Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:AN

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 ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
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
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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	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}

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.

Wiki Loves Earth in Ukraine: Request for MassMessage

Hello! I have a request from the organizing team of Wiki Loves Earth in Ukraine. We'd like to send an invitations about our new campaign of illustrating to those who participated in previous-year editions of WLE in Ukraine.

Here's text of the message, and here's the list of receivers. Thanks! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at this. Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA): , I do not think I can send a mass message without a subject (with a blank subject). Is it ok if I take «Вікі любить Землю» 2025: долучайтесь до Місячника ілюстрування української природи та отримуйте призи! as a subject and remove it from the message page? Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Thank you! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sent it to the queue, I hope it will be processed reasonably soon. Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still has not been delivered to the pages. Apparently, smith went wrong, but I do. It see what, this is the first time I am having this issue while sending a mass message. Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is clear than the delivery failed. I asked for help there but have not received any. I still hope someone can help. Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sent it again now and it seems to have worked this time. Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking care of it, and solving the problem! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte um Anpassung

Da Commons:E-Mail-Vorlagen geschützt ist, könnte bitte jemand den Link: Commons:OTRS/de anpassen und OTRS durch Support-Team ersetzen. OTRS gibt es nicht mehr. Vielen Dank und Grüße Itti (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Krd 12:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Leyo 14:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Editwar with A.Savin

Today I've ended up in an edit war with A.Savin over areas on the Danish island Bornholm, which I've been the primary maintainer of for a few years and which I'm quite familiar with. Can someone please stop him? Hjart (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the handling of the situation and the associated editing war is certainly not good, A.Savin is technically right here. Incidentally, I have not seen any effort from either A.Savin or you to discuss the topic. You also took part in the Editwar. I don't want to deny your local knowledge, but some of your conflicts with A.Savin are based on a general misunderstanding of the global category system. Lukas Beck (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what exactly should I be stopped? From some cleanup on Bornholm categories which I'm doing in preparation of uploading photos of this region? For fixes of over-categorization?

I also kindly request any interested reader to take notice, that Hjart is now continuing [1] [2] [3] exactly the same edit-war after this report has been filled. Without discussion, without waiting for a 3rd opinion, without nothing. --A.Savin 11:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A.Savin is right here. Of course Bornholm rundt is a road. I reverted 2 edits. Taivo (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo Category:Bornholm rundt is a cycling route, not a physical road. Please consider a bus route. A bus route is not a road either. The fact that the category contains images of roads does not mean that it's a road. The images merely represents roads that the route uses. Hjart (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hjart I like the idea of discussing content first and then responding to it. I don't think it's fair to continue the editing war while the debate is ongoing. There clearly seem to be several people here who don't (yet) completely agree with you. Lukas Beck (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@L. Beck Similar individual cycling routes are not normally categorized as "roads". See for example Category:EuroVelo in Germany. Hjart (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@L. Beck None of the da:Danmarks nationale cykelruter are categorized as "roads" in dawiki, for good reason. Hjart (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hjart However, with your latest change I'm wondering if you understand the category system. You separate roads from streets and bikeways. However, and A.Savin clearly mentioned this to you, road is the upper class of streets and bikeways and so on. That's just a side note, the substantive debate should perhaps be held in a more appropriate place, not on the Administrator noticeboard. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@L. Beck I've got 200.000 items on my watch list and until now no one else has accused me of not understanding "the category system". I may however still fail to understand how other contributors use specific categories. The Category:Roads in Denmark is one that I've only very rarely worked directly in. Coming across i.e. Category:Roads on Bornholm where can I quickly get to read about how a "road" is defined in Commons terms? Please also note that yesterday I had to point out to A.Savin that Category:Hasle Havn is not a building. In my experience I am far from the only one who doesn't fully understand specific corners of "the category system". Hjart (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info Hjart is now continuing the same revert-war against several users including the admin Taivo. A block of Hjart is at latest now definitely in place. --A.Savin 01:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see where this user has been appropriately warned per Commons:Blocking_policy. Unless I'm wrong, I would disagree, as cool-down blocks are not condoned. --Schlurcher (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess then this thread is to be closed as not done? Given that the topicstarter demanded my block for the very same reason, without having warned me first either? --A.Savin 16:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking any sides here, but I don’t think Hjart was demanding for your block there, they just mean they wanted you “to stop” editing that category. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably your English is not sufficient to see that, but "Can someone please stop him" is a clear request for a block in this context. --A.Savin 03:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a native English speaker (and other issues not withstanding), no, it is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked both edit warriors for one day with the following reason: extensive edit war in Category:Bornholm rundt and other places even clearly after discussion on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Editwar with A.Savin started
This discussion here is clearly sufficient to be considered a warning, but they continued their edit war. --Leyo 08:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think blocking users for ongoing edit-warring three days after the last edit is not justified. GPSLeo (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that an earlier block would have been better. It's a very extensive edit war with 10 reverts by A.Savin and 11 by Hjart in Category:Bornholm rundt alone. It is important to make it clear to them that this is way above what can be tolerated with no administrative action. --Leyo 14:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A warning is also an administrative action totally sufficient if there is no ongoing policy violation. GPSLeo (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about this. This is absolutely typical of A. Savin. There's a dispute with an editor, and they then personalise it into stalking their other edits. This is not behaviour fit for an admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, what this example should tell me. A.Savin gave a rational reason for his edit. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously and unarguably unclear as to the overlap between cycle routes and roads, and between moles and breakwaters. There is legitimate space for discussion as to which are or aren't, but obviously it is not a clear-cut question. So any argument over which has to be based on discussion, not simple editorial fiat.

