Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:AN

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	133, 132, 131, 130, 129, 128, 127, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~205
• Unfree Flickr files: ~1
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2026-09: ~238

Other:

• Duplicates: ~287
• Advertisements/spam: ~3
• Personal photos/selfies: ~16
• Other speedy deletions: ~92
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~1
• Requests for unblock: ~0
• Undeletion requests: ~47

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~59
• Interface admin: ~6
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~30
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

Closing of DRs

Hi, can someone who is not involved and (ideally) speaks German close these deletion requests? In my opinion, all these files lack permission to be hosted on Commons.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lothar Beyer Chemist.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wolfgang Lorenz – Portrait.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manfred Weißenfels, 1992.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reinhard Kirmse.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nefedov, Wadim bearb.jpg

Thanks and best regards, ChemSim (Talk) ^{ping me pls} 11:35, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done by myself as no support from other admins. ChemSim (Talk) ^{ping me pls} 16:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Uploading an entire book

I'm asking about this here basically because I don't know where else to ask. If this is the wrong place, then please point me in the right direction. It looks like someone uploaded scans/photos of each page of the 1595 book Atlas sive cosmographicae to Commons. The book has long entered into the public domain so copyright isn't an issue; however, it seems something like this would be better off at WikiBooks, at least it does to me. I could understand uploading illustrations or other images to Commons, but every page just seems a bit odd. Of course, it could just be me who's odd. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Commons holds free media files for Wikimedia projects. In the case of book scans, they're uploaded to Commons in order to make correct and verifiable transcriptions of the books on Wikisources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure we have somewhere upwards of 100,000 of these, maybe upwards of a million. Interesting that it never crossed your path before. - Jmabel ! talk 18:16, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for clarifying things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of the 2005 version of File:Al Faisaliyah Center.jpg

The 2005 version of the file must be deleted as it appeared to originate from an unknown source (claiming to be English Wikipedia as source). Immediate redaction needed. For evidence, see the file log. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:50, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Check of a deleted file for similarities to live upload

Hello,

can an admin please review File:Klaza show.png for any similarities with File:Klaza all over.jpg? It's possible that the JPEG was the recreation of a previously deleted content. Additionally, I am pretty sure that Klazashow (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is nothing more than a self-promoter and NOTHERE for beneficial contributions, so a block may be warranted, too. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted the selfie and userpage. You warned him, if he continues, then he must be blocked. Taivo (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Taivo, he continued: Special:Diff/1272747515/1272767658... @Jameslwoodward: as info. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him. Without Jim's warning I would block him for longer time. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Nominations by Igor123121 in QI

For the past month and a half, the QI project has been discussing the behaviour of a contributor who appears to be gaming the rules - for example, uploading copies of quality images, changing them by a few pixels, and nominating them again.

Despite the discussion, the contributor has not changed their behaviour. Do Commons administrators use topic bans or similar measures in such cases? Does anyone have ideas about what could be done?

It does not seem necessary to change the rules of the entire QI project because of one person behaving this way. At the moment, however, it seems that the project itself has run out of ideas about what we can do.

@Igor123121: as the respondent, @Екатерина Борисова, Jakubhal, Poco a poco, Юрий Д.К., MB-one, Lmbuga, Smial, Harlock81, Красный, Plozessor, Alvesgaspar, Lrkrol, XRay, and Benjism89: as participants in the discussion. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 19:40, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Lvova: I'm not sure I completely follow that. Are you saying that the user repeatedly nominates their legitimate own work for QI, fails, changes a few pixels, uploads under a different filename, and nominates this new file for QI? Or something slightly (or very) different? - Jmabel ! talk

No, it's not like that. If someone's photo has not received QI status in QIC project due to some shortcomings or simply went unnoticed, the author is free to improve it a little and nominate it again, it is not forbidden and does not bother anyone, many participants do so. Igor123121 does something else. He nominates a photo, the photo gets a QI status, then some time later he uploads again the same photo to Commons under a slightly different name and making minor changes, and nominates this photo again. Thus, he nominates the same photo twice, and duplicate photos appear in Commons in large numbers. In the discussion that Lvova linked to, you can read more about this and see examples. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Galego: Non vexo saída. É evidente que as normas teñen que ser transformadas, cambiadas ou melloradas tras o paso dos anos. Aquí seguimos con 2 megapíxels e podendo repetir unha imaxe cen veces. É así. É así, Екатерина, gustaríame que tiveses razón, pero segundo as normas pódese nomear a mesma foto coa menor variación imaxinable e ao mellor sen ela, se é un arquivo diferente ou quizais tamén se é igual pois abonda con poder subilo. Eu, con frecuencia, subo dúas fotos, unha 2x3 e outra 1x1, ou algo semellante. Creo que non é o caso. Eu non entendo a quen pretende ter QIs, pobre ser humano. O que hai é que cambiar o sistema: FACER NOVAS REGLAS

