Requests for comment/Bias against AI files on Commons

The following request for comments is closed. This request for comment does not follow usual policy change process, which is established on Commons. User is not blocked on Commons, hence they can raise such discussions themselves on local wiki (if) when appropriate. Meta has no authority to overrule local consensus of an established community, and in-line with Meta:What Meta is not I'm closing this request for comment as invalid.--A09|(pogovor) 06:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masry1973

Title: Concerns about biased deletion practices against AI-enhanced files on Wikimedia Commons

Summary

This request for comment is submitted to raise awareness about a pattern of biased deletion practices on Wikimedia Commons regarding AI-enhanced or AI-adjusted images. The issue has caused repeated deletions of files I uploaded, despite their compliance with Commons policies. I believe these practices are discouraging contributors, undermining neutrality, and creating an unofficial ban on a whole class of files without proper community consensus.

Background

I uploaded a set of freely licensed AI-enhanced images into Category:AI Image of Ahmed al-Sharaa:

AI-modified images of a real person, for which we have actual photos. Unused and should not be used.

And also this file:

File:(Enhanced Version) Manal Awad Mikhail 1.png

These files were clearly tagged with the proper templates for AI-related or enhanced content, as permitted on Commons.

The files were used on Wikimedia projects globally, filling a gap where no high-quality images of the subject existed (see an archived example here).

Deletion process and issues

Mass deletion request

User:GPSLeo nominated the entire category for deletion, citing reasons such as:

“AI is bad / low quality”

“The files are not in use”

These are not valid reasons under COM:DEL, which requires policy-based justification.

Personal opinions instead of policy

The nomination included subjective remarks such as “the altered photo looks just ugly.”

Commons deletion should be based on objective policies, not on an administrator’s personal aesthetic opinion.

Improper use of "not in use"

Per COM:SCOPE, lack of current usage is not grounds for deletion. Thousands of files are not in use but are retained for educational and future value.

Conflict of interest in undeletion

The same administrator User:The Squirrel Conspiracy who nominated the files for deletion was also the one to close the undeletion request and reject restoration.

This undermines neutrality and due process.

Retaliatory deletions

After I filed a complaint against GPSLeo, another AI-enhanced file of mine was deleted by a different admin.

The stated reason again cited “journalistic standards” and “ugly” aesthetics, which are not Commons policy grounds for deletion.

This deletion occurred while the broader discussion about AI and deletions was still ongoing, suggesting punitive action.

Policies referenced

:COM:DEL – Deletions must be grounded in Commons deletion policy, not personal opinions.

:COM:SCOPE – Lack of use is not a reason for deletion.

:COM:CONSENSUS – Broad consensus is required for significant changes; current practice resembles an unofficial ban on AI-related files without global consensus.

:COM:ADMIN – Administrators are expected to act neutrally and not use tools in cases where they are directly involved.

Harm caused

Contributors feel discouraged from uploading educationally valuable, free-licensed AI-enhanced files.

Administrators appear to be enforcing a de facto ban on AI images, which is not officially adopted by Commons or Wikimedia policy.

This practice risks alienating contributors and reducing the diversity of free content available.

Requests for comment

Should Commons administrators be permitted to delete AI-enhanced files solely on subjective grounds such as "ugly" or "not in use"?

Should an administrator be allowed to close undeletion requests for files they personally nominated for deletion?

How can we ensure that deletion decisions follow policy (COM:DEL) rather than personal bias?

Should there be a broader community discussion about AI-enhanced content, instead of allowing piecemeal deletions that effectively create a hidden ban?

Supporting links

Archived usage of deleted file: Archived link

Undeletion request (Category): Here

Undeletion request (other file): Here

Complaint against GPSLeo: Here on ANU

This is a purely local issue that has no business being on Meta. Commons is free to set a policy against AI-generated images and we would have no authority to overrule it here. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 20:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, @Pppery, I do not believe this is "purely a local issue."

