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
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	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	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	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: ~127
• Unfree Flickr files: ~1
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~2
• No permission since 28 December 2025: ~28
• No source since 28 December 2025: ~29
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2026-01: ~80

Other:

• Duplicates: ~302
• Advertisements/spam: ~21
• Personal photos/selfies: ~58
• Other speedy deletions: ~82
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~11
• Undeletion requests: ~17

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~53
• Interface admin: ~15
• Technical: ~2
• Template protection: ~8
• 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.

Streamline abuse filter actions

I'm here to ask that the following changes be made to our various abuse filters:

• 60, 206, 210, 217 - Due to phab:T377579, please disable blockautopromote.
• 4, 16, 31, 53, 56, 75, 77, 84, 88, 96, 103, 105, 113, 116, 117, 122, 130, 174, 188, 192, 195, 195, 199, 208, 246 - Disable warn while keeping disallow, and replace the disallow message (e.g., Abusefilter-disallowed) with the warn message (e.g., Abusefilter-warning-somewarning).

JJP_Master (she/they) 20:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The first part is done. Yes, these warning and blocking combination seems not to make sense. Does anyone know why they exist? GPSLeo (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: To the best of my understanding, it used to be the case that you couldn't add custom "disallow" messages, so admins would set the filter to both warn (to display the custom message) and disallow. See also: b:Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2025/January#Significant update requests to edit filters. JJP_Master (she/they) 21:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

User:GeographBot uploads of Commons:Derivative works from advertisements

@Multichill: I deleted more than 400 such files from Category:Aylesbury. It's likely that similar problem exists in categories about other UK locations (see Category:Advertising in Belfast as another example). Since file names contain advert, import of such files should be blacklisted by default by bot owner. Some of them are {{PD-text}}, but bot owner must review such files manually before allowing bot to proceed. Also bot owner should be responsible to at least for partial cleanup of existing uploads. Sure, this is holiday season and immediate reaction of bot owner could not be expected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

As well as PD-text, Category:Advertising in Belfast includes several images of adverts which are below TOO, PD-old, or de-minimis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like geograph user melodie is the source of these adverts around Aylesbury. I deleted the remaining advert photos by this user. Multichill (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

52 Images of Ants eating rice

This users has created and spammed many categories with many near identical images. For example 52 images of ants eating rice: there are many, many more images which are medium to low quality with many many copies. Example: File:9797Malakapas textures Alakaak textures 40.jpg also look at the description of that file:

Malakapas textures Mojarra Malakapas and Alakaak textures Tuel, Balat, DulamaCroaker Johnius amblycephalus Johnius amblycephalus (Bleeker, 1855) Dendrophysa russelii (Cuvier, 1829) Dendrophysa russelii in Poblacion, Baliuag, Bulacan Timeline of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Philippines 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Philippines Bayanihan to Heal as One Act (RA 11469) Bayanihan Act of 2020. Signed on March 24, 2020 7,958 Covid-19 cases in Philippines April 28; 12,933 as of May 19, 2020; 14,669 Covid-19 cases in Philippines May 26; 886 deaths; Covid-19 cases in Philippines June 2 - 18,997 and 966 deaths; August 18 - 169,213 cases COVID-19 Philippines, new cases 4,836, 53,665 active cases; 112,861 recovered, 2,687 deaths; August 20 Coronavirus Cases: 173,774 Deaths: 2,795 Recovered: 113,481; 178,022 cases COVID-19 Philippines, new cases, 4,339 added. 61,025 active, 114,116 recovered and 2,883 deaths August 22 Philippines Coronavirus Cases: 182,365 Deaths: 2,940 Recovered: 114,519 Category:Sitios and puroks of the Philippines Subdivisions of the Philippines Barangay Poblacion 14°57'17"N 120°54'2"E, Baliuag, Bulacan, Bulacan province taken under weather conditions of Habagat Monsoon of South Asia Low Pressure Area (LPA) Southwest Monsoon (Note: Judge Florentino Floro, the owner, to repeat, Donor FlorentinoFloro of all these photos hereby donate gratuitously, freely and unconditionally Judge Floro all these photos to and for Wikimedia Commons, exclusively, for public use of the public domain, and again without any condition whatsoever).

