Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:AN

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~110
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~3
• No license since 15 February 2026: ~17
• No permission since 15 February 2026: ~128
• No source since 15 February 2026: ~76
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2026-02: ~308

Other:

• Duplicates: ~197
• Advertisements/spam: ~5
• Personal photos/selfies: ~7
• Other speedy deletions: ~262
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~2
• Undeletion requests: ~10

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~6
• Interface admin: ~14
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~2
• 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.

Template:Verified account

I was 1 click away from nominating this template for deletion because a VRT agent literally said it has no purpose. At the last moment I stopped. Asking here is probably less disruptive than starting a DR. This just can't be right. Right?
Right?
Are my eyes deceiving me? Should that template be nominated for deletion? Am I completely misunderstanding what's going on? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of a range of disagreement over what VRT can and cannot do, and that range extends into the membership of the VRT itself.

My own view? The VRT are the only people here authorized to handle confidential correspondence. If there is a need to verify the identity of the holder of a particular account, and the account-holder wants to do that, and the only way to do that involves confidential correspondence, it seems to me the VRT should do that. I'm honestly unsure of what would be the argument against that, other than, "Resources are limited." If that's the only argument, then (1) we probably should be recruiting more VRT members. I haven't seen any active recruitment, but might have missed something. (2) It's hard for me to see why this would be a lower priority than validating the permission for a particular photo.

If the argument is that confirming a particular identity would somehow breach confidentiality, in this case that is absurd. Of course they cannot name a person who wishes to keep their actual name private, but if the whole point of a particular correspondence was to establish their identity, and if they are publicly asserting that identity here on Commons, there is no confidentiality to breach. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it is more along the lines that we can't 100% truly identify someone, only take their word, accept that an email's been sent from an official looking email domain, etc. We can never be 100% sure, and the account may even be shared etc. That's my guess on Krd's weird comment, since we are tasked on at least Commons and enwp, to verify identity (e.g. on enwp, users are directed to to VRT in order to verify identity in case of e.g. notable name in username). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

IMO verifying an identity means requesting a copy of an ID document. And it has been done. So I am surprised by Krd's comment. Yann (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

We really should not request or store ID cards, per different countries laws. I think there's a policy page about that, but don't have time to check right now... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

My country has an app to blank unneeded information from copies. That strongly reduces the abuse potential. If someone sends VRT a scan of an ID to prove they share their name with a notable person there's no need for the photo, date of birth, gender, social security number, etc.
VRT shouldn't request unblanked IDs IMHO. Whether they are (or should be) allowed to request partially blanked IDs is a good question. But if not, I'm unsure how someone could prove they share their name with a notable person. Maybe with a partially blanked scan of a non-identity document? (would you accept a random w:loyalty card?) Either way, {{Verified account}} would have a purpose in this. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If ID documents can partially edited, but still sufficient to prove an ID.

BTW this remains me of an anecdote a few years ago on the French Wikipedia. A minor actress contested her day of birth published by several sources, and claimed to be around 10 years younger. So some proof was requested. She then sent a copy of an ID card where her date of birth was indeed around 10 years later than what sources said. After careful examination, it appeared that the ID card was fake. So the copy of an ID document is not an absolute proof. Yann (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

In the example of this case, I think it'd sufficient if VRT found the person to be mailing from a domain that is controlled by the subject (e.g. "@FirstnameLastnameLLC.com"), law firm or professional PR company. Alternatively they could prove they have control over such a domain or verified social media account. Law and PR firms could technically lie about representing the subject, but the potential for reputational damage makes that unlikely. VRT is not writing legally binding contracts, but helps us distinguish between randos and people who most likely are who they say they are, whether that's the author of a particular work or (a representative of) a notable person.
{{Verified account}} should be perfectly usable for this, hence the confusion. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

1. this discussion doesnt concern sysops only.
2. how does other websites' verification work? fb ig twitter youtube...?
3. could their verification methods be feasible for wikimedia?

RoyZuo (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

1. Yes, please open the discussion where you think is best.

2. & 3. These websites do not require an ID, but block on sight if they think you are doing wrong. Some public domain movies where deleted from my YT account without any prior warning, but with a warning that my account may be blocked. I contested the deletion, but didn't receive any answer. Yann (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think RoyZuo meant verified accounts. (like blue check marks) @RoyZuo:

• YouTube requires 100K subscribers and possibly "documentation".
• FB/IG: $15/month
• Twitter: will probably be thrown in as a freebie with any purchase of an Optimus real boy.

