Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.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
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
128, 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
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
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
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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.


Coms problems with VRT (ticket 2025121610008447)

[edit]
Latest comment: 12 hours ago14 comments5 people in discussion

I have 128k edits on Commons since 2009, hence it would be fair to assume that by now, I know my way around the project and copyright. Having been elected to Tasman District Council, I thought it would be useful to get my hands onto official photos taken for this local authority. When those photos were taken, I checked with the photographer whether he has a contract in place that transfers the copyright to his client, which he said was indeed the case. Next, I checked with council staff whether they'd be happy to release the photos under a free license, which they were willing to do. I asked the council's legal counsel (Leith Townshend) whether he'd be the right person to sign off on the release of rights to the photos, which he agreed to. I then thought it's about time that I learned how use OpenRefine. Probably useful when you are dealing with 240 or so files, and I thought it's useful to have all the structured data defined, too. But that's beside the point.

Timeline of events is roughly like this:

  • Dec 2025: finished uploading everything
  • 9 Dec: I sent the release of rights email to TDC's legal counsel for him to forward this to VRT
  • 17 Dec: TDC's legal counsel forwards the release of rights email to VRT
  • 19 Dec: The VRT response comes back stating: "Unfortunately, we cannot use your content on the basis of statements such as "I allow Wikipedia to use my photos"."
  • 19 Dec: My reply to that email was: "Well, that's not what Leith said. It was a cover note where he mentioned his "approval for the photos to be uploaded to Wikipedia" - that's a nicety rather than a legal description. The full release text was below that."
  • 20 Dec: Email from VRT addressed to me: "The problem is that you were advised, improperly, to forward an email releasing the image under a specific licence. For legal reasons we don't accept forwarded permission statements, besides which it is not clear who is the copyright holder of the image and/or the photographer. First, can you clarify that and then have that person email a release permission statement so the image can be verified.
How did you become the exclusive copyright holder of this image <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moko_Tepania_official_council_portrait.jpg>? I ask this because normally this is the photographer unless their contract specifies release of the copyright. Mostly photographer's give usage rights which is not sufficient to the Wikimedia Commons.
I've added detail below for the copyright holder to complete and they should email it from their verifiable email DIRECTLY to this thicket number.
For the copyright holder, they can use the template found on this page: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates/Consent> or another way of producing a permission statement is through the Wikimedia Permission Release Generator, which can be accessed here: <https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/>.
This tool will guide you through the process of creating a release statement which we will be able to readily accept, and is the preferred method of releasing the rights to your media for use on Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia.
Whatever method you choose to make the permission statement, once completed please send the resulting text in an email reply from your own email address and please MAKE SURE the following "[Ticket#:2025121610008447]" is included in the subject line of the email as reference in the reply otherwise it will not be connected to this ticket."
  • 21 Dec: My response to that: "Firstly, it wasn't me who forwarded the email. The permissions email came from Leith Townsend; see the 16/12/2025 20:22 (CET) email below. I wrote the permissions statement for Leith. As a lawyer (he is Tasman District Council’s legal counsel), he will have no trouble understanding it.
Secondly, when the photographer took photos (including of me, e.g. this one), I asked him whether his contract with Tasman District Council deals with copyright. He said that yes, he transfers copyright to the council when he works for them, and that is stated in their contract.
Thirdly, regarding the Moko Tepania image, I think you are confused. I have nothing to do with that image. The upload history shows us that TheLoyalOrder put it on Commons."
  • 4 Jan 2026: Email from me to VRT: "Happy new year from New Zealand. Can you please let me know what’s happening with this ticket?"
  • 4 Jan: User:Krd starts deleting the photos with rationale "no ticket permission since..."
  • 6 Jan: Email from VRT to Leith Townshend: "Please advise who is the creator (photographer) of the image(s), and by which reason Tasman District Council became holder of the full and exclusive copyright."
At this point, I'm getting a bit frustrated. Each photo has the photographer specified in the structured data (d:Q136889058). And I've already explained that the photographer transfers copyright to TDC when he works for them.
  • 6 Jan: I thought I'd check in with Krd whether they can resolve this stalemate. Not sure why the conversation isn't archived as they appear to archive everything else; from the talk page history, the conversation is here. Most of that conversation was in German. Krd had a few issues with the ticked: unclear who the photographer is, why the client is the license holder, and the list of files submitted in an Excel spreadsheet without clickable links.
  • 7 Jan: I've sent a list to VRT with clickable links for the files, along with an apology that I didn't know that this was the expectation.
  • 7 Jan: Leith responds to the photographer query: "The Council contracts a photographer called James Mills from Think Visual to take pictures at some official events. I have just confirmed with James’ business partner that the copyright is owned by Council."
  • 7 Jan: Query from VRT to Leith: "is James Mills the photographer who created the images we are discussing?"
  • 8 Jan: Reply from Leith to VRT: "Yes"
  • 14 Jan: I follow up with VRT: "Greetings from New Zealand. I was wondering what the status is of this ticket. All the questions that were asked of us have been answered. User:Krd deleted some 200 photos from this upload on 7 and 8 January. Nothing has been restored yet. Is there anything that’s outstanding?"
  • 21 Jan: Follow up from me: "Would somebody from VRT please be so kind and let me know what the status is of this ticket? All the questions that were asked of us have been answered. However, the files that have been deleted have not be reinstated. Is there anything else left to resolve?"
  • 5 Feb: As suggested below by Jeff G., I have followed up with VRT, citing the Copyright Act 1994.