This text is in many many images. To create a Deletion Request would be a huge tast. Better an admin gets the ok to just go through and mass deletes most of those near identical images. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 21:14, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The uploader was blocked and globally locked years ago. File:9797Malakapas_textures_Alakaak_textures_40.jpg is very blurry and might be a good candidate for a deletion request. The parts of the text that do not refer to the image should be removed IMO even if the image is not deleted. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Correction: the global lock is from February 2025. Sockpuppets may be more recent. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Amada44: for the future, VFC actually makes mass DRs like this pretty easy to create. - Jmabel ! talk 22:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any replacement photos of 9797Malakapas_textures_Alakaak_textures_40.jpg? Because otherwise it seems hard to justify Trade (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I am going to greatly reduce my involvement in blocking accounts

I am not one of the main people here who imposes blocks on accounts. Still, I am about to cut back considerably from the moderate involvement I have had. Why? Because I keep encountering users who make vague reports, often seem to assume that every admin here is familiar with every LTA we've ever had (e.g. reporting behavior that, at least to me, looks innocuous on the surface because it apparently resembles some LTA, but they give no indication of whom), and at least one time out of ten if I ask any questions so that I can actually make an informed decision, they take this as hostility on my part. (Oh, also: reports that some user's edits are abusive or otherwise problematic, with no links or diffs provided, and where there are plenty of OK edits from that user.)

I'll continue to block obvious vandals, LTAs where I happen already to be familiar with the case, people who are egregiously inappropriate toward other users, etc., plus people where the person filing the report actually gives me enough to go on. But I am pretty much done asking for more information in the face of frequent hostility when I do so, and I am totally done taking anything longer than a very few minutes trying to work out for myself what is going on with a vague report.

If someone believes I should be de-admin'd for this, go ahead and start that process. Just so long as you permalink my remarks here, I'll stay out of the discussion except insofar as I'm directly addressed. - Jmabel ! talk 08:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable position and very similar to mine from my perspective. Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

No it isn't. You're a long-time checkuser who has no problem spotting socks from a mile away because you're very good at it. Notice that JMabel doesn't link any of these so-called vague reports. That's because other admins blocked the socks or JMabel themselves blocked them eventually or they were locked on Meta. If those admins had no problem doing the blocks, than why is JMabel having such a hard time with them? You wouldn't have these issues. You would do the appropriate blocks and let users get back to other and better work. Geoffroi 01:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Geoffroi: I have no intention of calling out anyone else here. Per what I said above, if you believe this is not, as Herbythyme called it, a "perfectly reasonable position," propose that I be de-admined. End of story. - Jmabel ! talk 04:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm just saying you guys aren't similar in your way of dealing with LTAs. Geoffroi 04:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel, there is no denying that these things discourage one to continue contributing with the same enthusiasm. But, if the community continues to loose people like you, it won't be good for the project. It is on us, as a community, to fight out of a situation like this. I say, take a (small) break rather than "greatly reducing" your involvement with blocks, maybe it'll help. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta: With all due respect: no. I'm done with trying to be the one who either sleuths or asks questions when people can't be bothered to file a coherent report. - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Why do you need it spelled out in such perfect detail? You have an unblock button, so if you do a block that turns out not to be correct, as sometimes happens even with the most experienced admins, you unblock the account and move on. It's not that big of a deal. You do more harm when you make people beg you to do simple blocks that end up being done anyways. Do you think experienced editors are making false reports? A good blocking admin has to use the duck test and trust other users. If you're not comfortable with blocks, why do you respond to so many reports? I think you're a good admin, and I would oppose an RFD, but we need admins at AN/BP who're a bit quicker on the draw and not afraid to make decisions based on their own experience or that of experienced editors who report and deal with LTAs frequently. Geoffroi 01:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Geoffroi: Let me spell this out, in case I have somehow been unclear: the reason I am pulling back from this is partly that multiple users, you certainly among them, have expressed anger at me over how I handle this. I am not here to do the job exactly as you personally want it done. I am here to use my own judgement. You are among several who have not liked my judgement in these matters, and let me know with great force. If you expect that the way I will respond to that is to become your rubber stamp, you are out of luck. I am genuinely surprised that you are unhappy with my pulling away from an area where you did not like how I have handled it. - Jmabel ! talk 04:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Other admins have had no problem blocking these socks quickly and effectively. Please stop putting all the blame on patrollers. Geoffroi 04:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Stop bitching at him. Great, other admins have no problem, so what? The fact that you've harassed him to get out of doing this job, and now you continue to harass him for that, is out of line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

