This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Request
Latest comment: 11 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. For those who have contacts or are living in the Switzerland area, can anyone contact Sebastian W. Bauer, the photographer/uploader contributing at the now-defunct Panoramio media hosting site? This is to try convince him to change the restrictive license of w:en:File:San Fernando Toll Plaza (circa 1999-2001).jpg to {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. In this way, this image can be hosted here and be used in all Wikipedias. The shutdown of Panoramio should hopefully convince him that it is better to share images with a wider audience. Regards, JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions)01:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Question about the "No permission since" tag on File:Concept_route.png
Latest comment: 9 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I noticed that the tag "No permission since" has been added to the file File:Concept route.png, which I uploaded. I understand that my original description may have been too brief. However, this image is a derivative work that I created by drawing lines along roads on top of a map licensed under CC BY 4.0. I believe that this does not require any additional permission.
I also saw a comment on my talk page mentioning: "Alternatively, you may click on 'Challenge speedy deletion'," but I could not find any such link or option.
Could you please advise me on the appropriate way to address this situation? Is it safe to leave the file as it is, or should I take specific steps? I would greatly appreciate your guidance.
Thank you very much for your help. Galactic Center Radio Arc (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
@Galactic Center Radio Arc: That looks ok. (There is a template for the PDL1.0). The user who added the "no permission" tag probably considered that the source of the map was not detailed enough initially. You have now provided more information. The "Challenge" button is prominent in a standard configuration but it might not be present depending on the device and configuration you are using. In the present case, considering the additional information you provided, I suppose that the "no permission" tag can simply be removed. I will remove it. Notifying Shizhao to check if that's ok for them. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC) Someone has opened a deletion discussion. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all your kind assistance. It seems that a place has been created to leave comments, so I would like to explain my thoughts there. I appreciate everyone's kindness.Galactic Center Radio Arc (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Metadata gibberish
Latest comment: 14 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Stumbled onto this image File:"Slavery Memorial" Brown.jpeg and noticed the "User comments" in the file metadata. Just a bunch of strings of characters, no seeming logic - wondering if it was originally something legible and just rendered incorrectly, or if it's something else. Any ideas on what it means? /is there a need to fix it, or should I just leave it alone? 19h00s (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
They might have been written in a different script than Latin maybe. Sometimes I see stuff similar to this when trying to convert a scanned text page (=image) and saved in PDF format into an editable MS Word document with Word failing to decipher the script/text from the PDF file. I don't know whether something like this could also happen for meta data. Nakonana (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
This year, the questions focus on various topics that will be central to the Foundation's Product & Technology department's plans for the next fiscal year (July 2026-June 2027). They include global trends, experiments, new users and administrators, users who can control IP addresses, and even our readers.
What are you asking for? If it's random details in a one random unused file that nobody will read (the birth and death date of this particular old photo), how would we know and why should one waste time on that? Add the info if you know it or don't but I'm not sure how that info would be useful there at all. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
You brought this up before. You seem to have unlimited time to write out complaints about people wasting your time. It is a paradox, some people use their time for research, others for promoting their grievances. As was said at the last time you complained, just skip it, if it is not your interest. No one here forces you to do anything. Individual choices people make, determine what history gets preserved, and what history gets discarded. In the USA it is Black History Month and everyone doing their part to preserve history, and make it more accessible. The New York Times is doing their part: w:Overlooked (obituary feature) and Overlooked at the New York Times, and so should we. --RAN (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
No one cares about the birthdates of the people in this photo. I'm starting to understand why you got banned on Wikidata which seemed really weird to me when you made a post about it here. And it would have been your turn to explain why the photo is of particular importance or the birthdates of all the people in it when making a thread. I don't have a grievance, I have a concern. Birthdates is data put into Wikidata or Wikipedia, not into some place outside the Info template on file pages on Commons after using scarce volunteer time to "research" this unimportant info that nobody needs or looks for even when somehow landing on that page. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
You do not care, and you don't speak for everyone. Birth and death years to names in images is the standard for archives. Having an image of a John Smith is not the same as having an image of John Smith (1850-1932). --RAN (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The 1 file you're talking about has 0 uses and 8 pageviews. So what I stated is backed by data. Likewise, there are nearly no other files with birth and death dates of each of many people in a photo on Commons and there is no reason this data is useful or even belongs there and in either case you could add it yourself or not instead of announcing it here. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment it might not be relevant for Commons' general purposes, but if we've got a file showing 18 people, some of them very prominent (e.g. Booker T. Washington, Frederick Patterson, Philip A. Payton Jr.) and all but one identified in some meaningful sense, it is likely to be very useful to some historian to work out who is the unaccounted-for person in that photo. It's not so much their birth & death dates as who they were. - Jmabel ! talk21:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Well not only was that not the question, the person is already identified, there is no cat at Category:Howell (surname) for that person. May be something to discuss at en:Talk:National Negro Business League if there is a reason (not given here) for why it would be useful to identify the birth date of the person or some other topic-specific place. There doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia article about the person so it's unlikely to be listed in the already-long list in the WP article. This is like asking for intensive investigations for no reason or use just as a game of original research that a historian may (or may not) do. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
If we had nothing beyond a name and team for a professional baseball player of that era, there would be a bunch of people trying to work it all out. Surely this is not less important. - Jmabel ! talk02:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
The irony is delicious, arguing endlessly about how your time was wasted by a question, yet you have endless time for arguing. --RAN (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
He turns out to be a very interesting person. Once I worked out his full name and birth and death dates, I found him described in two different books for his activity with the National Negro Business League, and as a witness to the Atlanta race riot of 1906. There is probably enough info for a Wikipedia biography. Preserving history is about what we "waste time" on, and what we choose to discard. --RAN (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Videos from Flickr
Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
/\n{{(license[ ]?review|youtube[ ]?review|lr)}}\n/gi (replace with one newline)
/{{(license[ ]?review|youtube[ ]?review|lr)}}/gi
/\n\n\n/g (replace with two newlines)
/ \n/g (replace with one newline)
With edit summary like "removing LR template, just review the uncropped image".
I think you would do better to replace this with a template or note saying to verify the license against the file from which it has been cropped, then a human editor can do that once they have actually checked. - Jmabel ! talk23:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Jmabel, we don't have such a template. License review is for files from external sources. We don't do license reviews for crops of files that originate here, why would we change that for imported files? Should crops also be vetted by VRT if the original has a VRT ticket attached? What about crops of files from Flickr that were reviewed by a bot? License review has 82K backlogged files. At the current rate, copyright may well expire before the license gets reviewed. - Alexis Jazzping plz05:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: why would we change that for imported files? I guess it's a matter of what we consider to be the purpose the license review tag. If we view it entirely in terms of managing our own processes then, no, it does not need to be carried in any way into the derivative work. If we view it as a caution to possible reusers of the file then, yes, it does. - Jmabel ! talk06:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Jmabel, to the best of my knowledge it's part anti-linkrot (can't verify the license if the source vanishes), part anti-license-laundering, part verifying if the license at the source is valid (sometimes there's a license but it only applies to text, or they forgot the CC version number, etc) and part derivative work detection (e.g. freely licensed video with protected music that may require muting). This is all to ensure files comply with COM:L. If it was about protection of re-users we'd look the other way when there's no CC version number or even if the license is non-commercial, and we'd start requiring (something akin to) license reviews for cross-wiki uploads. Which would almost be a good idea if it didn't require a paid workforce of at least a dozen people to deal with the volume. - Alexis Jazzping plz14:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
The best overall strategy to limit the backlog of files with incomplete information/categories
Latest comment: 11 days ago11 comments5 people in discussion
This is a follow up discussion of the thread 'Unidentified French port in 1948'.
Quote from the discussion:
The Commons gets to many new files (a lot of mass uploads) with very limited/missing data. Whatever the community does later to categorize and add the missing data, its to much to keep up. One cannot limit the number of incoming files. The best solution is that the uploaders are encouraged to do the maximum on research so that the files are as complete as posible. It is much more effort to do the work later with people who are not familiar with the subject (and only interested in getting the numbers down / a job)Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
See also Wish457: UI and badges for categorization requests. If you're referring to uploaders, lots of the files are from large numbers of different uploaders each not uploading a very large number. (Moreover, it would make little sense to send sth like that when they properly categorized one or a few files as an exception to most of the other files they uploaded.) Prototyperspective (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
To start the discussion it is best analyse how the problem files backlogs are reduced: (the role of uploaders has been discussed sufficiently in the past threads)
Deliberate actions such as the thread 'Do you want to help, to categorise 34,000 media needing categories as of 2020, please?' and Would it be useful to start with the 6,991 images that are currently used in Wikipedia? by Vysotsky
The random organic reduction, wich takes place anyway: When a Commons contributor comes across a problem file during his usual work (for example categorising, sorting categories, adding SD, etc), he/she does the research and the problem file is no more. The frequency of this happening depends on the number of eyes seeing the file. The problem with using 'unknown, undefined' categories is that it puts the problem files under the carpet, not to be seen again except for the workers of deliberate actions. The more categories the files have (not the unknown/undefined) the more visible the files are.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
I strongly recommend hidden maintenance categories, which don't get used nearly enough. Also, unhidden categories like Category:Unidentified locations in New York (state). I also super-strongly recommend that in any area you have some expertise, make a pass through a category like that and see what you can categorize. - Jmabel ! talk19:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
People can browse or filter via unidentified categories and add the fitting categories to them. The case of files with the person name in the title may be a slightly special case as we don't really want categories for all of these.
