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
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	134, 133, 132, 131, 130, 129, 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	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	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

^{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: ~103
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~1
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2026-10: ~69

Other:

• Duplicates: ~43
• Advertisements/spam: ~3
• Personal photos/selfies: ~2
• Other speedy deletions: ~86
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~30

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~60
• Interface admin: ~6
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~30
• 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.

Bulk addition of copyrighted images

My apologies if this isn't the correct procedure; I recently noticed the account "Elcapitanxd (talk · contribs)" adding and changing images on several articles on the Spanish Wikipedia. I found it odd that the metadata for many of them listed "BRP-NX3," and after searching online, I discovered that BRP-NX3 is the official model number for the HONOR Magic7 Lite 5G smartphone—meaning these were images downloaded from the internet. I subsequently checked some of them using Google Lens, and my suspicion was confirmed. I am not sure what the required process is, but I prefer to report it. Saloca (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused: whe do images being taken with a particular model of phone mean these were images downloaded from the internet? And you further say "my suspicion was confirmed" but provide no examples. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

But, yes, now that I look at their uploads the images look suspicious: close-up photos of professional athletes, wide variety of styles, some look scanned from newspapers or magazines. - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

If examples of that are needed, this is copy of this, this one comes from here and here, this other can be found here, here and also here. Also anyone indeed can found this other one here, here and also here. Saloca (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

This is a clipping obtained from here, this from here, this one can be found here. I'm pretty sure this is not an own job I mean, com'on that's what i said when i was talking about the metadata info for the phone, also can be found here. Saloca (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I've left a strongly worded warning on their user talk page; I'll delete the files for which you've provided evidence; I suspect all of their uploads will need to be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@Saloca: for the second one you list, you didn't include any photo on Commons. Also, please, in the future when referring to Commons' content, use internal links. Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

New Campaign for Science and Technology Photo Contest

Hi. Wikimedia Portugal is working with the National Agency for Scientific and Technological Culture (w:pt:Ciência Viva) to have a photo competition during the month of October to improve coverage of Portuguese Science on Commons. I have asked for the Campaign Editor rights [1], but maybe someone would like to help by creating the campaign page at Campaign:CiênciaViva with the content currently at User:GoEThe/CienciaViva. It would really help us to start the competition as soon as possible, so that the awards could be announced on the 24th of November (National Science Day). Thank you! GoEThe (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@GoEThe, I just granted UWCE rights to you. You may now proceed. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:48, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Cheers! GoEThe (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:10, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

File:U2b81e.svg

Hi, I'd like to remove the redirect and download the image here: https://en.glyphwiki.org/glyph/u2b81e-jv.svg. Make sure that the license is public domain. ~2026-51914-70 (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Glyphwiki is accepted since long on Wikimedia Commons as a public domain source. However their glyphs are not normative, but they are updated according to their own local policies. This wiki is a work in progress since long, respected and cited by Unicode itself as a reliable source. These glyphs however have limitations, and not intended to be used as sources for building actual fonts (notably it has limitations on the precision of strokes and metrics are simplified, and often not suitable for any font in non-East Asian scripts; many glyphs may also appear truncated due to the limitation of line-height in the Glyphwiki editor and the local SVG/PNG image generators). They are useful however because they document many variants for East-Asian scripts (not all of them are part of the UCS standard, some of them will be approved and rationalized; but there are also a lot of user-specific variants, edited by a single user, which you recognize by the presence of a prefix which is a local user name followed by an underscore '_'; still these are public domain for every Glyphwiki user); over time, some will be reclassified according to standard practices, using well accepted conventions for their naming. The Glyphwiki clearly states that all glyphs built there by anyone are public domain (and those users abusing the naming conventions will be blocked quite fast by the Glyphwiki administrator). verdy_p (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-51914-70: to upload a file, you will need to create an account.

@Verdy p: do your remarks have some bearing on the advisability of removing this redirect so that a different glyph can be uploaded? If so, I don't know whether you are supporting or opposing. - Jmabel ! talk 16:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't support the removal if the existing file is good enough but from another source; Glyphwiki can be imported on a slightly different name (knowing it can exhibit differences, which are normal, and even often expected, notably here where you would like to replace the generic "-g" variant (which by default is unsuffixed on Glyphwiki), by another specific for Japanese or Chunom (which should use the "-jv" suffix, just like on Glyphwiki). Both glyphs can/should coexist on Commons as well, but should be distinguished in their description and possibly in relevant local-specific categories. In Unicode such variants are distinguished using additional variation selectors. But the default glyph to render should be generic and should match the 1st filled column of CJK Unicode charts. Specific fonts can make thir own choice for the default glyph, but can also support both variants with the help of variation selectors.

So please read the naming conventions used on Glyphwiki, and use them (notably sufixes) in Wikimedia as well if you import from Glyphwiki. Be aware also that these are only draft glyphs, with appromative metrics, approximative shapes (because they use only polygonal paths, not any elliptic or Bezier curves) and weights (due to the limited precision of the Glyphwiki canvas). Actual CJKV fonts make better glyphs with often much less end points and more precise and optimized metrics and shapes for larger ranges of font sizes, without any of the frequent "quirks" you can see at large sizes, and better readability at small sizes. And I'm not speaking here about additional font hinting added in fonts to improve the readability at small sizes, without depending on grayscaled borders (which can be used in SVG), or colored subpixels which require complex alignment rules for device-specific canvas or color models (not supported for now in SVG). verdy_p (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-51914-70: I'm going to assume that Verdy p knows what he's talking about here (in an area where I haven't particularly worked) and suggest that you upload under a different filename. - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Mass deletion request: Category:Victor Skumin (Cross-wiki promotional/copyvio abuse)

Requesting administrative batch deletion of files in Category:Victor Skumin and related uploads:

• File:SkuminYastika StickYogaPose.jpg
• File:VicSk.23.png
• File:VicSkuminPlyos23.jpg
• All associated vanity files in the category, including his eponymous page, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndrome_de_Skoumineand, and others.

Reasons:

1. COM:SCOPE: Personal vanity webhosting. Files consist of personal vacation photos (trips to Nepal, Plyos), studio portraits, certificates, and logos for an unrecognized entity ("World Organisation of Culture of Health" / WOCH), created solely to support cross-wiki astroturfing (see m:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam).
2. Deceptive uploads: Files such as `File:SkuminYastika StickYogaPose.jpg` depict Skumin himself but were uploaded with deceptive captions ("a man practicing stick yoga") to quietly seed images into wellness articles without attracting scrutiny.
3. Dubious licensing / COM:PCP: Historical Soviet-era photographs and third-party scans uploaded under dubious "own work" claims. In January 2020, Commons administrator User:Fitindia deleted a batch of Skumin files for copyright violations originating from `biblmdkz.ru/skumin.html`. Current files follow the identical pattern with no verified VRT/OTRS release. AdonisLafayette (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to me that a page fr:Syndrome de Skoumineand ever existed. There is a fr:Viktor Skoumine (same person, it appears), and en:Victor Skumin in English, and apparently in 25 other languages. Neither the English nor French articles appear ever to have been even nominated for deletion, and since the Wikipedias in general have a higher bar for notability than Commons, that would generally argue that media related to this person should probably not be treated as vanity material.

Also: is there some reason these are a special admin issue and cannot be dealt with through one or more Mass deletion requests. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Block review of Rosewoodheritage

Hi, I blocked User:Rosewoodheritage because I thought this account was an obvious sock of AXXXXK, but may be I was wrong. Category:Sockpuppets of AXXXXK include also User:Rosewoodat5th and User:Rosewoodat6th. Opinions? Yann (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that this is about an account that was active for approximately 4 hours in 2017 and had not edited since? - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

For context: User talk:Yann#User:Rosewoodheritage. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 04:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

So I do understand correctly. Was there any behavioral similarity at all? It's not like "Rosewood" is an umlikely word to be in more than one WMF account name. - Jmabel ! talk 07:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

IP block exemption user requests

Kindly grant IPBE for Wanothingatall per ticket:2026092810007135. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 20:19, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done Nux (talk··dyskusja) 21:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Request for administrator review – File:Kleris Sztefková (2024).jpg

Hello,

I am the person depicted in the following photograph:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kleris_Sztefkov%C3%A1_(2024).jpg

There has been an open deletion request since 20 August 2026:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kleris_Sztefkov%C3%A1_(2024).jpg

I am asking an administrator to please review this deletion request. I would also like to add an important fact concerning the circumstances in which the photograph was taken.

I explicitly refused to be photographed. The photographer, Jindřich Nosek (User:NoJin), then repeatedly assured me that the photograph was only for his personal collection and would not be published. I relied on that assurance. Nevertheless, the photograph was subsequently uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and publicly distributed.

There were other people present at the time who witnessed this conversation and can confirm that I objected to being photographed and that I was assured that the photograph was only for the photographer’s private collection and would not be published.

The photographer/uploader has also subsequently stated on Wikimedia that he has no objection to the deletion of my photographs.

I therefore want to make clear that this is not simply a situation in which I consented to the photograph and its publication and later changed my mind. According to the circumstances described above, I expressly objected to the photograph being taken and was assured that it would not be published.

I am the identifiable person depicted in this photograph and I explicitly request its removal. I respectfully ask an administrator to review the pending deletion request and these additional circumstances.

If there is a specific Commons policy or procedure that I need to invoke in these circumstances, please tell me exactly which one.

Thank you.

Kleris Sztefková ~2026-45630-97 (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-45630-97: While I support deletion here, and have said so on the DR:

• You say that there has been an open deletion request "since 20 August 2026", but the deletion request appears to be dated 22 September. 8 days is not a particularly long time for a deletion discussion to be open, especially when arguments have been raised on the "keep" side as well.
• The request was made by User:BlueMaple4827. Assuming that you are the same person: please be consistent about using one account when dealing with a single matter. Clearly this is not a case of deliberate sockpuppeting, since in both cases you say you are the person depicted, but dealing under two different accounts with the same issue can be very confusing.
• Yes, there is a way to make a more private request about privacy matters (though your post right here probably already drew any attention you were trying to avoid): see Commons:Contact us/Problems#Images of yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 14:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and for supporting the deletion.

Regarding the accounts, I would like to clarify that I am not intentionally using two different accounts. The only Wikimedia account I knowingly created for this matter was BlueMaple4827. I do not know why my current contributions are appearing under ~2026-45630-97, and I was not aware that Wikimedia was treating these as two different accounts/users.

I certainly do not intend to use multiple accounts in connection with this request. If possible, please let me know how I can make sure that I continue under my original account, BlueMaple4827.

Thank you also for pointing me to the “Images of yourself” procedure. I will follow that guidance.

My request remains that the photograph be deleted, particularly because, as I explained above, I explicitly objected to being photographed and was assured that the photograph was only for the photographer’s private collection and would not be published.

Thank you for your help. BlueMaple4827 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I have already followed the “Images of yourself” guidance and contacted info-commons@wikimedia.org. I received a response from the support team, but they informed me that their role is informational only and that they cannot decide on my request or forward it to administrators. This is why I am now asking for administrator review here. BlueMaple4827 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done File deleted. Yann (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Request for renaming a picture

Hi, i mixed two grave fotos for WLM. Could you please rename File:Detail Grabstein Franz Eugen Dubois Hauptfriedhof Mainz.jpg into File:Detail Grabstein Ferdinand Horn Hauptfriedhof Mainz 2026.jpg? I can fix the rest after that. TIA Martin Bahmann (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Martin Bahmann: I will do this; I presume you do not want the redirect to be kept; I do not understand why you could not make a move request in the normal manner and had to bring this to COM:AN, though. - Jmabel ! talk 13:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done - Jmabel ! talk 13:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thx, off course, you're right. Martin Bahmann (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Request for file deletion due to "unintentional" copyright violation

Hi, I'm facing an issue regarding a file I uploaded due to a copyright violation. The file can be found at:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BArch_Plak_002-009-021_Ermordung_Erzberger_Taeter.jpg

Based on a mistaken assumption (derived from the licensing information of another image file), I cropped an image from the German Federal Archives and uploaded it as a new file to Wikimedia Commons, believing that the release applied to all images from the Federal Archives.

However, I have since discovered that the partnership between the Federal Archives and Wikimedia Germany ended back in 2010 (https://archivalia.hypotheses.org/15398). While existing image files were permitted to remain on Wikimedia Commons, no new uploads were to be made, and third parties are specifically prohibited from publishing new files (see Point 09 of the FAQ at https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/de/content/hilfe#antwort9).

My attempt to initiate a speedy deletion was converted into a deletion discussion by another user, who argued that "a CC license cannot be revoked."

However, the uploaded file is subject to copyright protection held by the Federal Archives and does not have a valid CC license.

I apologize for my mistake and request that the file be removed from Wikimedia Commons as soon as possible. Danvan25 (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

What is the theory under which this file is copyrighted? It looks to me to be extremely likely to be in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 09:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jmabel, the poster itself would certainly be considered public domain (published in 1921), but that would have required me to take the photograph of the original myself.

Instead, I "improperly" cropped the photo of the poster held in the Federal Archives (found under https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/de/search/?query=Plak+002-009-021 with included visible scale bar)—removing the Federal Archives' reference number in the process—and published the resulting file.

However, as previously mentioned, that photo was not cleared for publication (see the links in my last note) and cannot be considered public domain (it is not 100 years old). Consequently, I am not permitted to simply crop it and publish it without the Federal Archives' consent. Danvan25 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Danvan25: There is no creativity relevant to copyright involved in creating a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional object. They can claim all they want, but there is nothing in what they did here that gives them a copyright. By a great stretch, photographing it next to a scale bar might have been copyrightable, but there is no trace of that in your upload.

If your concern is that you don't want your account name associated with this upload, say so and I will rework it so that it is under my account name, but I oppose deletion of this PD file. - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thank you for your reply; I am aware that there are significant differences between American and German copyright regulations, so I am concerned about the potential risk of legal action. I would greatly appreciate it if you could edit the file as you offered. However, you would likely also need to change the current CC license, as the license currently in use—indicated in the file description via the {BArch-image...} box and the {Cc-by-sa-3.0-de|attribution=Bundesarchiv, Plak 002-009-021 / CC-BY-SA 3.0} tag—is effectively no longer valid, given that the underlying conditions (the terminated cooperation between the Federal Archives and the German Wikipedia) no longer apply. Thanks again, Danvan25 (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

User:GeographBot needs better pre-screening

@Multichill and Nutshinou: This bot uploaded a lot of Commons:Derivative works from advertisement recently. This is not first occurrence of such problem. If bot operator does not have enough time to pre-screen imports, possible solution could be to involve other people for this task. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The Return of ‘Daruk CoA’

On August, 6th, I opened a thread on Admins' board (→ thread), concerning the users Miravo, Alatiara and Heraldyka Kresowa, three socks uploading ‘Daruk’ family's coat-of-arms files, arms which are only cited on some heraldry websites (related DR: Files found with herb Daruk).
Then, on September, 30th, @RexAura: uploaded two ‘Daruk CoA’ files (No. 1, No. 2), but this time AI-generated, while claiming ‘Własny skan papierowego oryginału z 1799 roku‘, on both –i.e., via an online translator: ‘My own scan of the original paper document from 1799‘.
So I could probably have nominated those files SD:F10 –or even G3, at this extent–, but it is no doubt more relevant to report the facts on Admins' board once again. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@RexAura:   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:31, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Pliki są autentyczne , dokumentuję historię rodziny , nie wiem o co ci chodzi RexAura (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

jesteś złośliwym toksycznym użytkownikiem , nie mam nic wspólnego z tamtymi kontami RexAura (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

pliki zostały poprawione cyfrowo żeby były lepszej jakości RexAura (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The files are authentic, I am documenting family history, I don't know what you mean. you are a malicious toxic user, I have nothing to do with those accounts. the files have been digitally enhanced to be of better quality.

translator: Google Translate via   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with herb Daruk#Files found with Special:Search/herb Daruk 3

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC):I want to formally state that I am not a sockpuppet of any previously blocked users, and this is my only account. The file in question is a legitimate representation of my family's historical coat of arms. The image was digitally enhanced and cleaned up for clarity before uploading, which may have caused the user to mistake it for an AI generation. I am a good-faith contributor documenting my family history. I kindly request the administrators to allow this content dispute to be evaluated under the active standard deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with herb Daruk where it belongs, rather than rushing a block here based on false accusations. RexAura (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)I want to formally state that I am not a sockpuppet of any previously blocked users, and this is my only account. The file in question is a legitimate representation of my family's historical coat of arms. The image was digitally enhanced and cleaned up for clarity before uploading, which may have caused the user to mistake it for an AI generation. I am a good-faith contributor documenting my family history. I kindly request the administrators to allow this content dispute to be evaluated under the active standard deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with herb Daruk where it belongs, rather than rushing a block here based on false accusations. RexAura (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)I want to formally state that I am not a sockpuppet of any previously blocked users, and this is my only account. The file in question is a legitimate representation of my family's historical coat of arms. The image was digitally enhanced and cleaned up for clarity before uploading, which may have caused the user to mistake it for an AI generation. I am a good-faith contributor documenting my family history. I kindly request the administrators to allow this content dispute to be evaluated under the active standard deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with herb Daruk where it belongs, rather than rushing a block here based on false accusations. RexAura (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Is there any official/published reference that states this coat of arms? --Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Currently, this engraving comes exclusively from a private family archive located abroad, and I do not have immediate access to published academic armorials or heraldic registries in my current location. I am working on gathering further bibliographical data from family records. I believe the proper place to analyze the historical background and potential source references is the dedicated deletion discussion page at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with herb Daruk, rather than the Administrators' Noticeboard. RexAura (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Status:    keep I would like to provide official encyclopedic evidence regarding the historical validity of the Daruk lineage to address the claims of "fake family history." The Daruk family (Даруковы) is a well-documented, historical princely family of Abazin origin (knyaz), who historically ruled the Dudarukov branch. In fact, the settlement now known as Psyzh was historically named "Dudarukov" or "Darukov" (аул Дарукова / Дарыкъвакт) after this very family, before being officially renamed by Soviet authorities in 1929. This history is fully recognized and documented in independent academic and educational resources, including published articles on Wikipedia itself (see: w:ru:Псыж). This proves beyond doubt that the family and its historical artifacts are a legitimate part of North Caucasian/Abazin history and genealogy, not a modern fabrication. I request that the files be kept. RexAura (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%81%D1%8B%D0%B6

There have already been long discussions, no references at all -except personal ones-, therefore those files are of no interest here -i.e. out of scope-, as it isn't the place to publish or to process any analyzis of unknown coats of arms or orignal or unpublished works. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Since the reporting user has now dropped the false accusations of "AI generation" and "sockpuppetry," and has pivoted the argument to a content dispute regarding heraldic documentation and references, it is clear that this is not an administrative emergency. This content matter should strictly be handled within the active community consensus process at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with herb Daruk, not on this noticeboard. I rest my case here. RexAura (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Writing "‘Własny skan papierowego oryginału z 1799 roku" "My own scan of the original paper document from 1799" while the files are obviously AI generated, and uploading an unknow CoA that the only other people knowing about are 3 sockpuppets, is an administrative question.

Everything else has already been discussed (no references at all -except personal ones-, etc.) and there's nothing to add there. either.--Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

CU can check for socks, other than that, done. I mean obviously this is not a historical COA, it was just registered and has no real value on Commons. Nux (talk··dyskusja) 06:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

There seem to be several conflated issues here. Is someone here seeking some specific administrative action or actions? Could they please be specific about that? - Jmabel ! talk 12:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Evidently, Kontributor 2K felt it more important to address the collective nature of the uploads, rather than their in-scope nature (or lack due to F10).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I've opened an RCU.--Kontributor 2K ([[User talk:Kontributor 2K| 13:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Update abuse log filters for timed text

It seems that ever since the feature for creating WebVTT subtitles has rolled out, I, as well as several other users, have triggered the abuse filter for creating WebVTT subtitles. I think it has something to do with the filter checking if the file conforms with SRT file syntax, and since it's a WebVTT subtitle file, it fails the syntax check and thus triggers the abuse filter. As far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong), I'm not sure anyone has successfully created a WebVTT subtitle file. I would really love to take advantage of the features that are available with WebVTT captions over SRT captions, so I'm hoping that this issue could be more closely examined. Here's a list of reports I could find (both from myself and other users) of edits that triggered filters after trying to create subtitles:

• Commons talk:Abuse filter/Archive 2026/07#Report by TheDJ
• Commons talk:Abuse filter#Report by ForeverFlying
• Commons talk:Abuse filter#Report by PhageRules1
• Commons talk:Abuse filter#Report by ForeverFlying 2

ForeverFlying (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Achim55, Mdaniels5757, Ankry, and see especially Commons_talk:Abuse_filter/Archive_2026/07#Report_by_TheDJ. - Jmabel ! talk 12:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

While I empathize with ForeverFlying and the other users affected, sadly there is nothing I can do.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Partially  Done: I replaced \, by [,.] on Special:AbuseFilter/103. However, the messages of {{SubRipSample}} should be adjusted covering both srt and vtt. --Achim55 (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Capt. Smit Macchar.jpg

• File:Capt. Smit Macchar.jpg -- can we please get this image reviewed, by an admin, to see if it's truly okay to host on this site?

Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The license doesn't make sense with the source. I've tagged the file as needing VRT permission. If it's not provided, the file will be deleted in 7 days. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, but, well, that's just too darn bad. Can anyone help to find an appropriate licensed image of this particular individual? Princessa Unicorn (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Most likely such images do not exist. Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)