He had his say and I've had mine. He won't hear anything from me on this again. Have a nice day. Geoffroi 20:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thank you for your continued commitment to the project. I share your frustration. Please note, however, that sometimes my vagueness (in the face of filter 257 hits) is because no one has been willing to make it more specific, and sometimes I am following en:WP:DFTT and en:WP:RBI advice.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

This specific filter is way to large and complicated. We should deactivate it and make separate filters for stuff where it is really needed. @Elcobbola, who maintains the filter. Generally we should work as much as possible with page protection instead of filters. GPSLeo (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Filter 257 is not relevant to this discussion. It targets only two "related" LTAs that cannot be addressed with protection. The complexity has the sole purpose of limiting collateral--simplification, the implicit call of "way to (sic) large and complicated" would be harmful. There is already a separate filter (257a) to track the parameters that would cause too much collateral. Please consider Chesterton's fence before making careless declarations ("We should deactivate it and make separate filters"). Эlcobbola _talk 15:36, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Эlcobbola: When I see 257 hits, how would you have me explain (or not) at ANU (or another Admin noticeboard here) or m:srg, or act otherwise?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Could you give us examples of AN complaints that you believe were too vague to be useful? --Trade (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: If that was addressed to me, as I said above I don't want to call anyone out. However, I will give a few general examples of the sort of thing I mean:

• Just an account name and "LTA", where the user's edits would not otherwise appear to be particularly problematic. Only a handful of admins have comprehensive mental lists of the various LTAs and what is characteristic of their edits. Any other admin who tries to pick this up is at best going to have to do some unnecessary research. At worst, they are being asked to take a more-or-less random user's word that an otherwise seemingly innocuous account needs to be blocked. When reporting an LTA, please give some indication of the sockmaster and, ideally, some indication of what you see that looks like that sockmaster, e.g. "uploading fictional flags", "re-uploaded such-and-such deleted file", etc.
• Just an account name and "see contribs" or "abusive editing" or whatever, where plenty of the user's contributions are innocuous. If I look randomly and see 3 or 4 contributions that are not problematic from a user with dozens (or hundreds) of edits, just how many am I supposed to look at? Please, link 1 to 5 problematic edits (1 will do if it's so egregious as to likely deserve an indef-block, otherwise 3-5 is better).
• Just an account name and "looks fishy to me." What looks fishy? Where should someone start?
• Knowing, but failing to mention that someone has already been identified for some serious problem on another wiki.
• Mentioning only that someone has already been identified for some serious problem on another wiki, without saying anything about any problematic behavior on Commons.

Those examples are intended as representative, not exhaustive. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Repeatedly overwriting deletion requests with speedy deletions

Counterfeit Purses has repeatedly reinserted speedy deletion templates on File:Luigi Mangione McDonald's Original Photo.png and File:Luigi Mangione McDonald's Photo 01.png, despite the fact that other editors are following the procedure to have a deletion discussion rather than a speedy deletion. (The speedy deletion template explicitly says, "If you think that the media file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please open a regular deletion request and remove this template."). Einsof (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I placed speedy deletion templates on the two images because they are copyright violations. I also started a regular deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luigi Mangione McDonald's Original Photo.pngso that people would have a chance to comment in the even that the speedy deletion was denied (one image is a crop of the other).

Luigi Mangione fanboys have since edit warred over the speedy deletion tags rather than letting an admin decide if the images are copyright violations. For some reason, I have also been threatened on my talk page by GPSLeo that I will be banned from speedy deletions. Copyright violations should be deleted as soon as possible, without having to wait for a deletion discussion to be closed. Perhaps some knowledgable admin could review the status of the images and end this silliness. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Einsof Please note that I also templated two other files for speedy deletion from the same uploader, File:Luigi Mangione Photo 01.png and File:Luigi Mangione Photo 02.png. All of these cases are simple copyright violations from an inexperienced user and can be quickly dealt with without the need for edit warring, posts aton this noticeboard or spurious arguments at a deletion discussion. The only thing that makes these images different is that the subject is Luigi Mangione. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