For other cases like cities we want and have categories and that cat is so that users can add these categories.
It's also for files being included in branches that are subcategorized by some criteria, e.g. branch Category:Videos from NASA by year should contain all NASA videos, not just those where people set that cat at upload or where it got batch-added based on file description later. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
In practice an unidentified category is almost never needed if there a headcategory (with files) and subcategories. Take a tram example: Category:Trams in Bremen. Most incoming files with tram images in Bremen, rapidly gets processed into tram types in Bremen or by line or some special categories. There are enough specialist who regularly check the tram categories. It is nice if the uploader uses the subcategories, but if he does not have the knowledge, other people will do it. What is important is that the files get a least a general tram category. For other subjects this can be more dificult. So what information is really needed to start the categorisation proces? Location, main subject (the reason why the file is in scope) and some date/time (this depends on the context). Sometimes the location is essential for the file to be in scope. A lot of rockfaces, meadows etc look the same and can be taken anywhere.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Sometimes old pictures have very limited or no documentation. Who can remenber a family trip from long ago (or the photografer is dead). By old family albums a lot of information not written down, because one assumes everyone knows the story and the people and places involved. When people die the knowledge gets lost. Sometimes one can reconstruct the trip with limited clues known to the uploader (for example an agenda). It certainly helps if some church or other clue is identified. Quite often slides are cronologicaly numbered (and most times dated). So collectively researching a specific file for the uploader can unlock a lot of usefull pictures for the Commons. THe questions should be posted on platforms where a lot of people have local knowledge. For places in France the Commons:Bistro etc. By the way: Solving puzzels and research is a lot more fun and rewarding, than doing necessay chores such as reducing backlogs. We are doing volontary work, so motivation is important.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
By the way: Solving puzzels and research is a lot more fun and rewarding, than doing necessay chores such as reducing backlogs that may be your opinion but you state it as if it applied to everyone. I think solving puzzles about individual files that aren't used and nobody even looks it as not fun and certainly not rewarding. Reducing backlogs is rewarding if you make a dent in stats and help move things toward completion and categorizing lots of files is a lot of fun (I just don't have as much time for it as I'd like to). Prototyperspective (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Folklore 2026 has started, Join us!
Latest comment: 11 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Village pump/Archive/2026/02,
The world’s traditions are disappearing faster than we can document them, but you can help change that.
On behalf of the Wiki Loves Folklore International Team, we are reaching out to invite you to contribute to the 2026 edition of our global campaign.
Share Your Cultural Heritage with the World
Wiki Loves Folklore is an international media contest dedicated to documenting the "intangible" beauty of our cultures. Whether it’s the vibrant colours of a folk festival, the rhythm of a traditional dance, the secrets of a family recipe, or the legends of your hometown, your media helps preserve these legacies for generations to come.
How You Can Contribute
Participating is simple, and every upload contributes to the world's largest free knowledge repository:
Capture: Take photos, record videos, or capture audio of folk activities, music, mythology, or traditional wear.
Upload: Share your files on Wikimedia Commons between 1 February 2026 and 31 March 2026.
Win: Beyond the satisfaction of preservation, there are international prizes for the most impactful contributions.
Latest comment: 11 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello everyone,
Lingua Libre is a WMF/WMFR tool to record the diversity of human languages, regional and personal variations. Records of words or expressions are mostly used within Wiktionaries, Wikipedias, and Wikidata. Our contributors provided 1.5 millions files to Wikimedia Commons, or about 1% of its total.
May I ask for your help to expand languages support on Lingua Libre next release ? We currently have full support for ~12 major languages, but we would like to serve smaller languages and cultures as well. Most wanted are:
These translations will allow those communities and their own minorities, from all regions of the world, to use Lingua Libre (en) in a language close to them. They then have one more tool at their disposal to document their languages, regional and personal variations on Wikimedia & wiktionaries. Even translating just 10 items in your language is a positive help adding onto the previous translations. Yug(talk)16:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
CfD went stale
Latest comment: 10 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Digitized Sky Survey
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Copyright status of old photos in modern books?
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Cemetery sculpture
Latest comment: 9 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Some time ago, an image I uploaded depicting a cemetery sculpture was flagged for deletion, because of alleged violation of the FOP rules in the country where the photograph was taken. (Actually, the reasoning presented was that the FOP rules in the sculptor's country - France - were being violated, even though the sculpture was [is] standing in a cemetery in Chile.) The image in question is File:Santiago cementerio justiniano mausoleo DSC 3287.jpg. Since the 70-year date from the sculptors death was so close, I decided to ignore the deletion. Recently, I noticed that the file was automagically restored in 2026 from its earlier deletion, presumably because the 70-year limit (explained here) had been reached. I also noticed that the recently undeleted image was an exact duplicate (except for the file name) of another file I had recently uploaded. I nominated it for speedydelete because it duplicated another image on the same cemetery's page. Now I get a notice that the more recent deletion for duplication was reverted, apparently by a Bot (SchlurcherBot), leaving both versions of the image active. This is most frustrating, especially since I am the uploader of both images just trying to make Wikimedia Commons a little more efficient. Unfortunately, I don't know how to address this directly with SchlurcherBot, or the Wikipedia User who operates the Bot. I would appreciate any help.
Seauton (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
@Seauton: you didn't use the right tag. Use {{Duplicate}} on the one you want deleted, and provide the name of the duplicated file as indicated in the template documentation
Also: while, duplicates should, indeed, be deleted, it doesn't save any storage space: once it's uploaded under two different names, both copies will remain, stored separately. - Jmabel ! talk00:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Help needed identifying photographer
Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey all. I just uploaded this image of Nikolay Zhukovsky and his children, which was taken in Geneva, approximately in the late 1870s or early 1880s (judging by the childrens' age). The photograph is certainly in the public domain, but I wanted to see if anyone could help identify the photographer based on the signature and the address in the image. Unfortunately, damage to the photograph makes the address hard to make out and I'm terrible at reading cursive signatures. If anyone could help with this, I'd really appreciate it. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Existing bot for automatically creating categories
Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
since the community is divided, i think the status quo is, for those who prefer these systems, they can create them by themselves; for those who dont want these systems... i am one of them. i just dont do anything about these categories. i dont create them; i dont use them (dont put any files into them); when other users move files into them, i dont do anything about it. RoyZuo (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Now this thread exists in three places at parallel. Instead of creating a parallel thread. This makes it hard to discuss and has other issues. Please copy the contents when moving a thread and then remove the thread at source or replace it with a moved-to wikilink to the new place. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The thread was opened intentionally in different places to make sure people see it. For the purpose of not discussing the same issue in different places, there is a link at the very top.
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --D-Kuru (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
FOP query
Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, just checking whether these two images fall foul of freedom of panorama rules-- would they be classified as two dimensional posters? The photograph displayed is ostensibly under copyright. Thanks.
Yes, I'd classify both as using a 2D graphical work. Both could be edited to have the copyrighted material removed (bottom one would definitely still be useful without the photograph). Abzeronow (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Help to get this video to commons?