How is this reasonable treatment of somebody trying to do the right thing all along? Why am I not being told what the outstanding issue is? Schwede66 08:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Schwede66: I think it would help matters if VRT had contact from James Mills or Think Visual confirming what happened, along with a copy of the contract with the Council and comment as to where to find the copyright transfer in that contract (citation of chapter and verse, as it were).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why am I being put through this? The whole rights transfer is based on the copyright holder releasing the photos under a free license. To now have to run after the photographer and talk him into releasing his contract with TDC seems a steep task. I’m getting the impression that the VRT system is fundamentally broken and I shall stay away from them in future. Schwede66 16:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Something also the VRT is unaware of is that under NZ copyright law, the copyright of commissioned photos is by default owned by the employer, which is not the standard elsewhere. So there is no need for @Schwede66 to get a release or confirmation in writing from the photographer, as the copyright transfer to TDC was automatic. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I certainly didn't know that, Mike. Thanks for that! Schwede66 03:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Anyone got any thoughts on that input? Schwede66 07:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think you should not have gotten this kind of response, but I do not have access to Commons VRT, so I am not sure I can help you here. Thanks for trying to transfer the photos to the PD and uploading them on Commons. Ymblanter (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I've had a look at New Zealand's Copyright Act 1994. Section 21 deals with ownership of copyright, and is titled "First ownership of copyright". Clause 3 reads:
Where—
(a) a person commissions, and pays or agrees to pay for, the taking of a photograph ...; and
(b) the work is made in pursuance of that commission,—
that person is the first owner of any copyright in the work.
Hence, Mike (Giantflightlessbirds) is right. The district council owns the copyright by default. Hence, it's not necessary to ask the photographer for the contract. Jeff G., would you concur? Schwede66 01:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Schwede66: I would agree. Please reply to the ticket citing such. Perhaps something nonpublic is gumming up the works.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I've written to VRT citing the Copyright Act 1994. I shall amend the above timeline. Schwede66 00:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Four days later, there has been no reply. How is it a reasonable way to treat fellow editors by not even telling them what the problem is? Schwede66 18:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nothing really gumming it up, except the ticket is quite lengthy, and we are all volunteers, with our own limited capacity - both in time, and resources to understand if this is complex case or not, since one needs to read through quite a few emails to begin to understand what's going on). I've followed up from VRT's side. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Jonatan, for progressing this. My issue isn't with the length of time, but not receiving responses for weeks on end to repeated follow up emails. Something along the line of "this is awaiting a VRT member to pick this up" would be totally sufficient. How else would editors know that the case hasn't stalled somewhere? I suggest that's a deeply concerning process issue that VRT needs to get on top of.
With regards to limited capacity, I heard the other day Giantflightlessbirds had applied to become a VRT member, and was rejected as being too inexperienced. That knocked me over flat; Mike is the second-most experienced person in New Zealand when it comes to copyright, and he's only surpassed by Einebillion because she deals with copyright as part of her professional role. If someone like Mike doesn't pass muster, I'm not surprised that there is a lack of VRT people. He's certainly way more clued up than some of the people I've dealt with as part of the above experience, going by the irrelevant questions they were asking. Schwede66 21:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just to clarify, it was actually another quite experienced New Zealand Commons contributor, not me, who was recently turned down for VRT. I've just been approved as a licence reviewer and will do that for a while to get some experience before I put myself forward for VRT. — Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Only for third person advice

