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	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	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	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: ~142
• Unfree Flickr files: ~1
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~27
• No license since 12 August 2025: ~17
• No permission since 12 August 2025: ~660
• No source since 12 August 2025: ~2
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-08: ~195

Other:

• Duplicates: ~358
• Advertisements/spam: ~5
• Personal photos/selfies: ~44
• Other speedy deletions: ~74
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~1
• Undeletion requests: ~18

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~6
• Interface admin: ~13
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~5
• 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.

Call to action: tackle the DR backlog (oldest is 125 days!)

We currently have 5,836 open deletion requests, with the oldest sitting at 125 days. That’s down from over 6,200 a week ago—so there’s progress—but this number is still far too high for a project of our size. A healthy DR backlog helps ensure files are reviewed thoughtfully, but when the queue gets this long, cases can drag on unnecessarily and discourage participation. Closing even one DR makes a difference, and if every admin chipped in just a little, we could reduce the backlog significantly in a short time.

For those who don’t usually close many DRs, I encourage you to give it a try. Commons Open Deletion Requests Optimizer is a great tool to help you find requests that match your interests—you can filter by age, number of votes, or topic (FOP, scope, licensing issues, etc.).

If you’re an admin who knows a file reviewer doing excellent work, now might be a good time to consider nominating them for adminship. Expanding the number of active DR closers will help keep the queue manageable long-term.

And if you’re not an admin, you can still contribute by participating in DR discussions with reasoned !votes. Well-argued comments from experienced file reviewers make it much easier for closing admins to feel confident in their decisions. Even one or two thoughtful contributions a day can make a real impact.

Let’s see if we can get the number below 5,000 before the month ends. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the number of admins is diminishing, and we need more help. Yann (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Help in Video Deletion

i need a help in deleting videos below: File:First-time Wikimania Experience at Africa Baraza 2025, Nairobi.webm,File:A wikimedian recounts memorable moments from his first in-person Wikimania in Nairobi.webm,File:Wikimedian from Ghana recounts memorable moments from his first in-person Wikimania in Nairobi.webm,File:Wikimedian from Tanzania recounts memorable moments from his first in-person Wikimania in Nairobi.webm because they have got some errors in conversion and i want to upload them correctly. Justine Msechu (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

•  Done @Justine Msechu: Next time feel free to tag with {{SD|G7}} for speedy deletion. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Okay Thank you Josve05a Justine Msechu (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Removal of mass placement of the "no permission" template

The user @Quick1984 has mass-added the {{No permission}} template to photographs I uploaded, even though explicit permission from the author to use their works under a free license was clearly provided. Each photograph’s description includes the {{Divmel ic}} template, which contains a link to the permission.

After I addressed the user on his talk page, my tone appeared unacceptable to him, and he refused to remove the templates himself. I request that all of the user’s edits made between 17 August 06:11 UTC and 06:13 UTC be reverted. Beonus (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Beonus: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Honestly, I don't like permissions given on social media. People (including me) often publish images from other sources on social media, and we can't check who is the original author. And here it is even worse: how do we know who are the photographers, that they are aware and they agree with this license? Yann (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I personally contacted the author of these photos some time ago and asked her to post this message on her Telegram channel so that these photos could later be used on Wikipedia and beyond (of course, in accordance with the license terms). This author has accounts on Instagram and Telegram, where she publishes her photos. This can be verified by a simple image search on Google or any other service. The author of these photos even has a registered account on Wikimedia Commons under the username Divmel ic, from which she uploaded some of the photos. Beonus (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

All images I randomly clicked were of Russian figure skaters and taken in Russia. So, at least the subjects and location of their photos are very consistent. That's true for the photos that have template {{Divmel ic}} [1] as well as for photos uploaded by User:Divmel ic [2]. If there was a huge variety in subjects and location, then some doubt about the authorship might be appropriate, but with things being so consistent...? Nakonana (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

All photos that were uploaded by Divmel ic themselves also all have full EXIF data and were all taken with the same camera model. Nakonana (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The permission seems fine to me, and I also like what Quick1984 finally did to clarify the permission (putting a link in the "Permission" section of {{Information}}.

A social media account clearly under the control of the person giving permission is a perfectly valid place to offer a license. The declaration explicitly states, "I hereby declare that I am the only owner of the exclusive copyright to all photos that have ever been published on this Telegram channel." There is no more reason to doubt that on Telegram than on, say, FLickr. It should stand unless there is specific evidence to the contrary. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done I don't see anything here that calls for administrative action. Looks like honest confusion, now cleared up. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Merging of accounts

Hello,

as I'm new to WikiCommons and I was unable to find my question in the FAQ, I will try here: I must somehow have created a second account besides the one that came off my decades old WP account. Is it possible to merge the uploads of the second account into the much older account and then putting the new account to rest?

Thank you for your time buwel Be excellent to each other (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Buwel: Sorry, that is impossible. You may have page(s) of one account redirect to page(s) of the other.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. In that case I shall live with this minor nuisance.

Best wishes

Buwel Be excellent to each other (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Baana56

Please can an admin either block or have a very strong word with Baana56 (talk · contribs) who is repeatedly uploading copyvio images. When warned on Wikipedia their response was aggressively negative. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@10mmsocket:  Warned by Yann.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Help on "Licensed" Photograph please

Hello I have used a photograph from Wikimedia Commons on our website - it has been available for 15 years. I have now been contacted by a company claiming that the picture belongs to Reuters and they are asking for £100 for past use of the picture (our website has been live since June). The picture is this one File:GrandPier.jpg - Wikimedia Commons which is still available on your site. I do not understand why they have not challenged it's use over the last 15 years. Could you tell me who to contact please Many Thanks Rob Clarke Weston-super-Mare & District FHS Wsmfhs (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Wsmfhs: Hi, and welcome. Did you comply with the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The photo is dual licensed. Using the regular CC-BY-SA 3.0 would also be fine. GPSLeo (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you - I think so - - we made no changes to it you had to click on the thumbnail to see the standard Wikimedia Commons license. In this case the company don't seem concerned about that - they are just claiming the photo belongs to Reuters despite it being used on Wikipedia (and presumably Wikimedia Commons) for 16 years. Wsmfhs (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The photo was uploaded by an account according to the name belonging to the company the photographer was working for. But this was never verified. GPSLeo (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

It was the only one like that I have used fortunately - I am pretty new to this and presumed that since a license was being offered the photograph was available for use. Even a google image search only displays the Wikimedia one - not mention of Reuters. Wsmfhs (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Wsmfhs: Hi, You could ask Reuters what is their evidence, pointing to the source on Commons under a free license. Not sure what they will say, but that is what I would do. Yann (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Yann, I have tried to e-mail Reuters directly - but I am not sure if I found the right contact point - I have not heard anything back - although it was only today. Wsmfhs (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The really annoying thing is that I had explicitly avoided the pictures of the pier on fire - as they would be more likely to be News Agency type photos. Why Reuters (allegedly) have a shot of the pier before the fire is beyond me. Wsmfhs (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: The photo on Reuters: https://www.reutersconnect.com/item/file-photograph-shows-the-grand-pier-at-weston-super-mare-in-south-west-england/dGFnOnJldXRlcnMuY29tLDIwMDg6bmV3c21sX0xNMUU0N1MwUkQ4MDE // sikander { talk } 🦖 15:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

IMO we can doubt the copyright of this file belongs to Reuters. While their version is bigger than Commons, it is not original. Original taken by Nikon D70 is 3,008 × 2,000. Also they do not mention the photographer, and the date is wrong (Monday, 28th July 2008, 12:00 UTC). According to our version it was taken on 19 March 2006 at 10:26. Yann (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Yann - even more useful! That might be something to go back with - especially as even Reuters don't know the date. Wsmfhs (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you - that is useful - I have not seen the proof on them having this photo. Wsmfhs (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

One possible scenario is that the copyright holder sold the copyright to Reuters but didn't mention that the image was already under a free license on Commons. So Reuters may not be aware that the image is available under a free license. As free licenses are irrevocable, Reuters can't ask you fees if you copied the file from Commons. Yann (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Yann - this is all very useful. BTW where did you get the 3000x2000 figure from - I cannot see it anywhere. Wsmfhs (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

From Wikipedia ;o) en:Nikon D70. Yann (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

sold the copyright depending on the country of origin, this might be legally not possible, as the copyright would stay with the photographer. Nakonana (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Or asked Reuters to manage the copyright for the copyright holder. It doesn't matter, Reuters would be able to sue if they do have a proper exclusive contract. Yann (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Copyright does not really matter in most cases we deal with where it is definitely not expired. The important part are the exploitation rights. It is possibly to give these rights entirely to someone else. But this can not invalidate prior publications under a free license. GPSLeo (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Wsmfhs: Would you mind identifying the company that contacted you and the at least apparent city or country where they are located? Maybe some more details if possible? They did not provide a reference to support their claim? They just asked that you pay to them £100? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather not identify them but as far as tell they are genuine - and the reference number they did provide matches the one on the link identified above. So although it could be a scam we don't think it is to that extent. Wsmfhs (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Revision deletion request (EXIF metadata leak)

Hi there, the first upload of File:Aprilia RS 457.jpg unfortunately included EXIF metadata with GPS coordinates. A clean version is already uploaded, but the initial revision and the bot-generated copy of that revision still contain the private data. Could an admin please revision-delete both? Thanks a lot for helping me cover up my accidental “GPS treasure hunt”. NicoWmann (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@NicoWmann  Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)