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
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	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	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

^{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: ~100
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~2
• No license since 31 December 2025: ~3
• No permission since 31 December 2025: ~166
• No source since 31 December 2025: ~72
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2026-01: ~96

Other:

• Duplicates: ~196
• Advertisements/spam: ~13
• Personal photos/selfies: ~116
• Other speedy deletions: ~39
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~5
• Undeletion requests: ~18

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~54
• Interface admin: ~14
• Technical: ~2
• Template protection: ~6
• 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.

52 Images of Ants eating rice

This users has created and spammed many categories with many near identical images. For example 52 images of ants eating rice: there are many, many more images which are medium to low quality with many many copies. Example: File:9797Malakapas textures Alakaak textures 40.jpg also look at the description of that file:

Malakapas textures Mojarra Malakapas and Alakaak textures Tuel, Balat, DulamaCroaker Johnius amblycephalus Johnius amblycephalus (Bleeker, 1855) Dendrophysa russelii (Cuvier, 1829) Dendrophysa russelii in Poblacion, Baliuag, Bulacan Timeline of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Philippines 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Philippines Bayanihan to Heal as One Act (RA 11469) Bayanihan Act of 2020. Signed on March 24, 2020 7,958 Covid-19 cases in Philippines April 28; 12,933 as of May 19, 2020; 14,669 Covid-19 cases in Philippines May 26; 886 deaths; Covid-19 cases in Philippines June 2 - 18,997 and 966 deaths; August 18 - 169,213 cases COVID-19 Philippines, new cases 4,836, 53,665 active cases; 112,861 recovered, 2,687 deaths; August 20 Coronavirus Cases: 173,774 Deaths: 2,795 Recovered: 113,481; 178,022 cases COVID-19 Philippines, new cases, 4,339 added. 61,025 active, 114,116 recovered and 2,883 deaths August 22 Philippines Coronavirus Cases: 182,365 Deaths: 2,940 Recovered: 114,519 Category:Sitios and puroks of the Philippines Subdivisions of the Philippines Barangay Poblacion 14°57'17"N 120°54'2"E, Baliuag, Bulacan, Bulacan province taken under weather conditions of Habagat Monsoon of South Asia Low Pressure Area (LPA) Southwest Monsoon (Note: Judge Florentino Floro, the owner, to repeat, Donor FlorentinoFloro of all these photos hereby donate gratuitously, freely and unconditionally Judge Floro all these photos to and for Wikimedia Commons, exclusively, for public use of the public domain, and again without any condition whatsoever).

This text is in many many images. To create a Deletion Request would be a huge tast. Better an admin gets the ok to just go through and mass deletes most of those near identical images. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 21:14, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The uploader was blocked and globally locked years ago. File:9797Malakapas_textures_Alakaak_textures_40.jpg is very blurry and might be a good candidate for a deletion request. The parts of the text that do not refer to the image should be removed IMO even if the image is not deleted. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Correction: the global lock is from February 2025. Sockpuppets may be more recent. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Amada44: for the future, VFC actually makes mass DRs like this pretty easy to create. - Jmabel ! talk 22:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any replacement photos of 9797Malakapas_textures_Alakaak_textures_40.jpg? Because otherwise it seems hard to justify Trade (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I am going to greatly reduce my involvement in blocking accounts

I am not one of the main people here who imposes blocks on accounts. Still, I am about to cut back considerably from the moderate involvement I have had. Why? Because I keep encountering users who make vague reports, often seem to assume that every admin here is familiar with every LTA we've ever had (e.g. reporting behavior that, at least to me, looks innocuous on the surface because it apparently resembles some LTA, but they give no indication of whom), and at least one time out of ten if I ask any questions so that I can actually make an informed decision, they take this as hostility on my part. (Oh, also: reports that some user's edits are abusive or otherwise problematic, with no links or diffs provided, and where there are plenty of OK edits from that user.)

I'll continue to block obvious vandals, LTAs where I happen already to be familiar with the case, people who are egregiously inappropriate toward other users, etc., plus people where the person filing the report actually gives me enough to go on. But I am pretty much done asking for more information in the face of frequent hostility when I do so, and I am totally done taking anything longer than a very few minutes trying to work out for myself what is going on with a vague report.

If someone believes I should be de-admin'd for this, go ahead and start that process. Just so long as you permalink my remarks here, I'll stay out of the discussion except insofar as I'm directly addressed. - Jmabel ! talk 08:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable position and very similar to mine from my perspective. Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

No it isn't. You're a long-time checkuser who has no problem spotting socks from a mile away because you're very good at it. Notice that JMabel doesn't link any of these so-called vague reports. That's because other admins blocked the socks or JMabel themselves blocked them eventually or they were locked on Meta. If those admins had no problem doing the blocks, than why is JMabel having such a hard time with them? You wouldn't have these issues. You would do the appropriate blocks and let users get back to other and better work. Geoffroi 01:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Geoffroi: I have no intention of calling out anyone else here. Per what I said above, if you believe this is not, as Herbythyme called it, a "perfectly reasonable position," propose that I be de-admined. End of story. - Jmabel ! talk 04:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm just saying you guys aren't similar in your way of dealing with LTAs. Geoffroi 04:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel, there is no denying that these things discourage one to continue contributing with the same enthusiasm. But, if the community continues to loose people like you, it won't be good for the project. It is on us, as a community, to fight out of a situation like this. I say, take a (small) break rather than "greatly reducing" your involvement with blocks, maybe it'll help. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta: With all due respect: no. I'm done with trying to be the one who either sleuths or asks questions when people can't be bothered to file a coherent report. - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Why do you need it spelled out in such perfect detail? You have an unblock button, so if you do a block that turns out not to be correct, as sometimes happens even with the most experienced admins, you unblock the account and move on. It's not that big of a deal. You do more harm when you make people beg you to do simple blocks that end up being done anyways. Do you think experienced editors are making false reports? A good blocking admin has to use the duck test and trust other users. If you're not comfortable with blocks, why do you respond to so many reports? I think you're a good admin, and I would oppose an RFD, but we need admins at AN/BP who're a bit quicker on the draw and not afraid to make decisions based on their own experience or that of experienced editors who report and deal with LTAs frequently. Geoffroi 01:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Geoffroi: Let me spell this out, in case I have somehow been unclear: the reason I am pulling back from this is partly that multiple users, you certainly among them, have expressed anger at me over how I handle this. I am not here to do the job exactly as you personally want it done. I am here to use my own judgement. You are among several who have not liked my judgement in these matters, and let me know with great force. If you expect that the way I will respond to that is to become your rubber stamp, you are out of luck. I am genuinely surprised that you are unhappy with my pulling away from an area where you did not like how I have handled it. - Jmabel ! talk 04:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Other admins have had no problem blocking these socks quickly and effectively. Please stop putting all the blame on patrollers. Geoffroi 04:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Stop bitching at him. Great, other admins have no problem, so what? The fact that you've harassed him to get out of doing this job, and now you continue to harass him for that, is out of line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

He had his say and I've had mine. He won't hear anything from me on this again. Have a nice day. Geoffroi 20:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thank you for your continued commitment to the project. I share your frustration. Please note, however, that sometimes my vagueness (in the face of filter 257 hits) is because no one has been willing to make it more specific, and sometimes I am following en:WP:DFTT and en:WP:RBI advice.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

This specific filter is way to large and complicated. We should deactivate it and make separate filters for stuff where it is really needed. @Elcobbola, who maintains the filter. Generally we should work as much as possible with page protection instead of filters. GPSLeo (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Filter 257 is not relevant to this discussion. It targets only two "related" LTAs that cannot be addressed with protection. The complexity has the sole purpose of limiting collateral--simplification, the implicit call of "way to (sic) large and complicated" would be harmful. There is already a separate filter (257a) to track the parameters that would cause too much collateral. Please consider Chesterton's fence before making careless declarations ("We should deactivate it and make separate filters"). Эlcobbola _talk 15:36, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Эlcobbola: When I see 257 hits, how would you have me explain (or not) at ANU (or another Admin noticeboard here) or m:srg, or act otherwise?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Could you give us examples of AN complaints that you believe were too vague to be useful? --Trade (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: If that was addressed to me, as I said above I don't want to call anyone out. However, I will give a few general examples of the sort of thing I mean:

• Just an account name and "LTA", where the user's edits would not otherwise appear to be particularly problematic. Only a handful of admins have comprehensive mental lists of the various LTAs and what is characteristic of their edits. Any other admin who tries to pick this up is at best going to have to do some unnecessary research. At worst, they are being asked to take a more-or-less random user's word that an otherwise seemingly innocuous account needs to be blocked. When reporting an LTA, please give some indication of the sockmaster and, ideally, some indication of what you see that looks like that sockmaster, e.g. "uploading fictional flags", "re-uploaded such-and-such deleted file", etc.
• Just an account name and "see contribs" or "abusive editing" or whatever, where plenty of the user's contributions are innocuous. If I look randomly and see 3 or 4 contributions that are not problematic from a user with dozens (or hundreds) of edits, just how many am I supposed to look at? Please, link 1 to 5 problematic edits (1 will do if it's so egregious as to likely deserve an indef-block, otherwise 3-5 is better).
• Just an account name and "looks fishy to me." What looks fishy? Where should someone start?
• Knowing, but failing to mention that someone has already been identified for some serious problem on another wiki.
• Mentioning only that someone has already been identified for some serious problem on another wiki, without saying anything about any problematic behavior on Commons.

Those examples are intended as representative, not exhaustive. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Possibility of inception of an abuse filter?

Hello,

I just came across Special:Diff/1025248549/1116277239, a blatant vandalism that went untreated for 1,5 months. As far as I know, such childish things are automatically filtered and blocked (by abuse filters) on several Wikipedia editions. I'd like to see such a tool also here, if possible.

Such a filter could either be taken over from a suitable Wikipedia (EN? DE? FR?) or be set up like this:

• final aim is to block unhealthy edits on file descriptions
• it should recognise Nazi-related additions done there
  • only allowing them for autopatrolled users or those with even higher privileges (IMO better choice) or autoconfirmed users
  • at first maybe recognising any "added_lines" that contain the usual permutations and Leetspeak of/for Hitler, Göring, Himmler, Nazi, Third Reich. Maybe also gas chamber, Konzentrationslager, Holocaust, Ahnenerbe.

I didn't see a possibility to use categories as filtering criteria on the Mediawiki page for the extension. If that would be possible, then the restriction could be made for media that aren't categorised in relation to historical data on Third Reich material.

I'd like to advocate for a stricter blocking regime, wilfully incurring the risk of false positives, as I deem the risk of Nazi vandalism strewn in potentially lots of Wikis higher than the harm done in blocking legitimate edits on archival media, for example. And if the blocking message hints at making the would-be editor asking on the Help Desk to get their edit made, then we could even avoid much issues of false positives. Such a message could be look like this: Your edit was automatically recognised as being unsuitable for the page you tried to modify. It was not and will not be saved. Please copy your text and ask for a review of that on Commons:Help Desk, include the file you wanted to modify. If the automated system made an erroneous block, then an experienced human editor can make the edit.

Any thoughts? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out what this would mean in practice. For example:

If File:Flag of Scindia Steam Navigation Company Ltd.png did not already have a category indicating that it showed a swastika, would a normal user be allowed to add that?

Would a normal user still be able to upload something like File:Nazi-leider Lincoln Rockwell doodgeschoten, Bestanddeelnr 920-6389 (cropped).jpg and describe it accurately? What about File:Gaschamber.jpg?

Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Help desk

Some temporary ID is having fun, busily deleting stuff at Commons:Help desk. -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Oops, wrong noticeboard. I should have posted this at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Marchjuly sensibly did just that, and the silliness has been halted. -- Hoary (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

License review for Category:Media uploaded for Public Domain Day 2026 and requests to move some works to en.ws

Since Commons requires work to be freely licensed or in the public domain in both its place of original publication and the United States, this sometimes creates some confusion on what can be uploaded, particularly if someone doesn't know an author's nationality. I have goofed on this in the past. For instance, this year, I have uploaded some works that may need to be removed locally.

