Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections

Shortcuts: COM:AN/B • COM:AN/P • COM:RFPP

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 ^{[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	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	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}

Note

For page protection requests, please state protection type, file name, and proposed protection time span. See also: Protection Policy.
Before proposing a user be blocked, please familiarize yourself with the Commons' Blocking Policy.
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/B|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User:CalusUse

CalusUse (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

The Squirrel Conspiracy indefinitely blocked this user and deleted all their uploads (except for one that was in use, File:Human scrotum with testis and penis.jpg) for uploading out of scope files after one warning (the block log and the block message on their talk page say ‘warnings’, but I see only one warning). This seems to be another mass out of scope deletion gone wrong, as discussed below, which implies that the block might also be wrong.

I learned of this because one of the files happened to be on my watchlist. When I see a file that was previously kept at COM:DR deleted as COM:CSD#F10, I want to know what is going on; I asked the deleting admin, who told me that the file was caught up in a bulk deletion and undeleted the file.

But that didn’t really explain anything. I took a closer look, and found:

File:3 Flaccid Human Penis.jpg: CSD F10 despite being kept at DR on scope grounds
File:AAAA Human Labia majora & Human scrotum.jpg: CSD F10 despite another user withdrawing their DR (on mistaken copyright grounds) and calling the file An interesting comparison
File:Close-up of testis.jpg: CSD F10 despite being kept at DR on scope grounds
File:002 Photographs of scrotum and testicles.jpg: CSD F10 despite being kept at DR on scope grounds, where another user concurred with the uploader’s allegation that the nominator was harassing the uploader

I also wrote at the admin’s talk page:

Other files were deleted mainly because of low quality, but even there I am not sure what to think, because even low quality images may be useful where there are no alternatives. The uploader noted that there seems to be little to no coverage of genitals of old people on Commons, and I think they are right (and not just for erections of old men).

After that, the admin seemed to stop engaging with me except to point to that one warning issued to the uploader. I didn’t find that warning credible, given all these problematic deletions.

But most damningly, it turns out that File:002 Photographs of scrotum and testicles.jpg is in use: it is listed as a source for File:Homologous male and female genitals.jpg and File:Spread and relaxed male and female genitals and urethral meatus.jpg. This use is not listed in GLAMorous, so I guess it detects uses only of non-deleted files. There may be more uses that I don’t know about. Brianjd (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s also listed as a source for a second derivative version, but the second derivative version does not use the source file, it merely links to it, making it harder to find. Brianjd (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are 23/49 uploads in their upload log that have never been visited in my browser (and therefore never been to DR, because I visited all files with DR notices on their talk page). One of those was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. The latest one has an upload summary suggesting that it is a collage of individual images that are in scope. As for the others, I have no idea whether they are in scope. Brianjd (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add a notice to User talk:CalusUse#You have been indefinitely blocked about this discussion. PaterMcFly left a useful comment there. Brianjd (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat myself: CSD F10 isn't applicable here, as the images weren't personal images (they weren't images of a person or uploaded for self-promotion, but where intended for medical articles). So they're clearly in scope. The quality was clearly sufficient as well. Also, the warning for the user was almost two years ago. An indef block without further warning is not understandable. PaterMcFly (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files with no non-trivial uses or links (and therefore never been to DR)

There is one trivial use: File:A human foreskin retraction.webm is used at User:Atlasowa/New video2commons/2024 August 1-10.

Brianjd (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted File:002 Photographs of scrotum and testicles.jpg; it doesn't show up as in use in Perform Batch Task, which is why I missed it being in use. I do stand by my assessment that this is an exhibitionism-only account, and those are regularly wiped. If it's not him flooding Commons with photos of his own penis, then we might have a bigger problem, which is "whose penis is it, and does the uploader have permission to upload pictures of it." (considering the copyvio upload and their response to that.) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that he is or is not flooding Commons with photos of his own penis, only that his uploads have an educational use, which is what matters here. Brianjd (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off-topic, but File:002 Photographs of scrotum and testicles.jpg is still not listed in GLAMorous (https://glamtools.toolforge.org/glamorous.php?doit=1&username=CalusUse&use_globalusage=1&show_details=1&projects[wikipedia]=1&projects[wikimedia]=1&projects[wikisource]=1&projects[wikibooks]=1&projects[wikiquote]=1&projects[wiktionary]=1&projects[wikinews]=1&projects[wikivoyage]=1&projects[wikispecies]=1&projects[mediawiki]=1&projects[wikidata]=1&projects[wikiversity]=1). It looks like the tools for detecting in-use files simply don’t work. Brianjd (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you know how to format that link properly, feel free to edit my comment. Brianjd (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized something. COM:CSD#F10 says (emphasis added):
Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions.

My understanding is that this excludes users who have even one constructive global contribution. This user has two files in use and other contributions that could be considered constructive. Therefore, CSD F10 is not applicable to any of their files.

Can I get a response from The Squirrel Conspiracy (or another admin) about this, as well as about why the other two files kept at DR remain deleted? Brianjd (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianjd: Putting on my admin hat here: it's always a matter of proportion. Obviously, one good contribution does not let you upload 40 files that are exclusively for use on your user page. Equally obviously, a few hundred good contributions easily lets you upload a handful of such images. Also, any personal image that are not being used even on your own user page someplace can always be deleted (though probably shouldn't be speedied if the user has not-trivial positive contributions). Is there some gray zone? Sure. Is this in it? I don't think so, but I haven't studied it closely. If you have a case to make, you could start an undeletion request. - Jmabel ! talk 22:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You sort of made my point: these deletions should not have been speedy.

I considered starting an undeletion request, but it didn’t make sense to me to do so while the uploader was blocked indefinitely for out of scope uploads. Also, there seems to be a circular reasoning here: even files that were previously kept at DR were declared to be out of scope (without a proper review) because of the uploader’s block, but the uploader was blocked because so many of their uploads were declared to be out of scope. I don’t even know what the proper process is for such situations. Brianjd (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should something be done about Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings of the Bibas family?

As a result of this he.wikipedia thread, a bunch of Israelis came to this deletion requests thread to gang up on User:RodRabelo7, with two - User:Pyramids09 and User:בר - outright accusing him baselessly of bias against Israel and User:Hanay insinuating that he is even in favor of Hamas murders, because of a significance they ascribe to the timing of the deletion request. User:Geagea, who probably commented because they were tagged in the he.wikipedia thread (כדאי לתייג את משתמש:Geagea, שהוא מפעיל בוויקישיתוף., Google translation: It is worth tagging User:Geagea, who is an operator on Wikimedia Commons.), started off by claiming that "Opening discussion to get advice about copyright issue is not canvassing" but crossed that out when they were called on it. To be fair, Geagea addressed copyright issues in their reply to the he.wikipedia thread, and they have never accused Rod of bias, but really now? No canvassing?

I completely relate to how angry Hamas murders of children make people, but I don't think it's acceptable for people who don't frequent deletion requests to ignorantly gang up on a Commoner in good standing by trying to assassinate their character and sort of virtually shout them down.

I suppose I need to post to User talk:Pyramids09, User talk:בר and User talk:Hanay to inform them about this thread, so I'll do that, at the risk of possibly receiving intemperate attacks from them, myself, but what I'm really asking you all to do is post a warning to the thread, in addition to possible warnings to individual user talk pages, and monitor it. I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked, but I think at least the first two users should be warned that if they ever baselessly accuse anyone of bias or bad faith without evidence, they will be blocked. I trust that I don't need to post to User talk:Geagea because I tagged them, and while I criticize them a bit, I am not suggesting any kind of action be taken against them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did post to all 4 users' user talk pages, and I will now post a link to this thread in the deletion requests thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek, I have removed my wording regarding to canvassing and I do not wish to participate in this discussion any further. -- Geagea (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether that is expected to prompt a response from me. Of course you don't need my permission to participate or not participate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy forbidding such behaviour on Commons. Especially on deletion requests they are not votes I see no problem here at all. GPSLeo (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless accusations by a group of people canvassed to come here in order to make them are perfectly fine and don't constitute any kind of harassment? This isn't about whether they are voting to keep or delete, and I don't understand why you fail to see that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the diff you consider harassing? From my view I only see out of deletion discussion scope comments but no personal attacks. GPSLeo (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GPSLeo, it seems to be about this comment by User:Pyramids09, this comment by User:בר and this this comment by User:Hanay. --Ratekreel (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes on the first two. I'll look for the link to Hanay's remark in the thread we're discussing (it wasn't that one), but I'm satisfied with their explanation of it as not intending to insinuate that Rod actually supports Hamas murders. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This link was the one I was reacting to, User:GPSLeo, but in the context Hanay has provided in this thread, I consider it not to have been intended to harass. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to bring up this whole issue of Bibas family pictures being deleted from Commons myself. The story told here is partial. The claim that I accused someone of supporting the Hamas murders is unfounded. To me it was very sad that on the day when the bodies of Ariel Bibas and Kfir Bibas who were strangled to death by Hamas were returned, a month after they were kidnapped, so was their mother, an editor at Commons, going picture by picture and asking for graffiti picture to be deleted. In Israel there is freedom of panorama.

He also asked to quick deletion 2 paintings by the painter Uri Inks of the Bibas family that have a VRT permissoin

I wrote about it to the administrator User:The Squirrel Conspiracy see User talk:The Squirrel Conspiracy#And now he's moved on to demanding the quick deletion of Biebs family paintings

I think there are editors in the Commons and also administrators who have lost their way a little. They do not understand the true essence of the purpose of Commons. Protecting copyrights of terrorists. It bothers them that there are paintings of murdered people, which the family publishes everywhere, and releases them to the public. The family wants this terrible story to be known.

See

Fate of Bibas Family Recalls Trauma of Oct. 7, Renewing Fears for Gaza Truce on New york times
News of Bibas family’s tragic fate met with confusion, mourning and rage on The Times of Israel
Hamas says it will return bodies of four hostages including Bibas family on BBC
Hamas says bodies of Bibas family to be handed over - with six more Israelis to walk free on Saturday on Sky news

There are many articles in the newspapers of the whole world. In Argentina, the president proposed to change the name of Palestine Street to Bibas Family Street. In Rio de Janeiro, the statue of Christ was lit up in orange. People all over the world are very sad. And only in Commons pictures are deleted. Hanay (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hanay, I do not understand what your point is. You were already explained by The Squirrel Conspiracy that the VRT ticket cannot be used as a permission to keep File:Drawing of the kidnapping of the Bibas family by Hamas on October 7, 2023. Painter uri inks.jpg for the reasons specified here and the painting is a DW. The same reason applies to the above two paintings also tagged by RodRabelo7. --Ratekreel (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the pictures talk page? How does this relate to pictures? Why hide this whole story?

"File talk:Drawing of Ariel Bibas with his drawing of Batman. who was kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, 2023. at the age of 4 years. Painter Uri Inks.jpg"

The Squirrel Conspiracy is wrong. !!!! Hanay (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What whole story? Again, the paintings were derivative works of photos whose copyright status is unknown and which are used widely on internet, making them eligible for deletion under COM:F3. The VRT ticket is not a sufficient permissions as it corresponds to only paintings not to the photos from which the paintings are derived from. For the talk page deletion, COM:G8 applies. Your argument still remains unclear. Do you think these paintings are not derivative works or do you think that they should be kept despite being DWs or is there anything else? --Ratekreel (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the three images do not qualify as Derivative Work because there is enough artistic differences between the painting by Uri Inks and the original photographs.

Nonetheless, the case of the images of the two paintings discussed here is different than the case of the third image. The two images discussed here are paintings of photographs released by the family for public distribution. The third image is a painting of a Hamas body cam image, and I don't think that automated body cam images are copyrightable. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "true essence of Commons" is to be a repository of freely reusable images, which have no bars from copyright laws on being used commercially, and are in scope. I don't agree with the requirement for permission for unrestricted commercial use, but the Wikimedia Foundation insisted on it a long time ago. User:The Mountain of Eden, automated body cam images not being copyrightable is a good argument, but the argument from User:Hanay (though their clarification of their argument is appreciated) that the copyrights of terrorists shouldn't be respected is not going to fly here, for the same reason that photographs of and by Nazis, showing acts of inhumanity, are routinely deleted if they are still copyrighted. I have sometimes had enough of that and posted that it's offensive to respect the copyrights of people who violated every right, but I don't believe I ever accused anyone requesting deletion of such photos of bias for doing so, because the entire point is that there is no bias: the copyright laws of every country, no matter how despotic or genocidal, are respected equally on this site. That may be cold-blooded, but it's central to Commons' charter, and asking for Commons to stop respecting the copyrights of some entities for moral reasons is asking this site to engage in political bias it does not engage in! Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mountain of Eden, who owns the copyright of the underlying photos mentioned above (which I deleted)? Did the copyright holder explicitly release the photos in the public domain (or public distribution under what terms)? What's the evidence? The photos are used all over internet. Even if we were to host these photos (not paintings), we would require an explicit permission from the copyright holder.

I think the paintings are substantially similar to what is depicted in the original photographs. The paintings closely resemble the every element (composition, color, mood, etc.) in the original photographs. As such, I think these are derivative works of non-free photographs and best deleted per COM:PCP. --Ratekreel (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was mentioned here twice, and both times incorrectly. I didn’t join the discussion because of Hanay, and I didn’t attack, accuse, or even mention RodRabelo7. As if it wasn’t enough that I was wrongly accused of things I actually wrote, I was also accused of things I never wrote, but might potentially write. Sorry, this is a bit absurd, so I have nothing more to add to the discussion. Bar (talk to me) 19:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

בר, you wrote, "These requests smell like they are politically motivated" in your comment at DR. This does not sound like you were very friendly with RodRabelo7, the user who initiated these requests. You implicitly said that RodRabelo7 is acting with political motives, rather than making good faith contributions. "As if it wasn’t enough that I was wrongly accused of things I actually wrote, I was also accused of things I never wrote, but might potentially write." What is this supposed to mean? --Ratekreel (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn’t accuse him.

Ikan Kekek wrote 'I'll do that, at the risk of possibly receiving intemperate attacks,' which is not really a presumption of good faith. I consider myself a nice person, and you’re definitely not putting yourself at risk by talking to me.

Also, I hope it's okay, but I'd appreciate it if you could stop tagging me. I find this discussion a bit unusual, and I don't think I have much to add to it. Thanks for understanding! Bar (talk to me) 21:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're a nice person, but I haven't had any previous experience in dealing with you, and I have sometimes gotten extremely hostile and personal responses in the past when I've dealt with highly emotional subjects, though usually in my capacity as a bureaucrat/admin on Wikivoyage. My fear of possibly receiving intemperate attacks was not an aspersion, but I apologize if in spite of my using the word "possibly," it seemed like I was prejudging your reaction, because that would have been unfair. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your clarification and your thoughtful approach. I understand your concerns, and I value respectful and constructive discussions. No hard feelings at all. Bar (talk to me) 10:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Commons has to respect copyrights even of despicable people. Unlike other Wikimedia projects, we are not allowed to have any meta:Exemption Doctrine Policy, and I'm pretty sure that even for a different Wikimedia project "we don't respect copyrights of [class of people deemed despicable] would not pass muster.
If the timing of this DR was not completely random, it presumably occurred because the story was in the news, which prompted someone to look at the images and notice a copyright problem. Commons:Assume good faith is a guideline. In my view, the last sentence of this remark by User:Hanay is completely out o line in this respect.

- Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin protect some cat-a-lot test files

Hi, would it be possible to set permanent admin edit protection for these four files in Category:Protected Cat-a-lot test images to help fix the bug described at MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js#Gadget_gets_stuck_if_a_page_is_protected? I would also add these files to Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot/Developing as examples of protected test files.

--Zache (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ratekreel (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Zache (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:BMW F30

Hi, I’d like to request help to revert the recent edits and adding protection for this page, Category:BMW F30. IP user keeps adding irrelevant text to the description. It is the third time this happened to the page this year. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info, same case for Category:BMW F01 as well. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Tvpuppy (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protection for File:Cantakoy.jpg ?

The file description of File:Cantakoy.jpg was repeatedly vandalised by the same user. The user seemed to request the deletion of the file for privacy reasons, but it's not at all clear if he's the same person as the original uploader. Since his/her last comment was written in hungarian, requesting deletion of a file showing a place in Turkey at least looks odd. Semi-protection, restricting edits on autopatrolled users might be useful in this case IMO. Fl.schmitt (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 3 years semi-protection. Taivo (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Fl.schmitt (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)