All of these cases are simple copyright violations from an inexperienced user and can be quickly dealt with Well then there should be no issue with opening up a deletion discussion, since everything is so simple to deal with. Einsof (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

There is an issue. Obvious copyright violations like these Reuters images are eligible for speedy deletion under Com:CSD #F1. Converting an obvious copyright violation to a DR is inappropriate. The fake licenses on the other two images are a problem too. Geoffroi 21:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Nobody has touched the speedy deletion tag on the Reuters upload. Einsof (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I said that preemptively. These fake license rationales are pure nonsense. Please stop wasting people's time. Geoffroi 21:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

• These are clearly not appropriate for speedy deletion. Firstly because they aren't, secondly because we're even having this debate.

Re-adding speedy deletions like this is deliberately disruptive and block-worthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley Which images are you referring to? The one taken by the Pennsylvania State Police or the one taken by a pool photographer? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

For that purpose? Both. Speedy is narrow, else we can't do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The Reuters images are obvious copyvios. The other two have fake US gov licenses. What are you blathering about? Geoffroi 21:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The other two are explicitly stated to be in the public domain per a Pennsylvania police statement which is linked in the DR discussion. Nakonana (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana No, they aren't, but this isn't the place to debate that. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

As for the Reuters images, there's actually a discussion about their license on the enwiki article talk page on Luigi Mangione and it looks like some reliable sources (including Reuters itself?) had published them with a CC license tag somewhere at some point which might have caused the confusion regarding the images' license. Nakonana (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

"Some reliable sources (including Reuters itself?) had published them with a CC license tag somewhere at some point" What are you even talking about? Geoffroi 22:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion at w:en:Talk:Luigi Mangione#Current photograph is bad. Nakonana (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like wishful thinking. Geoffroi 22:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it looks like a misinterpretation of a CC statement, but it might still be the source of the confusion regarding those images. Nakonana (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana Reuters seems to be willing to charge you money to use that image. Maybe you should tell them that's it's free? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but I have no clue why you are making your question about me.

If you read what I wrote it should be quite clear that I was responding to the claim that the Reuters images are obvious copyvios by pointing to a discussion according to which it was not "obvious" that they are copyvios.

I was simply explaining where the confusion regarding the image license may have come from. At no point did I say that I was the confused one. Nor did I participate in the discussion regarding the Reuters images, as one can see by checking said discussion.

Please read carefully what others actually write and refrain from off-topic rhetorical questions that are aimed at editors rather than content. Nakonana (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

As long as there's a deletion request on there, admins are more than capable of finding and deleting it. There is no reason any image shouldn't go through a DR if they're merely copyvios, as opposed to CSAM or other person-harming files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

What about our obligation to delete copyright violations in a timely manner? Deletions discussions can stay open for weeks or months. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this begging the question? - Jmabel ! talk 06:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Not at all. An admin reviewing the speedy deletion could decide that the image is not a copyright violation or that the case is not clear. I believe that the image is a clear copyright violation but I may be wrong about that. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not just admins who can challenge a speedy deletion. That's what happened here, and the usual procedure once a speedy deletion has been challenged is to let it go through a regular deletion process. Nakonana (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Months is a time, and it usually only takes months if there's a genuine question of whether it really is a copyright violation. Most DRs are for copyvios.

I think it would be bad if we left up commercial software or videos or books one second longer than we had to, and we don't. But File:Luigi Mangione McDonald's Original Photo.png? On one hand, nobody is shaking down people for licensing fees or issuing DMCA notices or anything for mugshots; people generally treat them as public domain anyway. On the other, you wrote "Photos taken by Pennsylvavia State Police are not pubic domain"; that's hardly a well-known or established fact. It requires understanding Pennsylvanian law, and even if there was a previous case that established it to Commons satisfaction, it could have changed without anyone noticing. You're demanding we hurry up and act on a file that doesn't matter and isn't entirely clear in the first place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

