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: ~105
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~3
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2026-03: ~203

Other:

• Duplicates: ~190
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~47
• Other speedy deletions: ~16
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~27

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~6
• Interface admin: ~12
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~5
• 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.

Overwrite

Can someone please revert File:Mojtaba Khamenei Supreme Leader of Iran.jpg to its first version? @NeoSyria shouldn't have cropped it as per COM:OVERWRITE. Pinging @Vladimir Dzaky as the uploader. Thanks, Yacàwotçã (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It is nowhere significantly different from the original version, and it was a minor improvement; therefore, I don't believe that it was in violation of any policy. 🗽NeoSyria / Freedoxm🗽 (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how messing with the image proportions can be interpreted as a minor cropping. But apparently it's a copyvio, so it's going to be deleted anyway. Yacàwotçã (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Reverted, though it will probably go away. @Vladimir Dzaky: about the only time a crop of someone else's photo is acceptable as an overwrite is things like cropping out clearly unintended margins, or a margin on a PD image that was added just for watermarking purposes.

Also: whenever an overwrite is contested by any significantly active Wikimedian, the presumption is strongly on their side. From COM:OVERWRITE: If another editor thinks that the change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change deems it minor), the change can be reverted, and the new image should be uploaded under a new file name. Obviously, some slack is granted for whn dealing with obvious trolls, brand-new accounts with no track record, etc., but equally obviously that is not what we have here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

CfD closure request

Could someone please close this CfD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/11/Category:Fascism in India? It has been open for over three months now. — EarthDude (Talk) 15:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Three months is not a particularly long time for a CfD, and there is no clear consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

COM:CFD says they should be closed after around two weeks. My experience is mostly from enwiki though. How long do CfDs usually go for here? — EarthDude (Talk) 07:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you quote where is it said that they should be closed after around two weeks? I can only find Generally, wait at least two weeks since the discussion was started, atleast two weeks means minimum time to wait not the maximum time. As for CfDs here, we still have open requests made months before this one. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's the quote I was referring to. I guess I just misinterpreted it. — EarthDude (Talk) 14:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Landschaftsschutzgebiet Neckartal zwischen Tübingen und Plochingen (Landkreis Tübingen)

Could a native or near-native German-speaking admin take a look at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/11/Category:Landschaftsschutzgebiet Neckartal zwischen Tübingen und Plochingen (Landkreis Tübingen)? Stale for over three years, lengthy, entirely in German. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

In short: there are two official documents which give two different official names for one and the same protected area. The question was which document is right, but the discussion did not find a clear answer, as there's the assumption that the area might have been officially renamed, which would explain why there are two different official names for it. In the last post at the bottom the user planned to contact authorities to ask for clarification regarding the official name. But the user never reported back. Nakonana (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I summarized the answer in the discussion page. Tragopogon (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

EarthDude and Category:Hindu nationalists

This is regarding removal of Category:Hindus from Category:Hindu nationalists by EarthDude at Revision #1178780513. I reverted him/her at Revision #1178997373 with the explanation in edit summary only to be reverted at Revision #1179022826. I went on his/her TP Special:Permalink#1179034124, explained why I felt that removal was wrong and informed him/her of me restoring the status-quo (i.e. restoring that cat removal). It was present there ever since the category was created. But EarthDude reverted me again saying You can't edit war while a discussion is going on. The addition of this is clearly disputed, and the burden is on you to gain consensus. Now I don't understand how the burden to gain a consensus falls on me. Bcoz it is EarthDude who wants a particular change to happen. New changes require consensus, not the existing ones. That particular discussion is now moved at the category's talk page. (I am going to sleep and will be replying when I wake up in the morning its 01:17 AM right now.) Shaan Sengupta^Talk 19:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion regarding this is at Category talk:Hindu nationalists. I have already stated why Hindu nationalists aren't a subset of Hindus. Many Hindu nationalists, including the followers of Hindutva, currently the dominant form of Hindu nationalism) have, throughout their history, racialized and ethnicized Hindu identity. Some of their biggest leaders have been open atheists. As such, Hindu nationalists don't neatly fall under the subset of Hindus. Categorization is based on the subject as a whole and not on a few of its contents, as the latter can change drastically over time. Also, the burden for gaining consensus falls on the editor who wants to include disputed content. — EarthDude (Talk) 20:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This thread was not opened to import the discussion about the dispute but to discuss the correct way of approach. You say that I have to gain consensus bcoz I want to add the disputed content. I say, that's not the case. You want to remove a content that was already present on the page. All I did was restore the status-quo. So its your removal that was disputed. The addition was not disputed when it was added. So you are the one having the need to gain consensus to remove bcoz I disputed the removal. (Regarding the dispute, I have replied at the talk page discussion). Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