A. Savin has stalked Hjart's edits and found things to disagree over. (It is not credible that they both just share an interest in Danish infrastructure.) Their reaction then was the problem: they did not discuss this, they merely reverted. If someone is already deep into pointless edit-warring with another editor, it is bad editing generally to seek out new pages on which to extend what has now become a personal dispute. For an admin to do this is very poor behaviour indeed.

This is typical and characteristic behaviour for A. Savin, now and in the past. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, see User:A.Savin/Archive/2024#Edit_War where User:L. Beck complains about vandalism by Hjart. --Leyo 16:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that A. Savin sees all of this as 'vandalism' The fact that I am now getting an administrative kick in the ass as punishment for removing vandalism [4] [5] is a problem. Reasonable differences of opinion are not vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not only usual bullying and bashing from you, but also extremely unfair. I created Category:Moles in Denmark for some photos to be uploaded, which is fully unrelated to Hjart. Shortly after that, Hjart tried to add "Breakwaters" to this new category, which is however completely wrong. That means, it was not me stalking Hjart's contribution, but the other way around. --A.Savin 07:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"A. Savin personalises every disagreement."

A. Savin: <attacks person posting> Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but with these comments you are making exactly the same what you complain on. GPSLeo (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block review

Today User:Leyo blocked User:A.Savin and User:Hjart for one day for edit warring. The last edit war edits were nearly tree days ago and there was no consensus that an immediate block is needed in the discussion above. I therefore would propose to lift the block and declare the blocks as unjustified. GPSLeo (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the non-optimal timing, this huge edit war clearly called for a block. --Leyo 15:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which should have been done at the time, not after days have past. Bidgee (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, yes. However, the effect, i.e. to prevent future extensive edit wars, will also be reached like this. --Leyo 16:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re trying to use a crystal ball into predicting the future. Both blocks should be undone immediately. Bidgee (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These blocks would have been appropriate three days ago when they were actively editwarring, to prevent further editwarring, but at this point the blocks feel punitive to me. So support unblocking. Queen of Hearts (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a general sense, blocks are a last resort for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere. → See diff provided by Andy Dingley above. --Leyo 21:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also support an unblock for the same reason. This block isn't going to do anything, though I suppose a 1-day block is not long. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both unblocked, even though block was expiring shortly Bedivere (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valenzuela400 uploads