We have an obligation to delete copyright violations in a timely manner because they are copyright violations not because we try to figure out who is more or less likely to "shake down people". State mugshots are regularly uploaded here and deleted because they are copyright violations. It has been established that they are public domain in Florida and California. Like any other image uploaded here, the onus is on the uploader to show that the image is freely licensed. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, despite your denial above: this is begging the question. "We have an obligation to delete copyright violations in a timely manner" only implies that we have an obligation to speedily delete the file if we have concluded that it is a copyright violation. There are also two other problems with the thinking here: (1) if (to stick to the specific case) Pennsylvania mug shots are copyrighted, it remains the case that publishing them is routine. For a well-known case, it would almost certainly be considered fair use. While hosting this is against Commons policy, it is almost certainly not a legal issue, so we don't have an obligation here to anything other than our own policies. (2) If we are reasonably sure the issues are the same, then it would be entirely appropriate to add this file to the existing DR. That should not override the normal practice that the only way we effectively turn a DR into a speedy deletion is to develop consensus in the DR that it should be handled as a speedy deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we actually disagree. We have an obligation (by our policies and WMF policies) to delete known copyright violations in a timely manner. If you think I have implied anything about legal issues, it was inadvertent, but I am mindful of the Precautionary Principle. By the way, please notice that the current deletion discussion was started by me. This whole thing started because another editor was attempting to remove all deletion templates from the files at issue. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The issue under discussion is about tagging a file that has a DR on it for speedy deletion. Everything else is routine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

"We have an obligation to delete copyright violations in a timely manner because they are copyright violations" is meaningless. We should act with haste if we are actively hurting someone. There is no need to act with haste over the Precautionary Principle; we can take the time of a DR to discuss the issues and give time for users to reply.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Other images uploaded by Occisors

Since we're already here talking about my actions, this seems like a good place to point out that there continues to be edit warring over other files uploaded by @Occisors, namely File:Karen Friedman Agnifilo Photo.jpg and File:Luigi Mangione Photo 02.png. Someone might also want to take a look at the "licensing" section of File:Luigi Mangione McDonald's Photo 01.png. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you are edit warring with 3-4 different editors on the latter file (I have not checked the other two). Now that you brought it to admins attention here it's probably best if you stop engaging in the edit wars. Nakonana (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana That's not what's happening. I have not touched those files since the discussion was started here. I have never even edited one of the files. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair point about not having edited the files since the discussion here has started, but it is the earlier edit warring on the latter file that got you this report. Nakonana (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Luigi Mangione

If anyone is trying to follow this mess, @Trade has consolidated all of the deletion requests at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Luigi Mangione. Apparently we have previously deleted some very similar files about a year ago. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Possibility of inception of an abuse filter?

Hello,

I just came across Special:Diff/1025248549/1116277239, a blatant vandalism that went untreated for 1,5 months. As far as I know, such childish things are automatically filtered and blocked (by abuse filters) on several Wikipedia editions. I'd like to see such a tool also here, if possible.

Such a filter could either be taken over from a suitable Wikipedia (EN? DE? FR?) or be set up like this:

• final aim is to block unhealthy edits on file descriptions
• it should recognise Nazi-related additions done there
  • only allowing them for autopatrolled users or those with even higher privileges (IMO better choice) or autoconfirmed users
  • at first maybe recognising any "added_lines" that contain the usual permutations and Leetspeak of/for Hitler, Göring, Himmler, Nazi, Third Reich. Maybe also gas chamber, Konzentrationslager, Holocaust, Ahnenerbe.

I didn't see a possibility to use categories as filtering criteria on the Mediawiki page for the extension. If that would be possible, then the restriction could be made for media that aren't categorised in relation to historical data on Third Reich material.

I'd like to advocate for a stricter blocking regime, wilfully incurring the risk of false positives, as I deem the risk of Nazi vandalism strewn in potentially lots of Wikis higher than the harm done in blocking legitimate edits on archival media, for example. And if the blocking message hints at making the would-be editor asking on the Help Desk to get their edit made, then we could even avoid much issues of false positives. Such a message could be look like this: Your edit was automatically recognised as being unsuitable for the page you tried to modify. It was not and will not be saved. Please copy your text and ask for a review of that on Commons:Help Desk, include the file you wanted to modify. If the automated system made an erroneous block, then an experienced human editor can make the edit.

Any thoughts? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out what this would mean in practice. For example:

If File:Flag of Scindia Steam Navigation Company Ltd.png did not already have a category indicating that it showed a swastika, would a normal user be allowed to add that?