If content is disputed, then its addition requires consensus, not its removal. — EarthDude (Talk) 09:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Update: As far as I am concerned, the discussion at the category talk page has reached a stone wall for me. I have no more explanations to do. I have suggested the user to restore status-quo until a consensus is reached. I will sit back now and maybe watch as it progresses. Whatever consensus is reached should be considered acceptable to me. As for the procedure and the accusation of editwar on me in the edit summary, I would like to hear from some admin as to if my approach of restoring the status quo in an ongoing discussion was wrong. Ping to @Aafi: and @Yann: and to anyone who might wanna help. (Sorry for the ping guys). Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Graphic Lab Illustration workshop

I've had enough of users there archiving my requests there without time for other graphists to consider the requests. I've made legitimate requests, but it feels like I'm being deliberately ignored and disrespected. Please do something to solve the situation. This is so horrible. I've even had to forcibly autotrace logos due to this situation. I can't stand this anymore. I don't have time to draw logos manually as I have no time to do it myself (I wish I could but I'm not, nor will I ever be, a graphic designer). Candidyeoman55 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The way it can be solved is recruiting more graphists for the project. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm very angry at this. I don't know where else I can turn to to do the jobs. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll probably have to message other users directly to get the vectorizations done. Or seek other creative solutions. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't think rejections by the workshop are a behavioural problem that needs the intervention of administrators Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: are you saying deletion without comment (no edit summary) 90 minutes after a request was made is not worth discussing? There may have been a good reason for this, and Candidyeoman55 should certainly have provided diffs instead of just a rant, but it certainly merits discussion.

@Mrmw: can you explain what was going on here? - Jmabel ! talk 03:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah well... Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

For some background, see

• Commons talk:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#A question
• Commons talk:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#About the requests I made

There have also been many edits to Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop that are unconventional. CY55 has marked other users requests as done; we usually let the requester respond to the new work before marking the request as done. I'm not sure, but I believe he has reposted archived but unfulfilled requests by others.

Candidyeoman55 is new to the workshop and has an incomplete understanding of what the workshop represents. For example, he has expected the volunteers to work on the requests in chronological order. CY55's comments above show an expectation that his requests will be fulfilled promptly. Many requests at the workshop are never fulfilled. Volunteers get to choose what they work on, and that choice is often driven by their own interests.

Mrmw is a major contributor to the workshop.

Mrmw has taken some time to explain the workshop to CY55, but it is not clear those explanations were understood by CY55.

Some of CY55's confusion and frustration is understandable, but he expects too much from the workshop.

Mrmw's frustration is also understandable.

Glrx (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

None of which explains removal of a request 90 minutes after it was made, with no edit summary. - Jmabel ! talk 05:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Other volunteers could have taken my requests. I unlisted some after finding vectors online myself, and others I unlisted because they're niche and I thought they would never be taken. But another user archiving my requests shortly after posting came across as rude to me (I'll never know what goes on inside their minds), and that was the last straw that drew me here. I don't have anything personal, I will never know what careers these people have. I don't want to overburden anyone there. If people there feel overburdened and overwhelmed, they might simply give up and I don't want that. At least mark the requests taken. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I welcomed Candidyeoman55, even though his behavior on the project page was noticeable from the beginning.