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago16 comments5 people in discussion

This is not a complaint or some kind of report but just a thread for third person advice. Whyiseverythingalreadyused removed a comment by a temp account at Revision #1160415941 saying it was a personal attack. I don't think it was. So I reverted him and restored that comment at Revision #1160421048. He reverted me at Revision #1160427769. Ideally he should've come to my TP before reverting and tried to discuss this, but let's leave that aside. I would like to hear third user opinion as to should we consider "self-snitching at its finest" a personal attack? Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't about this specific edit, but more generally I find Whyiseverythingalreadyused's edits suspicious. I doubt this is a new user, but I don't have any evidence. Yann (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Checkuser me Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I mean... any checkusers interested (not Yann per Special:ListUsers/checkuser) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yann is anyway not a CU. Shaan SenguptaTalk 13:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Bro I know Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I just had the wrong words I guess Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
This discussion is no sufficient reason for performing an SPI. --Lymantria (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Lymantria, any comment on the main reason this thread was started? Whether the above highlighted comment violates NPA and deserves to be removed. Shaan SenguptaTalk 09:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Shaan Sengupta in the context of an RFA, where the admin candidate seems overwhelmed by the negative responses, you might consider the self-snitching comment as, well, unfriendly, bullying perhaps. In light of the gender preference lines just before the self-snitching comment, I can imagine it is considered a PA, if you read it as reaction to that part of the discussion. I didn't initially read it that way. Borderline IMHO, you might have not reverted. --Lymantria (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Lymantria: The self-snitching comment may have been written about me; there is one user who calls me a snitch, and I consider that a PA.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jeff G. But you hadn't really been part of that discussion, had you? --Lymantria (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Lymantria: I made the first !vote.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Lymantria, thanks for the correction. I'll try to be more careful with these in future. Also, that comment came as a response to Very unclear what to "address" and how. But again, if we go by the thread, it can be interpreted either way. Anyways, thanks again. Regards, Shaan SenguptaTalk 16:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I believe it does
I only asked for a CU because Yann said, "he might be a sock"
This is diverging way too far lol Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is also not OK. Yann (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Request for courtesy blanking of real name (uploader)

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hello,

I am the original uploader of all files listed here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Alberto_Buscat%C3%B3_V%C3%A1zquez

All files were uploaded in February 2020 using UploadWizard, under my real name.

I request courtesy blanking / suppression of my real name ("Alberto Buscató Vázquez") from all these files, as I no longer wish my real identity to be publicly associated with them.

I am not requesting deletion of the files, only anonymization of personal attribution where possible. I understand that the licenses remain unchanged.

Thank you very much. Alberto Buscató Vázquez (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have to attribute them so some pseudonyme first. Reply here after you did this. GPSLeo (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you use VFC, it's pretty easy to mass-change them to a pseudonym at once. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Alberto Buscató Vázquez what do you want the new anonymous name to be? do you have any preference? or should a random one be invented for you? RoyZuo (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reporting a user regularly contributing images with incorrect license

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 hours ago11 comments5 people in discussion

User:Sergey M R is uploading images from Russian Empire on a regular basis, claiming they are CC. Quite obviously, the user is not old enough (must be 125!) to have made these pictures himself, and thus these images are, at best, PD-RusEmpire. It should be noted that this user has been permabanned on RU:WP for 9 years of providing fake sources, routine copyvio and evading permaban. Sorry if this is the wrong forum to post this type of notice, but it's the best suiting option of those that I could find. -- Wesha (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

While the uploads of post-1917 materials might be a problem, anything before the October Revolution can just be changed to {{PD-RusEmpire}}. No comment from me here on the user conduct issue. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel Good, because me too from time to time was uploading pictures taken before the October Revolution (i.e. the photos from the Romanov's albums, kindly scanned and uploaded by a great user on Flickr). Every time I struggled in choosing between that license (PD-RusEmpire) and the other one similar that I don't remember exactly right now. Glad to know now which one is the correct one. Thanks. ;) LucaLindholm (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Probably you mean {{PD-Russia-expired}} -- Wesha (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