Latest comment: 4 days ago9 comments6 people in discussion
It's temperamental (and we need better). Make sure you haven't selected subtitles if they do not exist, and check the upload name. It fails with unhelpful errors. Secretlondon (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Can be fixed by editing or removing the more MOTD template. and there already is a thread requesting this at the main page talk page. Thanks for reporting it, Prototyperspective (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, that was more of 'Just suppress the don't do this warning of {{More MOTD}} if the page name is exactly 'Main Page' (or maybe its translated pages?), otherwise show the warning' — More MOTD in main page is inherently… unavoidable, contrary to the 'don't do this warning' says. — regards, Revi18:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Openly licensed propaganda/terrorist material
Latest comment: 7 days ago108 comments23 people in discussion
Hi, we need to have a frank discussion about mass uploads of propaganda material from terrorist organizations. Several Iranian "news outlets" have opened their licenses to allow more dissemination of disinformation on the Internet. I can give you a couple of examples. For example, w:Tasnim and w:Fars news agency which both officially and unofficially are the propaganda arm of w:IRGC (a widely designated terrorist organization). I find it somewhat funny an organization that has no respect for human lives (or many other things we take for granted) is somehow respecting international licenses and copyright laws but whatever. I don't have a problem is uploading some files from them as it might show examples of propaganda or portraits of the leaders of the Iranian regime that are hard to come by but the current scale of mass uploads doesn't make any sense to me. For example: 50K images from Mehrnews.com, 52K images from farsnews.ir, 9K images from Khameni.ir (the website of the supreme leader of Iran), Mizan, the news agency of the judiciary system (the organization that executes around 1,000 people every year), 63K from Tasnim (literally the propaganda arm of IRGC) and several more cases in Category:Images from websites of Iran. It has many problems: 1- Many of these images/videos are not really educational. 2- The "text" and in many cases, the image itself is pure propaganda (for example: the text of this image is quite a rubbing of salt on the injury when IRGC has killed 30,000 unarmed protesters, shot people in hospital beds, ran them over with fire trucks and here it calls the murdered protesters "rioters and terrorists" 3- It is causing us a lot of reputational damage in Persian media. For example: https://www.neutralpov.com/p/new-video-inside-wikipedias-hosting Can we please stop doing this? Amir (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
We should host these files as we can not make a decision on the line what kind of propaganda we host and what not. But we need better rules on how these files are described and that original descriptions from the source have to be labeled as such. One example where this is done in a good way are the files with original nazi descriptions in Category:Images from the German Federal Archive. GPSLeo (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Mostly agreed. Maybe we need a template applied to all these files with a warning: Propaganda from the Iranian government (or equivalent). Yann (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
I agree strongly with GPSLeo, and would strongly favor a similar wording to what we use for images in the Bundesarchiv over a blanket accusation of propaganda, which in English is a very loaded word. - Jmabel ! talk20:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Maybe paste part of the "no warranty" clause from the CC licenses into the template? Something like this:
Tasnim makes no guarantee of validity, including factual accuracy, as per the terms of the CC license. You are solemnly responsible for any damages from reusing this file.
@Pigsonthewing: our line for accepting files, or our line for putting caveats on the uploaded descriptions for files we accept, and possibly rewording those descriptions? - Jmabel ! talk23:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: for accepting files, as far as I know Commons' only restriction against a source is if they appear to be a frequent and/or deliberate violator of copyrights, or if they repeatedly fake images. As to what needs a warning notice, I don't think we have any solid agreement. In the case of the Bundesarchiv it was easy, because they already apply this warning to their own materials. If we were to form a firmer policy, I would hope that a lot of this comes down to whether we intend to preserve original captions/titles/descriptions in some form. I think it is important that captions/titles/descriptions that come from third-party sources that may have an ax to grind be identified as such; I'm much less concerned with giving a caveat about th source of an image. - Jmabel ! talk23:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Further remark: if the source is, itself, notable enough, even its fake images are probably in scope, but need to be identified as such. - Jmabel ! talk23:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
we need a Template:Original description to record the original, word for word, so it is not edited by other users. users can maintain another up-to-date description. (a bit like twitter's context feature: there's the original post and there's other users' elaboration on the original.)
commons should be spun off as a standalone site. then it can use software and infrastructure better suited to a media site (like flickr/youtube/gettyimages) or a library/archive catalogue site. trying to manage all the nuanced details of files based on mediawiki wastes so much effort on developing, maintaining and deploying templates and modules just because those essential features are still not built-in with the software.
I think (1) misses the point a bit. Being funded by a government isn't the issue here, albeit it is correlated with the issue. I'd also disagree with (3). The hard part is deciding what to do not how to do it. In general i agree with GPSLeo. Bawolff (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
as others have said, it's difficult to draw the line what is propaganda and what is not. that's a subjective assessment. how the copyright holder is funded is objective. it's the logical solution so other websites, youtube twitter facebook..., have all converged in their solutions to this same problem. if you think there's a better approach, go ahead.
what to do with perfectly ok photos and videos then? unless we ban all these authors, the logical solution is, as i said in #2 above, we supply 2 descriptions to the same file, 1 being the original; and another 1 optional, user or editor/curator generated description, if users think anything should be clarified.
now how do we do that? with the inadequate mediawiki software we are dumping all this info in raw text on the file page. we should instead have 2 com:sdc fields for the 2 descriptions with much longer length limit and possibility to display links. without adequate infrastructure, even if we do this using templates, anyone can sneakily edit the original description. of course you can then say we can prevent that using abusefilter and bots etc. but why do we have to do everything cumbersome in the first place? because we are sticking with the inadequate mediawiki. if instead the info is entered into an sdc field, you can easily control who can edit that field just by tweaking the software. with everything dumped together in raw text all such maintenance just becomes such a headache.
will sdc and other infrastructure much needed for a media site be developed? maybe. at least even basic video upload and conversion still rely on volunteer maintained tools, after all these years and given that WMF has revenue many organisations can only envy.
there're a lot of similar propaganda stuff from Category:China News Service. with the inadequate infrastructure i have long given up doing anything about such problematic descriptions even if i see something (because there're users on the other end of the political spectrum that will revert descriptions to their side). i just leave it to the re-users to discern. you can of course say i should report the users to sysops. then that becomes a time sink and endless user disputes, and worst of all, there're more users that support a certain propagandist narrative so drawing myself into those disputes will quite likely end up shooting myself in the foot, with many sysops being careless and abusive. all this applies to any language and any country.
I think (perhaps reading between the lines) it is not that the files may be biased (lots of files are biased), but that commons might be being used as part of an explicit information warfare strategy, which kind of makes commons complicit in it. There is a difference between collecting propaganda and being a part of the propaganda machine, so to speak. What to do about that, I don't know. I dont think there are good answers, and the best compromise is to contextualize files in the description. I appreciate lots of websites go with gov funded but i really think it misses the mark. That applies equally to say NASA images as it does to images intentionally made to mislead, and its not like being misleading is limited to governments. I agree with people that said that propaganda is often very important from an educational context - i think some of the WW2 propaganda on commons is some of its most interesting content; its a window into a different world. I don't think banning "propaganda" is a viable solution. To your other point - it seems like your main complaint here is people reverting you, not technical limitations. I fail to see how different software would prevent that so long as we continue to allow anyone to edit. Bawolff (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
"how different software would prevent that"
with the raw text mediawiki, even if someone has applied a "potentially biased" tag and clarified why, anyone can just delete that afterwards. how are you preventing that? abusefilter? bots? keeping every file i edited on my watchlist and monitor every edit after me?
with better software, the website operator can control who gets to edit the specific data entries and which users might be a bit more trustworthy.
