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
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: ~99
• Unfree Flickr files: ~7
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-09: ~321

Other:

• Duplicates: ~7
• Advertisements/spam: ~24
• Personal photos/selfies: ~22
• Other speedy deletions: ~38
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~1
• Requests for unblock: ~1
• Undeletion requests: ~12

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~25
• Interface admin: ~12
• 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.

Copyvio in use in high-profile Wikipedia article

• File:Тайлер Робиснсон.jpg
• File:Винтовка с которой убили Чарли Кирка.webp

Could someone delete this ASAP?--Trade (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 14:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

request for editing rights

i was one of the main people maintaining the pages in Category:Unicode Module Datasets when they were duplicated across the different wikis, and keeping them in sync. now that they're centralized on commons, could i have access to continue to edit them, at least the image pages? with the release of unicode 17, there are new characters to assign images to. thanks. Kwamikagami (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Please request the template editor right at COM:RFR. GPSLeo (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

thanks. Kwamikagami (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Unblock: PayamAvarwand

There is an unblock request there, please read the discussion at User_talk:PayamAvarwand#Your_account_has_been_blocked and say whether you support or oppose unblock, per my comment there. CC @Taivo and Lymantria —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

 Question There is a mention about the alleged second person giving permission through VRT. Was this done? Yann (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: no, but if you read the thing at the talk page above, I said only MMisaghian should be blocked until they give VRT. PayamAvarwand shouldn't IMO. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 14:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Lymantria said that he doesn't believe PayamAvarwand, so I would follow that. Yann (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just wanted to get a second opinion. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyvio in use in high-profile Wikipedia article

• File:Tyler Robinson Mugshot.jpg
• File:Tyler Robinson.jpg

Could someone delete this ASAP?--Trade (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Yann (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Re-open of DR - Killing of Iryna Zarutska (cropped).webm

Hello all! I have reverted the closure and deletion by GPSLeo of the deletion discussion for File:Killing of Iryna Zarutska (cropped).webm, which had only been open for approximately 2–3 days.

This file documents a public event and serves as a factual, historical record rather than private or intimate content. Its educational and historical value is significant, making it suitable for Commons under our content policies. While I strongly support keeping this file, I believe the speedy deletion was inappropriate. The matter is nuanced and should not be subject to automatic or rushed closure. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

This video is a clear violation of the personality rights of the person. The heirs can approve the publication on behalf of the dead person but they explicitly demanded the removal. The public interest on this video does not overweight the rights of the person. We could keep some singe frames but not the hole video. GPSLeo (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, actually it does. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Inappropriate revert of a defensible closure. Whether its educational value is so overwhelming as to satisfy the higher threshold for educational value put forward by COM:DIGNITY is a case that was argued in the DR, and for which there are multiple valid perspectives. GPSLeo closed it, evaluating the COM:DIGNITY argument to be compelling, and it was closed early, which makes sense in a case when COM:DIGNITY is involved and the harm caused by hosting the video is at its height right now (i.e. high-traffic). Joseve05a simply agrees with the other perspective: that the educational value is sufficiently overwhelming to overcome COM:DIGNITY. But instead of appealing the closure they just reverted and added their opinion without so much as discussing it first on GPSLeo's talk page. "There were two sides, it was closed in favor of one, and I agree with the other" is not a valid reason for circumventing the appeal process presented at COM:DR. I didn't vote in the DR, and could see it resolving in either direction, but to the extent COM:DIGNITY is the stronger case, it makes sense to resolve it early, and I don't mind Commons admins erring on the side of discretion. Regardless, just reverting a close you don't agree with isn't ok. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Reverting a deletion request that was closed prematurely is not a violation of Commons policy. DRs are intended to remain open for at least seven days to allow discussion, and early closure (especially in complex or sensitive cases) . ONly in cases of clear COM:CSD can the DR be closed early. My actions were in line with this principle: the DR had only been open for 2–3 days, and the discussion was far from complete. Reopening the DR allowed the community to consider all perspectives fully before a final decision. Posting a reasoned !vote in the DR is a separate matter from the administrative closure and is explicitly permitted under Commons guidelines. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Jonatan here. Closing early is only possible for not controversial DRs and obvious copyright violations or vandalism. While COM:DIGNITY could be considered, it is widely used and in the public domain, so there is no reason not to let it run the whole usual duration. Yann (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO if a DR is controversial, waiting a bit to let opinions and facts come is a good idea. Imagine if the Caesar DePaço AfD was closed in 3 days? Agree with Jonatan and Yann. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• you're endorsing just undoing a closure without discussion? The enwiki analogy fails because there's no real equivalent to a com:dignity deletion. Blp is similar but not typically litigated via afd. So the closer analogy would be "can you imagine someone revdelled a blp violation and another admin just came by and restored it with no discussion?" Process is important. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I do feel like GPSLeo's close was premature, although it's probably the position I'd take. It's a difficult balancing act though, public interest vs. the dignity of the deceased and the wishes of the family. Abzeronow (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