...and now more contributions from the same user, such as File:Новый город (осень).jpg. No FoP in Russia (sad as it is). -- Wesha (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Are those square buildings a FOP issue? I don't see anything artistic about them Gbawden (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Grey buildings in the foreground may be not, as they are from Soviet residential building series; however, the red high rise in the center of the picture may be, as it is clearly post-Soviet. Similarily, I am not so sure about the park, as it can be considered "[a work of] urban development, and garden and landscape design". Look, I don't like this either, but what can we do, a law is a law, as stupdid as it is, so I'd better raise a red flag. However, the user in question has a blatant disregard of the law as he has uploaded quite a few images where sculptures are a main subject (example) and that IS a clear violation. -- Wesha (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
The photo of the Lermontov bust is indeed not in line with Russian non-commercial FoP for sculptures. Unfortunately, it's also a recent bust, unveiled in 2020, and therefore not in the public domain yet. It was created by the sculpture workshop of Mikhail Serdyukov[1], who isn't necessarily the author of the sculpture because there are several sculptors who work in/for his workshop (ruwiki lists Сергей Олешня, Анатолий Дементьев, Александр Аполлонов, Иван Черапкин, Салават Щербаков and states that this is not a comprehensive list, but no matter who the actual sculptor is in this case, the bust is definitely still copyright protected). Since the image can be comfortably hosted on ruwikivoyage I've marked it for transfer[2] and would ask admins to wait with the deletion until @Atsirbot (@Atsirlin) completes the transfer (which will be documented in the file history with the edit summary "file transferred"). Nakonana (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are not up to date: Russia changed its law in 2014 and introduced FoP for architecture and garden design. However, there's no commercial FoP for 3D-art (like sculptures etc.), although there was also a recent ruling which permitted which introduced FoP for 3D-art as long as the images are (commercially) used in traveling guides, so that hosting images on wikivoyage is fine. @Wesha, please re-check COM:FOP Russia. Nakonana (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but the images in question are currently on Commons, not on Wikivoyage. Commons requires universally-free license, not limited-free license -- Wesha (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Buildings and garden design are fine for Commons per the updated law from 2014 which grants commercial FoP now. It's just sculptures that cannot be hosted on Commons. Nakonana (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

A bot is duplicating lists of paintings

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago25 comments10 people in discussion

Hi everyone.

I just stumbled on this gallery page (Paintings by Leonardo da Vinci) and noticed that a bot is continuously duplicating the table since the end of october, making the page already weight more than 20x times than it should. It seems a lot problematic.

I don't know if this behavior is present even somewhere else or if it affects some other type of content.

Regards. LucaLindholm (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@LucaLindholm: I added that ListeriaBot problem to https://github.com/magnusmanske/listeria_rs/issues/161 for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
The issue was reported a month ago on the bot's GitHub, with no response from the bot operator. I've blocked the bot until a fix is in place. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