• In Category:Vile Bodies, there are crops for things that are not copyrightable, but there is also the book itself, which is not in the public domain in the UK for another decade. Can someone please move the pdf(s) to en.ws and remove them locally to undelete locally in a decade?
• Similarly, Category:The Murder at the Vicarage, where the author is British and the book is protected by copyright for many decades, but the illustrations are possibly PD-shape or just unattributed, so they are anonymous works which can be hosted here.
• At Category:Emil and the Detectives, the pdf should be ported over, but it looks like the illustrations were also already uploaded at the German title Category:Emil und die Detektive, so they are acceptable to host here or they should all be deleted from here.
• Category:Cranach Press Hamlet, illustrated by Edward Gordon Craig has a scan of the work as well as a number of illustrations cropped from it. The author has been dead for centuries, but the illustrator's work will not be in the British public domain for a decade.

Sorry for making work for others. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The Murder at the Vicarage - English Wikipedia cities 20 October 1930 as the publication date in the UK. The US copyright registration list the date of publication in New York as October 24, 1930. There are also several newspapers in October and early November 1930 discussing the book was available for sale in the US. So it could be {{Simultaneous US publication}}  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Merci. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Datasets about potential logos - December 2025 uploads

Hi all, we have released a new dataset of potential logos uploaded in December 2025, together with another one of those which have already been deleted as of 2026-01-02. We are sharing them with you for your consideration.

This is part of our current work with the logo detection tool. We hope it will be useful for your moderation activities.

If you encounter issues with the datasets or have comments/requests, please reach out to me or to Sannita (WMF).

Thanks for your attention! –-MFossati (WMF) (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-29921-0001, Bulganin, Nikolai Alexandrowitsch.jpg

Hi, I can't undelete this file. Any idea? Yann (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Is the cropped version much different? File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-29921-0001, Bulganin, Nikolai Alexandrowitsch (cropped).jpg Nakonana (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really. I think we can dispense with this file. Yann (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I thought that maybe the system was thinking that you are trying to undelete a duplicate or something, and that that was maybe the reason for the failed undeletion.

But if the cropped version isn't that different then it's fine too. Nakonana (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I could undelete it, when marking only the 1st and the 3rd file-version, and thereafter pasting in the description etc. from the last version before deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Túrelio: That would make sense if the 2nd file-version was corrupt, or possibly oversighted. But please do us a favor and sanitize or remove the deletion tag.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Best image search for copyvios?

What's the best image search for detecting copyvios now? Google image search has degenerated into uselessness with its AI bilge, and Tineye never finds much. Just at the moment, I'm concerned about File:Martín pescador común Alcedo atthis.jpg which has several red flags to me (professional quality, but lack of exif, incorrect geolocation [urban street in Germany, not a wetland for a wetland bird], and uploaded by someone whose other photos are from South America thousands of km from this image), but I can't find proof of it being a copyvio. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Good question - I've found Tineye rubbish of late so was wondering the same thing. On that image Google has plenty of hits but none that seem quite right for me. I do agree the image is suspect. Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Google Lens works fine for me: the third result on "exact matches" is https://x.com/Adri_Wan/status/2001191760840528062 from 17 December 2025. Belbury (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! With that, I'll delete the pic now. @Belbury Where can I find google lens, please? - MPF (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

It's what the Google website uses if you click the camera icon for "search by image".

If you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, enabling "Reverse Image Search" will add direct sidebar search links for Google Lens, TinEye and Yandex, when you're viewing a file page on Commons. Belbury (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury Thanks! Odd, that ("search by image") is exactly what I did, but google didn't find any exact matches . . . - MPF (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury sorry to trouble you again, could you check these two from the same uploader? Again I'm not getting any hits, like I didn't for that Kingfisher, but both are suspect for much the same reasons: File:Accipiter striatus, San Luis Obispo.jpg, and File:Amblyramphus holosericeus jpg.jpg. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, tried a second time on that last pic, and this time it did find it, on farcebook 👍 - MPF (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting the same here: no hits on the first, ten Facebook posts (where it looks like the Commons uploader has cropped the image to remove the visible watermark) for the second. Belbury (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I'll nominate the other one for deletion and see if anyone else can find its source - MPF (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I warned Aguila19 for this.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Google image search appears to have some hick ups lately. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes simply reloading the tab fixes the hick up (at least temporarily). Nakonana (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Si . es que ese soy yo en X . Aguila19 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aguila19: Necesitas indicar una licencia en tu sitio web oficial o redes sociales o enviar tu permiso a través de VRT/es.