Would a normal user still be able to upload something like File:Nazi-leider Lincoln Rockwell doodgeschoten, Bestanddeelnr 920-6389 (cropped).jpg and describe it accurately? What about File:Gaschamber.jpg?

Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Do we have a 'stop upload warring' template?

I just sent a custom warning template to two users that were upload warring (diff), but I was wondering if there was an official one. It doesn't matter in this case because both users are English-speakers, but an official template would have translations, and mine doesn't. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Does {{Dont editwar}} apply? Interestingly, File talk:Flag of Nebraska.svg is empty.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Typo in POTD

There's a stray angle bracket at the end of today's English description of the POTD: Template:Potd/2025-12-31 (en). It's protected since it's currently on the main page – could an admin please fix it? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done DMacks (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Deletion dispute:File:قانون إنشاء نقابة المهن الزراعية رقم 31 لسنة 1966.pdf

Identical post at COM:AN/U

Hello, I am reporting a misunderstanding regarding the copyright status of File:قانون إنشاء نقابة المهن الزراعية رقم 31 لسنة 1966.pdf. The file is being nominated for deletion due to a lack of "permission," but under Article 141 of the Egyptian Intellectual Property Law No. 82 of 2002, all official government documents are in the Public Domain. The law explicitly states in Article 141: In addition, protection shall not cover the following: (1) Official documents, whatever their source or target language, such as laws, regulations, resolutions and decisions, international conventions, court decisions, award of arbitrators and decisions of administrative committees having judicial competence. Supporting References: WIPO Lex: https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/1301 On-Wiki Copy of the Law (Page 53): File:Egyptian Intellectual Property_Law 82 of 2002.pdf I have already added the correct license tag {{PD-Egypt-official}} to the file description. I request an administrator to review this evidence and close the deletion request as it fully complies with Commons policies. مصطفى حماده (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@مصطفى حماده: you made this same post at COM:AN/U. You were already answered there, and the matter you are complaining about was already resolved four hours before you posted it here again. Please do not post the same thing in multiple places, it wastes people's time. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Help desk

Some temporary ID is having fun, busily deleting stuff at Commons:Help desk. -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Oops, wrong noticeboard. I should have posted this at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Marchjuly sensibly did just that, and the silliness has been halted. -- Hoary (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

License review for Category:Media uploaded for Public Domain Day 2026 and requests to move some works to en.ws

Since Commons requires work to be freely licensed or in the public domain in both its place of original publication and the United States, this sometimes creates some confusion on what can be uploaded, particularly if someone doesn't know an author's nationality. I have goofed on this in the past. For instance, this year, I have uploaded some works that may need to be removed locally.

• In Category:Vile Bodies, there are crops for things that are not copyrightable, but there is also the book itself, which is not in the public domain in the UK for another decade. Can someone please move the pdf(s) to en.ws and remove them locally to undelete locally in a decade?
• Similarly, Category:The Murder at the Vicarage, where the author is British and the book is protected by copyright for many decades, but the illustrations are possibly PD-shape or just unattributed, so they are anonymous works which can be hosted here.
• At Category:Emil and the Detectives, the pdf should be ported over, but it looks like the illustrations were also already uploaded at the German title Category:Emil und die Detektive, so they are acceptable to host here or they should all be deleted from here.
• Category:Cranach Press Hamlet, illustrated by Edward Gordon Craig has a scan of the work as well as a number of illustrations cropped from it. The author has been dead for centuries, but the illustrator's work will not be in the British public domain for a decade.

Sorry for making work for others. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The Murder at the Vicarage - English Wikipedia cities 20 October 1930 as the publication date in the UK. The US copyright registration list the date of publication in New York as October 24, 1930. There are also several newspapers in October and early November 1930 discussing the book was available for sale in the US. So it could be {{Simultaneous US publication}}  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Merci. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Datasets about potential logos - December 2025 uploads

Hi all, we have released a new dataset of potential logos uploaded in December 2025, together with another one of those which have already been deleted as of 2026-01-02. 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 January 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-29921-0001, Bulganin, Nikolai Alexandrowitsch.jpg

Hi, I can't undelete this file. Any idea? Yann (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Is the cropped version much different? File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-29921-0001, Bulganin, Nikolai Alexandrowitsch (cropped).jpg Nakonana (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really. I think we can dispense with this file. Yann (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I thought that maybe the system was thinking that you are trying to undelete a duplicate or something, and that that was maybe the reason for the failed undeletion.

