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	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	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: ~11
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• No permission since 6 October 2025: ~7
• No source since 6 October 2025: ~2
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-10: ~142

Other:

• Duplicates: ~5
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~0
• Other speedy deletions: ~11
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~18

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~32
• Interface admin: ~14
• 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.

BotMultichill, BotMultichillT and Pi.1415926535

Multichill has been operating BotMultichill since 2007 and BotMultichillT since 2008. Commons:Bots/Requests/BotMultichill was only for a single task (transferring images from nlwiki); Commons:Bots/Requests/BotMultichillT was only for categorization. However, Multichill has since used them for a succession of other tasks without any new approval or even documentation. Currently they are editing SDC at an extremely high rate (>1 edit per second combined), which the community was not given any change to discuss at a bot request, and for which there is no documentation. Multichill outright refused my request to stop BotMultichill or make a request for new tasks, claiming that it doesn't need approval for new tasks because COM:BOTS did not require such approvals at the time the bot was approved in 2007. (New tasks requiring separate approvals has been part of that page since 2009, long before either bot was used for SDC tasks.)

Because Multichill refuses to stop the bots or file a request for the additional tasks they are being used for, I have blocked the bots until they have documentation and approval for all current tasks. I have no problem in principle with these bots being used to add SDC, but it is imperative that the community has a chance to discuss these tasks and how to minimize their impacts. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Even if we take Multichill's reasoning as true or factual, the BOTS version they shared contains a list of bots and, guess what, each has specific tasks, not for whatever the operator wants. Bedivere (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Both bots are approved and not malfunctioning. The bots have been functioning for nearly two decades with over 95 million edits. You don't agree with that. You blocked them to make your point. I consider this harassment and abuse of your admin privileges. Multichill (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The bots were not approved for this task. They were each approved for a single task; that is not a blanket permission to use them for any possible task. I'm not sure what "point" I am making other than what COM:BOTS says: In principle, an unapproved bot may be blocked, though in practice unless the bot is doing harm the operator should normally be asked to submit a retroactive bot request. If it is noticed that a bot is being used for tasks which are significantly different from those specified in the original bot request, the bot operator should be asked to make a fresh bot request which specifies the new tasks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Multichill: FWIW, BotMultichill was running really fast. I don't know how it decides what files to work on in what order, but it hit several hundred of my uploads yesterday, nearly swamping my watchlist. I was thinking of hitting you up about it. I wouldn't have used a block (I didn't even hit you up, just figured I'd wait and see if this continued for multiple days), but I can see why someone else might have. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Multichill has unblocked both bots, which are now again operating without community approval for their tasks. @Multichill: I don't understand why you are escalating this, but these unblocks were highly inappropriate. Again, I have no problem in principle with these bots being used to add SDC; your claim that You don't agree with that is incorrect. If you file bot requests for these tasks, I don't foresee having any reason to object to them. I am solely concerned that the community has not had a chance to discuss these tasks and how to minimize their impacts. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I will reinstate the blocks, which were entirely appropriate, Pi. Multichill may see this as a non-issue, but in fact they should just go through the normal procedures instead of trying to get away with this. They should know better. Please don't unblock unless you are resuming already approved tasks. Bedivere (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday I was about to comment and simply ask Multichill to file a bot task request – a straightforward step and really more of a formality, though one that exists for a reason. At that stage, there was no real fault, only the absence of a proper task request. However, the decision to use the admin toolset to undo another administrator’s action (to benefit oneself) has significantly changed the situation. That move elevates the matter from a minor procedural concern to a serious one, because it is no longer just about bots, but also about the appropriate and responsible use of admin tools without prior discussion or consensus. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I can find no approvals for Krdbot, either. 75.99.166.226 16:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Please see

• Commons:Bots/Requests/Krdbot
• Commons:Bots/Requests/Krdbot 2
• Commons:Bots/Requests/Krdbot 3
• Commons:Bots/Requests/Krdbot 4
• Commons:Bots/Requests/Krdbot 6

Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Given that there appears to be no objection in principle to the work the bot does, and the length of time which it has been operating without issue, it would have been far, far better to initiate a discussion here without blocking the bots.

There is no damage to the project which needs a block to prevent it, and unneceeasssary drama could have been avoided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree - the bots perform useful work, and blocking seems a bit too overboard. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 14:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and therefore have no insight into these processes. Since I miss the bot, I finally looked into this thread. I take a lot of care to ensure that all available information is included in my contributions. The bot has been a great help to me in maintaining the SDC, which is unfortunately somewhat cumbersome with the other options available. I am sure we would have benefited more if this had not been escalated. Bureaucracy aside, if it detracts from the benefits, it makes no sense. --Syntaxys (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 and Bedivere: if either of you, as a sign of |good faith, unblock the bots, I'll, as a sign of good faith, start a request at Commons:Bots/Requests (after the unblock). Multichill (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a "sign of good faith" issue. The bots can be unblocked when they're approved. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

How about this? 1) the bot is unblocked, and 2) the bot operator voluntarily suspends unapproved tasks until formal approval. (This might need to happen first if the program is still running.) The bot can (and needs to) do test edits when requested as part of the approval process. whym (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

That last sounds reasonable to me, though I will point out that for many tasks the "test edits" have already effectively happened. But we have to break the gridlock somehow. - Jmabel ! talk 13:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

 Support proposal by whym. Sounds fair to me. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Can't upload a new version of a file, although I am autopatrolled.

See File:Flag of the United States.svg; I have made an improvement to the SVG that will save space. Please allow me to upload it. JPxG (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It's an 823-byte file. What possible value could there be in making it smaller? We have probably spent more time having this exchange here than all of the time that could possibly save in the entire future of the Internet. - Jmabel ! talk 04:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It'd be 821 bytes if you let me upload it :( JPxG (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

So there is virtually no common Internet packet size where this would make an iota of difference. - Jmabel ! talk 12:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

2 bytes less? Is this a joke?  Not done Bedivere (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

https://files.catbox.moe/afonlp.svg 688 bytes just in svgo  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   19:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Are "Sum of all paintings" project galleries welcome on wiki commons?

Hi to all, I'll try to keep as concise as possible a relatively complex matter regarding gallery pages belonging to the Sum of all paintings project.

The project contains around a thousand pages, which are wikidata-backed automated lists (edited by Listeriabot) acting as galleries for paintings either made by specific artists or belonging to a certain museum. Having recently created two pages of that sort, I was informed by @Jameslwoodward that this kind of gallery shouldn't be present on wiki commons, as they do not conform to COM:Galleries, since they do not use <gallery></gallery> tags and a simple caption, and that they would better be placed on WP. The persistence of the other pages was in fact due to them having being created by autopatrolled users, whose edits would typically not be scrutinized, and it is my own lower count of edits that brought my creations to the attention @Jameslwoodward. By his suggestion I then bring the matter of what is to be done to a more public debate. The (unintended) current situation thus far being all creations of pages of the sort being forbidden unless they were done by autopatrolled users, its obvious unfairness could be solved by, in my eye, only two options: allowing or forbidding their creation globally.

As you guessed I am in favour of adding an exception to the gallery rules enabling the format of the lists created for the Sum of all paintings project to survive and be expanded, for the few following reasons:

• Similar lists on WP are entirely user-made, the commons lists are based on wikidata entries, and are thus completely different (compare this to this, 90 vs around 360 entries). Even copypasting the commons lists to WP would require scrutiny of a thousand lists of different artists in tens of different languages, to check that every entry unique to each project has properly been added to the final WP list.
• The commons lists are in fact duplicates of similar lists found on wikidata (compare here to here). The commons lists are however, due to the structure of commons, much easier to find, as they are properly placed in each painter's Paintings category. By comparison the wikidata lists are only accessible through this category and nowhere else, which is impossible to reach if one is not aware of the existence of the Sum of all paintings project. I must stress that this ListeriaBot automated list is actually one of its kind on the entirety on the Internet: there's basically no other website that present such a detailed global catalogue of paintings, which is much better ordered than the Paintings category, and much more complete than the lists present on WP, as it is wikidata-backed. I think it is in the interest of the scope of the project to make this list as easy to find as possible, which will not be the case if it can be found only on wikidata.
• It would save me the personal embarrassment of having caused the downfall of the entire Sum of all paintings project on wiki commons, as its survival seems to have been due thus far to its secrecy.

