Shortcut: COM:AN

Note

• 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|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

AI porn abuse images (with faces of real persons)

Please mass delete Special:Contributions/Nahé Modertorky Nude Babes and block the user (long-term abuse on skwiki using one-time accounts). --Teslaton (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done blocked and all files deleted. GPSLeo (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I also notified WMF legal on this. GPSLeo (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Teslaton: Can you please share the username of the sockmaster so I can make sure this is tagged properly on Commons? I remember this user (or someone else doing the same thing) coming up before. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

​ I don't keep track of his possible activities here on Commons, in fact this particular form of abuse (uploading custom deepfakes instead of using existing sexually explicit images) is quite new from his side AFAIK, but the page set affected on skwiki is highly correlated with previous cases, specific by inserting sexual vulgarisms/profanities and choosing sexually vulgar usernames. On skwiki there are dozens of related accounts over recent years, see with "Jednorázový provokačný účet, vulg." summary. Tehere is also a CU check related from 2023-09, . --Teslaton (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

How is this within scope of WMF legal? Trade (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Defamation laws. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

And revenge porn being illegal in some jurisdictions. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 15:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• WMF public policy in the United States had a private reaction to en:TAKE IT DOWN Act. I am a bit interested in writing something about this, or supporting someone in writing about this, for . Is anyone aware of other such cases coming to public attention? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

FlickreviewR

Bringing together several sections about the same issue.

Help rename DR page

So I tried performing a batch task to create a DR titled Anthems performed by Keith Terrett. Instead, the batch task tried and failed to create the page Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "https://nationalanthems.info/", can you please help me? TansoShoshen (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@TansoShoshen: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "https://nationalanthems.info/" does not exist (and with those quotation marks in the title probably wouldn't be a valid file name in any case) so there is nothing I can move. - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

There is filter in MediaWiki (not an AbuseFilter) preventing pages with https:// in the name to be created by non admins. GPSLeo (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Try doing the same search query without the https:// —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I was able to create that page while reviewing Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage. I have since notified all the uploaders (that had not already been notified) and cleared that cat.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Revdel request

Can an admin please email me for a revdel request and then mark {{Done}} on this thread? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Have emailed —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Stations of Sydney Metro

It's now been 6 years, can someone please close this discussion? Thanks! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gbawden (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Datasets about potential logos - May 2025 uploads

Hi all, we have released a new dataset of potential logos uploaded in May 2025, together with another one of those which have already been deleted as of 2025-06-02. We are sharing them with you for your consideration.

This is part of our current work with the logo detection tool. We hope it will be useful for your moderation activities.

If you encounter issues with the datasets or have comments/requests, please reach out to me or to Sannita (WMF).

Thanks for your attention! –-MFossati (WMF) (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Pornographic image in a gallery for error screens

Hi so in the gallery for the green screen of death (Category:Green screen of death) along with the actual images of those errors is just a picture of a nude woman in a green room, which, believe it or not, is not an error. Is there any way someone could remove it? Thanks. Therealkn1ghtsp1der (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a category and not a curated gallery. Files should not be removed from categories if they are actually linked to that topic. It is possible to create s sub category like Category:Green screen of death in art and move the photo to this category. GPSLeo (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done, by Capmo. --Túrelio (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I still say that it tremendously violates the "law of least surprise" for people to see nude photos when they look up tech topics. We need some general solution to this that will not leave people looking at NSFW images when they had no reason to expect to see them. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support. --Túrelio (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this about the series of tech-themed nudes by that one Russian photographer? I agree that they need to be removed from purely tech-related categories, and instead, it would make sense to create a "tech-related nudes" category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea how we can reach a formal, enforceable consensus on this? On the one hand we have the people who want to delete these all. On the other, we have people adding them continually to categories where no one would reasonably expect to encounter an NSFW image. I'd really like to get a firm consensus that on the one hand these images will not be deleted (give or take: I've seen a few bad crops among them that I see no reason to keep) and on the other that they will not turn innocuous tech categories into minefields. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Why cant we just hide NSFW media by default. Literally database website but Commons does that Trade (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure we can. First, you need to come up with a definition of NSFW that everyone can agree on... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

"Would titillate the Taliban" could cover it. :)   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, Flickr's three levels on this are sane, and would be a good place to start from in hashing this out (if only as something to react to). One thing where I'm almost certain we'd be different: we would not want to require login to go past the "safe" level.