You need to display a license on your official website or social media or submit your permission via VRT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I'm not sure he'll follow how to do that properly; I'd rather explain to him in more detail, once he confirms what is going on here. Also, clearly this will move more smoothly in Spanish. - Jmabel ! talk 23:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

(cross-posted) @Aguila19: Tratando de clarificar: ¿entiendo que eres el fotógrafo, y los publicaciones anteriores en redes sociales eran por tu mismo? (Por favor, indíquelo explícitamente aquí si ese es el caso, para que pueda explicarle lo que debe hacer para que podamos conservar o restaurar las fotos en Commons). - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Dragoljub "Drage" Nikodinoski in the army.jpg Repeated deletion nominations and targeting by user Jingiby

Moved to COM:AN/U - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I closed the DR as kept. Currently protection is not needed. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Transliteration equated to phishing

Please review the placement of Category:.ру (cyrillic py, not related to Latin py) into Category:Phishing. Earlier, I brought the problem to the attention of @Tuvalkin: , who initiated this, but to no avail. Retired electrician (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I just removed the category and am puzzled that it was added in the first place. The Cyrillic .ру is used like the Latin .ru ending for writing website names in Russian. Examples from ruwiki: Лента.ру (aka news website Lenta.ru), Вести.ру (aka news website vesti.ru), Правда.ру (aka news website pravda.ru), Я.ру (aka ya.ru where ya is short for Yandex), Банк24.ру (aka bank24.ru), or Банки.ру (aka banki.ru). It's used in Russian language website logos etc. like vesti.ru. Nakonana (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and it is obviously phishing. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not phishing. There's not a single file in that category that depicts anything even remotely related to phishing. All I'm seeing in that category is Russian-language logos of legit companies. I don't think that it would be justified to declare any of the listed companies in that category as "phishing" companies. If this was a category about a living person, then putting it in a category like "phishing" would constitute a WP:BLP violation because we'd be accusing them of a crime. The logo of bank24.ru is in that category. Bank24 is a legit company. We can't just put a bank in Category:Phishing just because they are using Cyrillic script in their company name and logo. We can't just accuse a legit bank of phishing like that. If we ever get any depictions of Cyrillic .ру being used as a phishing to deceive people into thinking that it is Latin .py for the Paraguay domain then we can create a category along the lines of "Cyrillic ру used for phishing" or "Latin py used for phishing" which could then be a subcategory of Category:.ру,Category:.py, and Category:Phishing. But we really can't just put Cyrillic Category:.ру in Category:Phishing when there isn't a single example of phishing in that category. Nakonana (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

When you say «to no avail», it may be interpreted that I didn’t respond to your queary, but you rather mean that I didn’t agree with you. And I still don’t: Obviously ".py" and ".ру" look the same (per design, ever since Peter the Great and his graẑdanska typographic reform) and constitute a primer case of Unicode “confusables” that are the raw material of phishing. ISO 3166 alpha-2 look-alikes such as Cyrillic "ру" are intentionally excluded when evaluating i18n ccTLDs (compare the cases of ".рф" and ".бг"). I know it’s used as a commercial gimmik in Russia, not as an actual phishing hoax, but phishing as a concept is a matter of confusable characters in URLs and other such contexts, not a necessarily a legal accusation. Any reuser looking for good example to illustrate the concept of phishing in simple terms would be very well served by Wikimedia Commons by finding "Category:.ру" under "Category:Phishing". -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand the categorization of Category:.ру under Category:Sponsored top-level domains, which was also my doing, is incorrect and I removed it — tardly and with apologies. Indeed Category:.ру is about something that looks very much like a ccTLD but is not one: Search the web for "domain:xn--p1ag" and you wont find anything, unlike, say "domain:xn--90ae" (=".бг"). So, ".ру" looks like something that it is not — which is pretty much a basic definition of phishing itself. Category:.ру must be recategorized under Category:Phishing to accompany not only actual criminal hoaxes but other examples of novelty URL-look-alike phrases used in media. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Any reuser looking for good example to illustrate the concept of phishing in simple terms would be very well served by Wikimedia Commons by finding "Category:.ру" — no that would be a horrible idea. Any reuser would be well advised to not use the logo of any legit company as an example for phishing. Just imagine using the logo of Bank of America as an example for phishing — they'd probably sue the hell out of that reuser for slander and whatnot. Nakonana (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Mass rename fail

Something went badly wrong with a mass rename I did Saturday. The files in Category:2025 Turismo Carretera Coronation Grand Prix are all messed up. My apologies for this. It's very embarrassing. I won't use Perhelion's script again. Geoffroi 15:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I will fix this, but first I'll wait for an answer on User_talk:Geoffroi#Rename_bug? Emha (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:Undelete in 2026

Hi, There are only 4 DRs left. And I don't know what should be undeleted in them. Any idea? Yann (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

There might be notes like this[1] one. Nakonana (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

[2]. Nakonana (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Two of those had 2026 added by me for files that had been undeleted before this year (1930 publication). 1 was undeleted, but the admin forgot to change the category, and 1 of those I just undeleted the 1930 postage stamps. Abzeronow (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Please write a more informative title (view examples).

I have received the above message when attempting to upload a new image file into an existing magazine category.

I have previously used the book / magazine name with the appropriate page number or plate reference, because it does ensures a unique name. The image description is then added to the caption field or description page so it should be clear what the image is. For books / Magazines why is this now not considered a appropriate naming scheme?

The image I am trying to contribute is named Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Volume 44 - Plate 1.jpg with a description of Tin Coins from Malacca.

I have previously uploaded two similar images from different volumes of the Magazine which also have the description Tin Coins from Malacca. See Category: Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. For me this does ensures a unique unambiguous name and also provides the image description. What other naming structure would better ensure unique names for these images? Thanks Sp1nd01 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Sp1nd01: Where did you receive it?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Jeff G, This appears when I use the upload wizard, it only started today, I uploaded a few images yesterday without issue. Sp1nd01 (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me like a perfectly good name. We have tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of files with similar names. I'd suggest taking this to Commons:Upload Wizard feedback (and permalinking this discussion when you do so). - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please block User:Tous sur tous, his "creations" are here : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tous_sur_tous. One file was used to vandalize the article "Afrique" on fr.wikipedia.org. Best regards. --d-n-f (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user. Uploads are nominated for speedy deletion. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Ленивый Гриб

Please, check contribution of User:Ленивый Гриб. He has infinity block in local wiki, his actions in Commons are strange. Dinamik (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted the userpage, where the user called himself an administrator. His actions in Commons are really strange, but I will not block him currently. Taivo (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Now indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

deletion and declaration

warning for @Davedryv as declared on the italian village pump. he's doing a mess with multiple files, uploading as self official photos and requesting weird deletion. GioviPen ^{GP msg} 16:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Caro Giovanni, chiedo scusa per la confusione, non sapevo esattamente come chiedere eliminazione e ho fatto molteplici tentativi. Ho caricato solo una volta la foto in questione (ad aprile 2025) e solo ora mi sono accorto dell'errore. Ho chiesto eliminazione per motivi di privacy legati alla foto in questione, spero di averti convinto delle buone intenzioni magari espresse male per questa community che mi è nuova. Davedryv (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

ciao @Davedryv non metto in dubbio le buone intenzioni (it:WP:BF). segnalando anche direttamente agli amministratori forse qualcosa si muoverà più velocemente, nessun problema ;) GioviPen ^{GP msg} 17:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Data:United States/Maine/Piscataquis County.map

Hello, I’m running into a MediaWiki size-limit issue with a large Data namespace page. When I try to add Category:Map data of counties of Maine to Data:United States/Maine/Piscataquis County.map Commons returns the error: “The text you have submitted is 2,303.729 kilobytes long, which is more than the maximum of 2,048 kilobytes.” The same category can still be added successfully to smaller county map data pages (e.g. Sagadahoc County), so this appears to be caused by the size of the Piscataquis County .map JSON rather than the category itself. For reference, the page length is only ~619 KB, but saving triggers a >2 MB submission due to Data namespace reserialization. Could an admin please add the category server-side, or advise on the preferred workaround (e.g. category splitting or restructuring for large Data pages)? Thank you! Punkboy3401 (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how an admin will have any different situation here than an ordinary user. - Jmabel ! talk 01:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Punkboy3401: I mentioned this at phab:T275319.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)