it's a difficult one for sure. Bedivere (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Personality rights of a deceased person may or may not still subsist, depending on jurisdiction.

This topic, deleting files due to personality rights of a deceased person, should be brought up for community-wide discussion on com:vp, instead of being decided here by a limited group of users.

The original closure of controversial DR and deletion of the file without a valid reason was rightfully undone. RoyZuo (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, different countries have different kinds of personality rights. I recently deleted a in scope photograph that was apparently taken without consent in Germany (I set an undeletion date after the expiration of those rights). The problem is that these things are a case by case basis. The community can tell us if they want to weigh the dignity of the deceased more or if we should weigh the public interest in keeping it available, but ultimately it will come down to the judgement of the closing admin. Abzeronow (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

User abusing tools on BLP issue

Hello, there is a killing video that the family of the victim is requesting that internet users stop circulating and sharing. "Meanwhile, the Zarutska family asked social media users and others to refrain from sharing the video of her attack, which took place in August. “The family is urging the public and media to respect Iryna’s dignity and their grief by not reposting or circulating the footage of her killing" (source: https://www.wtnh.com/news/north-carolina-train-killing-victims-family-speaks-out-asks-public-to-stop-sharing-video)

The deletion discussion was closed after evaluating the consensus and BLP issues. It was correctly closed by @GPSLeo.

Josve05a then behaved abusively by unilaterally undoing it and inserting his opinion.[1]

Josve05a undid a consensus without discussion.

Josve05a did it and then voiced his content opinion on the same subject.

Josve05a ignored https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests#Appealing_decisions Bladeandroid (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I see @Rhododendrites has raised a similar complaint. This is not okay. Bladeandroid (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Can I request someone to merge this with the topic above, and revert this users out-of-process reclosng of the DR (they can’t close someone as a non-admin action if the result is delete). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not re-closing, I am restoring the closure performed by GPSLeo since it was all done without his consent. The process to contest it is Commons:Deletion requests#Appealing decisions. This is basically corruption.

Please keep the sections separate. Bladeandroid (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bladeandroid: I don't think undoing the initial close was appropriate, but you're just going to get yourself blocked by repeatedly reinstating it. It appears folks may be willing to look the other way for an out-of-process revert when there's disagreement about early closure, but edit warring (repeatedly doing the same thing) is an unambiguous rule that we enforce more readily with short-term blocks to avoid disruption. FYI. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  12:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I blocked Bladeandroid as VOA. A new account edit-warring after 20 edits? No way. Yann (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

09js09 uploads, "own work" claims

Can you guys check out this person: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/09js09

At least one of theirs that keeps getting added is tagged speedy; they apparently just snatched it from someone's Twitter. Several of their uploads are tagged as copyright violations. Very Polite Person (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Some files deleted, user warned, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 09js09. Please note that EXIF data are fake. Yann (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for mass message

I would like to request a multilingual mass message for POTY 2024. The message is in Commons:Picture of the Year/2024/Message, and targets are Commons:Picture of the Year/2024/Message/Targets. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Please someone help, this is an emergency because the round 1 of the contest already started 31 hours ago! Thank you in advance for your help!

Note: please beware of the double heading issue that happened last year (title was appearing twice on all talk pages), thank you! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Aafi, could you please help us? Thank you! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

On it. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 10:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 10:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Terrific! Many thanks for doing it! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)