Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

This page is semi-protected against editing.
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcut: COM:AN

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Note

  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


Should we do sometthing about Count of JK?

There seems to be a lot of complaints regarding his photos of adolescent Taiwanese school girls Trade (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Some of the images individually might arguably be mundane street photography, but looking at the user's uploads as a series seems CREEP. (From a quick look, I am unsure if the user knows much English, perhaps someone who knows Chinese can alert the user to concerns?) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on this comment? Trade (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome the change in assessment. You had previously closed two DRs as "keep".
If it was just one or two images, then one could argue that it's fine, but the user seems to specifically go for photos of school girls. I'm also having a hard time believing that the photos are about school uniforms because if that was the case then I'd expect that there would be as many photos of boys in school uniforms as there are photos of girls in school uniforms to give a complete picture of a school's uniforms, but there's only a single of photo of boys in school uniforms among the uploads while there are quite a lot of photos of girls so that it really feels like the focus is rather on girls than on school uniforms. Nakonana (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
* I have no objection to their being deleted; I see they already have been. Those listings were closed as kept per discussion on the listings and evaluation of the files as individual images. Given the uploader's pattern, I have no objection to wide deletion of their uploads even if some images may arguably be less objectionable if evaluated in isolation. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
coz this east asian phenomenon (students having to wear such uniforms, and subsequently people's interest in it) w:School_uniforms_in_Japan#Late_20th_century is mostly about girls. RoyZuo (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm aware of that, but if we'd argue in the uploader's defense that the uploader is uploading these images for educational purposes to illustrate school uniforms, then the expectation would be that they show us the female and male versions of the school uniforms. The fact that their photos almost exclusively show girls is probably what makes people uncomfortable about their uploads. (The other reasons being that the photos were seemingly secretly taken and kind of seem to focus on the girls' legs specifically.) Nakonana (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the photos specifically looks like an failed attempt of an upskirt Trade (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this problem/phenomenon be raised on vp for a wider discussion.
The problem here is, there are some enthusiasts about school uniforms, but for whatever reason they dont manage to ask pupils or adult models to pose in those uniforms for photos, so they resort to snapshotting pupils in the streets.
This is not the 1st user doing this I've seen on wiki. RoyZuo (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the uploader does not respond on the consent concerns I would simply delete all photos of people by this user. GPSLeo (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would stop him from uploading more? Trade (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the user does not respond to any concerns we need to block them. GPSLeo (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might help if we had an editor who spoke their native language Trade (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
vp? Trade (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade Commons:Village pump probably. Nakonana (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoyZuo seeem more familiar with this than i am so i would prefer if he did it Trade (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: Citing COM:AN/U rather than this board in Special:Diff/1028378106 was careless of you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. Small technical error at worst--Trade (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a sock puppet of 氏子.
  • "淡水河口夕陽.jpg", January 9 by Count of JK
    "淡水河口夕陽.jpg", January 9 by Count of JK
  • "淡水河口的夕陽.jpg", January 10 by 氏子
    "淡水河口的夕陽.jpg", January 10 by 氏子
  • "淡水河口夕陽與淡江大橋.jpg", January 9 by Count of JK
    "淡水河口夕陽與淡江大橋.jpg", January 9 by Count of JK
  • "淡水河口的夕陽與臺北港.jpg", January 10 by 氏子
    "淡水河口的夕陽與臺北港.jpg", January 10 by 氏子
    • And these,
    • latest upload of 氏子, 4 May 2025, used SONY XQ-BT52
      latest upload of 氏子, 4 May 2025, used SONY XQ-BT52
    • last upload of Count of JK, 27 April 2025, used SONY XQ-BT52
      last upload of Count of JK, 27 April 2025, used SONY XQ-BT52
      • Check Count of JK's initial edits, too. The first account may be even earlier, but I cannot determine.
      All were uploaded by 寺人孟子.
      Akishima Yuka (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      JK means Joshi Kousei (high school girl); I suppose the Count created this account solely for uploading high school girl pictures? Akishima Yuka (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      At least one of the pictures was shot in a university classroom, so they presumably didn't shoot only high school girls. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      in a university classroom

      Not as the filename Taipei First Girls' High School indicates... Akishima Yuka (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Got it, you meant Commons:Deletion_requests/File:國立臺北教育大學學生.jpg (Student at National Taipei University of Education). Akishima Yuka (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Pi.1415926535 Do you think it's necessary to checkuser? Akishima Yuka (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I must open one, the user was reported to be a sock not only once by not only one user.
      Akishima Yuka (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Akishima Yuka (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I have blocked the user and deleted all of their photos of people. If they want to explain why they are uploading photos of minors taken without their consent or knowledge, they can do so in an unblock request. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Could you at least leave them a message on their talk page to explain why you acted as you did and give them a chance to explain themselves? And modify their block so they can still participate in this discussion (and any future related discussions regarding their contributions? It feels wrong of me to make an AN thread that the user in question is prevented from participating in Trade (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I will leave a talk page note (in English - others are welcome to translate). Again, if they want to explain themselves, they can do so in an unblock request. Uploading nonconsensually-taken photos of minors is a 'block first, ask questions later' scenario. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Alr. ill see if i can get anyone to translate your talk page message once you have placed it Trade (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      @Pi.1415926535: Your responses here consistently suggest that uploading photos of minors taken without their consent is grounds for a block:

      • First comment above: If they want to explain why they are uploading photos of minors taken without their consent or knowledge, they can do so in an unblock request.
      • Second comment above: Uploading nonconsensually-taken photos of minors is a 'block first, ask questions later' scenario.
      • Block log entry, quoted in its entirety: Uploading photos of minors taken without consent
      • Most deletion log entries, quoted in their entirety: Photos of minors taken without consent

      But merely uploading photos of minors taken without their consent does not even come close to justifying a block, especially without warning.

      You also closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Count of JK after just 16 minutes as Deleted: per nomination. The entire deletion rationale was: Out of scope as unusably bad quality. All of these images have heads cut off and many are shot at weird angles. We have lots of way better images in Category:Senior high school girls of Taiwan.

      But that deletion rationale does not justify a speedy deletion, especially when two of the files had already survived deletion requests (Commons:Deletion requests/File:穿短裙的女學生.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:公車上玩手機的女孩.jpg).

      To be clear, I’m not saying that your actions can’t be justified. But I am saying that they can’t be justified by the comments you made. Brianjd (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I am confused because of what I wrote in my previous comment.
      I am also confused about the broader issue. Apparently, Count of JK’s actions were so serious that they justified speedy deletion and an indefinite block without warning. But they were not so serious that they required referral to the legal team. Trade’s ‘Thoughts on this comment?’ links to Jmabel’s ‘upskirt’ comment, which was discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:公車上玩手機的女孩.jpg, where I noted a similar contradiction. Brianjd (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      For what it’s worth, Commons:Deletion requests/File:國立臺北教育大學學生.jpg suggests that one subject was actually an adult. Pinging @Ikan Kekek. Brianjd (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Keeping in mind that I may have seen most but not all of the photos that were nominated for deletion, I think this is an overreaction. Concentrating on photographing girls and not both girls and boys is neither a crime nor something we should be judging; I doubt if he photographed both, that would actually make people more comfortable; and enough of his photos were usable for it to be worth stating some kinds of standards of what will lead to deletion (for example, a photo of the torso without the face that seems to overemphasize a minor's bosom or anything suggestive of a nonconsensual upskirt photo). It also seems completely absurd to me not to attempt to have a discussion with this individual in Chinese. There are admins who speak Chinese, and their help should be requested. Otherwise, I hope Brianjd's remarks are addressed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you ping those admins? Trade (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone could. I searched on COM:Administrators. On the right side, you see this:
      Administrators as of May 2025
      Listing by: Language • Date • Activity
      I clicked "Language", got Commons:List of administrators by language, and scrolled down to the end of
      Administrators as of May 2025
      Listing by: Language • Date • Activity
      knowing that "zh" would be at least close to the end. So User:Jusjih, User:King of Hearts, User:Minorax, User:Mys 721tx, User:Shizhao. Next time, do it yourself instead of asking someone else to do it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Geeez calm down dude Trade (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Unwarranted assumption. I'm perfectly calm and showed you how to do that so you don't even have to make the efforts I made to find the right boards, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      call it what you want then i suppose--Trade (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You're welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Brianjd brings my name into this above, presumably because of [1]. I stand by that. The photo in question was creepy but presumably legal. It was certainly out of scope. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      ✓ Done Indef blocked by Pi Gbawden (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Which is fine, but do we have sufficient usable photos of girls in these types of uniforms with even perfectly OK photos by this user deleted? My opinion, which may be a minority one on Commons, is that I judge each photo by what it shows and don't believe in deleting all photos of a user - in this case, including one of college students - because they were blocked or their motives are believed or determined to be problematic. I also think unilaterally summarily deleting all their photos is downright bad and presumptuous, considering the threads we've had proposing the deletion of other banned users' photos that were voted down, for example those of LivioAndronico. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      usable photos of girls in these types of uniforms

      I tried to check other pictures and found that many of them were shot with the same device.
      What if there's one person used above 6 accounts to upload such pictures during a very short period of time? Do you have any clue on why they utilized so many accounts with random usernames?
      February 2023 accounts:
      March 2023:
      October 2023:
      November 2023:
      January 2024:
      March 2024:
      April 2024:
      May 2024:
      June 2024:
      September 2024:
      Akishima Yuka (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Quite a lot of them, same device. Special:Search/女生+制服. Akishima Yuka (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess an application that utilizes Wikimedia Commons as image hosting has been developed. Akishima Yuka (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I've started blocking and wiping those accounts. They switched from a ASUS_AI2201_F to an ASUS_AI2205_D in 2023, and some of the accounts upload crops from stills of a specific YouTube video, but thankfully the accounts interact with each other enough for me to be comfortable all three (2201_F, 2205_D, and YouTube stills) are the same account. Without a master, I've tagged them {{sock|ASUS_AI2201_F sock farm}}. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course that still begs the question what exactly was he hoping to accomplish that required multiple sock accounts Trade (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      a second time would be accompanied by a referral to the relevant Taiwanese police authorities for prosecution.

      As suggested.
      Pretty sure they live in Taoyuan, Taiwan. See,
      Akishima Yuka (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I should instead contact legal-reports at wikimedia.org or write to their local authority directly? Akishima Yuka (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      They don't have any public email addresses; I'd better write to Wikimedia Taiwan instead. Akishima Yuka (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      legal-reports@wikimedia.org? Trade (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A second time doing what? I didn't see the photo described above as an "attempted upskirt", but User:Jmabel, who warned him about it, said "The photo in question was creepy but presumably legal." Did you see something worse, such that you have something to say to the police? You should note that when I made the suggestion you quoted, I thought the photo was actually worse than described, an actual upskirt photo of a minor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No. If it's legal, nothing more than a suspicion or concern can be reported in that not yet drafted letter. I'm still hesitant and considering it. Akishima Yuka (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The photo in question was tagged with the categories "adolescent girl" and "upskirt" so someone must have thought it that way before deletion
      You ould ask an admin to look the history and see who added the categories if you want Trade (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't want to have anything to do with that photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The photo is now hard-deleted, so I can't re-verify exactly what I saw. If I remember correctly, you could not see anything much higher than the knees. Count of JK added the categories himself, including both Category:Upskirt in sitting and Category:Adolescent girls with protective masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as Category:Senior high school girls of Taiwan and many others. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems weird that someone went through the trouble of hard-deleting the image but leave the uploader itself unblocked and without any warnings (i don't count Jmabel's comment because i don't think he's even able to hard-delete images in the first place) Trade (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds like an deletion request would have been useful Trade (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It feels like we're currently in a consensus-building phase, where opinions clash and no clear outcome is visible. For what it's worth, a similar discussion took place in a DR that I opened: Commons:Deletion requests/File:常春藤高中高中部 女生夏季制服上衣 正面特寫.jpg. I'd like to have more insights about actual Taiwanese law concerning identifiability and consenting in photography. Is there somebody around who has the relevant language knowledge? (Tvpuppy, you're the first who comes into my mind...) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Hello, apologies it took a while for me to reply, since I went through the discussion above and typed out all this below. I only vaguely remember some of the photos that made it to the DRs in the past. So, my recollection may not be accurate. I haven’t seen it but let me first address the photo of an attempt upskirt [2] mentioned above.
      Possible attempt upskirt photo
      • In 2023, a new offense is added to the Criminal Code of the Republic of China, which is called “Offense against Sexual Privacy and Synthetic Sexual Videos” (Chapter 28-1). The offense states in Article 319-1, “A person who takes photos, videos, electromagnetic records, or use other technological means to record sexual images of the victims without consent shall be sentenced to an imprisonment of not more than three years” and “an attempt to commit an offense specified [above] is punishable”.
      • In Article 10, the definition for the term “sexual image” includes images of “genitals or private parts of the body that are able to objectively arouse sexual desire or shame”. And per this court ruling of an upskirting case [3], it confirms that the “root of the thigh” and “underwear” are considered private parts.
      • Before 2023, it is only a crime if an upskirt photo was “successfully” taken. So, if the offender was caught before taking the photo, or the photo was taken in a bad angle and failed to capture any private parts, it won’t constitute a crime. The 2023 amendment fixed this “loophole”, so upskirt attempts are now also punishable.
      • Jmabel’s comment above [4] did say the photo only show up to the knees, so it is likely the image is not illegal, but at the same time it could be illegal if it was indeed an attempt of upskirting.
      Other photos
      • Since the photos are now deleted, I can’t comment on them for certain. But from what I gathered from DRs and the discussion above, the images in question are girls in their school uniform but without their face shown. In Taiwan, as mentioned in Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Taiwan, the “right of portrait” only apply if the “facial features” are recognizable or shown fully. And the Personal Data Protection Act only applies if the image contains identifiable information personal data about the depicted subject (i.e. names, phone numbers, educational background) (Edited, see comment below). Also, if the image doesn’t show any “private parts”, then it will not constitute as an “offense against privacy”.
      • However, this would be fine if we are evaluating them individually, as mentioned above by Infrogmation. The problem is that the uploader had a pattern of uploading series of schoolgirl photographs. This reminds me of a recent case in March 2025, seen here in this BBC Chinese article [5]. This case is in a much bigger scale, which there was a whole website dedicated for sharing images of schoolgirl in uniforms. The person created the site was arrested for violations of copyright, personal data protection, and most importantly for “offense against morality” (妨害風化罪).
      • In Article 235 of “offense against morality” states it is an offense to “distributes, broadcasts, sells, publicly displays, or by other means to show an obscene writing, picture, audio record, video record, or any other object to another person”. The law doesn’t have definition for “obscene” but in Interpretation No. 617 (2006) [6], it refers “obscenity” as “objectively sufficient to stimulate or satisfy sexual desire, which its content can be connected with the description and discussion of sexual organs, sexual behaviour and sexual culture, but must limited to those who caused shame or disgust of ordinary people, and violated the moral feelings and hindered the morality of society“ (rough translation of “指客觀上足以刺激或滿足性慾，其內容可與性器官、性行為及性文化之描繪與論述聯結，且須以引起普通一般人羞恥或厭惡感而侵害性的道德感情，有礙於社會風化者為限”).
      • Obviously, the case for the schoolgirl uniform website is still ongoing, so it is unsure if images distributed in this nature will be considered “obscene” by the courts. However, just the fact that someone was arrested for distributing mass amount of schoolgirl images and there is a case ongoing is enough for me to say this behaviour should not be allowed on Commons for the time being (and hopefully for the future).
      In summary, I support the deletion of the images in question, given the fact that it is not like a couple images out of all their uploads, but a clear pattern of uploading series of schoolgirl uniform images. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Personal Data Protection Act only applies if the image contains identifiable information — Would wearing a school uniform of a particular identifiable school possibly count as "identifiable information"? Nakonana (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I used the term “identifiable information“, but I meant “personal data”. In Article 51 of Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), it states the PDPA does not apply “where audio-visual data is collected, processed, or used in public places or public activities and not connected to other personal data”. This means if the images are in fact “connected to other personal data”, then PDPA applies. Also in Article 2, the definition of “personal data” includes “educational background”. So, my understanding is just depicting someone wearing an uniform will not be in violation, but if the school name is also indicated (which is the case for many images in question), that could be in violation of the PDPA (if without consent). Thanks for pointing this out, I edited my comment before to include this. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for your detailed information. Seems there are enough reasons for calling them. For example,
      • legal-reports@wikimedia.org
      • meta:Wikimedia Taiwan
      • Taoyuan Police <- their website doesn't have a public email address
      The last factor must know this user's IP addresses, or less it's useless, which will expire in 3 months, and are protected by foundation:Policy:Privacy policy. What's the proper method to get they acquire that? Akishima Yuka (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Have sent one asking for assistance to the first address. Akishima Yuka (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We have opened a case on this matter and will be investigating. Akishima Yuka (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It might be useful to also try the Institute of Watch Internet Network (website: https://i.win.org.tw), they are an organization set up by the government in Taiwan to handle complaints about inappropriate content online, see zh:iWIN網路內容防護機構. Note that their website is completely in Chinese. Tvpuppy (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you believe the images should have been up for an deletion request instead of having been outright deleted? Trade (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree having a DR can be useful because it would have allowed for discussion among users (including the uploader) and let the admins see what the consensus is. But in a way, I feel like this thread is similar to a discussion in DR. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course being unable to see the images in question severely limits the ability of editors to be able to judge them properly so it's a bit limited in that retrospect Trade (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      When the issue is COM:CREEPSHOT, we tend to go for deleting pretty quickly, for presumably obvious reasons. - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Even on this page and the DRs there are people arguing against calling it that so we did not exactly had an unanimous consensus Trade (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      DRs to remove

      Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

      Can an admin remove the deletion request notices from these files please? (The nominator withdrew the requests by blanking the DR pages.)

      Thank you. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      ✓ Done --Rosenzweig τ 23:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Closing off a CFD discussion

      Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

      A long time admin here who was involved with a dispute over the naming of Category:City of Orange (New South Wales) and who had reverted my changes has now unilaterally decided to rename the category without any other feedback from other users. Incredibly, they scolded me over not following process, but then they went ahead and just made the change.

      Anyway, aside from the double-standard in play here, can someone at least close off Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/04/Category:City of Orange (New South Wales)? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      ✓ Done CFD closed. Abzeronow (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      User:CommonHistory

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

      I noticed this user put up a user page advertising their photo archive. Allot of their images have dubious license statements, for example [7], a 1950s photograph by an unknown photographer in their mother's collection under a "author's life plus 70 years or fewer" license. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I have removed the promotional content from their user page. Not sure what to do with the images. Shaan SenguptaTalk 04:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Shaan Sengupta,
      I have 2 Wikimedia accounts: BillCramer and CommonHistory.
      I was a professional photographer for 25 years and since I noticed that so many of the people I photographed over the years had Wikipedia pages without photos, I started uploading my photos that I thought were most needed. You can see those uploads here.
      Many of those pages had no photos at all. For others, I contributed unique content. For example, I noticed that Mike Tyson’s page didn’t have any photos showing him boxing, so I uploaded my photo of him during a fight at the height of his career.
      After a few of my initial uploads, I sought out advice from the GLAM team and other people in the Wikipedia community, corresponding with Fiona Romeo and Jake Orlowitz, with whom I had a lengthy conversation. Both of them were encouraging of my efforts. I specifically asked Jake about the fact that I was mentioning Common History in my uploads and he thought that it was well within reason.
      After uploading many of my professional photos, I realized that I also owned a lot of family photos that filled a need on other Wikipedia pages, so I uploaded photos that my parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents took during their lifetime and which I subsequently inherited.
      It appears that the moderators have two concerns about my activities on Wikipedia/Wikimedia. First, that my CommonHistory User page is too self-promotional and second, that some of the family photos that I have uploaded have dubious copyright license.
      As for the Common History User page, it was not my intent to advertise my business, but to merely explain who we are and what we’re doing. While I do want my company to get some credit for the work I am doing, my intent is to upload photos that I rightfully own and that I believe will add value to Wikipedia pages. I reviewed the User page guidelines and it seemed that I was within the rules.
      As for the copyright license concerns, when uploading a photo that I did not take but that I inherited, there is no good option to select to justify the fact that it is mine to share.
      Can you provide me with some guidance on these two points? I have quite a large archive of images and I’d like to continue contributing valuable content to Wikipedia.
      Sincerely,
      Bill Cramer CommonHistory (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @CommonHistory: Thanks for the explanation, but please mention your accounts on each others' user pages. Pinging @FRomeo (WMF), Ocaasi, as crosswiki notifications don't happen.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Can confirm. Known good-faith editor with rights to his own images. No concerns here. Ocaasi (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @CommonHistory: for inherited copyrights you'll want something along the lines of {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. There are analogous templates for other CC licenses. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jeff G. Thank you for the feedback! I updated both of our User pages so that they are less promotional and so that they refer to one another. Please let me know if they look okay, or if there is a better way to do it. Bill CommonHistory (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Please, rev del the original upload from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

      Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

      Copyrighted photograph of a Ukrainian Soldier Killed in Action has been masked.

      Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      ✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      @Pi.1415926535’s block against @SecretName101

      This block is questionable as no attempts were made before the block to remedy the issues and the issues aren’t even blockable especially for an experienced editor. These actions are not productive and improvement could be made using a discussion on the users talkpage the user is willing to improve unlike how pi is casting aspersions on secret saying that they are un willing to improve. This shoot first behavior worries me as its happened to me and secret. Cyberwolf (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      @Cyberwolf: That user appears to have been given plenty of chances to properly curate their bulk uploads, and they appear to have chosen not to do that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ?. I see no discussion tho. No discussion in the archives either. The chances that were given, were they stated to the user and tips to how to fix it? Cyberwolf (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There is discussion both before and after the block, on their user talk page. Note that this is only a block on uploading. I don't either endorse the block or not. I do think it is reasonable to say that someone with a large number of uploaded files that still need clear licensing cannot upload more files until they deal with that. I'd certainly rather see that dealt with by mutual agreement, rather than by a block. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I only saw after discussion and for that last part i do too Cyberwolf (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I want to be very clear: this upload restriction was not out of nowhere:
      • SecretName101 was blocked twice in 2017 for uploading copyios. Since then, they have gotten ~1,000 talk page notifications for copyvios and improper licensing. They were warned again about improper PDM use in April 2024, and asked to correct licenses when the Flickr license is incorrect in December 2022.
      • SecretName101 was blocked by User:Billinghurst last year for repeatedly uploading duplicate files. Just like this time, they blamed the tools rather than take responsibility for the disruption. Since that block, they have uploaded about 1,500 duplicates that have been deleted/redirected. (Many of them were duplicates of files they had previously uploaded.) They were also previously warned in January 2021.
      • SecretName101 was asked to use better filenames in September 2020, November 2022, August 2023, July 2024, October 2024, January 2025 - by six different users. They did not respond to any of those messages.
      This is a years-long pattern of serious issues, with no shortage of notifications, about which SecretName101 has not engaged unless blocked. Because of the issues recurring after the previous blocks, and the pattern of not responding to talk page messages asking for changes in behavior, I feel that a partial block was the only way to ensure a change in behavior. Given the scale of the disruption – hundreds of copyvios/license issues and thousands of duplicates every year, and tens of thousands with poor/nonsense filenames and descriptions – I believe the block is necessary to stop disruptive editing and is not punitive. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Something im wondering is the duplicates even on purpose their could be a simple solution for duplicates plus i found some of those license issues such as yesterdays green line pictures are false flags Cyberwolf (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Secondly the crop issues can be resolved with crop tools Cyberwolf (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      in the mean time im going to see if i can fix the reviewer Cyberwolf (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Pi.1415926535 again, if you you think there needs to be a minimal required standard for file names: propose that and subject it to consensus. Right now, we merely have a guideline for what best naming practices are, not a set of minimal requirements. Hence why it is a guideline on “ideal” file names, and is described as being merely something “most editors agree with in principle and generally follow” rather than a requirement by which editors must strictly adhere to.
      if you want to heighten that, subject it to an request for consensus. You cannot impose your own construct as a mandate without having successfully proposing it to the community. You don’t have a fiat. SecretName101 (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey i agree on pi on the naming you need to name it better Cyberwolf (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @SecretName101: the reason we have guidelines rather than an absolutely firm policy for file names is that there is a lot of gray zone and we don't want to have to closely police rather occasional uploaders on yet another issue: it's easier to clean up after them than call them out. But every time people upload with a poor filename, they decrease the discoverability of the content they've uploaded, they impose a burden on others to fix it. As a prolific uploader, if you often fail to do this, then you impose a large burden. If you do the job badly, you make other people spend a lot of time cleaning up after you, generally at the expense of working on content of their own. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This seems to be a misunderstanding what policy and guideline means in our context. The policy is binding and acting in a way not covered by the policy is never allowed and would require a change of the policy. A guideline is also binding but exceptions are possible when following the guideline would have unintended negative effects or is not possible for some reason. GPSLeo (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "or is not possible for some reason" is not good enough for Pi though. They have cited the fact that I could did identify the exact location along the Neponset River or Harvard campus in the title of file uploads from Flickr as specific examples of purportedly impermissibly "highly generic filenames". I have never been to Harvard's campus or the Neponset River, so I would have to spend a significant time on street view searching to find a needle in a haystack. The files had no geo-data attached, and no further information attached on Flickr. Seems it was reasonable to upload them with the names I did. They are quality images, the names adequately described what was known of the photos, and uploading the photos allowed them to be added to commons and placed in a categories where someone more hyper-familiar with those locations might be able to further identify the exact building and exact point along the river.
      When Pi argues I upload a large batches of files without hyper-hyper-specific file names....that is inn large part because "or is not possible for some reason" is frequently applicable to my uploads.
      Often, files I upload lack hyper-specific information that has been readily-identified. Often the (in-scope) event that a photograph was taken at is all that is identifiable without further detective work.
      • A lot of the sorts of files I add of my own are of sports events such as NCAA collegiate hockey games. These are in-scope. Identifying which players are visible requires a lot of further work, thus many are initially uploaded with descriptions that merely describe the match that was played. At times, other contributors have identified players in these photos and re-named or created derivative crops of the photos for use on Commons. Photos of players for whom no other free media is available of for Wikimedia (there rarely are free photographs available of these individuals are still collegiate hockey players, NHL prospects, or NHL rookies). I myself will often (when I have the time) delve through these photos and identify the players. If there is only a single player or two in it I can re-name files for them once they are identified. If not uploaded to commons, there would be no possibility of these photos being used or there being more-specific identification made by editors....since they'd just collect dust on my drive.
      • Many other photos I upload are Flickr photos public-domain photos taken by other of the action at college and professional sports matches. Again, most of the same limitations frequently apply. Flickr descriptions, tags, and titles often do not identify the players. As a result, I often have initially uploaded such photos with file names that merely describe the game in some way (though I can do a better going forward at making sure all such photos uploaded on Flickr2Commons are better named to identify which game if the player is not identifiable, as some are less).
      • As for photos from https://www.flickr.com/photos/massgovernor/ , I cannot use Flickr2 commons for those (the images are public domain, but are inaccurately tagged on Flickrs as copyright-protected barring upload through Flickr tools), thus I need to download the albums from Flickr to my laptop and then re-upload the photos to commons. The reason I have preserved titles is that the default file titles enable us to discern what the flickr photo ID was, and the file titles describe what the event the photo was taken at. I will augment the photos usually when I identify a better subject name for a particular photo. These photos are in-scope. Often photos from this file will be on album that has Healey "joined by state legislators" which leaves no information about which state legislatures are depicted in any photos, providing more work to be done in identifying which. Hence why I use tentative file names for some files until I can confidently identify particular individuals other than Healey. A search of those legislator names on Flickr would also not have come up said file, since they are not mentioned in its description on Flickr.
      • There are other accounts I upload works from that post inherently public-domain images to flickr and incorrectly list them as copyright-protected, such as https://www.flickr.com/photos/af_academy (US Air Force Academy, which will credit its uploads as US Air Force photographs by Air Force photographers. I largely upload their images of NCAA sports events (in-scope), with the same challenges earlier described of their Flickr account not providing information beyond which match/tournament/game the photograph was taken at requiring further digging and scrutiny to identify specific players or coaches. All the same applies to https://www.flickr.com/photos/west_point/ (West Point) and the Naval Academy's Flickr account as well.
      SecretName101 (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not have a problem if there are 100 or 200 photos of an event with same name and description. I do this myself. But you are uploading files with names only consisting of a date and some useless internal identifier like File:250118-f-nu281-1100 54292055164 o.jpg. In that example there is even a description available that could easily be used as file name. GPSLeo (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I want to emphasize: while a serious issue that needs resolved before an unblock, the filenames are not even the primary reason for this block. The primary reason is the copyvios (100+ per year) and duplicates (1,000+ per year) that SecretName101 uploads. Those require a great deal of admin labor to clean up, and were the reason for the three previous blocks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @GPSLeo That is an image from the US Air Force Academy. I already explained that I had to manually download images from the US Air Force Academy to my computer (if you read my explanation about photos from accounts like that one in specific).
      For reasons I outline here, there is importance attached to retaining the numbering contained within the original file title of ones like the one you provided as an example. I had not known of any means of batch-retitling files uploaded with UploadWizzard from my computer hard-drive in a manner that would not remove those numbers, though today I learned of the way to batch prefix their titles before adding them to uploadwizzard SecretName101 (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @SecretName101 i made a table to compare the tools Commons_talk:Flickr_files#c-RoyZuo-20250518141800-Comparison_of_flickr_upload_tools. from my experience flickypedia is the best at detecting duplicates, but it really sucks at all other functions. :) RoyZuo (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @RoyZuo which effectively (as your table highlights) means there can be a "pick your poison" issue with each tool when it comes to uploading batches from Flickr.
      For instance, while uploadwizzard is the good at preventing the duplicates, it is only able to batch re-title files in a manner that completely overwrites the existing name of all files (which would often result in immensely less descriptive file titles than Flickr2Commons would). It also only allows us to batch add a description in a manner the completely overwrites all descriptions as identical. And if I am not mistaken, it is better than Flickr2Commons at flagging previously-deleted files. In summary: it does a better job at preventing duplicates (duplicates are something Pi took issue with in my block) and I think it does a better job at flagging previously-deleted files (something Pi also took issue about), but it is often far worse than Flickr2Commons for facilitating specifically descriptive filenames (less/under-descriptive names being something Pi takes major issue with in my block) and descriptions.
      On the other-hand, Flickr2Commons allows us to batch prefix existing titles (often better because it allows descriptive elements of the Flickr titles to remain within the title; but not perfect as there is no still not a means to in a single batch-edit selectively remove particular excessive or goofy elements from flickr titles). It also does not have the limited cap on batch sizes the uploadwizzard has. But in the negative column, it is bad at detecting duplicates and (I believe) previously-deleted files. Again: a often better (but not perfect) option for better-avoiding some of the things Pi takes issue about, but terrible at avoiding others.
      And Flickypedia is good at detecting duplicates (I'm unsure how it is with previously-deleted files), but horrible at all the other things that Pi is focused on.
      It is clear that no matter what tool is used, one risks falling astray of things Pi believes warrant an upload block.
      This is part of why I noted at the start of this that it seems the Pi lacks an appreciation of the limitations Flickr2Commons and other tools have. Pi essentially insisted that they have all the familiarity they could ever need, having uploaded over 4,000 files from Flickr (as they were keen to to note). While 4,000 files is not nothing, it is certainly not enough to imagine that Pi would be exposed to all of the limitations. Only approximately 4,000 uploads in their decade or so on Commons does not demonstrate broad and regular experience that would well-expose them to the limitations. Contrarily, it actually highlights a probable lack of broad and varied experience, especially with large batches and the limitations unique to those (which is where many of the most complicated limitations arise). And since Pi has also held their admin privileges since 2016, there is also the fact that they are unfamiliar with how limitations play out for those of us who lack access to any admin-only tools and permissions. I am disappointed that Pi (as an admin) has not had open ears to learn about issues that may not have flagged themselves, and instead demonstrated apparent gravitas. SecretName101 (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      SecretName101 is now reopening months-old threads on my talk page (here and here). In neither case was it helpful or needed. They have never posted on my talk page before, nor were they involved with either of those discussions elsewhere, so this feels strange and rather pointed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Uh- Cyberwolf (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Pi.1415926535 I don't think I cross paths with you much on Flickr, so nothing has really ever brought me to look at your user or talk page before. You blocked me, so of course I was curious what your experience on Commons has been so that I might know if there was anywhere we were simply misunderstanding eachother (for instance, if we had different areas of focus on Commons –which could mean some issues/limitations I am encountering are not ones you yourself encounter). Additionally, when you touted your experience with Flickr transfers yourself as a reasons you are lack ignorance on any of its limitations, you had invited me to check out your user space to see those 4,000 uploads. In skimming the talk page, I came across these two discussions, thought I had something to offer, and did. I was not meaning to attacking you by offering my understanding to matters I noticed.
      For the first example, was there any reason you chose my first edit and not my last (which revised and appended my initial comment)? Seems a bit deceptive to link to a version of the page that excludes part of what I contributed on that subject. Also, you say it was not "helpful or needed". Maybe for you, but the other user involved expressed their appreciation. I was commenting because I hoped I could try to help that user trouble-shoot solutions that might aid them in contributing, not because I wanted to attack you or anything.
      As for the second example. I'd assert that were wrong in what you said, and it seems still see yourself as correct. I was explaining to you something you seem to have gotten wrong. SecretName101 (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Dude this is gonna boomerang hard Cyberwolf (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      But sure, if you feel there's an animus, I'll add no further comments to anything on your talk page. Did not intend to make you feel attacked. SecretName101 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Dude stop digging yourself in a hole. I spent time helping you Cyberwolf (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ✓ Boomerang blocked SecretName101. This thread has gotten really weird. Secret's action on Pi's talk page are not really helping anything and are nothing but harassment or a weird attempt at intimidating the blocking admin. The user seemingly does not understand that their behavior led to their restriction on uploading files. Secret is a long time user who should know better. I've placed a one year block. If an admin decides to unblock or shorten the block, the upload restriction should be placed instead, indefinitely. Bedivere (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I hate how i was right Cyberwolf (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Problems that can be solved by better technology should not be used to block users.
      User:SecretName101 should be unblocked now. RoyZuo (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The lack of ability to use other tools is not an excuse for breaking a guideline. Especially if the problems with this behavior are not acknowledged. GPSLeo (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Requesting CfD closure

      Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

      Could an admin with a few moments to spare take a look at CfD:Actors by role and close the discussion? I don't think I can do this myself as I started the discussion, and I'm not impartial to the outcome. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fuzhou Metro logo.svg

      Hi, It seems it is time to close this, as it is turning into a battle ground. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      And also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fuzhou Metro icon.svg. Yann (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ✓ Done. I closed both. Taivo (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

      Question on if a certain image is public domain

      There is an image on Korea JoongAng Daily that was made by the South Korean Constitutional Court. Is it public domain? (example: the "KoreaGov" template) I figured I would ask since I am not sure: https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2025-03-17/national/politics/Criminal-trial-of-former-defense-minister-commences/2263830 PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      @PublicDomainFan08: Which point of {{PD-KoreaGov}} would it satisfy, and why?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jeff G.:Because the Constitutional Court is apart of the Korean government. I asked because since it's not from their website, I didn't know if the status applied to it. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Shāntián Tàiláng (talk · contribs)

      User is globally banned 3 months ago (see m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Shāntián Tàiláng). Please remove autopatrolled status. Thanks! Phương Linh (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      ✓ Done --Yann (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      IPBE for my bot accounts

      Hi. Can I have my bot accounts the IPBE attached? Thanks!

      -- DaxServer (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      ✓ Done --Yann (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks @Yann. Can you also add the `confirmed` userright to the EUResourcesBot so it'd skip the Special:AbuseFilter/281? Thanks again! -- DaxServer (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It should get the bot right, but for that, you have to ask a bureaucrat. Yann (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Copper(I)-chloride-from-unit-cell-3D-bs-17.png

      Hi, Can an admin quickly delete the unused file redirect? I accidentally created it when moving the file to another name. Best, Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      ✓ Done. In the future, please add {{speedydelete|reason for deletion}} in beginning of redirect page. Taivo (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Concerns about undeletion request denied for File:Angulata_do_Sado_-_Registro_de_cache_do_hoax_na_Wikipédia.pdf

      The article being used as hoax prevention project in Wikipédia em português. I don't agree that is "not a use". It's not just "Listing as a bad article" as said.

      Project scope clearly states that: "(...) Commons can be used to host such material if included in a shareable media file that is of use to one of the other Wikimedia Foundation-hosted (WMF) projects, so scanned copies of existing texts that are useful to other WMF projects"

      Undeletion request denied by @Jameslwoodward. Augustresende (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      The main problem is that it was only linked and not embedded and we can not check for only linked files. If it is used to teach how to contribute to Wikipedia is should be undeleted. GPSLeo (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1033786008"