But if the cropped version isn't that different then it's fine too. Nakonana (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I could undelete it, when marking only the 1st and the 3rd file-version, and thereafter pasting in the description etc. from the last version before deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Túrelio: That would make sense if the 2nd file-version was corrupt, or possibly oversighted. But please do us a favor and sanitize or remove the deletion tag.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Best image search for copyvios?

What's the best image search for detecting copyvios now? Google image search has degenerated into uselessness with its AI bilge, and Tineye never finds much. Just at the moment, I'm concerned about File:Martín pescador común Alcedo atthis.jpg which has several red flags to me (professional quality, but lack of exif, incorrect geolocation [urban street in Germany, not a wetland for a wetland bird], and uploaded by someone whose other photos are from South America thousands of km from this image), but I can't find proof of it being a copyvio. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Good question - I've found Tineye rubbish of late so was wondering the same thing. On that image Google has plenty of hits but none that seem quite right for me. I do agree the image is suspect. Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Google Lens works fine for me: the third result on "exact matches" is https://x.com/Adri_Wan/status/2001191760840528062 from 17 December 2025. Belbury (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! With that, I'll delete the pic now. @Belbury Where can I find google lens, please? - MPF (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

It's what the Google website uses if you click the camera icon for "search by image".

If you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, enabling "Reverse Image Search" will add direct sidebar search links for Google Lens, TinEye and Yandex, when you're viewing a file page on Commons. Belbury (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury Thanks! Odd, that ("search by image") is exactly what I did, but google didn't find any exact matches . . . - MPF (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury sorry to trouble you again, could you check these two from the same uploader? Again I'm not getting any hits, like I didn't for that Kingfisher, but both are suspect for much the same reasons: File:Accipiter striatus, San Luis Obispo.jpg, and File:Amblyramphus holosericeus jpg.jpg. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, tried a second time on that last pic, and this time it did find it, on farcebook 👍 - MPF (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting the same here: no hits on the first, ten Facebook posts (where it looks like the Commons uploader has cropped the image to remove the visible watermark) for the second. Belbury (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I'll nominate the other one for deletion and see if anyone else can find its source - MPF (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I warned Aguila19 for this.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Google image search appears to have some hick ups lately. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes simply reloading the tab fixes the hick up (at least temporarily). Nakonana (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Si . es que ese soy yo en X . Aguila19 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aguila19: Necesitas indicar una licencia en tu sitio web oficial o redes sociales o enviar tu permiso a través de VRT/es.

You need to display a license on your official website or social media or submit your permission via VRT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I'm not sure he'll follow how to do that properly; I'd rather explain to him in more detail, once he confirms what is going on here. Also, clearly this will move more smoothly in Spanish. - Jmabel ! talk 23:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

(cross-posted) @Aguila19: Tratando de clarificar: ¿entiendo que eres el fotógrafo, y los publicaciones anteriores en redes sociales eran por tu mismo? (Por favor, indíquelo explícitamente aquí si ese es el caso, para que pueda explicarle lo que debe hacer para que podamos conservar o restaurar las fotos en Commons). - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Dragoljub "Drage" Nikodinoski in the army.jpg Repeated deletion nominations and targeting by user Jingiby

Moved to COM:AN/U - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Transliteration equated to phishing

Please review the placement of Category:.ру (cyrillic py, not related to Latin py) into Category:Phishing. Earlier, I brought the problem to the attention of @Tuvalkin: , who initiated this, but to no avail. Retired electrician (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I just removed the category and am puzzled that it was added in the first place. The Cyrillic .ру is used like the Latin .ru ending for writing website names in Russian. Examples from ruwiki: Лента.ру (aka news website Lenta.ru), Вести.ру (aka news website vesti.ru), Правда.ру (aka news website pravda.ru), Я.ру (aka ya.ru where ya is short for Yandex), Банк24.ру (aka bank24.ru), or Банки.ру (aka banki.ru). It's used in Russian language website logos etc. like vesti.ru. Nakonana (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)