--Lmbuga (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

The past is over. Are you afraid? We are building a new world. It will surely be better.--Lmbuga (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Let's go. Let's all go. Let's go! Lmbuga (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

What it was? Анастасия Львова^ru/en 06:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Екатерина Борисова: @KaiBorgeest: @Aciarium: @Юрий Д.К.: @Espandero: @George Chernilevsky: @MB-one: @Vsatinet: @Moheen: @JackyM59: @Alexander-93: @Petro Stelte: @ArildV: @JaydenChao: @Jacek Halicki: @Jakubhal: @BouketenCate: @Lvova: @TTTNIS: @Alexxx1979: @Brihaspati: @FlocciNivis: @Poco a poco: @Charlesjsharp: @Pdanese: @Jaqbpl: @Tisha Mukherjee: @Remontees: @Llez: @Tagooty: @Sebring12Hrs: @Mike1979 Russia: @Atudu: @XRay: @Igor123121: @Anitava Roy: @Esniom: @Romzig: @Syntaxys: @Pangalau: @Julesvernex2: @Sebring12Hrs: @Another Believer: @Plozessor: @Harlock81: @Benjism89: @GRDN711: @Smial:

Galego: seguro que falta gente, añadidla

• @Lmbuga: : Could we please keep this discussion calm and focused? Comments about "building a new world" and mass pings are making it harder to follow. If you are proposing changes to the QI rules, please explain them in the original discussion on Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates. This report asks whether administrators can address a specific contributor’s repeated nomination of near-identical images. --Jakubhal 04:13, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• For anyone joining the discussion: the concern is not about photographic series whose images differ sufficiently from one another. It is about cases such as variant 1 and variant 2: the same photograph uploaded under different filenames with minimal changes and nominated twice at QIC, despite already having received QI status. --Jakubhal 04:13, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

QI is totally not my area, but do we ever have two variants of the same photo both marked as QIs? If not, it would be simple to make a rule saying we simply don't do that. - Jmabel ! talk 05:04, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't want to repeat the 45-days discussion here, why do you request it?

We are here to gather knowledge, not to pad our stats. I am requesting a topic ban to the user who is abusing existing rules. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 06:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

What is the point of pinging nearly 50 people to this discussion? Especially since only 16 people actually participated in the discussion that went on for over a month? This clearly shows that only a handful of people are interested in the topic, while a group users keeps changing the venue of the discussion and posting texts about "building a new world". If I am looking at it correctly, the issue with the example of the same photos presented by Jakubhal is fundamental - not only do we have a slightly different angle, but also a different color tone. Besides, the duplicates were already merged over a month ago by an administrator (for which I am very grateful).

Additionally, this group of 16 people is deliberately accusing me of hypocrisy; they claimed I was ignoring the discussion and used passive-aggressive behavior towards me. I put my heart into this project, I do not even use any financial support from Wikimedia Polska, and I have created over 1,500 Quality Images and nearly 20 Valued Images without expecting any applause. Unfortunately, a group of people has targeted me as their scapegoat - they have probably searched my contribution history inside out 20 times by now, and they even tried to create scripts to analyze my photos. Now, for reasons unknown, a Russian user who did not participate in the discussion is suddenly filing a request for a block on my editing. A block, after all, is not supposed to be a punishment, but a measure to protect the project from vandalism. And Jakubhal - one of the main accusers himself - adds a lot of photos from a single event by himself and no similar discussions were opened in his case. Best regards.

----

Igor123121 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I participated in that discussion, Igor, and asking not for a block yet.

We are not passive-agressive, we directly say that you behave outside rules. And we're really a group - a group of active QI users, who follow the rules. 16 people are ~90% of the QI project, Igor.

So now it's visible for sysops, that you don't see the problem and aren't going to change the behaviour without additional restrictions.

The only mentioned nationality here is mine; a little bit interesting, why is it so important to mention, because if you want to continue like that, this may be a reason for a block request. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 10:46, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear Igor, your behavior is quite obviously disrupting the QIC project. I have noted elsewhere that you are always intimately familiar with the written rules—interpreting them literally whenever they seem to support your actions—yet general project principles and QIC rules suddenly appear entirely new to you (or, in your view, are being misinterpreted by everyone but yourself) whenever you are asked to stop or alter your disruptive behavior. There is a German saying that goes: "ONE wrong-way driver on the Autobahn? HUNDREDS!" Best regards. Smial (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Smial: In the US, we have WRONG WAY signs for drivers that take the wrong way. I've also heard "If everyone is telling you that you're doing it wrong, you're probably doing it wrong."   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:13, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Lvova: I didn't ask you to repeat a 45 days discussion. I just asked whether we ever mark two variants of a photo as QIs. (or was that not addressed to me? Either way, my question stands.) - Jmabel ! talk 23:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

(per discussion, which I support) I think this would actually be quite difficult to formulate as a rule, precisely because this problem seems to have arisen from one user's particular pattern of behaviour rather than from a general problem within QIC.

