Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Admins and patrollers/Add ability to delete your own files without needing an admin

Add ability to delete your own files without needing an admin

  • Problem: If I upload bad files, I cannot remove or rename them without the help of an admin.
  • Proposed solution: Users should be able to easily delete any of their own files, without having to ask someone. They may want this for multiple reasons. For example, maybe they improved in terms of photography skills, and took new pictures of something which are much better compared to older ones uploaded by them.
  • Who would benefit: Any user that uploaded files which they want deleted.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: task T113508, task T20572
  • Proposer: Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


On English Wikipedia, at least, this is already covered by speedy deletion criterion G7, which allows editors to request deletion for their own work, but includes a safety: if deleting said work would be disruptive, then the deletion may be declined. This proposal merely takes the safety off of that process. As such, I can't support it. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the main problem is that your file may be already used on a lot of pages, and once you delete yours we get a problem... even though I want to support it... Omer abcd (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can perhaps allow the user to delete old versions of the file. If they have a better version, they can overwrite the file and delete their older version. This will also prevent mind-boggling events request such as this deletion request on Commons. Strainu (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's then to stop people with, say, reuploading File:Example.jpg as a "new version" of their file and then deleting old versions? If anything, that sounds like more of a headache. Worse, it would be trivially easy to upload a "new version" that's outright vandalistic and then complicate reversion of the vandalism by deleting old versions of the file. In the (rare!) instances where deleting old versions is desirable, users can ask any admin to delete the old versions under existing deletion policy (on English Wikipedia, at least). {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a kind of vandalism that is also possible now from the end user's POV. The only difference is that it takes 2 clicks to fix instead of 1.Strainu (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This could possibly be something useful in mediawiki, but I can't see it being useful in WMF wiki's that this project is mostly focused on. In most situations, once you upload a file you also attach a non-revocable open license - just like you do when you publish text. That being said, see also phab:T113508 / phab:T20572 that is related to this. — xaosflux Talk 19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At least an extension was written in the past for this purpose: mw:Extension:DeleteOwn; however yours and ToBeFree's concerns below indeed make the proposal potentially unworkable for Wikimedia. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. Once you've published content under such a free license, you have [usually] given away your right to delete the content. This applies to Wikipedia article content and Wikimedia Commons images. Yes, the people at the English Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons are usually kind enough to perform reasonable deletion requests by the only author of a page, but they may also decline such requests for various reasons, including "the content is good, we want to keep it". There should be no technical tool for an uploader to delete their own content in a disruptive way. ToBeFree (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This would allow some kind of abuse, so we would limit it to: pages with less than 5000 links/tranclusions, 500 revisions, your own userspace and user talks, and user with the delete-self permission must have 90 days and 1500 edits. Also, if a page deleted by you, you can restore it (only in userspace) Thingofme (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Bad idea. External sites may be reusing content originally uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons and provide a backlink (caveat: attribution is explicitly required by some free licenses) to the original URL. Deleting files breaks this attribution chain, which is why Commons admins will decline author-requested CSD if the file has existed for more than a few weeks. -FASTILY 02:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What if we made it within 30 minutes of upload? That way obvious errors and or mistakes can be taken down by the uploader. EoRdE6 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, this is what I was thinking as well MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 18:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    +1 for if this was very time limited to correct mistakes without admins/procedural knowledge. KylieTastic (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This could lead to problems in case of a compromised account. --Bischnu (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As on en:wp we delete on Commons such files speedily per request. So this proposal would be a good idea if there were additional restrictions: 1) The file must not be in use on any wm project, 2) it must not be superseded by a new upload of another image, 3) the upload must not be older than x days. That would save sysops some time. However, I don't think that creating such a special user right is technically feasible. --Achim55 (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is a good idea, as per brion's two bug reports linked in the request.
    1. Renaming / deletion should definitely be possible in the day after an upload; just as basic common sense. It's silly to have an arbitrary irreversible action that you could just have done differently on creation.
    2. Renaming / deletion for a few weeks after creation also makes sense, if the file is not in use.
    3. The arguments above are well-intentioned, but besides the point: a. Deletion doesn't change the license under which the deleted versions can be reused. It just changes whether those files/versions are visible to non-admins, or transcludable on other pages. b. Deletion is reversible, so there's a limit to how disruptive this can be. Conservative parameters (no older than a few weeks, not in use anywhere) + triviality of reversal would make the convenience available to all w/ little risk. –SJ talk  22:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are two reasons not to do this. Firstly, deleting images that were once on a page damages the history of the page, as does deleting old versions of an image in the file history. This especially should not be done with images that were once in article space, but even in the user's own space, this may not be advisable. If the user has been doing something unconstructive with images, it is not beneficial to allow that to be hidden from the community as a whole. If there are constructive reasons for deletion that can still go through an admin. The second reason is that editors who have lost disputes or had an article deleted sometimes try to "withdraw" all their work from Wikipedia by deleting it in a tantrum. It is not helpful if they have a deletion tool to help them in that. SpinningSpark 12:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  •   Support Meditating (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Mehmet İlkman (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Users start to use the ability on malicious purposes. I have seen the users, who say: I have worked for years in Commons and uploaded thousands of files, now I will quit and want to delete all my uploads. This is the worst idea here. Taivo (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Grant Lemons (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Goodlucksil (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose per others' opposes here and in discussion. The license is irrevocable, so uploaders don't have a right or presumed ability to delete their files. We do courtesy, but we decline even that if a file is in-use, or someone happens to think it could be useful or a worthwhile part of our collection. I don't think we should default to assuming that uploaders know all about c:COM:EDUSE. DMacks (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Franzekafka (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Weak support but only if restricted to a limited time-frame (such as 30 minutes - 1 hour) KylieTastic (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Strainu (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose If someone publishes a file under a free license, he or she waives some of the rights to the file. If the file really needs to be deleted, the rules present on many projects allow the administrators to quickly delete the file. Wostr (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose. --Eta Carinae (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose high potential for abuse EpicPupper (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose It's used by vandals. If there is a proper reason for deletion, we can be removed according to the wiki's policy. --𝑇𝑚𝑣 (𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑘) 00:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Problems with irrevokable license, and can be misused. Neocorelight (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose так можно вандалить --Флаттершай (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Weak support per KylieTastic: only if restricted to a limited time-frame (such as 30 minutes - 1 hour). NBS (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   OpposeSHEIKH (Talk) 10:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose By this way, washing of copyrights are possible to be legitimate, so what's the purpose of c:COM:FLICKRWASH? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose – per others' opposes; abusable; since the file is irrevocably published under a free license, the uploader has no right to delete their file. – Aca (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose - by the edit reason dropdown template, it says as "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.", so you have no right to delete it. Also, it can be abusive for large files. Thingofme (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support for renaming,   Oppose for deleting. — ElioPrrl (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Arian Writing (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose I see too many ways that this could be abused. Helen(💬📖) 20:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Douglasfugazi (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose: Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. ToBeFree (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose. Most likely abusable. – Symphonium264 (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose. On Commons, the tool does not agree with the irrevocable license and can be misused. ―― DePlusJean (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose. Users do not own content. The deletion procedure should be the same for everyone. --Роман Рябенко (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support J2pcom (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Once you've released your content under a free license, it's irrevocable. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   strong oppose as an administrator in Wikimedia Commons I saw several times users requesting deletions of some, or of all, of their uploads just because of an angry time, e.g. after a dispute or a disagreement. Such files are sometimes used a lot of time and may be very usefull. This proposal is IMO a very bad idea. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Christian Ferrer: so why are you supporting the proposal? 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @4nn1l2: [1] I never supported, someone changed my vote. I fixed it, thanks you, and well seen! Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Dušan Kreheľ: What is your explanation for changing someone else's vote? 17:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4nn1l2 (talk) Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose N013i (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose abusable --g (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose as Gianfranco. --LittleWhites (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose abusable, once a file is published under a free license, it's no longer up to the uploader to delete it - otherwise, it becomes a kind of "ownership rights". --L736Etell me 15:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Alekino (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose clear-cut violation of our licenses. It might be ok for personal (but truly personal) files, but I don't see how these could be marked as such. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose think at a content for which the original poster wants to remove the provisions of CC-BY-SA... --.mau. ✉ 17:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Vituzzu. --Phyrexian ɸ 20:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose KevinL (aka L235 · t) 20:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Conditional on it being limited to some short amount of time, like ten minutes or an hour, after the initial upload; if an image has been up for weeks or years, allowing a feature like this could be extremely disruptive (and should go through a deletion process). JPxG (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @JPxG: Yep, conditional on it being limited to wash of some short amount of copyvio times are also good to me, like ten minutes or an hour after an LTA made their initial spam upload. No need to repeat me about how you think it's good. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support A Chinese user (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose, incompatible with licensing terms and ethos of the project. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support EggPudding77777 (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose --Mannivu · 09:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose-- Sannita - not just another sysop 11:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Dreamy Jazz talk to me | enwiki 14:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose --Sigwald (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose per Nihiltres IAmChaos (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Malarz pl (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Restricted to the first 30 minutes or a similar time limit. It could reduce distress if someone accidentally leaves private info in the meta data, or someone uploads an image as a joke and then comes to their senses. -kyykaarme (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Oppose as written for reasons stated above. Would support in first 30 minutes of upload. Trey314159 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose -- Ulanwp (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose: may be abused. Glerium (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Cabayi (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support PSYCHREL (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose KingAntenor (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose SpinningSpark 12:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose The very concept of your own files is incorrect. RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support WikiAviator (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose While I'd support being able to delete images within a short grace period, as was suggested above, that's not what's being proposed, so no. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Glrx (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Bibeyjj (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose --ToprakM 00:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose - Darwin Ahoy! 00:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose We have db-author and similar for this anyway, and it is too open to abuse. Mako001 (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support 公車迷阿暄 (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Ayumu Ozaki (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --Ciao • Bestoernesto 02:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 02:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose--MaksOttoVonStirlitz (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hector Bottai (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Have a bad day and want to destroy many WP-articles? With that idea we powered vandalism. Would be useful if only images can be deleted, that are not used in any project and younger than a week (misupload or testupload) or older than 10 years (e.g. quality reasons). --Quedel (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Ryse93 (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose ~Cybularny Speak? 19:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Itsfini (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --Abubiju (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Knightoften (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose I think it is likely to be used for testing and vandalism. --Mario1257 (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose user releases his/her work in GFDL licensing and may not completely own to delete. Shyam (T/C) 13:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Weak support Like what Kylie said, if only the users have limited time to be able to do so Haycrendham (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose I often see requests for deletion of own files after the uploader felt huffed about something completely different. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose controversial 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Gargamail (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Jl sg (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Sebastianleroy (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose easily abusable.--evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 15:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]