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	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	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: ~60
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~3
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-11: ~108

Other:

• Duplicates: ~48
• Advertisements/spam: ~2
• Personal photos/selfies: ~18
• Other speedy deletions: ~107
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~19

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~41
• Interface admin: ~10
• Technical: ~1
• 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.

Unresolved issue regarding categorisation

Hello,
We recently had with ARK and Nebula84912, a discussion about “Categorisation of colors on flags” that was started on Nebula84912'talk page and continued on village pump without any follow-up (discussion was archived on october 14th), which is a problem since many files have been categorized in opposition to the existing principle, and thus the abandonment of the discussion suggests that those files are bound to be left as is, i.e. without any reversal or change in either direction.
It looks like additional advices may be required to help resolve this issue, hence the opening of this topic here,
Thank you, --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kontributor 2K: are you asking for some administrative action here? If so, what?

If you just want to un-archive the discussion, make it "live" on the Village pump again, and continue it, that does not require an admin. - Jmabel ! talk 23:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: since User:Nebula84912 has been categorising lots of files in opposition to the principle that has always been in use, starting to mess the whole sector, I'd dream of some global reversion, especially given the fact the user ultimately disappeared after that the discussion proved to be a dead end – unless they reappear to discuss again. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kontributor 2K: I stay largely out of policy decisions on flags, other than issues about whether a given flag is real-world or user fiction. Is there some admin who works in that area? Alternatively, might you be able to form something of a consensus at Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology? I'm not taking unilateral action in an area where I'm not at all expert and don't think consensus is clear. - Jmabel ! talk 12:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Regardless of the fact that, in effect, all it takes is for one user to have an offbeat approach and take unilateral actions in their own point of view against a long-standing process for that process, not to say the long-standing implicit consensus, to become unclear, it may indeed be more relevant to continue this on the Heraldry and vexillology talk page; I ping @ARK: for the tracking. Thank you, --Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Among users with any domain expertise in heraldry and vexillology, it probably wouldn't take much to reach a consensus on the simple proposition, conventionally considered a matter of course, that heraldic flags should have their colours categorised in the traditional heraldic manner, which counts black only as a 'colour' if an actual element of the heraldic design is coloured black, as opposed to merely having its outline strengthened by a black stroke. However, it does not look like WikiProject Heraldry and Vexillology is frequented by such users on a regular basis. Ziv is an admin who's been taking an interest in heraldic matters. Maybe she'd like to make a judgment call? ARK (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if it took a while to reply. I skimmed through it at work, but didn't want to comment in detail until after work. First, reading through the entire discussion would take too long, so I'll summarize briefly. Edits by Nebula84912 related to flags, coats of arms, etc. are unwelcome, as they're incorrect. Am I right about that? Since the user hasn't been active since October 4th, I think judgment call is rather hopeless, unless the user reappears and continues in the same vein. @Kontributor 2K, you're talking about a rollback, of what? Only in connection with "Black"? How many reverts should we assume, given the user's 53,764 edits? Could they be handled manually, since they were only unwanted in connection with black, or in general? Enlighten me, please. Could you and @ARK: possibly handle the reverts yourselves, or is the number of reverts exceeding a certain number that would make it better to use a bot for that? Something I've never done, though; I'd have to leave it to someone else. Regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 21:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv: Not quite. Let's use a simple example to get to the core of the issue. The Swiss national insignia look like this: on a red background, a white cross that doesn’t touch the edges, which translates to gules, a cross argent couped in formal heraldic description. The formal heraldic description need not concern us here. We just need to recognise that this is a heraldic design and as such it can be rendered, interchangeably, as either a coat of arms or a flag. Note also that the formal description only specifies two colours: red and white.There's even a federal law [PDF] that dates back to 1889 and defines the Swiss national insignia as a couped white cross in a red field. Again: two colours.

Now, how does this heraldic design get rendered in practice? In practice, artists may choose to strengthen the contrast between the white cross and the red background by putting a black stroke on the cross. As a general rule, this practice is used more commonly in coats of arms than it is in flags, but it can be seen in flags as well.

According to Nebula84912's logic, a Swiss flag with an outlined cross would have to be classified among the black, red, white flags of Switzerland, which not only flies in the face of the most basic common-sense understanding of what the Swiss flag looks like, it defies long-standing usage on Commons and descriptive practice established long before the internet came into existence.

Due to to Nebula84912's intervention, the category Black, red, white flags of Switzerland is now a very mixed bag of flags that belong there and flags that have absolutely no business being there because their presumed "black" is just an outline, an arbitrary rendering choice rather than an actual design element.

The "Black, red, white flags of Switzerland" category is one out of many categories that Nebula84912 has corrupted in the same manner over a period of several months. ARK (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

If it were just this one category, I could tackle it myself and undo the edits, but if there are several more, then it becomes a Sisyphean task that would probably be better done by a bot. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 09:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, Nebula84912 was quite active and went unchallenged for months. However, the user's edit logs consistently feature accurate edit summaries, e.g. on 1 Oct. 2025 the edit summary for the file Flagge Elchesheim-Illingen.svg says that it was moved from category Blue and white flags of Germany to category Black, blue, white, yellow flags of Germany. If a bot were to target for reversion all edits by Nebula84912 that include "black" or "Black" in their edit summary, we'd have the issue fixed rather quickly. Still: However flimsy the arguments are that have been put forward in support of the idea that heraldic flags should be categorised as featuring "black" even if that colour is used for outlines only, there are still those who would credit these arguments as valid dissent from the consensus. Fornax is an active admin with conspicuous rightheadedness about heraldry and vexillology. Maybe he could help us out with a verdict? ARK (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I'm not an admin on Commons, I've never been involved with admin-related topics there, and I'm not familiar with the issue at hand either. Fornax (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fornax: My mistake, sorry for the confusion! Since you're here, however, may I ask you as a heraldic artist yourself whether you consider the municipal flag of Hérémence to be correctly categorised as having "black" among its "colours"? Should the black outline on the star be counted as a "colour"? Thanks! ARK (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

In my view, an outline should not be classified as a “color” within the context of Commons categorization. It serves primarily as a design element that accentuates the shape of a motif without altering its inherent coloration. However, outlines might reasonably be considered a “color” when they are visually dominant or carry symbolic weight—for instance, a black cross on a white field with a red border, where the border is an integral part of the design. To avoid semantic confusion and ensure more accurate categorization, it would be preferable to introduce dedicated categories such as “Flags with outlined stars” or “Flags with black outlines.” Fornax (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fornax: Thank you for your advice regarding a new category “Flags with black outlines”, which might be well taken, but the issue at hand concerns a user who has incorrectly re-categorised large numbers of heraldic flags as featuring the colour black, merely because elements with black outlines are present in their design. We're trying to reach an informed consensus on this re-categorisation being in fact incorrect. On the face of it, your assertion that black outlines "should not be classified as a 'color' within the context of Commons categorization" supports this consensus. You add the qualification, however, that "outlines might reasonably be considered a 'color' when they are visually dominant or carry symbolic weight". This qualification might be misconstrued as a weighty exception to the general rule. So allow me to ask: In your expert opinion as a seasoned heraldic artist, wouldn't you agree that any doubt regarding the status as a "colour" of any such coloured border could, in the overwhelming majority of cases, very easily be resolved simply by reference to the formal verbal description of the design, the blazon, which would explicitly call for a white star with a black border if such a border, as opposed to an arbitrary outline, were considered a constitutive part of the design? (Sorry if this is beginning to sound like a cross-examination of a witness at trial, but the primacy of the formal verbal description of any heraldic design is a key technical point that needs to be understood by non-experts if they are meant to support this consensus.) Best, ARK (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree that the formal blazon—the verbal description of a heraldic design—should be considered the authoritative reference when determining whether a border or outline constitutes a heraldic tincture. In the vast majority of cases, if a black border were intended as a constitutive element of the design, it would be explicitly stated in the blazon. Absent such specification, a black outline should be treated as a stylistic aid rather than a color in its own right.

My earlier remark about symbolic weight was meant to acknowledge rare edge cases, not to undermine the general principle. I appreciate your clarification, and I support the consensus that outlines alone do not justify categorizing a flag as featuring the color black. Fornax (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

No further questions, M'lud.Thank you for your evidence, Fornax! ARK (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

To illustrate, shown below are two municipal flags. One has two colours, the other has three:

• 
  Red and white
• 
  Black, red, white

Also observe that the corresponding coats of arms do not only state the formal heraldic description, they also show the colours under their heraldic names as "tinctures". Two of them in the case of Hérémence and three of them in the case of Gurzelen.

ARK; I understand where the problem lies. The question is, how do we best solve the problem? זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 09:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv: Two steps:

1. convince Jmabel that "consensus is clear".
2. Get a bot to revert all edits by Nebula that have "black" or "Black" in their edit summary. ARK (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@ARK: I think we can reach a consensus if you include me. The request and problem description should then go here: COM:BR. That would probably be something for @Schlurcher: , and would also have the advantage that you could describe the whole thing to him in German. Regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 09:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv: Thanks for the tip about SchlurcherBot! However, I'm not very well versed in protocol: technically, what is the standard that needs to be met for a consensus to be a consensus? ARK (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I said “I would dream of some global reversion”, in a dream world some artificial intelligence, or a magician, would handle this at a glance; in reality it will most likely have to be solved via cat-a-lot, manually (i.e. by non-admins). In a better world, Nebula84912 would suddenly appear, to relieve their fellow contributors from this task which, anyway, will be initiated soon. unless otherwise advised

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

No need to convince me of anything. If some admin thinks consensus is clear (and, I hope, can summarized that consensus), fine. As I said, I largely stay out of issues about vexillology and heraldry because I am not an expert. The world would be a better place if a few more people were unwilling to take action on things they know little about. - Jmabel ! talk 02:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks! The clearest and most succinct statement of the consensus consists in the assertion that the colours of any heraldic design are stated in the formal verbal description of that design, the blazon. This consensus hasn't existed for weeks or months but for centuries! For an expression of this consensus that might be more accessible to the geekier kind of modern person, see my final contribution to the prior Village Pump thread about the present issue, in which I liken the blazon to the source code of a heraldic design, and any specific representation of that design in a coat of arms or a flag as a rendering of that code in any given environment, the argument being that the the quirks and peculiarities of any particular rendering should not be the object of either description or classification; the source code should. In addition, this has just been re-confirmed by Fornax further up in the present thread. Best, ARK (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear all: Per Ziv's suggestion, I have requested a bot run to revert all edits by Nebula84912 that include "black" or "Black" in their edit summaries. Best, ARK (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete my uploads and delete my account

I have requested speedy deletion of all of my files as I am the author and wish to withdraw them Zaragoza Enamora (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I deleted all files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zaragoza Enamora. Yann (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Revert mass split of previously merged categories

A few months ago, I started a project to merge the categories for Boeing aircraft manufacturer serial numbers (msn) and line numbers (ln). For context, see Commons talk:WikiProject Aviation#Boeing_msn/ln categories. Long story short, msn and ln are two systems of serial numbers that Boeing uses to designate individual aircraft. Having separate categories for an aircraft's msn and ln is entirely unnecessary and overly complicated, so I had begun the long process of merging them. However, starting last week, Ardfern began an unexplained effort to revert back to the overcomplicated separate categorization system, undoing months of progress in only a week and severely setting back the project. I'm not asking that any action be taken against Ardfern or anyone else, but I want, if possible, for the speedy deletion of the merged categories be restored and the separate msn/ln categories be redirected back to them. If Ardfern or anyone else believe they should be separate, they should have first attempted to discuss the issue before undoing months of work. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It appears the primary admin who speedy deleted the merged categories at Ardfern's request was Yann. There may have been others, but so many pages were deleted and I couldn't possible check them all. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The subject in question was put up for discussion but received no support and only an objection from myself. Therefore no consensus was reached on what is a major change and it should not go ahead Ardfern (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The subject in question was put up for discussion but received no support and only an objection from myself. That objection was made 9 minutes ago and offered no explanation. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I won't push this further. If a single user can halt months of progress with a single unexplained objection, then so be it. Either way, this will create a lot more work as Template:Boeing msn, which was created specifically for this effort, is still used on 567 categories and will have to be depreciated. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Ardfern has changed their mind and begun the process of restoring the merged categories. I think we can consider the core issue settled, but if an admin could help by restoring the rest of the deleted categories, that would be great. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a list? Yann (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Protect of protection shackle files

• File:Extended-protection-shackle.png
• File:Full-protection-shackle.png

Please proect this files. Full protection. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain why? They are currently not widely used. Do you want only the file or also the filepage protected? GPSLeo (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m sorry. I submitted this request assuming that the English versions were fully protected, but it turns out they were only partially protected. Since the files will be used in the system, partial protection might be sufficient, but continuous monitoring will be necessary. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The other files are in use on widely used templates, but these two files are not. We only protect files they are used in very visibly templates or if they got vandalized in the past. GPSLeo (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

