención detrás de ellos. En mis acciones no hay ninguna intención ofensiva o disruptiva. Usted, al no encontrar eco en su actitud de hacer las cosas a su manera y a sus tiempos, quiere dar a entender que mis acciones son negativas. No lo son, nunca lo han sido en todos estos años que he estado aquí. Saludos, ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I see the language barrier is only creating more confusion as you accuse me of something I didn't say. I didn't question whether the user was the photographer or not.
"In any case, even if I had made a policy-related mistake, it seems frankly out of proportion for you to come to this board with a punitive attitude asking to have my permissions revoked. As you know, we are a community that has the ability to fix things as a principle, not as an exception." (translated)
Which is why I asked you to add the new filenames to the DR. If you had done that there would be no problem. If you hadn't done it but acknowledged your error and asked if I could do it there would be no problem. The problem started when you said there is no need to consult anyone because the matter has already been resolved which was a slap in the face. No acknowledgement of my cleanup effort, no understanding of your mistake and you complain that I explained the issue to you.
"meaning there are no copyright problems except for you." (translated)
As an aside: Commons policy possibly allows these files, but if the artist files a DMCA take down notice the WMF will delete these files with an office action because {{NoFoP-US}}. It's happened before. So "no copyright problems" comes with a big asterisk. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello again. I’m sorry, but I feel more comfortable speaking in my own language, where I can express myself more clearly.

I think the way you handle situations and other people’s actions is at the root of all this. Now is a very timely and prudent moment to recall the fourth pillar of the project. All administrative actions are simply steps taken to improve the project, but it’s noticeable how you interpret actions: 'a slap in the face', 'a mess'. It seems that procedures that are relatively normal in this project offend you deeply. The problem is probably more on your end. I don’t find them offensive, but if you do, then that is on your side. Despite my previous comments about your manners, I reiterate to the administrators that my actions are not intended to cause harm.

As an aside too, I’m currently a law student, but I have ten years of experience in copyright law in my country, so I’m confident in what I’m saying. I’m an activist working on these issues in the country with the worst copyright laws in the world, so I know how to navigate these waters. With that in mind, I can tell you that the photos can be on Commons. And they can also be taken down if necessary—that’s not a problem either. The muralists of the Court photos don’t have the same aggressive representative foundations as some other Mexican painters do. If they come forward wanting to take things down, we’ll discuss it then. ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

A few comments (cross-posted with that last by ProtoplasmaKid).

1. @ProtoplasmaKid: sin dudo, era bueno añadir el nuevo categoría pero Alexis tiene razón acerca del los nombres de las fichas. Quizás no estuviera una mala idea cambiar los nombres, pero el cambio merecía indicarle en el DR.
   • rough translation: adding a category was good, I'm not sure changing the names was bad, but certainly changing the names should have meant editing the DR.
2. @Alexis Jazz: assuming the analysis is correct, the possible copyright problem we face here is the same one we face for all inclusion of art on the grounds of FoP in its home country, where that art retains U.S. copyright. As long as our policy remains as it is (and I think it should), there's really no problem there that merits discussion in a particular DR.
3. World Cup: I'm sure we have a lot of users in a lot of countries who can no more be expected to focus on WMF projects this next few weeks than we can expect people to focus between Christmans and New Years.
4. I don't see anything here that requires administrative intervention. What ProtoplasmaKid did wasn't perfect, but it doesn't seem to me to require any sort of a sanction.
5. I'm not going to mark this closed in case some other admin disagrees with that last thing I said.

Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Jmabel, there's really no problem there that merits discussion in a particular DR.
The files were uploaded as own work, the source country wasn't clearly indicated (if it had been I would have referred to the relevant FoP information), artwork clearly recent, 2D art, indoors, unclear how open to the public the location is. If a DR may not be started in this situation that'll make things difficult. If an administrator is comfortable speedily closing that DR I really don't mind.
If ProtoplasmaKid understands that files should either not be moved while a DR is open or the new filenames should be added to the DR, everything will be okay. If they can't understand, they shouldn't move files. My hope is that with your explanation they understand this now.
ProtoplasmaKid, imagine you have to give a presentation with a colleague. Your colleague accidentally breaks the scale model needed for the presentation (removes the original Creative Commons license), and you rush to glue it back together in time for the presentation (before a bot starts tagging the files with {{No license since}}). You succeed, and you ask your colleague to be more careful, and they respond by saying "there is no need to consult anyone because the matter has already been resolved". That's how I felt. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Evan informant

Evan informant (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
If I'm not mistaken (please check their deleted uploads) this user just keeps reuploading out of scope images. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, one file deleted. Yann (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Pablo4788545

• User: Pablo4788545 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Uploads AI slop and COM:AIP violations as documented in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Damián Manso.png and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pablo4788545.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months (2nd block). Yann (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

user:FELIPE NETO 171 BRAZINO

• FELIPE NETO 171 BRAZINO (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Doxxing in c:File:Felipe Neto at the Lady Night in 2022 (01).png, in addition to using a name inappropriate for the project Klebs1 (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Already done Already reported and blocked. Yann (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Now globally locked by M7. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Evelino Ucelo

Evelino Ucelo (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
This user is repeatedly abusing the elimination processes of this project; they have already been warned several times on their talk page. --heylenny (^talk/_edits) 13:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Please explain. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I think @Jeff G., Yann already did it. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 13:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, first case: {{Delete}} without timestamps, I use script now, so this problem was solved, second case is also resolved (I didn't close any UDR after that). Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

You can't simply remove a Speedy tag just because you disagree with the deletion. That's up to an administrator to determine if it was valid and delete it according to the correct rule. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 13:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

{{Speedy}}: "Appeal: If you disagree with this template's speedy deletion, replace this tag with a regular deletion request." Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Doing this with all images tagged with Speedy seems very strange, I'm not sure of this account's good faith. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 14:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

"Doing this with all images tagged with Speedy seems very strange" That is just false. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

 Info Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fachada NOVUS Canoas.jpg can be interesting Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Very. Consider yourself under my constant observation. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 13:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I just leaving it here en:Wikipedia:Harassment. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no "attack" in observing a user's contributions, which are publicly available at Special:Contributions/Evelino Ucelo. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 14:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

In this specific case, there is no reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spam: "Uploaded while editing "Usuário(a):NOVUS Automation/Testes" on pt.wikipedia.org" heylenny (^talk/_edits) 14:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Heylenny: "Consider yourself under my constant observation."

en:Wikipedia:Harassment: "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, and we're not on English Wikipedia. I will observe your contributions as I do with many other accounts. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 14:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Basic policies were established on English Wikipedia and now are applicable to all Wikimedia wikis. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Commons version: Commons:No personal attacks. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. Accusing me of harassment while simultaneously tagging F10 to my uploads, despite my status as a long-term constructive contributor to Commons. F10 says: "Personal files by non-contributors Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal files (including AI-generated images) of or by users who have no constructive global contributions." heylenny (^talk/_edits) 15:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Contributors may upload small amount of personal files for use on user pages, this one isn't used. For example, File:Lenny in the dunes.jpg would be OK if would be used on User:Heylenny (although this file potentially technically can be copyvio, unless contract between Heylenny and his cousin exists). Evelino Ucelo (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s not a terrible picture of a guy in the dunes in the first place. Dronebogus (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This picture is OK, and is good example of personal, but permitted photo of the contributor, it may be used on user's page (although "work-for-hire" claim is questionable, IDK about Brazil, but most jurisdictions requires written contract). Evelino Ucelo (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Heylenny: How many of this user's uploads have you now tagged for speedy deletion? How many have you given valid deletion reasons for, or how many of those DRs are attracting independent support to your viewpoint? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This user has no uploads. It is odd to dismiss cross-wiki promotional context entirely while that DR is being driven by an account whose activity appears to focus primarily on deletion discussions rather than content contributions. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 14:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course, addition of captions (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Volunteering_grape_harvest_and_wine_making,_Domaine_Rouge-Blue,_Sainte-C%C3%A9cile-les-Vignes,_C%C3%B4tes_du_Rh%C3%B4ne,_France,_September_2020_-_341_(50523624072).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1232285062) or categorisation (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:People_on_the_pier_in_Sweden&curid=193866136&diff=1231720004&oldid=1231383835) is deletion. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• OK, boomerang time.