But that is a tougher problem, and I'd rather see us solve the problem at hand rather than dream about where we might be after an inevitably long hashing-out. Does anyone have any idea how we can reach a formal, enforceable consensus to (1) keep Exey Panteleev's "Geekography" images, which there seems to be consensus are in scope and (2) keep them the hell out of categories where there would be a reasonable expectation that you can open that category on your screen in front of a high school class? - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't the way be to propose and debate the wording of a new policy? But is this page the best one for that proposal and debate, or should it take place elsewhere? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It's just such a narrow and specific thing, it seems weird to call it "policy". It's more a matter of having policies but they collide in a weird way here. (Normally, we'd have subcats to section out images involving nudity, like Category:Nude or partially nude people with toothbrushes, but it seems crazy to make one of those to contain exactly one image each for a ton of tech topics.) It's the sort of thing en-wiki sorts out with en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but we don't seem to have anything analogous. I'd guess our best bet is COM:Village pump/Proposals. Does anyone mind my taking this there? - Jmabel ! talk 23:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Have we considered creating an RFC mechanism? I can see value in this. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Your idea of the “principle of least surprise” is fantastic as a guideline, and frankly it should be a policy. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology) is relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Andy Dingley: no, really, it's no more relevant than at least half a dozen other DRs. As I said above, we consistently end up with consensus to keep these pictures, even if it is usually contentious. My concern here is about them coming up unexpectedly in categories. - Jmabel ! talk 18:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

    With respect, not in this case. It looks like the consensus is moving strongly to delete that image for the valid reason of it being out of scope for commons. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Essay, which I hope we can adopt as a guideline: Commons:Principle of least astonishment. Feel free to edit as usual, but please if you radically disagree with it, make that a signed comment, possibly on the talk page: don't rewrite it to say something else entirely. - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Excellent! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Need some pages unprotected / deleted

I need the following pages unprotected:

• User:Hedwig in Washington
• User:Hedwig in Washington/common.js

And these deleted:

• User:Hedwig in Washington/icon
• User:Hedwig in Washington/Funny

Thanks! Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Userpages deleted, main userpage unprotected. Can't unprotect common.js, it won't let me. I can't edit it either anyway. Bedivere (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere, Only interface admins can change protection on JS/CSS pages. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 02:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done GPSLeo (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Much obliged!! Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 09:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/GMatteotti

The previously blocked user User:GMatteotti and his socketpuppet User:Ikumir is still trying to avoid blocking by using multiple IP addresses to continue editing, see Special:Contributions/79.45.232.195 and Special:Contributions/87.2.13.43. For additional info, although it is in german, see User_talk:Chem_Sim_2001#z.K. and User_talk:Túrelio#File:Makarij_at_monastery_in_Verhoturje,_1909.jpg. Is it possible to block a several range of IP addresses. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Deletion request failed to file correctly..

Following up on an unresolved issue from a few years ago I attempted to start a DR using VFC:-

It failed. Special:Contributions/ShakespeareFan00

I'd like to request an admin rollback all my contributions on Commons made after 1000 this moring on the grounds that I am apprantly too stupid to use the tool. (I will be uninstalling it forthwith). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Resolved without admin assistance, but I'd appreciate someone doing a cleanup check. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Kreuzecharmeur

In late April and early May, User:Kreuzecharmeur nominated the files File:County Limerick Coat of Arms.png and File:Navan Coat of Arms.png for deletion on the basis that they were "AI-generated". In the deletion discussion for those files, it was explained to Kreuzecharmeur that the files were not AI-generated, but AI-assisted. Rather than being entirely created from an AI-prompt, only certain difficult-to-illustrate elements were created by ChatGPT, then further edited as part of an overall process in GIMP. 95% of the process is done in GIMP, and no hallucinations are possible as everything is manually done by a human.

