Commons:Administrators' noticeboard - Wikimedia Commons

Shortcut: COM:AN

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.

When a user spams talk pages without signing, SignBot comes by in their wake and adds a pseudo-signature. This makes it very hard to do a rollback by any method I know. Is there a way to deal with that? (This is with reference to the recently blocked SaltyAFcsar1, but the modus operandi is one I've seen quite a bit lately.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

This user you mentioned has posted a youtube link in my talkpage, I don't understand. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Tisha Mukherjee: Hi, and welcome. That was spam. The mentioned user spammed 70 times before being blocked. This section is about dealing with the spam efficiently and effectively.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: After reading the offending edit and the SignBot edit, my go-to link has been the "restore" link near the end of the lineitem for the last good revision on that page on that page's history. If that link doesn't appear, I edit that last good revision, ignore the warning, and save anyway. Complicating matters is the fact that the offending video's ID shows up in (apparently cached) regular search results on page Template:Nationaal Archief/ru, where that ID was removed back on 11 March. For Special:Diff/1198324088, when restore would have produced poor results, I used "undo" on the two edits together.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jeff G.: Huh, I've never seen a "restore" link in the history; I wonder if it's from some configuration I don't have.

Yes, the "last good revision thing" is the usual way I do this manually, but it's really tedious to do for 70 or so files. I tried (and failed) to do a search for that URL with "insource:" and use some mass editing tool to get rid of this efficiently, but I did not have much success; kept having things remove only one or two of them, then choke. I'm afraid that at this scale, if I can't do it with a mass-action tool, and I can't just hit the history pages and click once or twice, I don't have the patience. - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: Upon encountering such blatant spam, my first instinct is mass rollback on the first 500 results, then search the resulting page for "Reverted" and look for discontinuities to do more manual research with, and then continue with the next 500 results, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I did not need to use "insource". I did a cursory look for the source of the "restore" link after "thank", but I couldn't find it; maybe it's in a gadget I use that you don't use.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I don't doubt that there are some people with tools that half-sanely attack this, but you've got to admit it is pretty unintuitive. Where there a tool for "mass rollback"? I certainly don't see anything at Commons:Mass rollback, where I'd expect such a thing to be explained. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel I just so happen to have a few tools for massrollback.

I've got chuckbot, and I've got a script. Regarding the "restore link", I think that's a twinkle option, but our version is seriously behind the enwiki version. @Jeff G., you can manually change the "limit" value to any number less than 5000. it's really handy. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 19:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Alachuckthebuck: So would this tool work even though the SignBot edited after them? - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabelno, the tools use mediawiki's rollback function, so it breaks if signbot goes in, but I can try to add a way that allows you to avoid this issue, but that gets really messy, as the tool is mid-refactor. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

There are an insane number of revisions of File:My sandbox file.svg. The file is being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:My sandbox file.svg, where the only point of contention is whether to keep just the current version or delete it entirely. I figured I'd do the former, because it would solve most of what would be solved by deleting it entirely; I tried to do a temporary deletion for history cleaning, with the intention of restoring the wikitext history and the latest file version. However, our normal file deletion will not deal with more than 1000 versions, so I could not do the temporary deletion. (There would be exactly the same technical problem with deleting without the intent to restore this.) Does anyone have any idea how we can do this?

Pinging @Thomascampbell123, Don-vip so they know what is going on here. - Jmabel ! talk 01:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Might oversighters or DBAs have tools to deal with these problems?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jeff G.: I was hoping for something short of that, but that may be where this ends up. - Jmabel ! talk 04:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jeff G.@Jmabel is this related to the bigdelete userright, or some other technical limitation? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 23:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea. When I tried to delete the file, I got a message saying that the delete tool cannot handle more than 1000 versions of a file. The message did not indicate any workaround. I made a request for the specific case at hand at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T423823, and I'm sure it will be dealt with. I doubt this often comes up. - Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: I seem to remember a controversy with attempted deletion of en:Main page or another well-traveled page there on enwiki many moons ago with associated meme "don't delete the main page", perhaps that has relevance.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jeff G., that enwiki incident was what led to bigdelete becoming a thing, but we're below the normal bigdelete count (5k) and i'm unsure of where the 1k limit comes from. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

In the course of investigating Special:PermanentLink/1200147486#Lilboy3828_&_Bitoche it came to my attention that we have more than a few users, most of them people who have posted at least one highly sexualized image of their genitalia, who have been exchanging messages on user talk pages requesting further such images from each other and also in some cases posting their email address and implicitly or explicitly expressing interest in sexual contact beyond just exchanging pictures. In the particular case at hand, one of these people was almost certainly underage. All content related to that particular case has been deleted, and I informed WMF Legal. Also, in some cases, although this is on user talk pages, third parties have entered the conversation and made their own solicitations.

As long as this is among people who are not minors this probably does not raise legal issues, at least in the U.S., but Commons does not have age verification and, even regardless of the age issue, it still seems to me like wildly inappropriate use of this site. Oddly, however, I cannot find any existing policy that this violates. Is someone aware of one? It does not seem to be covered by COM:User talk pages nor meta:Sexual harassment (though might arguably be covered under the phrase "but is not limited to" there).

(To be clear: I'm no prude. I don't want to rid Commons of all images related to sexuality, even all graphic images related to sexuality, and I have no problem with there being other websites that are all about people hooking up.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Enwiki's user talk page guidelines might work (WP:OWNTALK): the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. Nakonana (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I do not think we are (or should be) a dating site, and this behavior is not acceptable irrespective of the age of the users. Ymblanter (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Nakonana: that makes some sense, but I think it misses the target. Of course in practice en-wiki stretches that past "edits" (requests for admin help; informing people of contests, policy changes, etc.; "how to" requests; etc.). But still, for example, I don't think it was all out of line for someone to get hold of me on my en-wiki talk page to establish contact because they noticed that we both have connections in both Seattle and Bucharest. That seems to me a lot more appropriate than asking for someone to post a picture of themself performing a particular sex act which (amusingly and perversely) would be about their edits and might be argued to be "toward the improvement of the encyclopedia [/repository]" than the "hey, I notice we have a similar unusual orbit" post. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Maybe one could add the enwiki text to the Commons user page guideline but soften the wording to some extent? the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Commons is not a social networking site, and all discussions should ultimately ideally be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia [alt.: project].? Or something along those lines.

But even if we copy the enwiki verbatim, nobody would raise an issue regarding your Seattle/Bucharest case, but admins would still have a policy to point at if problematic user page usage is observed somewhere. Nakonana (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Comment We should be strict about this. Each of these accounts should get at least a strong warning, and get blocked indef. if they continue. Yann (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Jmabel, Commons:Talk page guidelines#What may talk pages be used for? states "Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated page." This seems to refer to talk pages of content, but changing "associated page" to "the project" might be enough.
It's a bit more complicated of course as we have things like Wikilove/Barnstars and many users wish each other a happy new year/Christmas/Hanukkah/etc. Maybe if we change the line above like

−

Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated page.

+

Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages primarily on the topic of how to improve the project.

- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Certainly something like this is needed, and I'd like to see something at COM:VP/P. Note that user talk pages have a separate guideline from talk pages in general, and I think that's where this needs to go.

I am not sure we can completely avoid saying something specific about sexual solicitation (and I think we should be clear about it being grounds for an insta-block). Again, and ironically, if some sexual images are in scope, asking someone for more similar pictures could more arguably be claimed to be about "improving the project" than a solicitation to help out with something on OpenStreetMap, but I think the latter would clearly be more appropriate use of a user talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I would like to properly cite the source for File:Logo of Sedo (2011).svg but `sedo.com` is on a deny list. Can someone please remove it for this file? I am planning to upload another logo so if it could be disabled for me as a user that would be great. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist can allow specific link, but you need to provide full URL in address bar so we can exclude that specific link to the exception. (And no, it cannot be disabled per user) — regards, Revi 00:37, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Based on Special:Log/spamblacklist hit (ie. logid 396795409, logid 396953095), I assume the link you were trying was https://sedo/com/fileadmin/Q4_2011_DomainMarketStudy_FR_V2.pdf, correct? — regards, Revi 00:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

And I've gone ahead and  added https://sedo.com/fileadmin/Q4_2011_DomainMarketStudy_FR_V2.pdf to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. I don't think we need to add entire sedo.com domain as an exception, so… — regards, Revi 00:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

a notice to his birthday Prefime.oba (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I suggest we give him an indef as a birthday gift. NOTHERE - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

For self-promotion on their talk page[1]. Nakonana (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done Given Special:Diff/1200819120, I will block them, but not indef. Nothing here is awful, and I'm perfectly willing to see if they might come back in a different mode. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have about 150 files to delete. I uploaded them today but I just found out that somehow the phone is now stripping all coord data when they are uploaded thru the phone (files app or whatever). I dont think I have another elegant and efficient way of fixing this (by mapping each original one to the stripped one on commons and overwrite? copypasting gps coord?), so I'd like to delete them all and then reupload.

Can I just give you a list of filenames to delete? Otherwise I can also just prepend the speedy template, but first I wanna avoid the 150 useless edits. thx. RoyZuo (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@RoyZuo: is it all of your uploads between two particular times? If so, that is easily done once you specify the times. - Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel Special:Contributions/RoyZuoMedia everything uploaded on 20 April 2026. com:csd#G7. thx a lot! RoyZuo (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wait why delete everything to re upload that will waste a lot of space, why not try extract coordinates with exiftool and insert them in template or structured data $999$REAL 💬 ⬆ 22:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@999real: I looked at several. There were no geocoordinates in the EXIF data. I presume RoyZuo knows enough of what he is doing for me to take it at face value that geocoordinates were "stripped" rather than that they never there. So he would have to re-upload in any case. There is no significant savings in keeping these visible if he has to re-upload in any case. Over 99% of the space is the file itself (which will remain in our database whether it is as a soft-deleted file or an old revision); the wikitext uses a trivial amount of storage space. - Jmabel ! talk 23:28, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel Exactly all that files space will be wasted by re uploading them as duplicates there is No reason to re upload @RoyZuo can extract the coordinates from the original files on PC or phone and add them in structured data no need to have them in exif please un delete them now and @RoyZuo dont re upload them if you aint know how to do it just zip and upload them on some temp file hosting site then I can match them to the uploaded files and insert them $999$REAL 💬 ⬆ 03:45, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@999real: we generally want the geocodes in the EXIF it can readily be done.