So: ✓ Done. - Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Comment FTR, this is not the only page affected: Paintings of Jesus Christ, Paintings of Salvator mundi, Paintings of Christ before Pilate, Paintings of the Man of Sorrows, Paintings of the Ascension of Christ, Paintings of Tobias and Archangel Raphael, Paintings of Resurrection of Lazarus, Paintings of Mater dolorosa, Paintings of the Supper at Emmaus, Paintings of Virgin Mary, Paintings by Hans Makart. I am reverting them all. Yann (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is surely not a coincidence that only Christian paintings are affected. It is all started around 24 to 27 October 2025. Yann (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jeff G. Ah ok, so bot here on Wiki projects do have their code on Github, that's good to know. Thank you.
@The Squirrel Conspiracy yeah, those pages were starting to be too long. Thank you.
@Yann Thank you for your attention. Interesting... maybe a bot made by extremist muslims? May it be part of a planned attack? Are we and Wiki projects in danger in the next future? :| LucaLindholm (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Don't jump to conspiracy theories. There are much more mundane explanations, especially since some affected lists like the Da Vinci list are not only Christian paintings. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Pi.1415926535 Well, Da Vinci is indeed recognized as one of the symbols of the western world and many of its paintings are christian ones, come on. LucaLindholm (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Mateus2019: Hi, You edited all these pages just before the bot got wild. Any idea? Yann (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Comment, see their edit here for example. Perhaps the errors are due to @Mateus2019 removing {{Wikidata list end}} from these pages? Not sure how important is this template, but perhaps this has caused the bot to "not know" where the list ends, so it kept on duplicating the list? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is correct. Please add the aforementioned closing template to the pages affected by the bug, and unblock the bot. Other users rely on it, and it works as intended when {{Wikidata list end}} is present. Iketsi (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Mateus2019: Why would you do that?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am temporarily unblocking the bot for a test. Yann (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK, reblocking. Test failed. Yann (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please unblock ListeriaBot. Keeping it blocked until the bug is fixed is hurting the productivity of users who rely on it, and the solution is simple: Use PetScan to locate every page that uses {{Wikidata list}} without {{Wikidata list end}}, and add the latter after removing the redundant output. Iketsi (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Iketsi: If this fix is important to you, and you say the fix is simple, who exactly is it that you think should do it instead of you? Doesn't seem like a specifically admin task. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done. Please unblock this crucial tool. I just finished adding the missing template to the 22 remaining pages. @Jmabel Earlier, I provided a direct link to the list of affected pages with instructions for an immediate fix for the issue at hand, and I corrected as many pages as I could myself with the time I had. To prevent embarrassing overreactions like this one, I encourage administrators to get acquainted with the basics of ListeriaBot. In the future, it would be good practice to refer to the PetScan link above once a month to spot Wikidata lists that are missing a closing template. You will rarely spot more than a handful of pages. --Iketsi (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
By the way, these lists violate Commons guidelines (galleries in mainspace should be curated lists of selected images, not auto-generated data dumps). They were allowed by consensus as exception (Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2025/10#c-Ostrea-20251011100000-Are_"Sum_of_all_paintings"_project_galleries_welcome_on_wiki_commons?), but if they are plagued by so many issues, it rises the question: whether this exception is really needed? If a small mistake in markup can cause lists to grow indefinitely and potentially crash user browsers with out-of-memory error, this does not look right. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is an unfair assessment and a flawed conclusion. ListeriaBot allows editors to generate correct tables in such a small fraction of the time and effort compared to manual assembly that the occasional hiccup does not justify the adoption of radically regressive measures. --Iketsi (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel and @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Fixed per this comment. I'm sorry that blocking the bot was what it took to make that happen.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jeff G. Thank you, sir! Iketsi (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Iketsi: You're welcome. I hope explanations are forthcoming.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yann: @"Hi, You edited all these pages just before the bot got wild. Any idea?": Listeriabot is abnormal active, several 1,000s of edits per week for years und numerous pages. 99.9% on paintings, painters and Christian motifs. Until recent days, their edits made sence. The duplications make a great mess. Thanks for stopping him. Maybe it's just a malfunction of a sub-app or even some AI help gone wrong. Or he is evil. I have no idea, and I dont know the human behind it. I havent noticed the duplications. Strange, that there is no apply from the human operator. --Mateus2019 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done It seems that the issue was found and corrected. I unblocked the bot. Thanks to Iketsi for that. Yann (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I dont want my full name as the author of this file

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I need wikicommons to remove since i dont own this image https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:N%C3%BAmero_at%C3%B4mico.jpg

it's already changed but still referenced on the history section, also, i kindly want every occurency of [SUPPRESSED] to be removed from wikimedia, thank you. I love wikicommons and wikipedia. ArthurⅯⅮⅭⅧ (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done for that file. Not sure what others you want hidden, but of course putting the name here is hardly a way of hiding it! - Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:N%C3%BAmero_at%C3%B4mico.jpg
https://prnt.sc/Ob9m9megnyH3
https://prnt.sc/Ob9m9megnyH3
Nothing changed ArthurⅯⅮⅭⅧ (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel: Looks like they want to revision delete the upload comment, not the file. HyperAnd [talk] 12:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done File URL: File:Número atômico.jpg. Yann (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@ArthurⅯⅮⅭⅧ, Jmabel, and Yann: Should the file log also be hidden? 浅村しき (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done Yes, right. Yann (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Remove image-reviewer right for Renamed user 75307977b04fe8611f685b80ce250aa8

