Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

Shortcut: [[:]]

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-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

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
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

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/mld

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • ✓ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

My pleasure -- Avi (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You moved it before he requested? !_! Stifle (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pete re-signed after the initial request. Haha. Killiondude (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 [1]). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I would agree; this is an entirely valid image. Nothing copyrightable by the BBC here. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cirt (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It would have been funny, if it was not so sad

Category:Terrorism was added to Category:United States Army and to Category:Central Intelligence Agency The user even provided a source for the new addition (please see edit summary). Ready to take a look at the source? I mean it might be better to sit sown before you do :) here it is--Mbz1 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, but state actors can never be terrorists, under the accepted definition of the word (you can have state-sponsored terrorism, but never state terrorism. See en:State terrorism for why many scholars believe this is so). -Nard the Bard 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The absense of a consistent accepted definition is why enwiki removed any categories calling others terrorists. Sceptre (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This looks likes a case of en:WP:POINT. Multichill (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image tag query

Apologies, I cannot find the correct venue for doing this or the correct tag, I am not one for often venturing into commons, but it is rather clear that the image license tag on File:Barzan_ibrahim.jpg is wrong. The image predates the US invasion (it appears on the playing cards), so obviously the source was not the US central command as claimed. I've had no luck identifying the actual source, but I suspect until it is found, we should boot this image down to wikipedia. Narson (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File version deletion request

Hi, due to a time conflict during editing we would like the following File revisions of this image to be deleted:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d3/20100102155044%21R%C3%ADa_de_MUROS._Serres%2C_Muros%2C_Galiza.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d3/20100102164557%21R%C3%ADa_de_MUROS._Serres%2C_Muros%2C_Galiza.jpg

as they are complete duplicates. Sorry to bother you here, but I could not find the correct place to request version deletes. Thanks for your help, --Mirko Junge (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really needed. It won't save disk space, and I don't think it's a big issue to have a longer file history. Do you have a particular reason for wanting those old revisions deleted? –Tryphon☂ 18:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the guy with who I had the concurrency problem with was very annoyed that the problem occured in the first place and secondly that there was an image with the photographers name in it. I don't mind at all. Thanks for your help, --Mirko Junge (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Istanbul_084.jpg

This image has just been removed from the relevant article on Wikipedia on WP:BLP grounds. It's probably appropriate to delete it as it permits identification of minor children of a controversial figure that could theoretically place them in danger. Exxolon (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes but the photo appears to be taken by someone close to the family and they seem to want it on Wikipedia. I oppose speedy deletion. Not opposed to a regular discussion, I just don't think this image warrants an emergency deletion. See discussion at en:WP:BLPN. -Nard the Bard 04:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader seems to be in contact with the OTRS, if you look at other pictures of him. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

I've been waiting for a decision on these DR's for a while now. First one's from July 2009 and the other is from December 23, 2009:

I was wonder if a sysop could take a look and make a decision. Thanks, Nat (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images by User:Corvettec6r that require deleting

A while back several editors along with myself became suspicious of many images User:Corvettec6r was uploading. After much discussion and investigation, we were able to identify 100s of copyright violations. These images can be found in the gallery here: User talk:Corvettec6r/Archive1#Images for deletion. Administrator Bidgee started deleting these images, but most are still undeleted.

Corvettec6r has admitted that the images in the above link are in fact not his own work, so there is no doubt about their status. Discussions related to this can be found here, here, here, here and here.

Please note that Corvettec6r has uploaded many personal images as well, and has provided adequate proof that he is the lawful copyright holder.