In the big picture, the amount of storage involved is trivial. You and I have expended time discussing this that is worth far more than storing those 100-odd files for centuries. - Jmabel ! talk 04:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done - Jmabel ! talk 23:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

theoretically that's a better method in terms of not wasting storage space for the servers.

but practically it's very time consuming and stressful to do that manually one by one. gonna cost me at least 1 minute per file. (find the matching file, then copy paste 2 times (lat and lon separately) from windows properties for each file.)

so that's a recurrent problem of the commons system: hard or near impossible for user to self correct (requiring sysop assistance), and storing redundant files (in this case those first-uploaded versions are meant to be discarded). for example, there're also Category:Videos with bug 173, or videos that were overwritten with versions that removed copyrighted parts. current commons design just keeps those unwanted versions forever. RoyZuo (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

No need to do it manually I can do it programmatically easily like this

1. Download all files from commons and download the original files and make a copy and remove all exif data from both in exiftool then do comparison to match the correct files names (If the file names are already matched no need to even do this)
2. Print the coordinates from original files with exiftool matched to commons files names then use quickstatements to insert the coordinates

$999$REAL 💬 ⬆ 11:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

They are clear copyright violations no need for any discussion

$999$REAL 💬 ⬆ 05:02, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

They are photos from New York Sunday news which started renewing copyrights from 1951 issues I have tagged them with the copyright renewal link for that specific issue for each one one note I did not tag any from 1956 or 1963 as it appears they didn't renew any from those years $999$REAL 💬 ⬆ 05:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I requested new permissions almost a month ago, would anyone here like to take a look at my contributions? See Commons:Requests for rights#Filemover. Thanks. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Resolved

PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am reporting a copyright violation for the file File:Logo-beach-soccer-021.png. I uploaded this file by mistake, but I am NOT the author and I do not have the rights to license it. The image belongs to a third party and should be deleted as a copyright violation (Copyvio). Thank you. Angelodealgostini (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Angelodealgostini: in what country are you saying something that simple can be copyrighted? - Jmabel ! talk 01:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Copyrightextlogoland? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 04:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: Spain per https://beachsoccer.com/contact and see the circle in the file history.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Courtesy link: (that I haven't even read myself): Commons:TOO Spain Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jeff G.: thanks, yes, that prior version would have been above TOO; I'll revdel it. - Jmabel ! talk 06:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I would like to send a mass message to encourage previous participants in Swedish WLE and WLM to participate in this year's WLE.

In Commons:Wiki_Loves_Earth_in_Sweden/Mass_message there's the message text as well as an up-to-date list of recipients.

Thank you! Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Doing… -- CptViraj (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Sent. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

[2] - on the English Wikipedia, User:Mastercane_FRX9500S was blocked for edit warring and inappropriate talk page comments. After agreeing to take the standard offer (six months of no editing before requesting unblock), Mastercane requested unblocking again, causing them to lose access to their talk page. Since then, the same user requested another unblock request from an alt account (that had previously been blocked), and now, the user reached out to me on Commons. I'm not sure if it should be a universal block or just on commons, but I wanted to report it at least. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

They should certainly be blocked here for importing drama from another wiki. As far as I'm concerned, the only question is whether this should be a six-month block or an indef-block. I'll impose the six-month block right now but if anyone wants to increase that to indef, or to take away talk page access on Commons as well, I have no problem with that. - Jmabel ! talk 04:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

File:DH 350-370 (EMD GT26CW-2) of ONCF between Taourirt and Melg el Ouidane, Morocco.jpg

It shows a locomotive of ONCF class DF 115, not one of its american born collegues. I was able to correct description text, but not the file name. Yours sincerely ~2026-25336-87 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-25336-87: Hi, and welcome. You may use our RenameLink gadget or {{Rename}} to request a rename.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Now in this only case I will do it. But not once again. I didn't found that tool at the start page and a full time academic study of Wiki rules is to much for an occasional contributor. The too much complicated handling of the project is not effective for sharing my knowledge and resulted in deleting my accounts some years ago. Have a nice weekend.~2026-25336-87 (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, both tools are not usefull for a knowledge sharer. I can't handle it and don't use it. Sugestion for a proper file name here: "DF 115 of ONCF between Taourirt and Melg el Ouidane, Morocco.jpg" Take it or leave it. Best wishes. ~2026-25336-87 (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-25336-87: I renamed File:DH 350-370 (EMD GT26CW-2) of ONCF between Taourirt and Melg el Ouidane, Morocco.jpg to File:DF 115 of ONCF between Taourirt and Melg el Ouidane, Morocco.jpg for you. Pinging @Abdeaitali as uploader.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply