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.

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:

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: [1] 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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 [2] 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
MonicasHouse STILL refuses to stop! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:19, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ 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)Reply
They didn't even sign their work.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

@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)Reply

@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)Reply
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)Reply
+1, thanks @Dronebogus: --Isderion (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Not done and DR closed as delete Bedivere (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
@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)Reply
  • 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)Reply

BOOMERANG for RAN and SomeFancyUsername

[edit]

These two users User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and User:SomeFancyUsername started a baseless report of the noticeboard, without knowing the situation and citing adequate evidence to support their claim, which waste the community time and boder the administrators. Moreover, it caused disruption User:Dronebogus, such behaviour should not be tolerated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-22687-11 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Not done No need for a boomerang here and, frankly, if you are going to suggest sanctions against longstanding users for anything short of blatant violations, have the nerve to have and use a named account of your own so that it can be seen whether or not you have an axe to grind. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
RAN is notorious for being some sort of a hassle (their genealogical categories and documents of dubious relevance) but this report does not merit a boomerang, no. Bedivere (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Garnishes your ice cream
The above temporary account (~2026-22687-11) got indefinitely blocked for trolling a day later Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

The user was blocked in German WP on April 12 [3], keeps ranting at me here [4][5]. I don't know anything about Obersendling. Ailura (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC) P.S. also look at the sourcecodeReply

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

 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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
This was added after this thread:[6], this makes two personal accusations without a comprehensable reason. Ailura (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
On de.wp the block was lifted on the same day (see [7]), but here we 1 month for a first-timer; seems a bit high Isderion (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Was soll der Nonsens von einer Umgehung der Sperre? Auf Commons war sie noch nie gesperrt: [8]. Und hätte sie nicht antworten dürfen als Rufus46 auf ihrer Benutzerdiskussionsseite einen Thread eröffnete bzw. sie ansprach: [9]? Und jetzt forderst du einen Canossagang für diese vollkommen überzogene Sperre? -- Bwag (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Sie hat nach der Warnung eh das Ding von ihrer Diskussionsseite wieder runter genommen: [10], leider kam dann Rufus46 wieder vorbei und startete die Diskussion neu: [11]. Dafür und als "Ersttäterin" gleich ein Monat aufzubrummen ist schon ein starke Stück - meine bescheidene Meinung. -- Bwag (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ 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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply
 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)Reply

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

What? We are aliens. (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I really may misunderstand that it's actually not a hoax. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Are you saying aliens do not exist? We are aliens. (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Of course we object, but do what you will. We are aliens. (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
So Already done - Jmabel ! talk 22:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

Wiki and commons aren’t censored. Burfchunt (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Indef as NOTHERE is what I would  Support. Shaan SenguptaTalk 03:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@Chyutokuu-Shinsei 10 years in the future?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Oh thanks for the advice. ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 22:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
But let’s stick to the topic here. ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 22:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
What do you want to say about me? ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 22:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
So is it possible that XtraJovial apologizes to Chyutokuu in that case? GokuraNoMori (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Gokura is actually one of my friends, so they are concerned about me 😣 ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 06:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
By the way, it was created before this discussion started ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 06:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
See here. XtraJovial (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Please do not get confused. ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 06:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I have already said, where is the evidence? ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 08:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
If not we shall close this discussion. Might be a waste of time too, I agree to Jmabel. ChyutokuuShinsei (User’s Message Wall) 08:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm blocking both accounts as NOTHERE. Whether sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or just disruptive, they are wasting our time. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Taivo, I think there is a need to revoke TPA. The user is spamming messages that serve no purpose. Shaan SenguptaTalk 18:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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:

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

 Comment One more warning. @Armanum Luwian: Please listen to advices, or you will get blocked. Yann (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@Armanum Luwian: you need to read wikipedia:Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

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.

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

✓ 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)Reply
@Jmabel: Thanks. You could wear your enwiki hat, too.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
@Jmabel: Fair enough.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

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

~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:

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)Reply

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 changes on any DR subpages) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 07:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think these are 'bogus', just remarkably badly formatted. I suggest centralising the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2026/04/Category:Photographs in the George Eastman House Collection.
'Secondary copyright' isn't 'weird', it's just a claim for the creation of an extra copyright by image libraries and museums, owing to them doing image library stuff. It's obviously potentially profitable and it's also clearly refuted under most copyright jurisdictions. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's also designated Copyfraud.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:00, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment I closed all DRs. Yann (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

This user has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted promotional images from the 2025 Superman film and has ignored any warnings on Commons and the English Wikipedia against this. They appear to be deriving the images from fan sites. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Trailblazer101: you do not seem to have notified the user of this discussion on their talk page, as is required. I have done so for you. - Jmabel ! talk 00:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
4 uploads, all related to Superman, all deleted. Yann gave a "last warning". None of the uploads post-date that, so I'm not sure there is anything to do here. - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

IgnacioEspinoT (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Ovruni: I gave them a final warning.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
All their images got deleted btw Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Matchboxposters (talk • contribs • block log • filter log)

@Adtonko: brought this user to my attention on my talkpage.

The user uploaded a huge collection of "old" matchbox labels, incorrectly licensed with {{PD-ineligible}}, dates in the file dexcription probably incorrect. Then the source is always "Scan from the MatchboxPosters vintage matchbox label collection" with a link to matchboxposters.com, a shopping website that seems to specialize in marketing pictures of old matchbox labels as posters. I think we not only have a licensing problem here with all the uploads from this user, but there is also massive SEO spam being carried out. In this sense, the uploads should be deleted and the user whose name is identical to the name of the website should be blocked, but further opinions on this are welcome. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 01:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply