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
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	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	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: ~265
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~14
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-10: ~18

Other:

• Duplicates: ~197
• Advertisements/spam: ~1
• Personal photos/selfies: ~9
• Other speedy deletions: ~90
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~4
• Undeletion requests: ~9

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~27
• Interface admin: ~15
• Technical: ~0
• 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.

Proposed temporary account IP viewer policy

Could someone close the proposal on the Temporary account IP viewer policy? As the temp accounts become enabled in two weeks we should get ready and send a notification to the affected patrollers. GPSLeo (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Proposal closed. Abzeronow (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed the right has started to being granted in COM:RFR, so I have created a draft policy page Commons:Temporary account IP viewer (copied from en-wiki, feel free to change it if needed) and also its respective userbox. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Abzeronow (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy: Thanks. A template to welcome new rights holders would be helpful, too.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

You’re right, I have now created {{Temporary account IP viewer granted}} (also copied from en-wiki, feel free to change it if needed). Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hide versions of file

Hello. The 2 previous versions of File:Three Icelandic phonebooks.jpg contain GPS coordinates that the uploader @Steinninn wants to hide, as evidenced by their usage of {{Location withheld}}. I uploaded a new version without the GPS coordinates. Would it be possible to remove access to the 2 previous versions of the file? Thanks. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Review of removal of mover right by Josve05a

Hi. There's currently an ANU complaint open due to me edit waring with Pigsonthewing. Josve05a removed my file mover right as a part of that even though know one suggested it and there was no consensus to. I don't want to speak for Josve05a, but it seems like he removed the right because I supposedly don't "appear to understand or apply the file renaming criteria." Although I explained that I had renamed the file from "post card" to "postal card" because such images are usually called "postal cards" on here (as well as other websites) and there's overlap between the term "post card" and actual postcards. Which I know because it's an area that I spend most of my time editing in. I don't really see how "post card" isn't ambiguous and/or doesn't overlap with "postcards."

Josve05a, as someone who has zero experience in the area, seems to think F2 doesn't apply because the "post card" isn't ambiguous though. That's fine but I really don't see how a disagreement about where the line is justifies my file mover right being removed. Especially since I cited the guideline, said how I think it applied, and it seem as though Pigsonthewing didn't have his removed even though he was clearly just as fault. So I'd like another administrator to review it and restore the right. Since I really don't see any basis for the removal. Just as a side thing to, I'm banned from ANU boards but Josve05a said I could post this since there's no other way to have a decision by an administrator reviewed. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll let other admins weigh in, I'll just make this one comment (since I'm heading out for tonight): The removal of your rights was based on multiple factors that stack. Misunderstanding of how Commons defines ambiguous according to examples in the guideline under F2 in combination of the repeated renaming by wheel-warring with the user right. The understanding that wheel-warring is not acceptable is also a part of the COM:FR guidelines which you seem to not understand/lack sufficient knowledge about. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's more your lack of experience in the area then it is me misunderstanding what "ambiguous" means on here. I don't necessarily blame you for not knowing that "post card" is ambiguous or has overlap with "postcards" as someone who doesn't edit in the area or collect postcards (as well as postal cards) like I do. You should at least be willing to entertain the idea that it's ambiguous based on the opinion of someone who mainly works in the area and has thousands of dollars worth of both though. Otherwise there's really no point in doing this. Anyway, I'd buy that it was due to the wheel-warring, but it doesn't look like you removed Pigsonthewing's renaming rights even though he's equally in the wrong. So I don't really buy it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Support removal I was tempted to do the same thing, but was still reading through the thread when Josve05a removed the right. Edit warring with an advanced permission is grounds for removal of that advanced permission. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: It should be removed from Pigsonthewing to then. But honestly, I didn't know edit waring was grounds for removal. So can I at least get a warning since I honestly didn't know it was something that the right could be removed for? I certainly won't do it again now that I know. Really, I didn't even know it was a "advanced permission" to begin with. I thought it was something that was just granted when you sign up for an account like normal edits. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hhhhmmm well it looks like I requested the right in 2022. I must have just forgot. Still though, I didn't know edit waring was something that could lead to it being removed and I've never received a warning about it. So I don't think removing the right after one edit war without receiving a warning first is justifiable. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

So I got in one edit war, was never warned about and didn't know the right could be removed for edit waring, but it was taken away anyway. Oh yeah, and it wasn't taken away from Pigsonthewing even he was equally at fault. Sounds reasonable and like a fair way to do things. What an absolute Fing dumpster fire. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm writing on a bus, so apologies for typos. Edit (or wheel-) warring is a blockable offense, and you have previously been blocked for that exact behavior, so the warning that such behavior is unacceptable has already been made. Using the filemover toolset to carry out repeated reverts constitutes an abuse of that advanced permission. Knowing that edit warring is not allowed per COM:FM is part of the lack of knowledge issue I mentioned earlier. While Pigsonthewing also engaged in edit warring, you were the instigator, since you reverted their revert of your file move. You had been warned about edit warring before; he hadn't (recently). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

It's totally fair to cite previous edit waring to justify a general block or sanction. I don't think it's fair to remove the rename privilege specifically since it's my first offense edit waring with that specific tool and I didn't know it was something that could be removed to begin with, let alone for that and I've never been told as much. I certainly don't have a history of edit waring when it comes to renaming files. So just give me the privilege back and block me for a month or something. That's fine. But your essentially cutting off my leg for kicking someone once because I have a history of speeding. Having the privilege removed seriously knee caps my ability to edit in areas that I have absolutely no issues in. I don't think that's justified for one offense that I didn't even know the tool could be removed for doing. I honestly wouldn't have done it if I knew that was the case. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

In general, I am against removing of rights of long-term contributors without warning first. Though i admitt, the mentioned edit war here was rather unnessessary.

@Adamant1: Maybe you can show some goodwill here and clarify how you will use the tools constructively going forward. I don't think that being overly dramatic helps. You have less than 100 file moves, so it is not exactly "cutting of a leg". --Isderion (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't use the privilege all the time, but it has been useful as part of my work with Wikiproject Postcards and fixing files that are wrongly named as postcards or fixing spelling errors and the like. I also use it to fix spelling errors with my own uploads sometimes. It would certainly hamper my ability to do that if I didn't have access to it. There's actually a couple of things I had planned on working on this coming month that relates to postcards and where having the privilege would make things a lot easier. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO a simple "I will never again edit war over a move, even if I am right" should be enough to restore it here, along the lines of what I wrote at ANU. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure I won't use the privilege to edit war again now that I know it's an issue and the tool can be removed for doing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

BTW, Nakonana and Josve05a pointed out that I can use the rename template to get a third opinion from another user with the rename right, which I didn't know was an option. I'll certainly do that in the future instead of edit waring if I get the privilege back. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I will restore the right, but please Adamant don't mess up again. You definitely should know better. I'm with Isderion's reasoning here, this is a long term user who should at least have been warned before an outright removal, but I too understand the frustration that led to its removal. Anyway, again, don't mess up. Bedivere (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

While my comment is now moot given that you have already restored the user right, I still wish to object to it, pro forma. Unless my removal was clearly and obviously wrong (in which case I should be formally reprimanded), I believe re-instating the right should have been handled through a new request at Commons:Requests for rights rather than this reversal action here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand Jonatan, I want to clarify that my intention in restoring the right was not to override or discredit your action, but to resolve what seemed to be a temporary sanction once the user had explicitly committed to avoiding repeat behavior and had acknowledged the misuse of the tool. I felt that a good-faith restoration was appropriate. Bedivere (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

A condition I would like to add is that they confirm that they have read COM:FR and understand it, since that was central to the removal. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that. @Adamant1 Bedivere (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure. I read the top part earlier but I'll read through the rest of it later when I have the time. Although a lot of this seems to come to a personal disagree between me and Josve05a about the meaning of "ambiguous." Which I really don't think reading the guideline would help with. So maybe he can explain exactly how he defines the word and why he thinks I'm reading it wrong. Otherwise I don't really see me reading it a second time helping that much. I can understand it all day, but that really doesn't matter if an administrator just has a different definition of something in it then I do, tells me I'm reading it wrong, and won't explain where the disagreement is. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest pressing on the footnote and reading the bullet-pointed examples listed for each criterion. These illustrate how Commons defines ambiguity in the context of file names. There was even an entire RfC discussing these specific examples: Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2. Additionally, the section under COM:FRNOT explains the issues with repeated renaming and wheel-warring. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

? It is not logical to say that "postcard is incorrect" but then to lean on FR2 as justification. If postcard is incorrect, it is FR3. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

There's three people now saying that "post card" is ambiguous and has overlap with postcards. Two of whom are collectors. But the misunderstanding on your end about the difference between a postal card and postcard or why "post card" is ambiguous must just be because I didn't read a bullet point in the guideline. Makes sense. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The removal of the user right was done due to my belief of your lack of knowledge of the guideline and criteria as written, which you seem to admit to. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

No I don't admit to that. Either F2 or F3 are applicable. I understand the criteria perfectly fine. Your just Wikilaywer over semantics at this point. Although I'm more then willing to re-read the guideline but I don't really see how we won't just be back here again at some point if your going to ignore me, or other users, when we explain to you why something is ambiguous. Personally, I chalk it more up to a listening issue on your end then anything else at this point then anything else. I'll re-read the guideline though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

User rights on Commons are granted on the basis of trust that the holder will apply the relevant policies and guidelines carefully. In this case, the fact that another file mover questioned the rename shows that it was not an obvious or uncontested action at the time. It does not matter whether, in hindsight, others might now agree that the rename could have been appropriate, the key point is that once it was challenged, it ceased to be an "obvious correction" and required restraint and discussion rather than unilateral repetition. Using advanced permissions to override another file mover's revert undermines that trust and crosses into wheel-warring. That said, since you have now read through the guideline and explicitly committed to not engaging in file-move edit wars again, and to seek consensus instead, I am content to accept that and move on. The expectation tied to advanced rights is restraint when challenged, regardless of whether the action might later be judged correct. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

And administrator privileges are granted with the understand that the person being given them will listen to feedback and reverse bad decisions. I explained the differences between a postal card and postcard and why "post card" is ambiguous multiple times on multiple talk pages. Other people have explained it. There's Wikipedia articles and many websites that explain it. A simple acknowledgement that they are different and that their might be some overlap would be a perfectly fine response instead of just ignoring what your being told and lecturing me about how file movers should behave.

There wasn't anything "unilateral" about renaming the image. It's been discussed before. I've been renaming postal cards that were wrongly named "postcard" for years without any issues. Other projects make the distinction. There's plenty of exiting consensus and discussion about it Etc. Etc. You just aren't willing to get the point or admit "post card" is ambiguous and that's not my issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

So, it's not unilateral since you know you're right? I feel like I quoted that "claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense" to you before --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

No, It's not unilateral because of the multiple reasons I told you why it isn't that have nothing to do with me "knowing I'm right." Your just boxing ghosts at this point. Why not drop the stick? I'm more then willing to just leave the file as "postcard" for now even though it's clearly incorrect since changing it would apparently trigger you and Andy for some bizarre reason that's really beyond me. I think we've exhausted this outside of that. I'd appreciate it if any other discussion about this occurs on the talk page of the file though since I don't really see it being worked out here anymore then it has been. It's not really the forum for it anyway. Just be more willing to listen to feedback about your actions next time. It shouldn't be this difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1 edit warring is never acceptable, even if you are right. Using privileged rights to do so is even more severely wrong. You are lucky that the knot has been cut, if I were to do so both you and Andy would be taken off their file moving rights. You should have been aware that actions reverted might be a sign of disagreement and then disagreement has to be solved in other ways than simply repeating. The same for Pigsonthewing. And of course naming an image of a postal card that says it is a post card or postcard can lead to discussion. Fine, discuss and get more people informed if that is needed. --Lymantria (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that you, Josve05a, and other people who have commented on it are at least willing to put equal blame on Pigsonthewing even if I'm the only who had the privilege removed. This whole thing can be a pretty slog sometimes and it hasn't been fun for me at least in a few years. But I stick to it because most people on here are fair and willing to give me advice when I need it. Otherwise I probably would have stopped contributing a while ago. Maybe the project would have been better off if I had of. Who knows, but I'd like to think that I've done some good even if there's a lot of drama around me. So thanks for the advice and balanced approached to resolving this. Really, even Josve05a. I do consider it and try to improve. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding me dropping the stick, I will after this comment. An administrator should either reconsider and reverse their action if subsequent discussion shows it was incorrect, or clearly explain why they believe it was correct. I chose the latter, since I still find it problematic that a user holds an advanced right while (a) being unaware that it is an advanced permission, and (b) acknowledging they have not read the full guideline governing the right they themselves applied for. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

