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: ~40
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~3
• No permission since 19 December 2025: ~1
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-12: ~73

Other:

• Duplicates: ~88
• Advertisements/spam: ~3
• Personal photos/selfies: ~3
• Other speedy deletions: ~53
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~6
• Undeletion requests: ~12

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~47
• Interface admin: ~13
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~7
• 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.

Trouble reverting a batch edit

I am attempting to revert this batch, per the comments here. However, the revert function of EditGroups appears to be broken, something that I find extremely concerning given how much we rely on the ability to revert easily to maintain a balanced BRD process.

Would an admin who possesses mass rollback be able to assist me with completing the revert on my behalf? And are there any actions as a project that we ought to take given the ways this vital-but-broken functionality makes us vulnerable to abuse or just to deleterious edits? Sdkb ^talk 00:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I gave you rollback per Commons:Rollback#By_personal_request/at_administrator_discretion —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 21:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Matrix. To undo an entire batch I need to be able to mass rollback, not just rollback. The mass rollback script does not appear to work, though, at least for me. Sdkb ^talk 05:33, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I had a look at the batch, most of them seem to have been undoed by @999ofreal: already. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Foto su W:Niccolò Pisilli

Buongiorno, un utente ha caricato una foto - pare un selfie - su molte voci di diverse lingue di Wikipedia sulla voce del sopracitato calciatore. Mi pare che non esista alcuna somiglianza tra i due. LittleWhites (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@LittleWhites: Qual è il problema qui che richiede un amministratore dei Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 20:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

bitte oversight

Hallo, unbeabsichtigter Weise enthält dieses Foto in den Metadaten eine Privatadresse - bitte entfernt diese Daten. Vielen Dank! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Hochkuchler_Weihnachtskrippe.jpg Florkner (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Florkner: I don't see the problem item. Which metadata field is it in? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I see gps data published that are showing a private adress. Can you please remove this info so I can add the foto to my article? Florkner (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Du musst erst die neue Version mit geänderten Metadaten hochladen, sonst lässt sich die alte Version nicht löschen. GPSLeo (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis - erledigt Florkner (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Da ist irgendetwas schiefgelaufen. Die neue Datei hat die selben Metadaten. GPSLeo (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo, Auntof6 or whoever happens upon that thread: for the most recent version, I removed the location data (with EXIFTool). That should complete the request when the revision 13:58, 22 December 2025 is deleted. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done now hidden. GPSLeo (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Commons protected edit requests

Hi, there is a backlog at this category. It should be easy to clear, please help in doing so. Thanks, —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 12:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

COM:Ships by year and COM:Ships by shipyard are supposed to be maintained by a bot that, it appears, has not run in over a decade. Are these 12-year-outdated files worth keeping? If so, is someone interested in reviving/recreating a bot to populate them? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 20:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Science Photo Competition 2025 in Ukraine: request for MassMessage

Hi! I have a quick request from organizers of the Ukrainian edition of Science Photo Competition 2025 – the contest has just ended, and we'd like to send an update/thank-you note to participants.

• List of receivers

• Text of the message (first line is the subject, everything else is the body of the message; I've already accounted for having a correct signature & timestamp)

Thanks! AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I would have done it but unfortunately I am on a mobile until next Monday, which makes it pretty much impossible for me. Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

In progress I've got some time now. Ciell (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Ciell (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

please remove exif

Nevermind, seems I have been able to resolve it myself by uploading a new version --Wiki-observer (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment manipulation by Trade

Trade has been aggressively advocating for the deletion of files e.g. here, where they took another user stating that they don't want to go through a huge amount of files as support for their deletion. However, more importantly, Trade edited my Keep vote and changed it into a Delete vote (diff here) with no comment and independently from their other contributions to that discussion. I don't believe that is acceptable behaviour. Cortador (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cortador, wrt the alleged "manipulation": he corrected his mis-edit within 1 minute[1]. This was rather clearly an unintended mis-edit, which can happen everybody. Don't forget Commons:AGF, please. I misread his 1:03-edit, sorry.--Túrelio (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

No, they didn't. That edit was only corrected more than twelve hours later (see here), and my myself, note Trade. Cortador (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• It's certainly not acceptable as a deliberate act. However it's so obvious an action that I'm happy to accept any claim by Trade that it was simply an accident. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Epstein_Files&diff=prev&oldid=1134805744

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Epstein_Files&diff=prev&oldid=1134813270

  I noticed i messed up my own vote and in my own haste i ended up getting confused between mine and Cortador's comment due to how close they were together. I remember feeling frustrated after seeing my vote was still not fixed not now i realize the reason it did not got fixed initially was because it wasn't even the correct comment template i changed. Terrible sorry to everyone! Especially Cortador! Trade (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Mass rollback request

Can somebody please revert my deletion tagging of a large batch of files listed here? I tagged them because the relevant page said that Egypt had no freedom of panorama, but shortly after, it was updated and now says that it does. Passengerpigeon (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Currently COM:FOP Egypt has been changed back to  Not OK, so I think it's best to just leave the DR tags in the files until the DR is closed. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Jeffrey Epstein selling woman to Trump.jpg

The title of this photo possible runs afoul of Commons:PIP given that it explicitly accuses Trump of doing something very unsavory Trade (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done moved to File:Jeffrey Epstein allegedly selling woman to Trump.jpg, although this is probably going to get deleted anyway. Abzeronow (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Protection request for File:Rainbow Black Madonna of Częstochowa.png

The benefit in allowing IPs to leave comments at the file outweighs the positives--Trade (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Semiprotected for six months. Abzeronow (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Request: suppress indexing of legacy user talk page after global rename

Hello,

I recently completed a global account rename on Wikimedia projects. My account was renamed from User:PeterTepatti to User:QX492.

The legacy talk page at User talk:PeterTepatti now redirects to my current talk page, but it continues to surface in external search results associated with my real name.

This page is an administrative user talk page, not an article or biographical page, and it no longer reflects my current username. I am a private individual, and the continued external indexing of this legacy page is causing name-based misattribution in search engines.

I am not requesting deletion or removal of content. I am only requesting assistance with suppressing external indexing of the legacy talk page (for example via a noindex directive or equivalent administrative measure), so that it does not appear in search results.

Thank you for your time and assistance. QX492 (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Redirect is now deleted. It will probably take a while to be removed from indexes, and of course we cannot force third parties to remove information they already have. - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Jcb for edit war

[2] I was clearing my talkpage, however, @Jcb has done edit war on my talk page without any explanation, so I noted in an edit summary, "Rv as unexplained changes", since he didn't comment anything when he reverted my edits. However, he reverted it back, and saying "will explain". Actually, that revert was much unnecessary; it would be more rational and comprehensible to me if he had commented the explanation on my talk page or an edit summary, and then revert it.

In his explanation, he forced me not to clear the discussions until 6 months because it can cause confusions, and I understand this. However, that rule is not even able to be found on guidelines (it says, archiving is better, but it does not prohibit clearing), and these talks were almost 10 months ago, which means that I hadn't violated the rule over 6 months.

Per these reasons, I decided to report this user, as he has done unnecessary edit wars on my talk page (even though he was a former admin), and as he acted in a way that did not align with what he had explained to me, which was much difficult to be understood.

Camilasdandelions (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

This is related to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Camilasdandelions. Camilasdandelions (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user removed several warnings for copyright violations from their talk page and then continued to upload copyright violations. Jcb (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Most of the violations on the past occured because I didn't recognize that the album covers were non-free contents. After those warnings, I didn't upload non-free licensed album covers or single covers on Commons. In these present case are new; copyvios related to YouTube license. As noted on my edit summary, there's no problem at clearing my talk page, and the guideline is also not talking about that. Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

E.g. there was a final warning in January from 0x0a (which they removed), then a warning from me in June to which they responded with a personal attack and which they later removed. Later they received some explanation from Wutsje, but they still continued to upload copyright violation. So Jmabel was very mild by giving another last warning, but after that, the user removed the previous warnings again. Jcb (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Does the guidelines prohibit removing previous talk pages, even though they are almost a year ago? I asked for the related guideline on my talk page but you ignored, plus, your previous warning in June is talking about not to remove deletion tags, not previous warnings. I don't think your unnecessary and uncomprehensible actions on my talk page cannot be justified as you explain my previous actions. Furthermore, there's no even personal attacks between you and me.

Thank you for Jmabel for giving an opportunity to me. After this, I'll be cautious at uploding files from YouTube videos. Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

 Info We do have a guideline regarding talk pages at COM:TALK, which doesn't prohibit users from removing old messages (including warnings) from their own user talk page. Furthermore, we had a long debate about this issue. 0x0a (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• Boomerang block this serial copyright violator, who has been removing adverse posts from the user talk page allocated for communicating with them, sweeping those posts under the rug (as it were) without having addressed the substance of those posts (the copyright violations), allowing that user to fly under the radar for an extended period of time, as they are en:WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Perhaps that situation caused Jmabel to miss such posts.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

  No, I caught what was going on here, and I stand by what I have written on Camilasdandelions' talk page.

  As 0x0a notes, editing your talk page like that is not against the rules though, as I remarked on their talk page, it is certainly not widely seen as a good practice.

  @Camilasdandelions: : above you refer to Jcb as a "professional" user. Are you claiming that Jcb is somehow paid for his activity here? If so, that is something I was not aware of; if not, that is very out of line. Please either substantiate that or withdraw it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

  No, the reason why I said he is a "professional" user is, at least he could have done rationally in commons, not causing unnecessary edit wars in my talk page. I didn't mean that he is paid user or smth. Camilasdandelions (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

  So actually you don't understand the meaning of the word 'professional', you are just trying to utter something that sounds convincing (which failed). Anyway, if the 3-revert-rule would have applied at Commons (which it does not), you would have been the one violating it, not me. Please be aware that people are now watching your every move. The purpose of the warnings at your user talk page is to stop the uploads of copyright violations. Most people get that after one warning. If you may chose to continue uploading copyright violations, you will find yourself blocked one day. Jcb (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Accidentally replaced original with cropped version

I accidentally replaced the original version of File:A.A. Harwood, head-and-shoulders portrait, three-quarters to the left, in naval uniform.jpg with a cropped version. The cropped version also now exists at File:A.A. Harwood, head-and-shoulders portrait, three-quarters to the left, in naval uniform (cropped).jpg, so the original version of File:A.A. Harwood, head-and-shoulders portrait, three-quarters to the left, in naval uniform.jpg can safely be restored.  Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done - no admin rights are needed for this. Just click 'revert' at the correct version. Jcb (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Vandal IP edits

There are frequent vandal edits on this file: File:Board of Control for Cricket in India Logo (2024).svg. Request any admin to semi or autopatroller protect it.. --Gpkp (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 3 months. Yann (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic religious comments in deletion requests

Are comments like this considered appropriate in a public deletion request discussion? Comments like this can be disturbing to LGBT people, non-religious people, and people of other religions. The user who made the comment I link above doubled down on it with another religious comment when I brought my concerns to his talkpage. I still feel that this could've been targeted harassment. I can't notify the user myself because the AN/U discussion ended with me being pushed into an unfair interaction ban.

Why are religious comments necessary or constructive in a public discussion like a deletion request? Can more than one administrator please comment on this and give the community guidance? I would also like to get an opinion from WMF staff on whether this is appropriate behavior, but I'm not sure how to contact them. Thank you for your time. Geoffroi 19:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you follow up the link in that last cited post? Apparently, this related to an Internet meme (one I was not familiar with, and probably not in the best taste to have used this way), making fun of Chick tracts. So it appears to have been more poking fun at fundamentalist Christianity than advocating it, but I read it differently at first, as well (hence the "not in the best taste to have used this way"). - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)