I think we do sort of do that for license review already, although i do see your point that that might be easier in a non-freetext environment. However, philosophically i would be surprised if commons would go for that, and i maintain that the primary blocker for something like that is social not technical. Bawolff (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Only terrorist organisation wikipedia gave leeway too and allowed all their lies and propaganda to be posted here is IDF, we talked about it over a year back but no one in commons had the balls to blacklist their website which has posted multiple false propaganda news and images about Palestinians and Hamas. The sites you listed have had a free license for ever and has never pushed agenda, looking at your userpage, It seems like its people like you doing that with fake rhetoric, have seen enough of these on social media, do not bring your bullshit to wikimedia as well. I have personally gone through those websites long before the Oct 7th attacks and none of them are propaganda, if anything, its the english wikipedia that has been pushing propaganda for the zionists during the Iranian protests even adding fake AI generated images, some of which i nominated for deletion myself, notice how the article there has minimal pictures of the protests cause non-iranian based people were adding fake images of the protests here claiming to be in Iran and yet wikipedia have not posted a single image from the devastation caused by these so called "peaceful protests"... wikipedia is supposed to be 'neutral' not biased.. if enwiki had balls, they would ban news from zionists owned propaganda trash like the Guardian and CBS who falsified about everything happening in Iran last month..There are already a few users here posting propaganda for the actual terrorists behind the unrest and we are not going to change a template to push more propaganda for the serial genociders who have themselves been claiming in their own Country and social media that they sent Mossad to start the unrest and kill Iranian civilians multiple times.. Stemoc03:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
The difference between these cases and other government-funded media is straightforward: the IRGC is officially designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, and several other countries. That is not a personal view or a political opinion. It is a legal and factual designation backed by many reliable sources. Saying "we cannot decide what kind of propaganda we host" ignores that this case is not unclear. There is no doubt about the ownership or control here. These media organizations are directly connected to a designated terrorist organization, and their role in spreading its messaging is widely documented. Treating this as a normal question about state-funded media does not match the facts. This is not about banning material. It is about scale, context, and responsibility. Uploading very large numbers of files from the media arms of a designated terrorist organization without clear and consistent labeling creates real problems. It misleads people who use these files, causes confusion for readers, and damages Wikimedia's reputation, especially among communities that have been directly harmed by that organization. I will not engage with Stemoc, who is indefinitely blocked on enwiki for the same nonsense seen here. false accusations, conspiracy theories, and attacks on other contributors do not help resolve the issue and do not change the facts or policies. ARASH PT talk 08:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
I should also note that some files from Tasnim and Fars have been modified or altered using AI to show events or details that did not actually exist. These are not minor edits for quality or clarity. The content is changed in a way that serves a propaganda purpose. This is done without any disclosure on the file pages, which directly affects the reliability and appropriate use of this material on Commons. This practice has been documented by reliable sources (one example), and some of the alterations are clearly visible in the files themselves. ARASH PT talk 08:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Given the documented record of manipulated, staged, and AI-altered media published by IRGC-affiliated outlets such as Tasnim and Fars, bulk uploads from these sources (especially those related to protests) are fundamentally problematic. Under Wikimedia Commons policies, the responsibility for accuracy, proper description, and disclosure of alterations lies entirely with the uploader (Commons:Licensing, Commons:PS). Each file must be individually reviewed and described by the uploader, including disclosure of significant editing or AI involvement. Bulk uploads without file by file verification violate this principle and shift an unreasonable burden onto the community. As stated explicitly in the policy, "the burden of proof lies on the uploader". Furthermore, Commons policy requires that files hosted on the platform fall within its "educational" and documentary scope and be presented in a neutral manner (Commons:PS, Commons:NPOV). This requirement is particularly critical for politically sensitive content such as protest imagery, where selective presentation or undisclosed modification can affect how events are understood. For these reasons, bulk uploads from IRGC-affiliated media should not be accepted without strict, individual verification by the uploader. Additionally, previously uploaded files from these sources (particularly those related to protests) should be reviewed for deletion where the uploader has not met the required burden of proof. ARASH PT talk 14:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Also not to mention they violate copyright in many numerous cases too. For example Commons:Deletion requests/Talkhandak Paintings was from one of these sites (I don't remember which one exactly). It makes me uncomfortable not knowing which images are fully theirs and which ones are stolen. Amir (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
and yet the IDF, that have been recorded targetting and murdering children is NOT designated a terrorist organisation?, If the world's biggest terrorist nation deems the army of a country that has not been proven to attack another country a terrorist organisation, then I will refuse to take their word for it, Everytime the White House makes a post, their posts are deemed dangerous as well, should we tag all images posted from the Whitehouse as "Factually inaccurate and Government propaganda" too? cause literally everything Donald Trump posts as the President of the US is always factually wrong and a lie. Unless these countries you mention, i.e the US and the EU countries deems the IDF/IOF a terrorist organisation, any organisation they deem as a terrorist organisation is not a terrorist organisation. Remember one of the EU countries, the UK deemed the Palestine Action Group, a peaceful group standing against the Genocide of the Gazans a terrorist organisation..We don't decide who the terrorist groups are, we decide if the information they provided is credible and thus far, all of those news media organisation have been proven to be credible. Neither you nor Amir live in Iran but both claim to be iranians is hysterical, I don't even live in that hemisphere and even i know whats happening, I have more faith in the Iranians then you two do and I saw all the videos from both sides and i read articles from both sides and and its disgusting the lies that have been promoted by some of these evil people.
Do a bit of historical reading cause the US can designate any country they want to destroy as a terrorist nation and its people such as you that enable them but believing in their lies and propaganda...History truly does repeat itself...and regarding wikipedia, I gave up on that site a long time ago, its been run like some fascist government and trust me, eventually anyone who contributes to enwiki, actually contributed by creating articles gets banned there by people who contribute nothing to the project and only police it...As it stands, the Iranian news sites, even if its government owned has provided us with more images and credible data in the last 19 years i have been on wikimedia than any other news sources in that region under a creative commons licencing , we are not going to disqualify a valid reliable source for wikimedia based on the personal bias of contributors from ANOTHER project.. Stemoc08:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
that only works if WMF sites openly declare to stand on a certain side (the usa/eu side). otherwise...
iran also designated european armies as terrorist organisations...
this approach just begs the question. it goes back to requiring WMF or us the user base to decide which ones are propaganda/terrorist/"bad country", which ones are good, and therefore we should only follow the laws of the "good countries". even if you could argue that some cases are clear-cut for the majority (let's say for example North Korea), then what about murky cases like lese majeste laws in thailand/turkey, blasphemy laws...? many countries like to call their critics/opponents terrorists. how sure can you be before there's concrete evidence that someone has done actual physical harm? and even if some members of a party or organisation did commit crimes, does that automatically extend to every single member of that organisation, and even to other people that voice support for those organisations? RoyZuo (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
i think it's fine to host files from any organisations or individuals. what we need is an time/manpower-effective solution to identify and label them (being potentially propagandist).
with current mediawiki infrastructure the "time/manpower-effective solution" is not possible.
I have multiple times said that the propaganda material per se is not the problem (we could show them as examples of propaganda by Iran). Iunderstand we host propaganda material from Nazi Germany, so saying Iran is "too bad to be hosted here" is moot. The problem I have is that most of these materials are not educational and therefore not in SCOPE of Commons. I randomly went through a couple of images in the categories (first or second page only). There is for example this image which sure, you can have a couple of pictures of people participating in pro-Iranian government demos but hundreds of them? Thousands of them? There are many images that provide no educational value and practically they are no different than selfies we get. I can give you many examples. e.g. what value this image is bringing to the movement?, or this image, or this and many many more. You might say: oh then nominate them for deletion then. But how can I possibly check +100,000 images to make sure they are educational or not? Another way I see this as a problem is the "undue weight" to the Iranian narrative. There are many many documented cases of people taking pictures that didn't fit the narrative getting arrested or had forced disappearance (for example, the person who took a picture of w:Mahsa Amini in the hospital). So now you have one side (which is officially designated as terrorist organization by good chunk of the planet) pumping literally hundreds of thousands of images to Commons and the other side that can barely get an image out here or there risking their lives. Regardless of what are commons current policies are, this is harmful to our neutral POV Amir (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
i think the answer is simple: editors/curators, who are dedicated/full-time/paid, are needed for those roles.
commons/wikipedia is not that, and will not become that with their philosophy.
i certainly want to throw out lots of those files. but anyone who can do that is basically given a power over other users, which is incompatible with wikimedia's ideas that every user has equal right to edit and make decisions.
with wikimedia's ideas, it is impossible to curate. coz everything has to go thru a discussion process (deletion request for files), and if there's any debate, it becomes a time sink, and often leads to nowhere or conclusions that leave some users unhappy.