Some platforms (especially when they don't "like" your IP address) require a phone number just to create an account. VRT could maybe sometimes verify someone's identity if their phone number is publicly known? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Plz review my edit at COM:Protection policy

I just made a minor change to fulfil an edit request for Commons:Protection policy at Revision #1168061617. I would request some admin to kindly review/cross-check it. Maybe there is a need to mention that this was also used for IP vandals and that legacy IP is now replaced by temp accounts so it is now used for them. Or maybe anything else. Thanks. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Please delete - user likely false claiming own work

MMNL01 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Hi admins can we please take a look at this file. Looks like user has been warned before about copyright violation. I believe it falls in the threshold of speedy delete, but i wasn't sure. I think maybe a block might be worth it, any thoughts? --LuvsMG481 (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@LuvsMG481, you are supposed to inform the user about the report as stated above. I've done it for you this time. Plz take care of it the next time. As for the report I've appropriately warned the user as per procedure. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I apologise Shaan Sengupta. I thought you are only supposed to warn the user if its concerning their behaviour, for example say user A is being discussed at AN U/B because of multiple breaches of copyright. This is more concerning their files thats being deleted. Users have done in the past and its more/less we don't want Mazda launching a lawsuit on Wikimedia Commons in which we are avoiding. Re warning, this user has been warned before, it appears the administrative logwork of files hasn't been fully scrutinised which i am here to try and do on top of uploading and contributing. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:428183 MAZ1802 Mazda2 DEMIO CUT001 v010 rgb GER 171204 39L a2 ISO300.tif. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think any admin action is called for at this time. It's a pretty normal DR situation; it would only become an admin matter if the DR results in either a determination that the user was deliberately uploading copyvios, or if there is a CIR issue. Leaving this open for the moment so at least one other admin can weigh in, but it would be more than fine with me if they do that in the form of an {{Nd}}. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done per Jmabel. User further warned, file deleted. Yann (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Problem uploading photo for Elizabeth Hoffman

Problem with uploading an iconic photo for Elizabeth Hoffman (professor) under her authorization.

Being a personal friend of Dr. Elizabeth Hoffman residing at Ames, Iowa now, since January 1994, I, a resident of Taipei, was authorized by her yesterday to upload her iconic photo with Wikipedia. Although I have successfully uploaded her iconic photo with Wikimedia Commons two hours ago. I’m unable to upload the same iconic photo to Wikipedia and also cannot use the existing electronic file from Wikimedia Commons. It seems that I’m not allowed to upload her iconic photo with English version of Wikipedia from Taipei. Kindly advise me how to upload Dr. Elizabeth Hoffman’s iconic photo with English version of Wikipedia. Please be advised that I have registered a user name as Lawrence Luh with Wikipedia two hours ago. Lawrence Luh (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The file being talked about is File:Elizabeth Hoffman.png. Now, @Lawrence Luh, a few things you need to do. Ask Dr. Elizabeth Hoffman to send a mail to WMF with their clear statement of permission to publish that image here, failing which it maybe deleted after seven days. You can get all the required help at COM:VRT. I've also left relevant notice at your talk page and tagged the file as such. As for the second part of your question, you need not upload that image to wikipedia, all you need to do is add [[File:Elizabeth Hoffman.png]] to the wikipedia article (if it exists ofcourse). This image will appear there. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Kindly advise what is WMF stands for? How to send an email to WMF? Kindly advise the email address of WMF. Lawrence Luh (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

WMF means Wikimedia Foundation. I already gave you everything needed. Plz re-read my earlier reply and you'll have your answer. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Dear Shaan Sengupta,

Many thanks for your kind/helpful assistance indeed.

Lawrence Luh from Taiwan Lawrence Luh (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Who took the photo? You say it was you, but it seems not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

And the "photo" actually seems to be a screenshot... Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

A few hours ago, I received confirmation from Dr. Elizabeth Hoffman that she will proceed with the following two actions shortly:

1.Activate the “Use the Interactive Release Generator”

2.Send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation to authorize my previous submission of her iconic photograph with Wikimedia Commons

I will keep the future developments posted on the Commons: Administrators’ noticeboard of Wikimedia Commons. Lawrence Luh (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Lawrence Luh: I recommend having her send a carbon copy to you to keep you in the loop.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Dear Jeff,

Many thanks for your awesome suggestions and I shall do that to protect my valuable reputation.

Lawrence Luh from Taiwan Lawrence Luh (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

An awesome idea indeedǃ Lawrence Luh (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Disruption caused by deletion discussion at File:MIT logo.svg

The deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MIT logo.svg is currently causing widespread red links across multiple pages because the redirect is widely transcluded by templates. During the DR the file name is treated as non-existent, effectively breaking pages.

Could an admin please review and either temporarily keep the redirect or otherwise prevent project disruption while the discussion proceeds? JaydenChao (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Already done speedy-kept. - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Category move

Please revert the recent move of the correct Category:Threepences of the United Kingdom to the nonsensical Category:Threepence of the United Kingdom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Would Category:Threepence coins of the United Kingdom be acceptable?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

It would not be in keeping with others in the series such as "Sixpences..."

en:Threepence (British coin) uses "Threepences" as the plural. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)