I am thus arguing for the preservation of a useful project by adding an exception to the Commons:Galleries rules, thank you for having read my arguments. Ostrea (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see any reason why we could not have these pages on Commons. If the rules do not fit the project, do not change the project, change the rules. Yann (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why Commons should host pages that belong on WP -- there are many pages very similar to these on WP, so why should these be here rather than there? We are a repository for images and other media. We explicitly reject anything that looks like encyclopedic content, so allowing these pages will require not only a change to COM:Galleries, but also to Commons:Project scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that these galleries should not be on Commons: Paintings by Paul Cézanne, Mohandas K. Gandhi, John Ruskin? Yann (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I think these are perfectly legitimately on Commons, and that Commons is the most appropriate place for them. At least one of the examples given in our guideline Commons:Galleries (Pronunciation of Dutch municipality names) does not make any use of the <gallery> tag at all. - Jmabel ! talk 02:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I am also in favour of keeping the "SOAP" lists (they are not galleries, but lists!) here on Commons. I've explained my reasoning on Ostrea (talk · contribs)'s talk page, where my opinion was implicitly sollicited, and it boils down to this: the purpose of those lists is not to serve as Wikidata duplicates, but to give Commons users who have no idea what Wikidata is and how it works the opportunity to check at one glance which paintings are already on Commons. This is quite useful for Commons in order to avoid duplicates on Commons. Edelseider (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @Yann and I'm supportive of adding an exception to the Galleries guideline. I'm acutally also supportive to consider these Galleries and thus would also support a broadening of the scope of that guidance. However, I fail to see how this is an admin related topic. It should be discussed on VP instead, or better Commons:Village pump/Proposals --Schlurcher (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

My apologies if the place is inadequate, I first thought that this was a matter of personal disagreement between me and Jameslwoodward, as I was under the impression that only my creations were deleted, which is why I announced him that I would bring the matter to the noticeboard if we couldn't solve it, which would have been fitting under these circumstances. He then clarified my misunderstanding by telling me that this was in fact a policy matter, and that he would be glad to discuss it further on this noticeboard, and I then followed suit. I don't know if the entire written discussion can be somehow just moved from the noticeboard to the village pump, but if it cannot I'll write a sum up there, with a link to this section of the noticeboard for further details. Ostrea (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The proposal has been added, and can be found here. Ostrea (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Rename request

Can an admin take a look at File:Sunuwar Letter Utth.png? Two files need their names switched apparently. Thanks. Geoffroi 22:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Here's another rename request with the same situation: File:Charles Green Balloonist.jpg. Geoffroi 23:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Geoffroi,  Done Kadı Message 09:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Revdel request

Please revdel https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&diff=next&oldid=1098045985 for posting personal info. Usually, I would follow the process of asking off-wiki, but this appears to be someone posting his own info, so it's not doxxing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Yann (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Legal threat

• 2A00:23C8:2DAA:8801:54EB:40B6:7D3:C3FB (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Reporting this here as I assume that en:WP:LEGAL also holds at Commons.

This IP claims to be an officer of the West Midlands Police and has posted a strange warning on my talk page this morning to say that if Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Saldhestymine deletes a selfie and some other images it will result in potentially prejudicing a case, and the culprit(s) will be followed up with obstruction charges as well as further sanctions of administrative powers arising from reports made to Wikipedia associated with this case. Belbury (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

IP blocked for 1 week. You should report this to WMF-legal, as this kind of threat is beyond our abilities and responsabilities, provided the IP is who they claim to be. --Túrelio (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I doubt they're who they claim to be. We had the opposite request from a different IP a couple of weeks ago asking for the same content to be deleted on the grounds that it was sensitive content related to national security. Per the rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Saldhestymine the files in question appear to be imaginative biographical fiction written by a teenager.

Is there a process that I should follow regardless, on this? If so, how do I report it to WMF-legal? Belbury (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

m:Wikimedia Foundation/Legal. Yann (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  Done Yes, LEGAL also holds on Commons. I blocked Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:2DAA:8801:0:0:0:0/64 for 3 days, and reverted their edit. IMO this doesn't look like legit. I don't think any official authority would send a legal threat on wiki. Yann (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Eventually a @CU (or whoever is able to do this still) should try to track the IP's origin. --Túrelio (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

No need to be CU for that, if the IP is known. This IP is located at 52°11'21.5"N 2°13'12.0"W (Worcester, England). Yann (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The police responsible for this location is "West Mercia Police". --Túrelio (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• I closed that DR as deleted, maybe someone with good level of English could rename the remaining used file with a more suitable name. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I closed the 2nd DR too. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

This is very, very clearly not from West Midlands Police, nor any other UK police service.

In the UK, impersonating a police officer is a criminal offence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Sintujitravelwale

• Sintujitravelwale (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

All the uploads are copyvios. I have tagged some for SD (copyvio). Would have done all if I wasn't short on time right now. Someone plz do the needful. Any user can tag the ones left by me for SD or admins may chose to act by themselves without nominations as this is a clear cut case. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

A ping to @Matrix who just deleted one of the nominations. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done deleted. We didn't warn them yet, let's hope they stop after we warn. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 14:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

RevDel

I uploaded File:Dog selfie - Scraps.jpg a while ago, and my previous version of the file may not fit the described circumstance and be PD per the tag. I therefore request that the previous version should be deleted due to uncertain copyright situation. Rose Abrams (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rose Abrams:  Done -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Lawrence Hunt Final Article.pdf

Is File:Lawrence Hunt Final Article.pdf OK to keep per COM:SCOPE? It looks like the uploader might've uploaded thought they needed to upload rewritten copy of a recently deleted English Wikipedia article en:Lawrence Hunt in an attempt to get the deletion overturned at en:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October 13#Lawrence Hunt and simply didn't know how to create a draft for a new article because they're a new account. There's no way to know whether this is a 100% rewrite or still includes contentained added by others unless someone who's an admin on English Wikipedia can see what was deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC); post edited to fix spelling error and add missing word. -- 17:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Jmabel as an Admin on both.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It differs significantly.

@Ash17e: Commons is not a place to put your draft. If you are trying to write a draft of this, it should be either at en:User:Ash17e/Sandbox/Lawrence Hunt or en:Draft/Lawrence Hunt, edited like normal wikitext: not in a PDF, and not on Commons. Just in case you didn't keep a copy or this on your own computer, I'll give you 24 hours to copy this PDF back down to your machine; then it will be deleted from here as being out of Commons' scope (or you can confirm here if you already have it there, so we can delete here sooner).

Another, maybe better, way to approach this would be to add more of a section about Hunt to Silverjet, with the intention of later forking it off to an article of its own. But I'd discuss that possibility first at Talk:Silverjet. - Jmabel ! talk 13:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have downloaded a copy, and you can delete the PDF. I’ll be moving the rewritten article to my Wikipedia user sandbox as advised. Thanks Ash17e (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Please delete my talk page here

I have been harassed/stalk there by DiscoveryTeenHD and his socks, can an admin please delete it. 98.235.155.81 22:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. --Achim55 (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

VRT deletion requests

Please delete this user's uploads per their DRs and ticket:2025101310005048. I will send the necessary information required for obtaining a proper permission. Thank you! Bencemac (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Yann (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)