which is why i said, commons should be spun off. then it could become more similar to getty/afp (in terms of journalistic photo stock) and libraries/archives, and have a different user structure whereby some users will have editorial discretion to throw out junk. RoyZuo (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
A compromise could be that we delete all of these files that are not used in any projects. If anyone needs any of those to use on articles/wikipedia/other projects, we can simply undelete them (they are not going anywhere :D). That allows me to actually check the remaining images for copyright violation, manipulation, use of AI to distort images and so on. Amir (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
That is not the core problem. The problem is that we would have to maintain a list of bad sources. We would have to discuss every entry on that list. And how to make decisions if there is not consensus? Do we want to vote if Iran, Russia, USA, Israel or Hungary are enough problematic to limit government funded media from them? I do not want to moderate such a discussion and I think no Admin on Commons wants to moderate something like this. GPSLeo (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Comparing IRGC-affiliated media to outlets in the United States or Hungary is a false equivalence. The issue here is not nationality or political bias, but documented institutional control by a designated terrorist organization and a repeated record of staged, manipulated, and undisclosed altered media in sensitive political contexts (check my other comments and related sources). That combination does not apply to independent or even state funded media in democratic systems, where legal accountability, editorial separation, and corrective mechanisms exist. ARASH PT talk 18:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
And how do you want to define what Trump has to do that we put him on the same list as Iran and Russia? We are a media archive not an editorial group that discusses the democracy status of countries. What is the damage hosting a file manipulated by the Iranian government, as long as we say the source is the Iranian government? Everyone knows that such a file is not trustworthy. We do not need to protect someone from being manipulated. GPSLeo (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
@GPSLeo One rather easy approach to tackle this is similar to the perennial sources in enwiki. In enwiki, if there are many documented cases of falsehoods by a source then it's considered unreliable and using it in articles is not allowed (and there are degrees of that). There are many documented cases of image manipulation or using AI maliciously on images published by RT and Tasnim and co (as Arash named a couple). As such IMHO, it shouldn't be allowed except if the image is really useful and we are sure it's not manipulated maliciously or violating copyright. Amir (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Amir is not suggesting deleting files that are in use. The proposal only concerns unused files. We are not talking about a normal media set, but over 200,000 files from terrorist IRGC-affiliated outlets, many of which are duplicated, edited, AI-assisted, fake, or unreliable (documented in many sources. check my other comments). Temporarily deleting unused files (from these sources), with easy undeletion if needed, is a practical way to enable proper review without spreading problematic content. remember that "the burden of proof lies on the uploader". As I mentioned before bulk uploads without file by file verification from these terrorist-related propaganda sources violate our principle and shift an unreasonable burden onto the community. ARASH PT talk 18:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
here is for example this image which sure, you can have a couple of pictures of people participating in pro-Iranian government demos but hundreds of them? Thing is we have hundreds of images of Nazi propaganda, and we have hundreds or thousands of images of Nazis killing Jewish people. And yes we have hardly any images of people protecting or saving Jewish people in WW2. Which means our image collection about the Holocaust is clearly skewed towards the Nazis. And yet we're not doing anything to balance that out in any way by deleting images of pro-Nazi demonstrations, or Nazi propaganda, or Nazis killing Jews. All those images are in Commons scope even if most of them are not used in any project article. The fact that they are propaganda images and that they are numerous does not necessarily make them out of scope. Even their inaccuracy is probably not enough reason to delete them: Nazi propaganda wasn't accurate either. And most of the Nazi images we have don't have any disclaimer that informs the viewer about said inaccuracies either. Nakonana (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
The WMF will probably eventually need to respond since this deceptively named-channel and site NPOV is clearly part of a coordinated effort to damage the reputation of English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. It does raise questions though if we should start restricting Voice of America uploads or IDF uploads if there is also consensus to restrict uploads of Iranian state-funded organizations since we shouldn't cherry-pick what is defined as propaganda. Abzeronow (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
exactly what i was thinking, we can't target one and ignore the other, I feel like 90% of images added from IDF sources also should be deleted for being Israeli propaganda as we know they lied about a lot of things since then but we haven't done that, so why one standard for Israel and another for Iran, we are suppose to be neutral, what gets added to Wikimedia should follow the licencing requirement of the project and what gets used on individual wikis is totally the choice of the contributors of those wikis, not us... Stemoc05:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
The propaganda video Ladsgroup brought up has 204 views. Two things strike me as odd. First, the interview with Ngo has 1.9K views while the others have a fraction of that. That's a rather large discrepancy. Second, why are Ngo, Ridley, and Sanger talking to someone whose videos barely outperform those of a pet bunny? - Alexis Jazzping plz05:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
we both know whats happening here, first they come for the news media and then social media, then sites like ours, Wikipedia actually is a great threat to terrorists cause the first search for anything is always wikipedia and the AI bots "they" are training sources majority of its information from Wikipedia first and they do not like it when it reveals their intentions and lies.. If we bow down to the pressure of these state terrorists flaunting their money and buying off people to make them propaganda videos, then we are no better than them..i'm very active on Reddit as it has already begun there so yeah wikipedia is very likely their next destination to force us to comply with their propaganda....I remember when Elon Musk tried to buy wikipedia for a billion dollars, imagine if that came to fruition.. Stemoc06:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
As a Jew (and not, for the record, at all a supporter of the current government of Israel), I find the semi-hidden link to en:Hasbara in the above rather offensive. - Jmabel ! talk20:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
My cents:
1) According to our 2030 Startegy, our objective is to become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge
That means if something is free, we should have it in our servers.
2) Wikimedia Commons scope: [a repository] that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all
So, if something is free [and has a credible educational use], we should have it in our servers.
I believe Wikimedia rules are better done that we believe: We host free media in Commons, and we use it on the projects. And I'll be sincere: if Wikimedia communities cannot curate the content to give context to the reader about the procedence and bias of multimedia files, then we should close all projects. It's a joke: I believe Wikimedia communities have been great at providing context to people, and content from weird sources has properly been contextualized when needed.
And yes, propaganda can be used in a serious encyclopedia. And no, those who worry on explaining and showing the horrible things humans have created are not helping horrible people to promote their ideas, it's indeed the opposite if they're doing weel their job (and I believe Wikimedia projects do well their job). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Problems, causes and potential solutions
Maybe I could try identifying the problems and make a summary, since I think many users actually agree with each other for many things.
Problems:
There are disproportionately a lot more files from Iranian propaganda agencies than other freely-licensed media.
When some organisations license their files freely while most do not, of course Commons is gonna end up with disproportionate over-representation of them.
Some of these countries or topics are restricted so there is just no free press or wikimedia users who could rival these well funded organisations. Examples: Iran, China... You can go to jail if you take photos without permission in such places, whereas the government mouthpiece workers have the freedom and keep pumping out thousands of pictures.
(Which is why some of those linked articles above complain about lack of non-government photos of the Iranian protests. Duh? Dont they know there is internet blackout so no one could upload? Not to mention the risks of getting shot in the streets trying to cover those events, prison and execution afterwards, etc.)
Some users massively upload files from those propaganda agencies. So massive that those users are not selective enough or at all.
Solutions:
There is only one way to counter the imbalance, that is, more people (on the other side of the politics) need to freely license their works.
I have had an idea of a news/photo agency that works like Reuters/AFP/Getty/VOA/BBC but is crowd funded like WMF.
Or, we wait until copyright expires. You can imagine there will be a perfect balance 100 years from now, when all the stuff we cant upload now become free. But this is pointless for the current point of time we live in.
Users should be more selective when they do massive uploads. Consequences if they do not do so.
Maybe some users can be given higher editorial discretion to quickly deal with (by "delete"?) the massive uploads.
Better still, maybe instead of "upload first delete later", we should only upload if necessary.
Suppress the ranking of files from propaganda sources so they appear lower in search results.
It takes seconds or minutes to upload batches of hundreds of images, but it takes hours to months to categorise them or debate in deletion requests. "upload first delete later" cannot effectively manage this.
But, S4 and S5 are, I believe, unfeasible with our current "consensus building" processes. S3 doesnt solve the real problem. Past experiences show that users often dont agree on how selective is adequate. To reach a conclusion fast in those assessments, we will end up with S4 and S5, that some users need to have discretion to decide how selective. S6 only works if we have non-propaganda files.
As I am writing this, I realise, probably no solution can solve these problems. Imagine if we decide to ban all files from an organisation. Then after that, their employees set up personal wikimedia accounts and upload the files here first, then those websites claim that they are re-using those files from wikimedia. We have no way to prove whether those wikimedia accounts are employed by them. We would still end up with this imbalance of material. Therefore, the only meaningful controls are editors rejecting files before they become public on Commons, and funding non-propaganda media to rival them.--RoyZuo (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
My main concern here is the legal exposure. Even though the Berman Amendment allows for exchanging "informational materials," there is a massive difference between simply hosting content and providing infrastructure services. By hosting over 200,000 high quality files, we are essentially acting as a free CDN for the media wing of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Major platforms like Google and Meta nuked these accounts specifically to avoid the "service provision" risk under precedents like Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. It makes no sense for Wikimedia Commons to shoulder legal and reputational risks that even big tech avoids.
There is also a serious issue with the chain of title. We can't blindly trust CC licenses from sources with a known history of scraping photos from citizens, slapping a watermark on them, and claiming ownership. Since we can't manually audit thousands of images, the burden of proof has to be on the uploader and they haven't met it. We are almost certainly hosting mass copyright violations disguised as free content.
Beyond that, these uploads are flagrant violations of our naming and neutrality policies. We're seeing file descriptions that reframe state rallies as "People's Protests" or label victims of violence as "terrorists." This isn't accidental bias; it's disinformation uploaded to game the system and mislead a global audience.
Finally, Commons isn't an unlimited cloud backup for a news agency's raw output. Uploading dozens of nearly identical shots from a single ceremony is just a data dump, not educational content. It creates "Authorship Dominance," where a state actor with unlimited resources drowns out other narratives especially when the other side can't upload safely. This isn't about politics; it's about stopping Commons from being exploited as a tool for information warfare. I support deleting the unused files and restricting these mass uploads.آه (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
The problem is still how we define the restricted sources. Do we say we do not host content published by countries they block our project for their citizens? Then what do we do when this changes? GPSLeo (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
This is a straw man argument. I never suggested restricting sources based on whether a country blocks Wikipedia. That would indeed be political retaliation, which I oppose.
We don't need to invent a new global policy today to deal with a specific, massive violation happening right now. We can address this specific case based on its own overwhelming evidence of abuse. Waiting for a perfect, universal rule before stopping an active fire is bureaucratic paralysis. Let's deal with these specific compromised sources now; we can discuss broader policy implications in a dedicated RFC later. آه (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
This was a question what your suggestion of a policy is. You suggest that we discuss every case here on the Village pump without any guidelines if someone complains about some source? Keeping original file names and not labeling original descriptions as such can already be against the existing guidelines. Please report such cases on the admin board. GPSLeo (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Reporting 200,000 individual files to the admin's noticeboard is not a viable solution. Asking volunteers to manually patrol and report thousands of files that are being uploaded via automated tools is an asymmetry that favors the abuser.