This is the last thing I'm going to say about it myself, but I read the top of the guideline before. Which is what the disagreement is about. We're not having a discussion about the section on "current file movers" here. Like it's at all relevant or somehow problematic that I didn't know stewards can rename files on all Wikimedia projects. Your just being pedantic. Oh wait, they can rename files on the Bulgarian Wikipedia? Like I deserve to have the privilege revoked because I didn't know that before. Apparently that's just how low the bar is with you for something to be removed. The whole things totally ridiculous. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Resolvedper [1]. Yann (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Request mass message for POTY 2024 R2

I would like to request a multilingual mass message for POTY 2024 R2. The message is in Commons:Picture of the Year/2024/MessageR2, and targets are Commons:Picture of the Year/2024/MessageR2/Targets. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 02:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 03:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 05:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump images re-deleted

Most photos listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump appear to have been undeleted despite having been deleted in that DR and later been rejected undeletion at an undeletion request: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-06#Files in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump. Some of the file names have been repurposed for other images of Trump, so I am only addressing the one (publicly reported) taken by Doug Coulter listed below.

As a VRT agent I continue to maintain that these files are neither public domain nor CC-licensed. It appears that Bedivere undeleted these out of process despite the two consensus discussions mentioned above, probalbly following the short discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/06#2016 Trump portrait.

Images in question:

• File:Donald Trump official portrait (crop).jpg
• File:Donald Trump President-elect portrait (cropped).jpg
• File:Donald Trump President-elect portrait.jpg
• File:Donald Trump Presidential portrait.jpg
• File:President Trump BW portrait.jpg
• File:President Trump BW portrait.jpg
• File:Secretary Perdue meets Ambassador Lighthizer 20170523-OSEC-PJK-0066 (34461594240) (cropped to portrait, flag, and podium).jpg

Their global usage outside Commons was limited to 2 in namespace on wikinews, 1 user page, 3 talk page archives, 1 draft page.

I have therefore  Speedy delete them under COM:CSD#G9 (recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus), and ask that any user objecting to this bring the matter through COM:UNDEL if restoration is still sought. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Also applying this to the following images per the above two consensus discussions. Consensus needs to be determined to have changed, otherwise the established consensus is the rule of the land:

• File:Portrait of President-elect Donald Trump (cropped1).jpg
• File:Portrait of President-elect Donald Trump cropped.jpg
• File:Portrait of President-elect Donald Trump.jpg
• File:Portrait of President-elect Donald Trump (cropped).jpg
• File:Portrait of President-elect Donald Trump.tif

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

In addition, I have nominated 2 3 images that are derivatives of this portrait. They are now listed under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump (first presidency) since they don't strictly qualify for speedy as COM:DW. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't really mind that you took this approach, which I think is wrong. I would not call the UDR "consensus" given that there is as much support for undeletion as there was for keeping them deleted. I do trust (in this particular case) the White House to have the rights to release the picture, but I don't mind either way. Bedivere (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I respect highly of you as an admin and your opinion, but regardless of how one may personally feel about the closure or the balance of arguments, the outcome of DR and UNDEL discussions stands as the community consensus. Regarding the White House, one might assume they held the rights, but based on the evidence presented, they did not (at least not at the time of the discussion above). But I won't argue the merits of the outcome here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I have to accept it was my bad as I did not see the UDR, so I just based my actions on my opinion, mostly, so apologies for that. Bedivere (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

BotMultichill, BotMultichillT and Pi.1415926535

Multichill has been operating BotMultichill since 2007 and BotMultichillT since 2008. Commons:Bots/Requests/BotMultichill was only for a single task (transferring images from nlwiki); Commons:Bots/Requests/BotMultichillT was only for categorization. However, Multichill has since used them for a succession of other tasks without any new approval or even documentation. Currently they are editing SDC at an extremely high rate (>1 edit per second combined), which the community was not given any change to discuss at a bot request, and for which there is no documentation. Multichill outright refused my request to stop BotMultichill or make a request for new tasks, claiming that it doesn't need approval for new tasks because COM:BOTS did not require such approvals at the time the bot was approved in 2007. (New tasks requiring separate approvals has been part of that page since 2009, long before either bot was used for SDC tasks.)