There is currently no explicit Commons policy prohibiting the use of AI tools for quality enhancement of existing freely licensed photographs. If such a policy existed, I would of course comply with it. Instead, what happened here is that certain administrators have acted based on personal preferences and subjective judgments ("ugly," "should not be used," "AI is bad") rather than on clear, written Commons policies.

This creates a double standard: many unused files remain on Commons without issue, but AI-enhanced files—despite being properly licensed, transparently tagged with Template:AI-generated, and sometimes even used on Wikimedia projects—are being selectively targeted for deletion. That is not policy enforcement, it is prejudice.
As a contributor, I have invested significant time to upload and improve files in full compliance with Commons’ licensing rules and transparency requirements. To then be told that my work is being deleted for reasons *outside of policy* is deeply discouraging.
If Commons wishes to set a formal, community-approved policy against AI-generated or AI-enhanced files, that should go through proper channels such as a Request for Comment (RfC). Until then, administrators should not be deleting validly licensed files based on personal dislike.

Meta has a role to play when systemic administrator conduct undermines community trust, creates inconsistent application of rules, and effectively drives away good-faith contributors. This is not merely "local housekeeping," it is about governance and fair treatment across Wikimedia projects.

I respectfully ask Meta to consider this issue in that light and not to simply wash its hands of it. Masry1973 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons community has the final say on the interpretation of Commons policies (i.e what constitutes a valid deletion reason on Commons). There's nobody you can appeal to if you believe their interpretations are wrong. And counter to what you're implying, this is not one rogue admin, but the result of that community's valid decision-making processes; one Commons admin nominated them for deletion, a second one actually did the deletion, and a third one declined your undeletion request. That does not constitute any kind of systemic failure warranting the invention of extra-Commons parties.

This is exactly why we need Requests for comment/Require RfC filers to be autoconfirmed on Meta; to shut down these inherently doomed rants. Meta is not an appeals court for people who don't get their way on other projects. This will be my final comment here; please do not ping me again. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 21:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify an important point regarding the sequence of actions around the deletions of files in Category:AI Image of Ahmed al-Sharaa.

All files in this category were nominated for deletion by administrator User:The Squirrel Conspiracy, and then the same administrator later closed the undeletion request for this category, rejecting it himself. He also closed the note I placed on the Administrators’ noticeboard just a few hours after it was opened, and additionally declined the undeletion request for another file (File:(Enhanced Version) Manal Awad Mikhail 1.png).

Administrator User:GPSLeo—the same admin who initially nominated File:(Enhanced Version) Manal Awad Mikhail 1.png for deletion—was also the one who performed the deletions of the entire category only a few days after the nomination, leaving little room for broader community discussion.

This pattern creates the appearance of a division of roles between the same small group of administrators, where one nominates, the other deletes, and then the same individuals repeatedly close the related undeletion requests. Such a process makes it extremely difficult for other community members to weigh in, and it undermines the expectation of an open, fair, and community-based discussion.

While I respect that Commons policies leave interpretation to the community, the substance of my concern is not being addressed: the quality, licensing, and free status of the files were never genuinely evaluated in these deletion discussions. Instead, the outcome appears predetermined by a few admins who are strongly opposed to AI-enhanced images in general, rather than based on policy-driven reasoning.

This is the real issue I hope can be looked at more seriously. Masry1973 (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by others

Masry1973 is forum shopping. They've been told repeatedly that their uploads are out of Commons:COM:SCOPE, and having exhausted all forums on Commons, finds themselves here. I don't think anything else really needs to be said about this matter. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to statements by others

I would like to clarify that my actions are not forum shopping, but the normal escalation path after local processes failed to provide a fair resolution. The same administrator, The Squirrel Conspiracy, was involved in nominating, deleting, rejecting undeletion, and closing my noticeboard request, which indicates a conflict of interest rather than a broad community consensus. My concern is about process integrity and adherence to Commons policies, not about re-litigating the same issue in multiple venues. --Masry1973 (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]