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

As per title, User:Renamed user 75307977b04fe8611f685b80ce250aa8 has vanished, and the account has been locked. Therefore, I request that their user rights be removed. Thank you. 浅村しき (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done. I feel bad. I looked him/her as one of our next admins. I made him/her autopatroller 6 years ago and now I removed the image reviewer rights. I wish him/her good. Taivo (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
:'( 浅村しき (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh man! This is indeed sad. @Taivo, if ok, is there a way to know the reason behind this. The user did good work here and I can see him/her contribtuing across projects until the very last day. And then the account is vanished all of a sudden (obvio per request). Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Private reasons to leave a project best stay private. Yann (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's why I said if ok. We are done here I believe. Shaan SenguptaTalk 08:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan SenguptaTalk 08:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steyphen Ricardo Hutajulu.jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello! I noticed that this file has not been deleted at all by the Commons administrators even though it has similarities to a previously deleted file, namely this file. Regards 𝄃𝄃𝄂Badak𝄂𝄀𝄁𝄃 🕭 16:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Badak Jawa: That DR is in Commons:Deletion requests/2025/12/20, whereas the oldest active one is in Commons:Deletion requests/2025/09/10, which is 154 days old. Please wait your turn. In the meantime, I edited it.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
As Jeff said, we have backlogs. Image now deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Media of the day caption

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The caption “Time-lapse of airport operations” is really non‐descriptive, as it doesn’t tell you what airport is being filmed and when. A better alternative would be “Time-lapse of Vancouver International Airport on date” (date may be omitted), or something similar. ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 10:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Slightly too late for it to show up on the main page, but I've added that text to the file description. Omphalographer (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2026

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI. -- CptViraj (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Main page error

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See Template talk:Motd/2026-02-13 (en). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's because of the search link template which needs to be replaced. I can fix it tomorrow. If somebody would like to fix this today, remove or edit {{More MOTD}}. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ✓ Done by Aafi, thanks! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Exclusion request expired - Please delete.

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The 7-day discussion period for: File:Troféu do Mundialito de Clubes.jpg and File:Troféu joão Havelange.jpg has ended. It was an upload by mistake/copyright error. Could an administrator please process the deletion? Thank you. Angelodealgostini (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes a "speedy" deletion can take several months at this wiki. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for your reply. I understand that the process may take some time, but I reiterate that the files in question were sent in error and constitute a copyright infringement. I hope they can be reviewed as soon as possible. Sincerely, Angelodealgostini. Angelodealgostini (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, speedy deletions are usually deleted within a day. Now, some regular deletion requests are pending for some months. These are usually complex or controversial cases, not obvious copyright violations. I deleted these 2 files. Yann (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Trolling on RFA page

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments5 people in discussion

A very special RFA was recently closed:

To demonstrate what's wrong with that RFA, I now compare it with 3 other recent failed RFA:s:

Indeed "Administrators/Requests/Taylor 49" is very different from those 3 ones.

As said, that RFA was preceded by a destructive discussion "Category contents should always be accurate and this is straightforward principle and it's a long-standing important one" (Am I really keen to deliberately make category contents inaccurate?) in turn preceded by a person-focussed revert "please do not categorize things in ways that are clearly false".

User "Jeff G." apparently assumed that one bad edit year 2021 plus two suboptimal edits 2025 among hundreds of edits fixing broken deletion requests started by others would make me a problem user.

> Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Commons. Where possible, comment on content or behaviour, not on the contributor.

What went wrong in that RFA? Why is it so different from any other RFA since 2004? Users who did not comment in that RFA please share your thoughts. Also some uninvolved admin please look into Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_127#Edit_warring_by_Taylor_49_(talk_·_contribs)_asserting_videos_are_'screenshots', and either block me for the crime of "keeps edit warring" if that complaint is valid, or otherwise tag that complaint as invalid so it cannot start further viral hatred threads in future. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

oh yeah, im fastest! alright, thank you mate.
bro.. i just wanted you to explain that discussion, because it happend recently. people voted and moved on. i suggest you to do same. still, you are free to request again admin rights. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 01:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Taylor 49: Not a problem user, just not Admin material. Do you see the difference?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done OP blocked one month, trolling. Bedivere (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just wondering why some people don't read WP:Boomerang. Shaan SenguptaTalk 09:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Howardcorn33

[edit]
Latest comment: 20 hours ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello, would any admin like to close this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Howardcorn33? The last comment was made on February 6 (8 days ago).

Unfortunately, the files are getting edit-warred over on the English Wikipedia, so a closure for the linked discussion would help reduce a lot of the conflicts there.

Thanks! Some1 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done by Bedivere. Thank you! Some1 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1166437580"