Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

Shortcut: [[:]]

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~55
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• No license since 18 July 2024: ~10
• No permission since 18 July 2024: ~69
• No source since 18 July 2024: ~26
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-07: ~158

Other:

• Duplicates: ~1
• Advertisements/spam: ~1
• Personal photos/selfies: ~19
• Other speedy deletions: ~10
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~0
• Undeletion requests: ~7

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~7
• Interface admin: ~15
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~1
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

Upload protection

Is gone? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean? Seems like the script preventing upload without any information is not active at the moment, maybe that? --Martin H. (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, there were some errors in it, which is why it's now disabled until fixed. Probably better to have it disabled than if someone uploads a porn image over the Commons/Wiki(m|p)edia/... logo. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're talking about the possibility to protect a file against upload, just like we can protect a file against editing and moving. Ok, found the bug. It's disabled at the moment so if you used it somewhere, you might want to add full protection. Multichill (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I ran a toolserver script to reprotect all the remaining files that had upload protection but not edit protection set. There were a total of 43 of them, you can see the list in my protection log. (A curious observation: when protecting a page via the API, the log only shows the changed protection type, not any other protections the page might've had already.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of older versions request

Dear administrators,

I have had great difficulty uploading a new version of file onto "File:Belgian Congo Coat of arms.gif", and ended up creating a duplicate "File:Belgian congo coa.gif" with the new version on it. Therefore could some editor (1) ensure the new version, as appeared on "File:Belgian congo coa.gif", appears on "File:Belgian Congo Coat of arms.gif"; then (2) delete the duplicate "File:Belgian congo coa.gif"; finally and most importantly, (3) to remove the whole backlog of unsuccessful "older versions" from "File:Belgian Congo Coat of arms.gif" - I understand only adminstrators can do the last bit, and only under exceptional circumstances - but given the "older versions" are just duplicates of each other, I do request the "older versions" to be removed from "File:Belgian Congo Coat of arms.gif" as a matter of urgency. I will be profoundly grateful if these can be done. Thank you. Milesli 11:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems the work has been done by Zscout370. --Túrelio (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Zach! -- Milesli 22:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Page blanking by 75.47.133.94

Does anyone know what this is all about? Should the blanked talk pages be restored? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at one or two of them here and maybe this it looks like they should be restored to me. Might be an old puppeteer covering some tracks thinking than no one will notice by now :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. However, I wonder how much we are following the hint of the {{Unblock declined}} template that states Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired. The block is expired months ago. What is current practice in these cases? --AFBorchert (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair point and the history would be there anyway. Maybe the puppet note one(s) are more important to have visible - just in case...:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Emmanuel.kierzkowski

This user is uploading book covers under dubious licence tags (CC and PD) - I've tagged them for speedy deletion but someone may want to explain things to them, they are not responding to messages here or on Wikipedia. Exxolon (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker bot

This deletion from the gallery is a bit heavy-handed. 89.164.52.244 22:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Press undo, thats two clicks. The bot service will not feel offended and will not complaint. --Martin H. (talk)

File:ISO_639_Icon_en.svg

It seems that the text in File:ISO_639_Icon_en.svg is not aligned properly in the png thumbnails (as in the current version of [1]). The problem is solved in September for other major langages with a change of the font (see File:ISO_639_Icon_de.svg, File:ISO_639_Icon_fr.svg, etc) but the icon for English is protected. --Спас Колев (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the new image? The page can either be unprotected or you could just e-mail it to me and I can upload it for you. -- Avi (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Here it is:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="400" height="180">
<path fill="#0000C8" d="M21.394289 0a200 200 0 0 0 0 180L67.712434 180a160 160 0 0 1 0 -180ZM330.228757 0a160 160 0 0 1 0 180L378.605711 180a200 200 0 0 0 0 -180Z" />
<path fill="navy" d="M87.754733 15a135 135 0 0 0 0 150L119.532615 165a119 119 0 0 1 0 -150ZM280.467385 15a110 110 0 0 1 0 150L312.245267 165a135 135 0 0 0 0 -150Z" />
<text x="200" y="141" font-size="150" fill="navy" font-family="Nimbus Sans L" font-weight="bold" text-anchor="middle">en</text>
</svg>

The only difference is the font family ("Nimbus Sans L" i.o. "Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif"). --Спас Колев (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Is that better? (I didn't use Inkscape, I just saved it in a text editor). -- Avi (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin closing deletion request

A non-admin, User:ZooFari (whose RFA failed), has closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charmed-dia-w.png as kept.

• First, Commons:Deletion requests state that DRs are to be closed by admins.
• Second, ZooFari closed the DR without any explanations. This is worrying because it seems like he counted only votes, ignoring the evidence on the copyright status of the image concerned, particularly the email from BHL's patent attorney.

Could an administrator look into this? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think I'll have time now to go through the entire thing, but this does not look good. The e-mail is self-contradictory, and at OTRS we would have immediately asked for clarification. The BNL license clearly forbids commercial use, which is big red flag as well. The relationship between BNL and DOE is not clear, so the BNL cannot be assumed to be a unit of the US Federal govt. I'd lean to deleting this and waiting for confirmation of any special dispensation of the non-com restriction for this image. -- Avi (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Avi, the statements provide don't appear to be compatible with our concept of "free" licensing both in forbidding alteration and even going so far as to state that they can only be used in government works. Shell ^babelfish 04:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A non admin needs to explain a keep very well, and the keep needs to be really obvious. If ZooFari didn't explain this in great detail and if at least some folk think it wasn't a keep, undo it and ask for an admin previously uninvolved to evaluate it. Looks like Avi maybe is going to do that. Then warn ZooFari not to do that again. (but kindly, assuming ZF was trying to be helpful) ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So sorry for any trouble I caused. I didn't recall an explanation requirement by non-admin closure. I just noticed User:DRBot/non-admin which I can use as a guide for future DRs that I close. Again, I apologize. ZooFari 02:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the same thing happened at Commons:Deletion requests/File:August Fick.jpg. That seems to be a bit less controversial as it contains only keep votes, but it still makes the assumption that pictures created before 1890 are automatically PD and last thing I know is that we couldn't agree on a specific date for that. I tend to be rather strict with such old images, so I would have deleted this, but would appreciate input from you guys here. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 03:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Done I have deleted the image. I hope the uploader gets the BNL to contact OTRS, as if the BNL is willing to waive its non-commercial use clause, that would be a nice addition to the commons. -- Avi (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Schwarzes Viereck in hochgeladener svg - Datei

Hallo,

ich benötige Hilfe. Ich habe die Datei "File:Red de Cercania Barcelona.svg" hochgeladen. Dabei ist in der Mitte ein schwarzes Rechteck sichtbar. Bei der von mir erstellten Datei ist dieses nicht sichtbar. Auch wenn ich die Datei von Wikimedia Commons auf meinen Rechner herunterlade ist kein schwarzes Rechteck vorhanden. Auch habe ich bereits die einzelnen Elemente in eine neue Datei kopiert und erneut hochgeladen, das Ergebnis bleibt das Selbe. Weiter bitte ich darum, die alten Versionen der Datei zu löschen. Mit freundlichen Grüßen de:Wela49 (talk)Wela

Tryphon scheint es gelungen zu sein, das Rechteck zu entfernen. Die alten Versionen wurden  gelöscht. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Move a photo?

Hi, could an administrator please move File:Jimy Williams.jpg to File:Jimy Williams crop.jpg?

(There are two reasons this is important: (1) There is a separate file named File:Jimy Williams.JPG, which is confusing; and also, en:wp has a file named File:Jimy Williams.jpg, which makes it impossible to import this file.)

Sorry for my role in creating this confusion -- appreciate any help sorting it out!

-Pete F (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow that was quick, thanks! (also, I signed with the wrong acct before..fixed now.) -Pete F (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure -- Avi (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You moved it before he requested? !_! Stifle (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pete re-signed after the initial request. Haha. Killiondude (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

File:060405 contador.jpg and some other from same uploaders

We will have photos File:060405 contador.jpg and some other from same uploader where source link are dead, and I don't find licence information from web-side http://www.libertyseguroswurth.com/prensa_2.asp?opc=0, can someone check also.--Motopark (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The site http://www.libertyseguroswurth.com appears to show views of the Google News feed. Without information on the actual site which posted the news, there's no way to verify how these images were released. Many of the sites aggregated by Google News are copyrighted. Shell ^babelfish 05:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: http://web.archive.org/web/20051223093003/http://www.libertyseguroswurth.com/prensa_2.asp?opc=0 (the site cited as permission in the web archive) --Martin H. (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And a note: Even if it is still possible to click the images via webarchive I want to point out that it is not longer allowed to take images from that source. The copyright holder maybe decided to end the service, so using it now is copyright violation (same as a flickr change of licene). That brings me to a  Question: Does the permission include modification and storaging of the images, is the permission perpetual or is it a "you can use it now, but you can not allow others to use this in future" permission? --Martin H. (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, unfortunately even then the release mentions royalty free and commercial use, but nothing about modification. Wouldn't that make it insufficient? Shell ^babelfish 06:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, royalty free and commercial use are not enough. We need a true free license. --h-stt !? 08:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Free licenses are irrevocable. If you can prove that a work was released under a free license once, it can be uploaded, even though it is now published under more restrictive conditions. We allow for corrections in case of mistakes and the like, but a simple license change is not binding. Licenses are not contracts! --h-stt !? 08:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:Imbris

User:Bugoslav is a sockpuppet of User:Imbris. The user is extremely disruptive to boot (reported a dozen times on WP:AN/I [2]). See enWiki SPI checkuser results here. This may not be the right place(?), but I do hope someone will do something about the fellow as he's managed to push his nonsense by altering flags and images here from the commons. DIREKTOR (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I can only hope that the admin who would look into this contact User:Zscout370 (who blocked Imbris) to inquire whether I have done any disruption on this project. -- Bugoslav (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the block reason is that Imbris is a sockpuppet of User:Rainman, Imbris is blocked for block evasion. Sounds like a bliblic story: Bugoslav, who is a sockpuppet of Imbris per en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imbris/Archive, who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Rainman who showed disruptive behaviour on Commons. So Bugslav is a block evasion account and from first evidences I agree with DIREKTOR. Of course Zscout370s opinion is appreciated, also im interested if maybe Rainman/Bugoslav improved his attitude on Commons in the meantime? --Martin H. (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not encountered Bugoslav on here, but I did have run ins with Rainman and Imbris over various images related to Croatia and the former Yugoslavia. I have not paid much attention to the socking issues at en.wikipedia, so I have no feelings either way for blocking. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No image to restore

I tried to welcome the new year with some Alfons Mucha images - but there are no images to restore, only file descriptions.

• File:Alphonse Mucha Hamlet.jpg
• File:Mucha painting.jpg
• File:Alphonse Mucha Medea.jpg
• File:Alphonse Mucha Dancel lithographie.jpg

Aren't deleted files stored perpetually? --Martin H. (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored a number of Mucha images myself, but noticed some uploads don't have images as well. I think we only started storing deleted images sometime in late 2005? Or are more recent only stored for a certain amount of time? -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted images have been retained since 16 June 2006. Those images were deleted on 22 April 2006 (and File:Alphonse Mucha Dancel lithographie.jpg was re-deleted on 9 June 2006).

I'm curious as to these images' nature and why it would have been appropriate to restore them. —David Levy 02:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Mucha died 1939, on January 1 2010 his works are now in the public domain. Happy new year :) The litho is even e featured picture, picture of the day and still linked on many userpages. Well, there are many sources to find it again . --Martin H. (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

Yeah, I just realized that this probably was the case. Thanks, and happy new year! —David Levy 02:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a problem: WMF servers are in the United States, which doesn't use the rule of the shorter term. Was discussing that dilemma last month with regard to Wikisource and W.B. Yeats, whose work entered the public domain in Europe with the start of the year. Apparently only his pre-1923 work qualifies for WMF hosting. It sets my teeth on edge to write this, but we have to be consistent. Durova (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

File:The_Eleventh_Doctor_and_Amy_Pond_.jpg

I'm concerned that this free image may not actually be free in itself. My rationale is that an actor in costume as a character is an artistic work in their own right - photographing an actor in character is a derivative work of a copyrighted concept, therefore it's not possible to release the image under a free license without the consent of the copyright holder.

E.g.

I know Matt Smith and Karen Gillan, I dress them in the same costumes as the doctor and his companion and photograph them - even though I created the photograph I doubt I can publish or use the image without landing in hot water with the BBC for obvious reasons.

This needs another look. Exxolon (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a photograph taken from a public street, and released under the appropriate free-use license. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't mix copyright and personality rights. The "taken from a public street"-rationale has nothing to do with the subject possibly being under copyright. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please compare with David Caruso waiting.jpg, which is PD despite being a picture of David Caruso "in character" as Horatio Caine. I'm not sure how much they can be compared, but I think that the existence of the Caruso photograph on Commons would probably mean the Smith/Gillan photo would be allowed too. Sceptre (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. A shirt and tie and a police vest are not copyrightable elements. Per Commons:Image casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay purely non copyrightable clothing on a costume does not make a work unfree. Regards, -Nard the Bard 02:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Only the complete work; that is, the episode released by the BBC, is the actual work subject to copyright. Set-photos are not part of that copyright, and can be released freely by anyone who took the photo. — Edokter • Talk • 02:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Host desecration

There is a long discussion about the deletion of the file: Geschändetehostie.jpg here and I think we should keep it, but would like to get a second opinion. thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)