I am not asking to rewrite global policy right this second. I am supporting the proposal already made by Ladsgroup above: Delete unused files from these specific compromised sources and restrict further mass uploads.
This is a standard remediation for mass copyright/scope violations. When a source is proven to be systematically unreliable (broken chain of title, mass propaganda, fake descriptions), we don't fix it file by file. we safeguard the project by removing the mass uploaded content that isn't actively being used. This cleans up the bulk of the violation immediately while preserving files that might have encyclopedic use. آه (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
The only instances I've witnessed of such mass deletion were ones of mass copyright violations and uploads by LTA (note: the latter was/is being challenged). The given case is neither of those. I have not seen any (mass) deletions for propaganda. Nakonana (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
@آه could you please link to examples of "sources with a known history of scraping photos from citizens, slapping a watermark on them, and claiming ownership"?
Regarding the terrorism stuff, I would agree that anything that legally jeopardizes Commons should be removed. However, whether hosting otherwise innocuous photos produced by something like Tasnim constitutes "material support" is questionable. We may host their images, but, as far as I know, they do not delete the photos on their servers and start using us as their host to save money. I do not believe hosting a photo of a soccer team by Tasnim seriously advances the political agenda of the Iranian government.
Everything else, though, I think is ultimately misfocused. Images by license laundering terrorist organizations should be dealt with through our policies on dealing with license laundering in general. Users repeatedly using policy-violating names for images produced by terrorist organizations should be dealt with through our policies on dealing with bad users in general. Mass deletion may be permissible. However, overly focusing on the terrorist aspect leads us down a garden path that ends in "oh god is everyone evil?" which is not a question we should answer on a media archive. Based5290 (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
If an account has been known to upload thousands of images that are known propaganda from terrorists, specially from Tasnim news which is a known IRGC propaganda toll, then mass deletion of uploads and restriction on that user should be justified. We are not talking about a few pictures here, user 999real has uploaded almost 1.5m images in span of 2 years, most being propaganda with a clear agenda. We should not allow this to take place as then wikipedia will become a tool to spread misinformation and propaganda for such Regimes. DrtheHistorian (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
DrtheHistorian, most being propaganda with a clear agenda. Did you even look? What does it matter if something is propaganda if it's in scope? Sporting events, snowfall, Gaza and EV taxis - what's the problem here? Even files that are more propagandistic in nature like military equipment/exercise are very much in scope. Shocker: Wikipedia has articles for military equipment! If anything needs to be done at all, bring a scalpel. Not sledgehammer. - Alexis Jazzping plz19:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Key word "most". Thats a very nice cheery picking from the vast majority of posts that are a clear propaganda for the Regime.
This 500 alone shown is just pure propaganda images. Even the most recent photos uploaded are images of the Regime.
Images named "همبستگی ملی" which literally translates into "National solidarity" showing Pro-Regime supporters after the same Regime massacred more than 30,000 people, that is literally mocking the protestors. You do need a sledgehammer for such mass amount of uploads, as it is extremely time consuming to remove one by one. User has shown they are a propaganda tool, that should not be tolerated on WP. DrtheHistorian (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
I have not uploaded anywhere near 1.5 million images and I uploaded all those files with their original description because they show the claims that was made and tactics used by the government during these times for archival and historical purposes especially because of the possibility of further internet censorship in Iran and I never claimed these images or descriptions are correct or tried to insert them in Wikipedia articles
just pure propaganda images (according to DrtheHistorian)just pure propaganda imagesjust pure propaganda imagesDrtheHistorian, This 500 alone shown is just pure propaganda images. Now who's cherry-picking? And you're not even right, see thumbnails. From your link. If you actually go over 999real's contributions, you'll find loads of images of sporting events. Whether a majority of images is propaganda depends on your definition of propaganda. User has shown they are a propaganda tool, that should not be tolerated on WP. We're not on Wikipedia, and you just violated Commons:No personal attacks. - Alexis Jazzping plz22:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
How can the state media images being uploaded in mass showing "solidarity" towards the regime specially after the atrocities they committed be ignored?
Showing bunch of other types of images would not change the fact that many of state propaganda images have been uploaded. The Regime media clearly has an agenda and is using those images to rub salt on the protestors wounds.
Thank you, @Nakonana for informing me on my wrong doing, that was inappropriate, my apologies. I have crossed that out.
DrtheHistorian, I am not ignoring propaganda, nor do I claim propaganda images don't exist. So adding a thumbnail with a "not propaganda?" caption isn't refuting any argument I made. You claimed the list of 500 files you linked was "just pure propaganda images", I added some thumbnails to dispute the purity of that list. I agree with Yann at User talk:999real (Diff ~1159540735) but any form of blanket deletion is a non-starter for me. - Alexis Jazzping plz02:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
I apologize for uploading files with bad file names I did upload many in a hurry bcause for example from when the internet censorship in Iran started I was not able to access Mehr website till 29 January and I thought it might go down again anytime
Comment I informed 999real, which nobody formally did until now. I think that individual deletion requests with a rationale of propaganda, as some people did, are useless and disrupting. A global solution should be found. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
And I just checked for Tasnim only and I spent at most ten minutes. I can bring a lot more if people really want it. Amir (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
One should probably note that most examples provided above are from 2012–2014, while the main aim in this discussion is to have recent files from 2025–2026 deleted, as far as I understood. Nakonana (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
As you demonstrated, when images are manipulated it is something notable, so it should be documented as long as there is no copyright issues.
Here is the crux of the problem for me: When they are known many many times to violate copyright and manipulate images (and caught red handed). How can we trust "any" of their images? Imagine a very plausible scenario: They upload a manipulated misleading image on their website, people start mass-uploading them on commons. Someone who is not aware uses them in articles misleading many many people. I want to check which ones are problematic and which one aren't but again. Checking 200,000 images for a human is not possible. IMHO, we should treat them the same way enwiki treats daily mail as a source. At small doses it's fine since we can verify authenticity and copyright of the images but no mass-upload anymore. Amir (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Such logic could be applied to any mass import performed by bots: Flickr, Geograph Britain and Ireland, any government sources, etc. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
None are at the scale of Tasnim and Fars. Note that a blanket mass upload from Flickr is also not done. I haven't seen that and people shouldn't do it either. Also please provide sources on cases let's say, the German government manipulated an image and published that. This is very common in RT and other sources but most other countries have basic professionalism not to forge images to push their narrative. It's simply short-sighted even if they have an agenda to push. Amir (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
So no one is gonna point put that the propaganda accusation is credited to a MAGA propaganda blog https://m.youtube.com/@NPOVmedia/videos whose main video content is conservative pundits complaining about being silenced by the woke Wikipedia? I'm sorry but I just can't for the life of me take this kind of manufactured outrage seriously coming from a propaganda website. What's next, are we gonna change our copyright policy due to complaints from Breitbart?--Trade (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
This is classic form of ad hominem. Are these people downright terrible? Yes. Are these people get a lot of stuff wrong about how we operate? Yes. Do they have a point on some aspects and can we do better in this area? Also yes. The thing about broken clock and so on. Amir (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Considering that you didn't feel the need to disclose any of this in your post then yes it is very much relevant to bring attention is
If you start a thread and the premise for the thread turns out to be false you cannot reasonable expect people to simply ignore because you don't think it's important or relevant Trade (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
What premise are you alleging is incorrect? It seems like your objection is simply that a different group you don't like said the same thing (aka the genetic fallacy). I don't think it should matter at all if a disreputable person happens to agree. The arguments should be evaluated on their merits. Bawolff (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Just to respond to you: I didn't disclose because I was not aware. The link is being circulated in Persian media and I opened the link and read the article and while I rolled my eyes sometimes, as I said, they have a point in some cases. I'm not the kind of person who would go read all of the website's articles and watch their videos before judging what they say since as pointed out many times, the point is what they say and not who say it Amir (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Nothing was inspired by a channel that has 180 subscribers. This also has nothing to do with "conservatives" or "woke" or "MAGA". This is all about a Regime that is spreading propaganda after massacring its people by using the states News, and those same images are being uploaded in mass in here. The images can be used towards spreading wrong information and promote states propaganda in wp. We are not talking about a few images, it is a vast amount. There needs to be a way we can address this. DrtheHistorian (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Let's move this discussion away from ad hominem arguments and focus strictly on what Commons policies and guidelines actually say and how to apply them to find a workable solution. The discussion already includes many documented examples of manipulated, AI-altered, and staged media originating from terrorist IRGC-affiliated outlets, supported by independent sources. ignoring that record does not help resolve the problem. Commons policy is clear that every file "must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" and that "Anything uploaded here which falls outside this scope will be deleted as OOS (Out Of Scope)." If Tasnim/Fars mass uploads are largely unused, repetitive, and not realistically useful educationally, deleting them as OOS is exactly what the scope policy provides for. Also, Commons says it is "not your personal free web host" and "not a place to advertise," and that "content which constitutes advertising or self-promotion may be deleted." On top of that, "neither filenames nor text may be phrased in such a way as to constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation" so captions like "terrorists/rioters" for victims are not acceptable as file-page text. Please remember that Commons policy explicitly states that "the burden of proof lies on the uploader." We should not shift an unreasonable burden onto the community by expecting volunteers to verify tens of thousands of files from these problematic sources one by one. Like Amir, I agree with the compromise of adopting solutions 4 and 5 as they are, though I'm open to hearing a genuinely better practical alternative. ARASH PT talk 23:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Arash.pt, "content which constitutes advertising or self-promotion may be deleted." This is warping the truth. This policy is for users who try to advertise themselves or something they sell. And even then we don't always delete, when a notable person uploads a PR portrait of themselves (with appropriate permission) to be used on their article on Wikipedia, that could be seen as "content which constitutes self-promotion". Obviously we don't delete that. Like Amir, I agree with the compromise of adopting solutions 4 and 5 That's not a compromise. And when that's the starting point of a negotiation and you already consider that a "compromise", the gap between opinions can't be bridged. Yann has asked 999real to better curate their uploads from now on. So that's something. Perhaps we start by collecting more information. There's no question much of this media is biased, but bias is normal. COM:NPOV literally states: Examples of subject matter disputes that are not appropriate here include: [...] Photographs: "This is propaganda" You say those outlets distributed manipulated media and some prima facie evidence was provided to back this claim up. Okay, next question: did such manipulated (not merely biased) images ever make their way to Commons? If the problem is as bad as it is portrayed to be, finding dozens of examples should be easy, no? - Alexis Jazzping plz01:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
When there are many documented cases of malicious manipulation and fabrication, the source becomes unreliable in general.Both Tasnim and Fars hhave been considered unreliable in both Persian and English Wikipedia. They are not allowed to be the source of text on wikis, why are allowing them to be the source of images on wikis? That being said, a middle ground could be to delete all unused AND political images by them so pictures of soccer matches and nature and so on can stay for now. Political images have a high tendency to be manipulated. Amir (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Ladsgroup, When there are many documented cases of malicious manipulation and fabrication, the source becomes unreliable in general. A considerable number of images carries bias, but we don't care about bias. I suspect well under 1% of images uploaded here has been manipulated or fabricated. (and probably <0.1%) Both Tasnim and Fars hhave been considered unreliable in both Persian and English Wikipedia. We are not on Wikipedia. They are not allowed to be the source of text on wikis, why are allowing them to be the source of images on wikis? Commons does not police other wikis. A photo of a tank can illustrate said tank. Even if that photo was taken to promote the military. And even if the caption says "our tank is 100x better than stupid imperialist american tank" which no Wikipedia should repeat. That being said, a middle ground could be to delete all unused AND political images by them so pictures of soccer matches and nature and so on can stay for now. Political images have a high tendency to be manipulated. Leaving non-political images alone is a good step. But it's concerning that you were unable to provide even a single example of a manipulated image that made its way to Commons. - Alexis Jazzping plz20:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
You seem to be misunderstanding some points about Commons scope.
largely unused — you can cross that out from your reasons for deletion. Most files on Commons are unused but none of them will be deleted based on this reason.
realistically useful educationally — that is likely true for most state propaganda. Examples of state propaganda are often used in history books, in academic analysis, artistic discussions of tools used, etc. This is in project scope.
personal free web host — that refers to photos of your family members on vacation. It does not refer to state media.
advertising or self-promotion — that refers to product advertisement and promotion of your garage band. It does not refer to state media.
Not scope related points:
"neither filenames nor text may be phrased in such a way as to constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation" — where is this quoted from? If a file description is problematic, edit it (and/or have it oversighted). If a file name is problematic, request a {{Rename}}. Problematic / Erroneous file names and description are not a valid reason for deletion.
"the burden of proof lies on the uploader." — that is correct, but what exactly is it that you are asking the uploader to prove? Usually this phrase refers to copyright: it is the uploader's task to make sure that the uploaded media is compatible with Commons licensing policies. And this is so far the only reason that has been presented that poses a clear and valid reason for deletion for some of the files. However, we've only a few valid reasons for speedy deletion, and anything that does not fall into one of the speedy deletion rationales will need to go through a regular deletion request.
We should not shift an unreasonable burden onto the community by expecting volunteers to verify tens of thousands of files — that's actually something that is often done on here. See Category:License review needed for example.
Thanks for the summary of the discussion. By now this thread is so long and sprawling that I don't know if anyone will see it, but just adding my two cents.
First, there is a focus here on Tasnim and Fars (and to some extent Mizan), but this is a bigger problem. Mehr, SNN, Moj, Nasim, and Khamenei.ir all publish their images under Creative Commons licenses, and there may be more I'm not aware of. Most if not all are state-affiliated, but their mixed nature becomes problematic because a mass deletion of all media taken from them (or even all unused media) would also delete thousands of non-political images of landscapes, sports and more. Further complicating the matter is the scarcity of non-state free media covering protests (see this, where a Fars photo of 2019 protests is still widely in use; there are others too).
As S1 suggests, the most immediate solution is to balance it by asking other sources to release their contents under acceptable Creative Commons licenses. CC-0 or CC-BY licenses would best because CC-BY-SA risks limiting their usage outside Commons due to ShareAlike obligations. We first need alternative sources for media that can be used across Wikimedia projects and beyond. I read efforts are ongoing to get permission for this. I've also seen Vahid Online has issued written permission on his X account, but that is not enough for hosting on Commons as hosting conditions are more strict here. Will he (and others) agree to a compatible CC license or less preferably a VRTS ticket?
That creates two legal complexities. One is the legality of hosting files from these agencies given their affiliation with the IRGC. Can we get an opinion from WMF Legal on that?
The other is licensing complexities for S1. Virtually all sources that publish protest media from Iran receive their contents from Iranians and are therefore not copyright holders, so the risk of deletion is high without making proper licensing arrangements. One of the following two solutions comes to my mind:
Upon receiving media, sources should ask the sender if they have recorded it and whether they agree to transferring the copyright to the source. I suspect almost everyone will agree. The source could then release all their media under a compatible license such as CC-BY 4.0. This has the advantage of attributing the source and not the actual person who shared the file, who would likely wish to remain anonymous.
Upon receiving media, sources should ask the sender if they have recorded it and whether they agree to release it under CC-0. CC-0 does not require attribution, so a copyright transfer will not be necessary.
"media taken from them (or even all unused media) would" Then what about deleting all unused political images? We can find them through categories easily. Amir (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
These files can be very valuable for researchers and journalists investigating on how these manipulations and how the communication by the government work. These files should of course not be used on Wikipedia without giving context on the source. We have many files on Commons they should not be used or are even forbidden to be used in many democratic countries without proper context. GPSLeo (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
I think that would still be problematic for a number of reasons. One is the definition of political. Another is that Commons, by nature, is much more inclusionist than Wikipedia. The main policy on this is COM:PS's educational purpose, which is historically interpreted broadly. As GPSLeo also said, Commons even hosts media that is forbidden in many countries (see Template:Nazi symbol for example). So I don't think mass deletion is a realistic solution because even propaganda material could be used to illustrate how state propaganda operates.
But I think there is something to be done. COM:NPOV#Text recommends not using provocative file names and descriptions, and in many cases with Tasnim and the rest, the problem lies with the name or description; see this for example, where the photo is, beyond the dubious licensing that does not refer to the photographer by name, completely neutral, but the name and description represent the state narrative. Dealing with these is the most straightforward as rename requests and description edits fix the NPOV problem. 999real's edit at Special:Diff/1159776145/1159838207 is a good model. Finding these is also easier because state media has a few distinctive keywords that virtually no other source uses, like "اغتشاش" ("riot").
That aside, I agree that mass uploading everything from these sources could include images that are in my opinion outside the project scope. Some clear recent examples are 1 and 2. As with all other media, I think users should first do a quick review to make sure all uploads fall within the project scope and refrain from uploading those that don't.
General arguments aside, because NPOV in titles and descriptions here is a significant problem, for a start I think the names and descriptions of all media from these sources uploaded since 28 December 2025 (the first day of Iranian protests) should be reviewed. 999real, Yann, and Immanuelle have helped with this, though many cases still remain with their original descriptions and titles (example). Category:Iranian media publications related to the 2025–2026 protests does not include all cases, but reviewing and fixing problematic cases should not be too difficult due to the balk format in which these are published.