Once we try to make a rule saying when two variants of the same photograph may or may not both be QIs, we would have to define how different they need to be, and I don't think there is a clear line that can be formulated without creating a number of exceptions.

So I would be reluctant to introduce a general rule specifically because of one user who is repeatedly pushing the boundaries of what is normally done. The question in the cases we have been discussing is not simply whether two variants originate from the same photograph, but whether repeatedly uploading and nominating barely distinguishable variants is an abuse of the QI process. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 10:56, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Igor, I initially wanted to believe these were isolated cases and that you would properly explain them in the QIC discussion. However, I changed my mind for several reasons:

• Around the time that discussion began, you promoted several technically very poor photographs by someone who had promoted yours, as a "reward".
• You acknowledged that you promote other people's photographs as a reward for promoting yours, and defended this as a good practice in a dismissive manner.
• I generated a script to check, out of curiosity, how many such duplicates there were among your photographs. I was surprised by how many I found.
• Instead of responding constructively, stopping the duplicate nominations and reviewing photographs on their merits rather than "rewarding" their authors, you repeatedly insisted that you were doing nothing wrong and that people were picking on you. Neither I nor Agnes nor anyone else producing good photographs needs "reward" promotions from you. Our nominations should be judged on their quality.

Since you are once again making personal accusations against me and drawing me into a discussion I have frankly had enough of, I am responding.

Yes, I upload photographs from events. But it takes considerable bad faith to overlook the substantial differences between those photographs. Street theatre performances also capture moments that cannot be repeated: each performance is shaped by the audience's reactions and what happens on that particular occasion.

By contrast, you take several similar photographs of an ordinary residential building or street-a view that can generally be photographed again-and upload and nominate all of them at QIC. In some cases, you then make a minor adjustment, such as changing the brightness, and nominate another version a few weeks later. These are materially different practices, and comparing them does not answer the concern about your nominations.

If this continues, the QI category for Kraków risks becoming filled with multiple versions of routine snapshots of residential buildings. That makes the category less useful: distinctive and valuable photographs become harder to find among hundreds of similar images.

Your user page carefully records when you reach successive QI milestones - 1,300, then 1,400, and so on. Taken together with the nomination pattern, this gives me the impression, already expressed by another contributor, that you are treating QIC as a game of accumulating promotions and breaking personal records. What purpose does that serve for Commons?

I think a break from QIC would give you an opportunity to reconsider what you want to contribute through this process. I therefore support a topic ban from QIC, initially for a few weeks, with a longer restriction if the same behaviour resumes. The purpose would be to prevent this pattern from continuing and give you a clear opportunity to change your approach. Jakubhal 04:05, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jakubhal: I  Support a break from QI for @Igor123121.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:11, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Armin Ronacher in August 2014.jpg

Since the uploader appears to be related to the subject, it seems heavily invasive for this image to be geocoded with enough precision to identify the apartment in Vienna where the photo was taken. The usual solution on enwiki would be an edit to remove the personal information from the file page and then revdel the earlier revisions. Not sure how commons handles it. Apocheir (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Apocheir: that would be a perfectly acceptable solution. I don't have time to do it right now, could someone else please take this on? (Bringing it here was a bit much of a risk of the Streisand effect, in my view.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:08, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

OK, got to it.  Done - Jmabel ! talk 06:56, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Rapists.

Following up to Special:PermanentLink/1273396613#Category:Rapists.

Category:Rapists. exists because we prevented the creation of Category:Rapists.

The properly named category has been blocked since 2017, probably because it was repeatedly being used inappropriately. The admin who deleted and protected it was Daphne Lantier, a.k.a. INeverCry, now globally blocked but I don't think it was necessarily a bad decision. But either we should have the category or we shouldn't. "Category:Rapists." is a bad workaround. We need to go one way or the other. - Jmabel ! talk 05:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Surely, there are convicted rapists in the world that could be so tarred. But a category here seems like a bad idea.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:13, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Need help with Revision Deletion for an accidental policy violation on a .map page

Hi everyone, I recently created a JSON map page on Wikimedia Commons c:Data:List of European tornadoes in 2026.map to visualize storm tracks. However, other users pointed out that the database (ESWD) strictly disallows sharing their raw geospatial data in a downloadable format.

I immediately removed all the features from the code, so the current page is empty. However, the raw data is still visible in the page history (revisions). Because it is a .map namespace, I am having trouble applying the usual speedy deletion templates. Could an administrator please perform a Revision Deletion or completely delete the page and its entire history to ensure full compliance with ESWD guidelines? Thank you so much for your help. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 09:39, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done deleted the whole thing under G7, since you tagged it with SD. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)