These files are used directly in the system. They’re not a template, but rather like an icon on protected pages. Like that. Look at the top right corner of the page. And this means simultaneous use on a large number of pages. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

They are directly added used using javascript and therefore not counted as used? GPSLeo (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File still missing SDC copyright status and license nearly 2 weeks after upload

Hello. This file is still missing SDC copyright status and license (it was uploaded on October 21). I don't know if this is an isolated problem, or if it affects all files uploaded during a certain period (I uploaded several corrected versions of the file shortly after upload, maybe this has something to do with the problem). Could this be fixed (if there are more files with the same problem, for all the files)? Thanks in advance. MGeog2022 (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

These tasks were done by BotMultichill which is still blocked after an unsolved discussion got archived. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

So it's a general problem? Well, then its scope is far bigger than I thought. I suppose it will be fixed (sooner or later) in some way for all files uploaded after the bot stopped working (it doesn't make sense that all new files are marked as missing something). Thanks for your response. MGeog2022 (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Fixed by SchlurcherBot now. If this other bot is doing the job, even if it's a bit slower, there is no true problem, then. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Overwrite video/remove audio

Hello, I have tried, using VideoCutTool, to remove the audio from this video (it's just background noise and bits of not relevant dialogue); I selected the option to overwrite the existing file, and instead it got uploaded as a new file. Is it possible to merge them, or to overwrite the former? Or could anyone removed the audio from the first video and just delete the second, or tell me how to do that? Thanks, Syrio posso aiutare? 22:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Renaming a map

How do I request a map to be renamed such as Data:U.S. Route 63.map to a different title? 2600:1700:6180:6290:1D31:19D8:EE95:2515 00:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Datasets about potential logos - October 2025 uploads

Hi all, we have released a new dataset of potential logos uploaded in October 2025, together with another one of those which have already been deleted as of 2025-11-02. 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) 11:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Category move request

Hello. Category:Jeff Satur currently redirects to Category:Worakamol Satur, this should be reversed, as Jeff Satur is his stage name, and all wiki articles refer to him as such. We also don't list Category:Lady Gaga as "Category:Stefani Germanotta". Thanks in advance Xia (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Wrong image

Hi, I uploaded the wrong image. How do I delete it? Thank you. Leo ab1981 (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Leo ab1981: Add the {{Speedydelete}} with a short reason to the image page, and it will get deleted. -- regards, 32X (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Removing original research from a map

Hello, I hope I am referring to the correct board. I would like someone to upload the original version of this map: File:Europe in 1328.png, at least in its section regarding Bulgaria. It seems that some users have uploaded completely wrong and misleading versions, containing unsourced original research, regarding the borders of Bulgaria. In 1328 the region of Dobruja was part of Bulgaria, not of Wallachia, as wrongly indicated (it was in fact never part of Wallachia, except for a few years of temporary occupation almost a century later). Furthermore, Bulgaria was not divided between Vidin and Tarnovo in 1328. At the time, it was ruled by Michael Shishman (r. 1323-1330) and the country was fully unified, as the original version of the map suggests. I would be grateful, if someone could correct the mistakes and baseless changes regarding the borders of Bulgaria in particular, that have been accumulated over the years. Thank you in advance. Best regards, Gligan1 (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Commons used as a file hosting for a business

Have a look: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dian Furi -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Cities of Morocco

This is not a complaint against a particular user, only a request for clarification regarding Commons policy concerning disputed regions, especially in regards to Western Sahara conflict. I created Template:Cities of Morocco with the inclusion of cities in Western Sahara, added a note as to their disputed nature, and proceeded to adding the template in the main categories of all cities (still underway as I write this comment) but @Koavf decided to remove references to cities located in Western Sahara (as well as the note) with the comment "Removing cities not in Morocco" (see diff), and also removed the template from categories of cities in Western Sahara where it was included. My question is: which format is more compliant with Commons policy, assuming it does address this issue in general or in particular? If it does not, how should we proceed? Since Western Sahara cities are administered by Morocco (and considered as urban communes of Morocco), it would be expected that they would show up in such a navigation box, and I think adding a note regarding their legal status seems fair, while excluding them completely seems not. Best regards! Ideophagous (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