To conclude, how about reviewing recent cases first, then considering how similar issues can be mitigated and prevented in the future? Also, I still believe getting more sources to issue free and compatible licenses is the most important solution. Ahmadtalk21:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Sure NPOV descriptions is an improvement to files but is the absence of NPOV descriptions and titles really worth losing thousands of useful files that would have been hard to Commons to otherwise get access to? Trade (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
@Trade: I'm not suggesting the mass deletion of them all. As a first step I'm suggesting only renaming NPOV-violating files and moving or removing their NPOV-violating descriptions to neutral ones. Deletion discussions can follow once more information about the scale of out of scope media is available. Ahmadtalk08:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Ahmad252, I've also seen Vahid Online has issued written permission on his X account, but that is not enough for hosting on Commons as hosting conditions are more strict here. Will he (and others) agree to a compatible CC license or less preferably a VRTS ticket? Category:Photos from Vahid Online Only potential problem I see (but opinions may differ) is that "As the copyright holder, I grant permission for the content I shared to be used on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license." specifies Wikipedia/Wikimedia. See also Commons talk:License review#Photos from Mamlekate. - Alexis Jazzping plz23:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Thanks for the link. I had only seen a different post from Vahid Online where he had not specified a CC license and wasn't aware of this. I don't think the Wikipedia/Wikimedia specification is an issue though. To me the release under CC BY-SA 4.0 is the important part, and "to be used on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects" doesn't necessarily indicate restrictive intent either (it's not "to be only used on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects"). As for the Mamlekate license discussion, I will respond there to have it all in one place. Ahmadtalk06:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I did not read all the long text of this discussion, two things from my point of view: 1/ Propaganda has an undeniable historical interest which makes it meet the educational value criteria and is therefore in scope. 2/ If a warning message is affixed to a file suspected of being propaganda therefore, this message should remain neutral as much as possible. Indeed in case where several parties are involved (several countries in war, or a government and its opponents, ect...), if you add a warning saying "this is propaganda", this lacks neutrality. A neutral warning should be something like "this media was created by one of the parties to a recent or ongoing conflict therefore it may or it may or may not be biased". Christian Ferrer(talk)12:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The used warning currently states: This text comes from the original image source and was kept for documentary purposes. The original description might be false, misleading or offensive.Nakonana (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
For the sake of accuracy: That template got created after this thread's discussions (Template:Original description disclaimer) it was not like it has been like this when I brought this up and obviously, it hasn't been added to 200,000 images that got mass uploaded and many of the original file names are still there. Amir (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
You are quite right on your assessment but the discussion need to move on four pillars: 1- Many of uploaded files have problematic name and/or description and it's hard to fix this due to the sheer volume of uploads 2- A lot of these images clearly are not in the COM:SCOPE. Even some already have been exampled here: File:"Tehran's calm despite calls for chaos" Tasnim 08.jpg (and the title is quite something, after when there were so many people killed that they had to use fire trucks to wash off blood the streets (search for "erase all traces."). There are many more examples. 3- Sure, we need pictures of people holding picture of Khameni and smiling like a propaganda poster, but thousands of such pictures? I'm sorry for making this comparison: This is quite like COM:NOPENIS to me. Out of 200,000 images a lot of them don't provide any new educational value. How many pictures of propaganda do we really need? Imagine if we had someone uploading 200,000 pictures of human genitalia here. Maybe I'm missing something obvious here. This is my weakest argument 3- These sources have a long and documented history of copyright violation, manipulation and downright fabrication so I consider them radioactive for this reason too. See above for examples. Amir (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
A lot of discussion here is going on the straw-man of "Amir wants to ban upload from Fars/Tasnim and co". I want us to slow down on mass upload so we can check for issues, copyright, fabrication, naming, educational value and so on. Amir (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Percentage of constructive edits by unregistered users to File namespace
Latest comment: 8 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Yesterday, I had the unpleasant experience of having a look to a file uploaded by me, to see its description had been vandalized months ago by an unregistered user. I wonder what % of edits to File namespace by unregistered users are constructive, and if there is any study about it.
I think Commons is totally different from Wikipedia in this. Based on my own experience (perhaps other people's experiences are different), unregistered edits are very important to Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, I started doing small edits for several years without feeling the need to create an account. But the first time I felt the need to edit Commons was to upload files, so I needed an account. That was the moment I created my Wikimedia account, using it both for Wikipedia and Commons, from then on (another reason to create an account would be to create new articles in English Wikipedia).
I think it's good that other namespaces (for example, galleries) can be edited by unregistered users: they are more Wikipedia-like. They are expected to be edited in the same way as Wikipedia articles are. But there are more than 134 million files in Commons, now. By comparison, there are only about 7 million articles in English Wikipedia, and it has a far bigger number of people looking for vandalism.
In addition, there are plans for images in Wikipedia to link directly to Commons in the near future (now, a page very similar to the Commons one, but under a wikipedia.org domain, is shown; this page is not directly editable). I fear this will make the problem even worse, something like the early days of Wikipedia when you easily found vandalism in many random articles.
It's impossible to succesfully patrol 134 million pages. Again, based in my own experience (that may differ from the experience of other people), I never felt the need to edit the file page of a file uploaded by other user, until I had some experience in Commons. If the uploader of the file didn't add a good description or categories, it's highly unlikely that the solution will come from a user without previous experience in uploading files to Commons. If that's the case, there could be a page for proposed changes by unregistered users, so registered ones can later apply them. But I think direct edits by unregistered users are far more likely to cause harm than good.
There could also be better systems to flag potential problematic edits. It's best to check your watchlist from time to time to spot problematic edits to pages you watch as most pages aren't watched by many. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
That's just the problem. I'm not thinking about my uploads only. It's also about uploads by users that are no longer here, or about uploads by occasional users who uploaded only one or a few files long time ago. The system should be robust and reliable, just like Wikipedia is now. Vandalism can create a bad image for Commons or even for the user who uploaded the file whose description was vandalized.
There could also be better systems to flag potential problematic edits: I agree with this, it could be an alternative if it works well. MGeog2022 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Sure, I wasn't implying that. And I agree that what you said is a problem. I sometimes find files and category pages that have been left vandalized for years (eg often meaningless captions).
However, that also happens for some important well-watched English Wikipedia articles visited by hundreds daily for quite a few days and what you described is a bigger problem on Wikidata where there's millions of even after creation unwatched items where it doesn't make much sense to enable even unregistered people to edit for example authors of scholarly papers when the authors have been imported by some bot where I'd suggest some sort of locking that only allows edits via scripts at least for some of the properties (main subject could be excluded) or at least for new & unregistered users. Locking file pages on the other hand doesn't seem as needed and one could use the metadata on account creation and whether it's an IP editor for some page that lists these. Whether what you propose is the optimal solution considering net use and benefits of allowing unregistered users to edit files, the possibility that what was once done by unregistered users would just be done by registered new users, and the potential downsides probably requires some investigation like e.g. how many edits of that type are there. If there's very many, a page listing these for checking or similar may not be feasible but at the same time many of these are probably constructive. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Yes, the Wikidata case seems even worse, and I also think it should be improved.
In English or Spanish Wikipedia, now, it's very rare to see a vandalism when you visit a page (in Spanish Wikipedia it's quite easy to find articles of questionable quality, but not true vandalism). It was very different during Wikipedia's first decade, and it continues to happen, for example, in Simple English Wikipedia.
I hope that the same level of vandalism prevention that English Wikipedia now has, is possible some day in all WMF projects, some way or another. MGeog2022 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC) .svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment it might not be relevant for Commons' general purposes, but if we've got a file showing 18 people, some of them very prominent (e.g. Booker T. Washington, Frederick Patterson, Philip A. Payton Jr.) and all but one identified in some meaningful sense, it is likely to be very useful to some historian to work out who is the unaccounted-for person in that photo. It's not so much their birth & death dates as who they were. - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Doing…- Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
.jpg/250px-Basketball_Premier_League_-_Kale_Amol_and_Raad_Defense_of_Isfahan_6_(Mehr%2C_2026).jpg)
.jpg/250px-Foreign_Minister%27s_Meeting_with_Ambassadors_and_Heads_of_Foreign_Missions_in_Tehran_39_(Images_published_by_Mehr_News_on_12_January_2026).jpg)
.jpg/250px-The_sixth_day_of_the_street_section_of_the_Fajr_Theater_Festival_26_(Mehr%2C_2026).jpg)
.jpg/250px-Pro_Government_rally_in_Ilam_9_(Mehr%2C_2026).jpg)
.jpg/250px-Pro_Government_rally_in_Zanjan_14_(Mehr%2C_2026).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
![15:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2026/02#c-Galactic_Center_Radio_Arc-20260207152100-Question_about_the_"No_permission_since"_tag_on_File:Concept_route.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-سومین_سالگرد_شهید_قاسم_سلیمانی-تهران.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_85_(khamenei.ir,_2026).jpg){kind=link}
_86_(khamenei.ir,_2026).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}