All of this was done in compliance with COM:AI, and the use of AI was explicitly noted in the file descriptions. This was explained to Kreuzecharmeur.

Furthermore, users such as User:Omphalographer and User:Ikan Kekek pointed out that regardless of the process to create the files, they were also compliant with COM:INUSE.

Nevertheless, despite the files being marked as kept and ruled to be compliant with Commons guidelines, Kreuzecharmeur has continued to nominated for simply being "AI-generated", as they did in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kilkenny CoA.png. However, they admitted they are not nominating the files because they are in breach of Commons guidelines, but because of a personal distaste for AI. Kreuzecharmeur stated:

Learn how to draw coat of arms, we humans aren't disabled to draw, or keep these abominations to yourself; we don't need Ai generated images in Heraldry

I find this language hostile ("Abominations") and I find the fact they are nominated files created by myself simply because of their personal distaste for AI rather than commons rules to be wrong.

I believe Kreuzecharmeur should be admonished for this behaviour. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, my problem with their behavior is that the use of AI does not supersede COM:INUSE, so I agree that they should be warned to stop using that either explicitly or implicitly as a reason to nominate in use files and threatened with being blocked if they continue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This does seem to be a problematic position for User:Kreuzecharmeur to be taking. This seems to be a valid and worthy use of AI, done in a transparent manner. They also need to stop making derogatory comments. If they continue to nominate such images I think they need to be formally admonished. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Just learn how to draw lol, now I'm also sorta famous for saying a common sense thing. Nothing personal, but with AI you are only becoming more incompetent and maybe also pathetic

I also find it stupid to complain about this instead of deleting the post itself, which by the way, how long did it take you to do? 2 minutes? Kreuzecharmeur (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kreuzecharmeur: if you are trying to get your account blocked, just post again in the same tone as your last remark. Otherwise, I suggest you read Commons:Civility. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

User:NotLessOrEqual sock

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

13 accounts were blocked last year as socks of NotLessOrEqual, all of them having uploaded copyvio images of guns and tanks and computer parts that had been washed through https://www.deviantart.com/marcusburns1977 (archived). These images had all been badly AI upscaled, and many were found to have been taken without credit from videogames. The main discussion of these was at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with marcusburns1977.

marcusburns1977 abandoned their DeviantArt account shortly after that (presumably because it had allowed Commons to easily tie all the Commons sock accounts together), and switched to using smaller throwaway DeviantArt accounts instead.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nierkerki is an open deletion discussion about a lot of badly AI upscaled images of computer parts, washed through a number of small but similar DeviantArt accounts. It includes the same GTX/Nvidia/Titan brands of graphics cards that were featured in the marcusburns1977 uploads. Belbury (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Definitely problematic, honestly they need to be blocked and all images deleted. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

You have to wonder what his motivation for doing this is Trade (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Adding a second account to this report:

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

Their only upload, from March, is File:NAM 690 GTX Nvidia.jpg, another AI-upscaled Nvidia graphics card from a throwaway DeviantArt account that uploaded it the same day. Belbury (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Any reason not to indef-block? I don't see why we care whether it is sock or a different identically badly behaved user. - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Can we do anything at this point?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86u7VXQI480
https://sites.google.com/view/17months/17-months/a-wikipedia-love-story
Are all personal attacks by 17 months who is an sock puppeteer for the sake of harassing me over images and pages i deleted
Harassment is now creating semi erotic writing of me and another person
What can I do at this point Cyberwolf (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Contact the external hosting platforms and ask them to take down the defamatory materials? Even if the US free speech law wouldn't mandate it and a hate crime is apparently not present, the terms of usage /community rules of Google / Youtube should forbid such stuff. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I just have 0 power legally im fine with the diss but the webpage disgusts me frankly Cyberwolf (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a “Report abuse” button in the Google page, not sure if it will actually do anything but I guess it’s worth a try. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Didn’t see that thanks Cyberwolf (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)