At first I tried to give small hints directly where his behavior was inappropriate. When there was no change, I took the time to explain the situation to him on his talk page. I think I left every door open for him to reflect at least a little and participate in the workshop with a bit more consideration.

I could repeat the arguments here, but I am honestly very frustrated by now.

It is not a problem for me that Candidyeoman55 does not contribute anything productive to the work on the project page. What is a serious problem is his sense of entitlement. It is not true that he or his requests were ignored. Instead, he ignores the fact that people here work voluntarily and, as Glrx already said, they are free to choose what they want to work on.

I tried to explain all of this to Candidyeoman55 patiently and several times. I explained that mass requests are unusual here and that they can negatively affect the motivation of volunteers.

I also explained that mass requests are unusual, but not strictly forbidden. I do not have the authority to moderate something like that on the project page.

However, I stepped in when I felt the project page itself was at risk — more precisely the seriousness and the clarity of the page.

Candidyeoman55 is not being ignored. Instead, he ignored all my attempts to positively influence him. There was no reaction to my messages and no change in behavior.

I am not someone who works aggressively against other editors. I strongly dislike that.

In an edit, for example, I made one last attempt to sort and summarize the many requests from Candidyeoman55 in order to restore at least some clarity.

• c:special:diff/1172368893/1172402477

I find it very disruptive when Candidyeoman55 interferes administratively in other requests without being asked and engages in micromanagement without contributing anything to the actual work. As Glrx already mentioned, he closes other people’s requests too quickly or prevents the automatic archiving of requests that have been inactive for a long time and were meant to be archived for good reason.

There are many small points that together form the overall picture of Candidyeoman55 and his intentions on the project page. For him, the only important thing seems to be that HIS requests are processed as quickly as possible. He does not make an effort to maintain even basic etiquette.

I explained to Candidyeoman55 that, in order to protect the project page, I would revert his edits. I have already done this twice. In the edit summaries I linked to my explanations on his talk page — with a permalink, because I already suspected that he might clear that page.

• c:special:permalink/1175153450#message_regarding_your_contribution_at_Illustration_workshop
• c:special:permalink/1177763859#Waving_flag_icons

I find it disrespectful and unprofessional that Candidyeoman55 is now appealing to the administrators and complaining about unfair and ignorant behavior by others.

When he asked, he was already shown the way to other project pages, which he has found and already used. I think he will behave the same way there, but I have no connection to those project pages, so what he does elsewhere is not my concern.

My mistake was that in the revert discussed here I did not leave an edit summary.

If it is no longer possible to keep project pages open, clear, and motivating as a place for many users, I will step back. This is not meant as a threat, but rather as an expression of my regret. --Mrmw (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Candidyeoman55: so, what is this?

Btw @Mrmw, for the sake of others, could you try not to post walls of text? Thanks! Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 07:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• c:special:diff/1179301558/1179302148

Now the title is quickly changed afterwards to make the discussion look more neutral?

Candidyeoman55 accuses parts of the community and me personally of deliberate ignorance — I cannot accept that.

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: Text of wall: Unfortunately, it takes a few explanations to describe Candidyeoman55’s behavior somewhat completely. He himself does not comment on the criticism that was mentioned — not before and not now.

I am really the last person to exclude or ignore users or people on Wikimedia, but unfortunately it does not work with Candidyeoman55. --Mrmw (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

None of which explains the lack of an edit summary. I know that can happen by mistake, but I don't even see an "oops" here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: am I correct in understanding that this was directed at Mrmw, not Candidyeoman55? Can you possibly give any independent insight into what's going on here? Way too much activity on the page for me to make sense of these two clashing points of view. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: It was, and I was frustrated at what I perceived to be a slight, but it's also something we resolved on his talk page. It's not related to the issue at hand.

Reading through the discussion, especially the links that Glrx shared, it seems like there may be a mismatch in expectations about what the workshops are able to do and what can realistically be expected from them (as Glrx also mentioned).

It's quite common for requests not to be taken up, or for them to be archived without being completed, particularly when it comes to hand-vectorizing complex graphics that don't align with the interests or available time of the volunteers. There are several maintenance categories for logos that need vector versions specifically (such as Top 200 logo images that should use vector graphics) but these are thousands of images we're talking about, which are constantly added to and chipped away from. I don't consider it a pressing issue that these images don't have vector versions, and many won't have one for years.

Having said that, one part of the comment did stand out to me:

Please do something to solve the situation. This is so horrible. I've even had to forcibly autotrace logos due to this situation.

(As well as the comment chain right below it, where they ask for recruiting more volunteers, or having to message people directly). This sounds downright distressed, nothing about the requests on the illustrator's workshop (even if all of them were ignored, which is far from the case) warrants this sort of emotional reaction. It's just not that big of a deal if logos aren't being vectorized. They also have a tendency to relist requests if theirs go unfulfilled (as can be seen on the workshop's archive page for 2026), which is not something you're supposed to do. Admittedly when Mrmw removed one such repost, he removed a bit too much of theirs in the edit linked upthread, and that shouldn't have happened without explanation or at least some prior discussion, but beyond that I don't think what Candidyeoman55 is asking for in the original post is realistic or even possible, which is for people to vectorize their logos in a timely manner, and if they're unable to adjust their expectations and behaviour, perhaps it's for the best if they remove themselves from this situation. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I had a completely separate discussion with ReneeWrites about a different topic, unrelated to Candidyeoman55. I think we were able to resolve it because we communicated with each other.

ReneeWrites is not involved in the dispute with Candidyeoman55.

If someone wants to understand this dispute, they need to read the history. I do not act rashly, and I gave Candidyeoman55 many chances to change his behavior.

I do understand the issue with the missing edit summary. I also said that it was my mistake not to leave one. But why is this now the main focus of the discussion? I explained the revert here in detail. --Mrmw (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I think ReneeWrites comments here were very helpful for understanding what is going on.

@Candidyeoman55: everyone here is a volunteer. None of them are required to do any work on arbitrary files chosen by someone else. (They are expected to competently name, categorize, describe, etc. their own uploads, but they aren't required to upload something else just because someone asked for it.) As ReneeWrites correctly says, there is nothing urgent about having SVGs to replace reasonably decent raster files. It's great that some people want to work on this, but in terms of urgency it is simply not in a league with issues like getting rid of copyright violations, flagging false information, or decently describing and categorizing content. And you talk about how hard this is for you to do yourself: why do you think it is a lot easier for someone else? Why do you think your choices of which logos you'd like this done for give someone else a priority task?

It is possible (likely) that this hasn't been handled ideally well, but I don't see anything here calling for administrative action. - Jmabel ! talk 21:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm relatively new, and I misread many things. I didn't understand why they did a logo vectorization of a terrorist organization (Malahem), for example. Me being an aspie doesn't help. I hope you can recruit more graphists, end this discussion politely and respectfully, and move on to further works. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The Nagarjuna cement logo (an Indian logo) was also a waste of time for people there. It's clearly copyrightable everywhere (there's no evidence of a free license here), and I nominated it for deletion, and it was deleted. The graphic lab's rules is that no vectorization of non-free logos would be done here. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

On your profile and talk page you have a section titled "Files to eventually relist if they're not vectorized", do you understand why you should not be doing that? ReneeWrites (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I renamed these sections of my userpage, it sounded off. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, the new header is a much better one to file those images under. And I agree that I wish there were more volunteers on Commons, which is a sentiment shared across every corner of every Wikiproject. Ultimately we have to work with what we have, and it might be better to adjust your expectations if they cause such intense disappointment when they're not met. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Candidyeoman55: You sometimes only reply with a short “sorry” when someone points out problematic behavior.

But I think your general attitude is problematic, maybe because of health reasons, which I feel sorry about.

I also think the Illustrator workshop on Commons is not the right place for you.

Besides, you have already moved to the Illustrator workshop on the English Wikipedia and have already posted many requests there again.

I would suggest that we end this discussion here.

Most graphic designers know the Illustrator workshop on the English Wikipedia and will work on your requests there if they are interested. --Mrmw (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Could an admin close Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lois976 as withdrawn

The uploader inexplicably uploaded a bunch of fake AI paintings to Commons recently and is also trolling me with pointless deletion nominations so I reasonably assumed they exclusively uploaded AI slop. However I looked at the images after nomination and they actually do seem to be authentic, widely used reproductions of genuine historical paintings. Dronebogus (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done I'll take care of this. - Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Removing EXIF geolocation data

We at Wiki Project Med are building a tool to allow users to ONLY remove location EXIF data from their OWN images. This will also include the "location" template, and P1259 of structure data so that people who contribute images with their home address / work address by mistake can more easily fix this.

We need to develop a workflow to delete the old files, once the new files have been uploaded and to suppress old diffs that show the GPS location in the location template. How do folks feel this work can be best presented to admins to carry out? Or could we give a bot (after significant testing) the ability to do this? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

For example would like the old versions of this image deleted and the location template in the history suppressed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Doc James: The normal procedure is to post to COM:AN, but that carries the risk of the en:Streisand effect. Finding a willing Admin or Oversighter out of band would be a better option.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The tool we have built is here. Yes agree regarding the Streisand effect. Ideally, in my opinion, we would give the tool the ability to delete ones old images, once the new one with edited EXIF data is uploaded. Else is their a private admin list that this tool could send requests to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

We do already have Commons:QuickEXIF, but that only does the EXIF editing and not the structured data and suppression part. If the tool is limited only to location data, and only for images that someone has uploaded themselves, the risk of a bot seems relatively low. I would prefer that to more tasks being added to the admin queue.

I would suggest a guardrail that the bot will not do the suppression if the image has been recently overwritten. We occasionally have users who will overwrite their uploads with blank images, usually when they are angry that a courtesy deletion request was not accepted. This bot wouldn't really make that more effective, but it would prevent non-admins from reverting to the previous file. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree with also adding the guardrail of not working on recently overwritten images. The bot will need Commons:Revision deletion ability. Not sure if a bot can be provided just that ability separate from other admin rights? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I see that we have one admin bot User:KrinkleBot on Commons. Does one need to have an admin supporting efforts to run an admin bot account? User:Krinkle Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The operator is expected to be an admin to run an adminbot on Commons. Also, I disagree with @Jeff G., the normal process is to send an email to oversight-commons@lists.wikimedia.org such that the information is also removed from admin view (as contrary to disruptive material, where it's sufficient to hide from normal view). Maybe the script can prepare a standard email? If the workload on oversighters is then indeed too high and false positive is low, you can investigate better options. The bot would need suppressrevision right, which is exclusive to oversighters and not included for admins. --Schlurcher (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree that would be ideal, but I would be happy with just revdel. Will reach out to oversight-commons for their position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

deletion requests backlog above 180 days

Dear colleagues, the deletion requests backlog crossed the 180 days line recently. Is there perhaps anybody who could close (or comment on) a few/dozen/hundred of the oldest ones? --Krd 06:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Two related DRs at Commons:Deletion requests/2025/09/26 will probably require someone who can read Chinese to resolve them. - Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Request to hide obsolete versions, keep only current

I want to keep only the most recent version of my file, “Comparatif_de_tailles_humaines.jpg (11:16, 13 March 2026), and hide all older versions.

The outdated versions that should be concealed are:

- 09:51, 13 March 2026 (increasing) – revert

- 09:49, 13 March 2026 (correction) – revert

- 09:45, 13 March 2026 (Uploaded own work with UploadWizard) – revert

I am unable to directly remove these versions. The current version is accurate and ought to stay accessible.

I sincerely appreciate your assistance. Intactexte (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) I have nominated this image for deletion as it violates several copyrights, with the ones that jump out most being Aang and Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender. When you create an item like this, all components must also be free; you cannot simply use whatever artwork you find on the internet. When you do, it makes it a Derivative work of a non-free file, which is not accepted under the licensing policy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)