If several administrators could these images, that would be much appreciated. This should have been organised a lot earlier, but forgot about it until reminded again by Corvettec6r. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start doing some again. Bidgee (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done for now, if the photos are still there later I'll try and finish it off as it's currently 2:30am AEDT. Bidgee (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bidgee. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done: All files in the gallery have been deleted. Bidgee (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you very much for that—it must have taken you a while. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has issued a legal threat in Commons:Deletion requests/File:NikhilJassawalla.jpg if File:NikhilJassawalla.jpg is not deleted. As of its upload-history, the image was uploaded from Flickr and Flickr-reviewed the same day (29. September 2008), though the latter happened in two steps as the automatic review first was negative. However, thereafter there image was changed from color to b/w and, in addition, was somewhat photoshopped (part in background removed). About half a year later, the uploader (User:Grantkemp) nominated it for deletion due to missing source (likely it was taken off Flickr). This was rejected (due to positive Flickr-review) twice. Recently deletion was requested by an IP (see first link) and now again by a different IP. As the image isn't used anywhere and as it is a portrait picture of a (likely) living person, courtesy deletion seems to be ok for me, just to prevent unnecessary drama and more conflict. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against the deletion, as it seem there was a Wiki article by seem not to a notable person (according to the deletion log) thought legal threats are not really a reason to delete and saying the photograph was stolen and put onto this site is a big claim and unsupported claim. Bidgee (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I've deleted it. --Túrelio (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The incredible "Power of Commons"

Just, before you (may) see it in the evening news, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of herefordshire.PNG. It seems, somebody uploaded a fake flag of some county in the UK to Commons. It was then put into wikipedia articles about that county and thereafter picked up in the real world and resulted in products labeled with the fake claim. Though probably nobody was hurt by that, IMHO there should be some examination of conscience (if thats the correct term) on our side about accepting fake flags and similar and about better safeguards against letting our credibility be damaged. --Túrelio (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it's the credibility of the people who foolishly reused it without any kind of research or cross-referencing that is being damaged. We are not an encyclopedia, and never claimed that our content was accurate (we require a source only to check the copyright status, not for verifiability). –Tryphon☂ 16:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with calling it "Power of Commons", but rather call it "Power of Wikipedia". I believe no one would have used this image if it wouldn't have been in that article, but only hosted here on Commons. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have it your way; I just cited Pieter (It shows the power of commons) from the rfd. --Túrelio (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be similar to File:Flag of småland.svg, which is a historical region in Sweden. Like the other historical regions of Sweden, it has no administrative significance. So some (botanical?) society assigned flowers to each region (in analogy with State flowers in the US, but there is no regional authority that can adopt these assigned flowers), some ornithological society assigned birds, etcetera. Even "region stars" and "region constellations", and they are listed in "Nationalencyklopedin" (kind of strange). Some private person invented these "region flags". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of an Image Uploaded in Ignorance

Hi, My apologies for my ignorance as to how this works. I uploaded my own picture, unaware that I can't (apparently) delete it. Not only was I unaware of that, but I was also unaware that it would appear on google searches of my name. Can I plead "inadvertent error" and get rid of it? Or at least get it off google? The file in question is: File:Daniel R. White.JPG

Thanks very much.

Best regards,


Dan White

P.S. I saw something saying I should introduce my name with a series of 4 tildes, but I'll be darned if I can figure out how to insert a tilde here.

✓ Deleted - Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by User:Celuca

Hello,

I have come across the images uploaded by User:Celuca. Some of them [2] [3] [4] are professional (corporate) photographs of nuclear installations in Switerland, credited to the companies that operate the plants, and licensed under Cc-by-sa. What annoys me is that

  • the user is undisputably of good faith, and probably well-informed; I'd bet that he requested and obtained authorisations to upload these images
  • as they are, these images lack the OTRS justification needed for the licence
  • the user has not contributed here or on en: for a year, does not seem to have an account on it:, and did not register a mail address. He cannot be reached for updates.

What should we do in such cases? Rama (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask here --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New maintenance category: Long file description pages

Based on a recent database report, I started cleaning up or recategorizing pages from Category:Long file description pages for review. I'm still discovering new stuff, so additional subcategories for Long file description pages may be needed. Feel free to participate or comment about it here. -- User:Docu at 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=33808498"