Because Multichill refuses to stop the bots or file a request for the additional tasks they are being used for, I have blocked the bots until they have documentation and approval for all current tasks. I have no problem in principle with these bots being used to add SDC, but it is imperative that the community has a chance to discuss these tasks and how to minimize their impacts. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Even if we take Multichill's reasoning as true or factual, the BOTS version they shared contains a list of bots and, guess what, each has specific tasks, not for whatever the operator wants. Bedivere (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Both bots are approved and not malfunctioning. The bots have been functioning for nearly two decades with over 95 million edits. You don't agree with that. You blocked them to make your point. I consider this harassment and abuse of your admin privileges. Multichill (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The bots were not approved for this task. They were each approved for a single task; that is not a blanket permission to use them for any possible task. I'm not sure what "point" I am making other than what COM:BOTS says: In principle, an unapproved bot may be blocked, though in practice unless the bot is doing harm the operator should normally be asked to submit a retroactive bot request. If it is noticed that a bot is being used for tasks which are significantly different from those specified in the original bot request, the bot operator should be asked to make a fresh bot request which specifies the new tasks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Multichill: FWIW, BotMultichill was running really fast. I don't know how it decides what files to work on in what order, but it hit several hundred of my uploads yesterday, nearly swamping my watchlist. I was thinking of hitting you up about it. I wouldn't have used a block (I didn't even hit you up, just figured I'd wait and see if this continued for multiple days), but I can see why someone else might have. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Multichill has unblocked both bots, which are now again operating without community approval for their tasks. @Multichill: I don't understand why you are escalating this, but these unblocks were highly inappropriate. Again, I have no problem in principle with these bots being used to add SDC; your claim that You don't agree with that is incorrect. If you file bot requests for these tasks, I don't foresee having any reason to object to them. I am solely concerned that the community has not had a chance to discuss these tasks and how to minimize their impacts. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I will reinstate the blocks, which were entirely appropriate, Pi. Multichill may see this as a non-issue, but in fact they should just go through the normal procedures instead of trying to get away with this. They should know better. Please don't unblock unless you are resuming already approved tasks. Bedivere (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I can find no approvals for Krdbot, either. 75.99.166.226 16:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Please see

• Commons:Bots/Requests/Krdbot
• Commons:Bots/Requests/Krdbot 2
• Commons:Bots/Requests/Krdbot 3
• Commons:Bots/Requests/Krdbot 4
• Commons:Bots/Requests/Krdbot 6

Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protect WLM-US 2025 pages

The upload period for Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States is in October. Requesting semi-protection for the following high-visibility pages through at least the month of October (+1 day, since the US contest runs a bit into Nov 1 UTC time):

• Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2025 in the United States
• Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States/Monuments

Thanks, ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done GPSLeo (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Thank you! Two more I forgot to list that could use protection:

• Template:WLM-USpage/style.css
• Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2025 in the United States/Tabs

~Kevin Payravi (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

User:DTHeliRepeat

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

User:DTHeliRepeat has been continually re-uploading the same fair use images on Commons, under different file names, to use them on English Wikipedia. These images keep getting deleted, so they upload the same image under a different file name. They have been doing this for about a month based on the repeated warnings on their talk page. BOZ (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! I will report again if they resume once the block expires. BOZ (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

deletions halted - server-crash?

Since ca. 20 minutes it is not possible to delete any files (at least for me). I get reproducibly only messages such as:

• [5e517a08-6353-40bf-82bb-25baa46994f1] 2025-10-01 12:13:35: Fataler Ausnahmefehler des Typs „Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError“
• Konnte den Status der Datei mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/1/11/Kalmattepe_Tmls_2025-09-26_1759280944.png nicht auslesen.
• Konnte den Status der Datei mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-deleted/9/j/v/9jvkp9fpysaz94osdpq87qipkhr829u.png nicht auslesen.
• [4a41317b-ceae-4585-80d5-9f9d11acb0e5] 2025-10-01 12:08:21: Fataler Ausnahmefehler des Typs „Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError“
• Im Speicher-Backend „local-multiwrite“ ist ein unbekannter Fehler aufgetreten.
• Konnte den Status der Datei mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/4/47/علم_سلطنة_البيضاء_،_ال_الرصاص.jpg nicht auslesen.
• Konnte den Status der Datei mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-deleted/g/b/8/gb8ppb8s306u4dpcu64oqqgwowmxj7t.jpg nicht auslesen.
• Im Speicher-Backend „local-swift-codfw“ ist ein unbekannter Fehler aufgetreten.

Anything known about a server-crash or alike? --Túrelio (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm also getting messages when I try to delete

• Could not read the status of file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-deleted/5/2/t/52tqie5car468y1d4lmq6ytsaxv51dg.png".
• An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-codfw".

And others. Someone on Discord said it may be related to this outage. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah. They say: "We are aware of issues with accessing images on some wikis, and we are investigating." — indeed. :-( --Túrelio (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)