Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections

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

• 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	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: ~137
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2026-09: ~91

Other:

• Duplicates: ~111
• Advertisements/spam: ~15
• Personal photos/selfies: ~173
• Other speedy deletions: ~12
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~1
• Undeletion requests: ~39

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~58
• 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

• 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.
  

Lower upload protection on File:QR_code_for_mobile_English_Wikipedia.svg

Please lower upload protection on this file, in order that I may overwrite it with the file File:English_Mobile_Wikipedia_QR_Code.svg, which fixes a technical issue with the QR code encoding, per [1]. The page has no history of vandalism and it's unclear to me why the upload permission was set to administrator-only. Eyesinthefire (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Given that there is no longer a separate site for the mobile English Wikipedia, perhaps it would be more useful to substitute this for a different QR code altogether? Omphalographer (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking the same and proposed that for discussion on w:en:Talk:QR code (if nobody objects I'll try to do it tomorrow), but the existing EN Mobile Wikipedia file is still used in a lot of other language Wikipedia articles in which I don't know whether it would be appropriate to replace with a different link, but where it would be definitely appropriate for the time being to replace with an equivalent but more technically-accurate version. Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

 Comment, the page does have a history of vandalism (see page history or logs), particularly with vandals overwriting the image, before it was upload-protected in 2017 per this request here. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I would think that unprotected QR code images in an "anyone can edit" environment are a pretty high risk for hijacking. Do we have any sense of whether we've had problems with that? - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Separate from what I missed that @Tvpuppy pointed out, there's been some vandalism of the header image at w:en:QR code, see at least [2]. None of the English Wikipedia articles that use this file are fully protected, leaving them vulnerable to this, but potentially in an easier-to-catch way than overwriting the file. Do you think, since it's harder to keep track of, the file should be kept fully overwrite protected? Eyesinthefire (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I think any unprotection should probably be brief. Alternatively, would there be any real problem with uploading under a different file name and then we can merge it in? - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Request Indefinite semi-protection for User:Yardencru

Rationale: Hi I wanted to ask If my user page can be semi protected. No one has edited it so far But I am a little concerned that it could be changed by other users without my knowledge.

I understand that there may not be enough reason to protect it at the moment So I am happy for an administrator to decide whether protection is actually necessary.

Thanks for taking a look. Yardencru (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done, @Yardencru protections are usually only used to combat vandalism and edit wars. You might wanna read WP:NO-PREEMPT. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:05, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa - persistent and prolific copyvio uploader for 14 years

Hi, I think it is time for a permanent block of of Gaia Octavia Agrippa - on the basis of persistent, repeated, continuous and prolific violations of copyright in her photo uploads. For 14 years, her user talk page is completely flooded with with very clear warnings of her blatant copyright violations - yet despite the multiple warnings - GOC point-blank refuses to respond to the warnings. The only warning she did respond to was of an image (copyrighted) uploaded by someone else (to which she cropped and then uploaded the cropped version).

The significant details of her copyright violations:

• She repeatedly copies images directly from the official websites of the three service branches of the British Armed Forces - https://www.raf.mod.uk, https://www.army.mod.uk, and https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk (and their official sub-domains), along with official websites of the Ministry of Defence (and other UK government ministries and agencies) which are located directly on the UK government website at GOV.UK (and its many sub-domains). All of these official websites very clearly state that all material (including images, documents, videos, etc) is strictly CROWN COPYRIGHT.
• During her individual file uploads, she is falsely claiming all her images are officially licenced and released under the Open Government Licence (OGL). This is blatantly wrong. In respect of official images from the British Armed Forces (Royal Navy, British Army, Royal Air Force), and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) - the ONLY people authorised to licence under the OGL (or any other licence approved by the British government) is a specialist team within the MOD called Defence Imagery (https://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk) - which are available on their website, appropriately licenced, and made available for public use - under the terms of the OGL

I need to make it clear that all images on the Defence Imagery website are still protected by Crown Copyright. Most images on Defence Imagery are not licenced under OGL - only a small selection are OGL licenced. Other images are released under an official MOD 'Press' licence for registered print or broadcast journalists.

Not only is she uploading Crown Copyright image, the vast majority of personally identifiable people - and is a massive security risk.

I hope you permanently block Gaia Octavia Agrippa, because she has had multiple warnings for 14 years, and is making no attempt to comply with copyright status in her uploads. It is very tiresome checking her uploads and nominating for speedy deletions. Kind regards Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Gaia has uploaded a lot of good files as well. She is never blocked and even never warned. I warned her (and archived her user talkpage). Taivo (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

The files nominated for speedy deletion and deleted by Turelio should not have been eligible for speedy deletion under F1, which only applies to [c]ontent [that] is a clear copyright violation, with evidence that no Commons-compatible licencing has been issued by the copyright holder. This does not apply whenever there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research or a plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality. At least some of the images in question (example, example; I was not able to check all the files before they were deleted) had it clearly stated on the bottom All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. That is evidence of Commons-compatible licencing per Commons:UK Open Government Licence. Militum professio scriniarii attempts to argue that the Ministry of Defence may be one of the branches of the UK government that is not obliged to issue content under the OGL, but the MoD is not on the list of exempt institutions on the OGL page linked above. Regardless, these are not blatant and unambiguous cases of copyright infringement; they are cases subject to debate over the applicability of the OGL to MoD images and thus not appropriate for speedy deletion. (As Andy Dingley pointed out, MPS appears confused about the difference between Crown Copyright and a Commons-compatible licence.

However, MPS should not be confused about the speedy deletion process this because I contested their effort earlier today to delete an image I uploaded by converting the speedy deletion nomination into a regular deletion request, and MPS edit-warred by twice restoring the speedy deletion template, which is not acceptable once speedy deletion has been properly contested (diff, diff), only stopping once they were reverted by Whyiseverythingalreadyused. I believe some if not all of the files deleted today by Turelio should be considered a contested deletion, undeleted and nominated with a deletion request since they are not unambiguous copyright violations. I would also ask Taivo to look more closely at the files and consider whether Gaia Octavia Agrippa needed a "final warning" for all of these uploads. (I am unfamiliar with her history and thus whether she has uploaded copyvios in the past, but I am quite sure that MPS has not properly analysed the Commons licencing status of the images nominated for speedy deletion today.)

If applicable (I am unfamiliar if Commons does BOOMERANG sanctions), I believe that MPS should be warned or otherwise appropriately sanctioned for (1) abusing the speedy deletion process, (2) edit-warring over the contestation of a speedy deletion, and (3) failing to notify GOA of this discussion with a talk page notice as required at the top of this page. Thanks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: thank you. I counter-propose that MPS be blocked for edit warring. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Support block of MPS Everything I've ever seen from this editor has been framed in an attitude of arrogance, knowing better (both technical subjects and Wikimedia issues), edit-warring and a refusal to cooperate with other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Superior attitude and denial of the facts are also present in User talk:Militum professio scriniarii#File copyright status concerning File:Pakistan Air Force (PAF) C-130H Hercules, winner of the Concours d’Elegance Trophy at the 2025 Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT 2025), Gloucestershire, England, July 2025.jpg. I  Support a boomerang.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Second ping to Túrelio and @Taivo to see if these files mentioned can be undeleted since it appears that the speedy deletion mechanism was abused by the nominator. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not against undeletion. Significant doubt about deletion is created, so speedy deletion seems now incorrect. Taivo (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

If someone is undeleting, could they please use a permalink to this discussion in the undelete rationale so people can understand what happened here? - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Cá hồi sushi

• Cá hồi sushi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Tuanh97 sock. Kim Nito (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

The images uploaded by Cá hồi sushi are very similar to the deleted images from Sipboi. Administrator, please take a look at the deleted images from Sipboi. You will clearly see the similarities. Kim Nito (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Warning: NSFW content in those uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Partly done. I've blocked them. I'm guessing the uploads should all be deleted, but I leave it to someone else to follow that up. - Jmabel ! talk 20:00, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

 Nuked. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 15:51, 3 September 2026 (UTC)