"Since Western Sahara cities are administered by Morocco" This is true of most municipalities in Western Sahara, but not all of them. For those not familiar with the conflict, it is occupied territory, like parts of Palestine and Ukraine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

"For those not familiar with the conflict, it is occupied territory" => That's just one viewpoint of the issue. Others would regard it as an integral part of Morocco, hence why it's a conflict. Ideophagous (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Anyone can view anything as anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Mass copyvio by User:Daniel Siqueira Carvalho

This user has been uploading so many copyright violations, apparently under the belief that fair use (“justified for non-commercial purposes with attribution”), as they put it on their talk page, is welcome in Commons. They have tagged these uploads with CC-BY-3.0, or sometimes CC-BY-SA-3.0.

Rather than me tagging all of the many copyvio uploads, can an administrator look at their uploads and delete all the instances that are obvious? Things like pictures of newspaper covers or pictures extracted from newspaper articles that are tagged with those copyright templates (there are some good uploads that have valid “public domain”-type templates). The source of the image is usually linked in the file description — or otherwise stated, like “redes sociais” (“social media”) — and usually makes it clear that it’s copyvio.

I don’t know if there’s a way to move files over as local ptwiki files (for those that are used in articles there). If there is, that could be a better solution, as they can indeed be hosted for fair use over there. Polomo (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I know nobody ever replies back when I write here, but I'll do it anyway. So, I don't know which images you're specifically referring to, but, In any case, I don't understand how the images I've published violate copyright. I only use the images to illustrate the articles, which I always choose to write without a defamatory tone, not being considered defamatory to mention negative events (e.g., criminal convictions, etc.). Furthermore, the images are always obtained from public sources, such as public archives and news articles. If copyright laws in the US are so strict that what I've done is considered illegal, then there's nothing I can do. The law isn't always reasonable Daniel Siqueira Carvalho (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

See Commons:FAIRUSE. Polomo (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Info for patrollers on temporary accounts

I think we should send a short information to all active (one edit in the last year) patrollers and license reviewers and inform them that if they need to look at the IP behind temporary accounts they have to request the new Temporary account IP viewer right. We should make this some days before to not have so many requests at the same time. Here is a draft for the message:

Hello User,

On November 12, temporary accounts will be enabled on Commons. The IP of unregistered users will then be hidden for most users. You, as a patroller or license reviewer, are eligible to request the new temporary account IP viewer right, if you need it to continue fighting vandalism and abuse on Commons. If you want to request the right, please file the request here. Please be aware that you also have to accept the Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy in your preferences. For more information about temporary accounts, look at the project page.

Please make changes directly in the text above. I suggest to send this on Friday. GPSLeo (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Support, I made some minor changes to the message. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Promotional socks?

• Drgidikumar (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) (who just made a promotional / spammy edit on this board) appears to be a sock of
• Dr.Gidikumar.Actor (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) (who got blocked on enwiki for the exact same promotional / spammy edits)[1]

Both have only few edits (7 and 11, respectively) despite the accounts having been created in 2011, and all of their edits are about inserting information about themselves[2][3][4][5]. Nakonana (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

"Uploaded while editing..."

I've noticed a lot of files with this upload detail, saying "Uploaded while editing" an article on one of the wikis. Here's an example: File:Rebello Alvarenga.jpg (CSD F-10 - non-notable writer). Most of the ones I've seen are either copyright violations or spam. Are these people allowed to upload thru another wiki? Whatever this is, the results are tens of thousands of uncategorized, abandoned, and unused files in Category:All media needing categories as of 2025 from driveby uploaders who have no idea what they're doing in regard to copyright or scope and don't know how to actually add the image to the article they were editing. Geoffroi 22:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion about this: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Is current limitation of cross-wiki uploads sufficient?. Nakonana (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

.webp files

A lot of the .webp files I come across in Category:All media needing categories as of 2025 are copyright violations. Is there any list maintained here that tracks .webp file uploads? I've seen users with pages that track CoA uploads and aircraft uploads, and it would be nice to just be able to patrol new .webp files for copyright violations. Any other way of patrolling just .webp files would be useful as well. Geoffroi 22:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You can just search by webp filetype https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=filemime:image/webp&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current={"fields":{"filetype":"image/webp"}}&ns6=1 $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   23:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Nice. That'll work. Thanks for the help. Geoffroi 00:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)