You're hounding Evelino. You're tagging all of these uploads as 'personal' (a personalised building?) and then when these are converted to DRs (because Evelino has more patience with this nonsense than I do) you then tag them as 'no permission', despite them having a very obvious licence tag on them.

There's a legal fallacy known as 'riding two horses': "I never shot him, judge, and anyway I'm a lousy shot and I missed." You can't claim that images are both deliberate spam, yet also they're not licensed by the uploader for use here!

Your actions have gone beyond reasonable into harassment and disruption. Now they need to either stop, or be stopped. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I am not engaging in harassment. I am participating in deletion discussions regarding files I have been involved with. F10 does not apply to non-personal corporate/architectural images, and missing permission tagging addresses a separate authorization concern, not a duplication of DR. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 19:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

not a duplication of DR yes it does duplicate the DR. Just look at what the no permission tag actually looks like on the page: . The tag creates a "challenge this speedy deletion" button because the no permission tag is a speedy deletion request. And your speedy deletion request on this file have already been challenged twice (first by the uploader, and the second time by me when I reverted your no permission tagging). Nakonana (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

My reasoning has already been explained in the DR above. If there are further concerns or disagreement, I believe the DR is the more appropriate venue to continue that discussion. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 19:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

My bad I thought the no permission Tag was reinstated after I had removed it, but those are actually two different files. Nakonana (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

You're going after someone just after they tagged some of your uploads for deletion, minutes later you post about them at AN/U. You can't leave them alone since. This is obvious harassment. You even brag about it, "Consider yourself under my constant observation."

You have tagged some files three times now, for three different reasons, including both F10 and G10. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Novus_fachada_e_colaboradores.png&action=history Now you're going after them for 'no permission', despite there being an obvious licence tag from the uploader.

If you disagree with this, then by all means use the DR mechanism to discuss why they should be deleted. But repeated irrelevant tagging is simply disruptive and wastes the time of the rest of us. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I already acknowledged in the DR that F10 was incorrectly applied and that G10 would have been the more appropriate criterion at the time. Correcting an incorrect rationale after discussion is not harassment. Permission concerns are separate from scope concerns and were raised independently based on concerns regarding the source of the upload set. If there is disagreement, that is what the DR process is for. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 19:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

You are falsely tagging files for 'no permission' when they have obvious licence tags on them. You're even doing this for files which already have a DR running. This is in itself disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove the no permission tag. I may have been overly cautious with the tagging, especially given the ongoing DR. The issue can be handled in the DR. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 20:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Why is everything that you do or post here the polar opposite of what it ought to be?

No, you do not speedy tag, "especially given the ongoing DR" when there's an ongoing DR. Why are you just trying to derail an ongoing discussion by throwing garbage speedy claims at it? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

They have reverted their tagging. Nakonana (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the contradiction here. An image can be both promotional (or personal content) and improperly licensed for Commons - they're not mutually exclusive. Omphalographer (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Please look at the files involved here first. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

No evidence has been provided that the file is someone else's work or that it was uploaded elsewhere before it was uploaded to Commons. See the DR discussion. Nakonana (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Nakonana, please read the DR you're claiming. I already explained my point there. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 19:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

In general I think Evelino Ucelo is a good contributor. My only concern are some of his rename requests, for example File:Woman in bikini in the ocean at White Rock beach, Hawaii (50014552666).jpg. There he suggested an image from an English-speaking photographer in an English speaking country to be renamed to a phrase in a constructed language (en:Lingua Franca Nova) that probably less than 1000 people can communicate in. That's a no-go in my view. --Isderion (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Renamers may choose another name or reject RR (I never asked for advanced rights, so actual renaming is done by someone else), but if names in particular language(s) is no-go, I can propose names in English (or Spanish, or French), but, AFAIK, Commons not have such policies. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

In the end renames are done, so that images can be easier found and people get an idea from the filename what the image is about. However, renaming it into a constructed language with only very few language-users seems to contradict these goals. Isderion (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Lingua Franca Nova is close to Romance languages, so people who understand some of them can passively understand LFN, but if names in LFN still not OK, I can suggest English names. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I prefer English as the current Lingua Franca, but the language of the author or the country of origin are also fine for me in case the original image does not already indicate a language. Isderion (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Evelino Ucelo: I agree with Isderion here. Please do not use a constructed language for file names, except when there is a direct relation to that language. Yann (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• For transparency, I would like to note a few factual points on record. I have not nominated any files associated with the account Evelino Ucelo for deletion (they have zero uploads). I also note that, following this AN/U discussion, several of my uploads were nominated by this user for DR: , , , , , , , . I do not object to the existence of these DRs as a process. Any user may open deletion discussions, and these discussions may be entirely legitimate and should be assessed on their own merits.

That said, I consider it relevant to document the chronology and context: shortly after this discussion, the same user began opening DRs involving files from my uploads. Given that I have uploaded more than 27,000 files, I think it is reasonable to note the context and sequence of events in which these nominations appeared. I am not presenting this as evidence of "harassment", and I am not making assumptions regarding motive. I only wish to document the context for transparency and will respond to each DR individually and on its merits. --heylenny (^talk/_edits) 11:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Just one question: whether this DRs are legitimate (or not?) Or perhaps Your files has immunity from me? In other words, any user may request deletion of these files, but only not Evelino Ucelo, Evelino can't!? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

P.S. Of course, You didn't said it explicitly, but between the lines… Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Not what I said. Explicitly stated that any user may open DRs and that these discussions may be entirely legitimate and should be assessed on their own merits. My comment was only intended to document chronology and context, not to question your ability to open DRs. Have nothing further to add here and will address each DR individually. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 12:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Heylenny: So far, Evelino Ucelo deletion nominations are legitimate, while yours are not. So please drop the stick. Yann (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm ok. Chill, bro. Just move on. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 13:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done per my comment above. No admin action necessary here. Please continue any needed discussion in with respect in the appropriate places. Yann (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sean1493

• Sean1493 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Constant vandalism. See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/JesseDegenerate Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Not vandalizing. The photos you uploaded are not of free use and I'm attempting to remedy that. Just because something is posted on X from a government official it does not mean it falls into a free licensing category. Sean1493 (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sean1493 please disclose your other accounts Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

How is this request not valid genuinely asking? Copyright remains with the original creator unless they explicitly transfer or license their rights and you have no clue who took the photo. Just because something is posted on social media it does not make it free use. Sean1493 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment This vandal insists in requesting speedy deletions even though there are open deletion requests . Can anyone please block it already? Yacàwotçã (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not a Wikipedia expert and am learning. Does learning mistakes constitute a ban :( I'm not doing anything malicious or vandalizing, I'm so confused. Sean1493 (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It looked like my questions and flags kept disappearing so I kept re-adding them. I'm sorry, but I don't know why you're so fervently trying to ban me? I'm raising a genuine reason, it's not baseless Sean1493 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This might better belong in COM:AN/U, since it is not clearcut vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel could you please move it to there then? It’s quite hard on mobile. Thanks, Yacàwotçã (talk) 19:20, 17 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)