Regarding the uploads conducted by Judge w:en:Florentino Floro through his newest sock account, Valenzuela400 (talk · contribs), there has been a decision at enwiki to nuke out all of his remaining uploads there. Perhaps it is reasonable to nuke all of his uploads here on Commons too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a consensus either way for what happens with sock accounts' otherwise fine uploads once they're uncovered. I've seen it go both ways. We should probably have a discussion and put it into policy. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: I would have them deleted (Floro is still socking and abusing Commons as a free webhost). FYI, Florentino Velasquez Floro and Ramon FVelasquez remain unblocked. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the vast majority of his uploads are not in use in other WMF projects. What about mass deleting those, while the few remaining ones are subject to an individual review? --Leyo 21:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with a mass deletion. Some of these photos (e.g. Category:Udders (ice cream)) aren't in use but are of subjects we don't have many images for. I would say quite a lot of these images pass COM:EDUSE as well. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 21:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I too disagree with nuking the images. Bedivere (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leyo: The vast majority of my uploads are not in use on other WMF projects. Do you view that as a problem, and if so why? - Jmabel ! talk 22:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same, and I don't have any expectation that a majority of my uploads will ever be used (but I'm always pleasantly surprised when someone else decides to use one of my uploads.) Abzeronow (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion went to an irrelevant reason to nuke Judge Florentino Floro sock's uploads. It's not that his images may need to be nuked because of not being in use, but because of being a long-term abusive user who has used sockpuppets to evade prior blocks. The discussion on enwiki is now at w:en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368#Another chapter in the never-ending saga of Florentino Floro. But yes, The Squirrel Conspiracy is right that COM:CSD does not contain a rule for eliminating contributions by banned/seriously-sanctioned users. Enwiki currently has that rule under w:en:WP:G5. Still, some files were successfully deleted using that enwiki rule, like the case of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bertrand101 see also the note I just added at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robinsons Woodcity Under Construction.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Derek Spears

Despite being given a final warning on his talk page regarding uploading copyrighted content, he has continued to upload various copyrighted material. Seemingly, any English language Wikipedia article he comes across, he uploads the first result that he finds on Google onto Commons. He has been problematic on English Wikipedia too. TansoShoshen (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done I actually blocked just moments before you posted this. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KonokRAYSEOExpert (talk · contribs)/KonokRaySEOExpertPro (talk · contribs)

Sockpuppeting--Trade (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pippettes

Some doubt whether uploads by Emicropipette are own work. Is there a way to search for similar images? IIRC Google used to have such but I can't find it anymore. No luck with DuckDuckGo either. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Taylor 49: Hi, and welcome. You may use our Reverse Image Search Gadget, which you can find under "Maintenance tools" on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... the link format is File:Drugo izdanje romana Zavodnik.jpg -> upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Drugo_izdanje_romana_Zavodnik.jpg -> [6] -> "lens.google.com/uploadbyurl?url=https" ... -- Taylor 49 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion

Hi. Could you delete these files quickly? Thank you.

Sofia (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The files are already nominated for deletion. Why the hurry? Nakonana (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a mix-up in the files submitted, so the user is gonna upload a better one. Sofia (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw the deletion rationale on the deletion request page. I'm just confused why the issue is posted on the administrator's noticeboard in addition to the deletion request page. There doesn't seem to be anything problematic about the images that would require quick admin intervention, unless I'm missing something? Nakonana (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those files are described as "own work" and copyright is claimed.

@Sofia: When you say "the user" is going to upload a better one, who do you mean by "the user"? - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user who uploaded those files isn’t too experienced and reached out on my talk page asking for them to be deleted. Sofia (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sofia: if it's the same user, they can just overwrite. Have them click on "Upload a new version of this file." Nothing here calls for deletion, let alone speedy deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 00:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]