Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:AN)
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:AN

  Welcome to Wikimedia Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
Administrator's assistance

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 instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email

[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
[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 here.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)

Script for fulfilling edit requests[edit]

Since some edit requests have piled up recently, I wrote MediaWiki:FulfillEditRequest.js.


  • Mark edit requests as done.
  • If the subject pages does not exist, offer a text box on the talk page and a button to create the subject page from within the talk page.

More details on MediaWiki talk:FulfillEditRequest.js -- Rillke(q?) 21:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you! --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Association football logos of Turkey[edit]

Can an admin pop by and review and close this request. It became unlisted from the list of deletion pages needing closure after a disputed closure, and needs an uninvolved admin to quickly read through and close. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Closed. Taivo (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Same picture with different EXIF[edit]

First File:Vahtera Pauli Nettiin.jpg with studio EXIF-data and after then comes File:Pauli vahtera wikipedia.jpg with different EXIF ?--Motopark (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The first has camera EXIF, while the second has EXIF from Adobe Photoshop, so it looks as if the second is merely an edit of the first. They're the same size and, overlapping the one with the other on screen, they appear to be identical. We should certainly {{speedy}} the second and DR the first, because it shows "Sini Leskinen" as Author in the EXIF, which is not the name of the uploader. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Problem[edit]

I check the New Page Patrol log on a daily basis. ([1]). If the page is a Gallery, then there is a link "Mark this page as patrolled" (MTPAP), which can be clicked to remove the page from the log -- it can, of course, also be deleted, which is more often than not the case. If it is a Category or User Page that has been moved from a Gallery without clearing the log first, the link does not appear, but it is easy to remove the page from the log by deleting it and then immediately restoring it.

Today we have eight new POTY candidates in the log. They do not have the MTPAP link and cannot be deleted temporarily. I don't know how to clear them -- can anyone help?

There is also "‎Translations:Commons:Checkusers/Statistics/6/hu", which has no history and does not exist but is in the log. I tried creating and deleting it to clear the log, but no luck -- same question?

Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I will care for the POTY ones and mark them through API. It may take several days. -- Rillke(q?) 15:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done marked all as patrolled. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
And i fixed the summary a bit. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Steinsplitter, thank you and could you tell us all how to do it so I don't have to ask again? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure. Click on the timestamp (to open the revision) and then on the patrol link. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are my vote buttons grayed out?[edit]

I went to vote for the 2014 picture of the year and my vote buttons are all grayed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Lightning Stalker (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 January 2015‎ (UTC)

See Commons:Picture of the Year/2014/Rules#Voter eligibility, point 3. Your local accounts on English Wikipedia and here on Commons have not been unified into a global account, and only your English Wikipedia account meets the criteria (your local account here on Commons does not have enough edits). You need to merge your accounts before you can vote. LX (talk, contribs) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Linette saldanha: Mass deletion needed[edit]

The user has uploaded many images from Konkani Viswakosh (1999). [2] clearly states "सगळे हक्क गोवा विश्वविद्यालयाचे सुवादीन" (translated: All rights reserved Goa University) with copyright symbol. All images from the books are copyrighted and thus should be deleted. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly the source is released under a compatible license File:Konkani Viswakosh Vol1.pdf. Is the source is released under a proper license. There is no need of deletion. Can the admins please check the source permissions. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of scope[edit]

I believe this selfie collection is out of scope. Palosirkka (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Recaranque --Alan (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Palosirkka (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Email not working - wish to publish appeal to deleted photo by allowing free licensing of privately owned image[edit]

Hi the email is not working as is

I wish to send an email affirming that I agree to publish an image under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. so that I can use it on my wikipedia page.

CountryCousins1951 (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The email address for sending COM:CONSENT is Because of a backlog you need to wait some days for a reply. You can add {{subst:OP}} to the file affected (in the maintime) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Adverts in upload[edit]

The file File:Ece a 21-30.pdf contains advertisments with active links to the advertisers' sites. I can't help feeling this should not be allowed, but can't find a specific policy or speedy deletion criterion covering it. Possibly it could be deleted simply for not meeting the criteria for pdf - that is, it could be considered "a user-created original-research article". SpinningSpark 23:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Modifying the above, the adverts are not directly in the document, but rather the links in the table of contents go off-site and not to the relevant section of the uploaded document. Sorry, I did not realise that when I first posted, but I still think this is a dubious practice. SpinningSpark 23:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:ADVERT, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This DR[edit]

Does any Admin have views about this DR? Secondly, if the Jan Sefti flickr account owner is in the USA as he says in his profile, how is he able to take the images I mentioned in the DR? These would appear to be derivative images and there are a few more of his on Commons. This may be his only own work image. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Life risk[edit]

I evaluate requests for file rename, but I got a file: this. I agree it's an unnecessarily long file name, but a person has placed a Criterion 3 move request tag (incorrect name) and given the reason, "potentially harmful to families of Airmen and friends due to increased terrorist activities.". I request the admins to have a peek at this case. Ethically Yours (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds a bit overblown, however, if we can decrease the risk of harm, I agree to the request, as the names in the filename of completely unnecessary and as the image is not in use on any WMF project (and even not externally). However, the EXIF data would need to be redacted, as they also contain the identifying names. --Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Túrelio: The requesting account was set up to just request for the rename. Agree with you. Ethically Yours (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The names are also in the description, in the EXIF, and on the DVIDS page for that image, so the names are findable anyway. Could be moved or not, but frankly said, it's just one more of those useless images caught up in a mass-upload of USGov (US Air Force, in this case) imagery. As far as I am concerned we could simply delete all these photos of arbitrary non-notable military personnel doing arbitrary things. Lupo 09:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
As the uploader, I appreciate a courtesy notification of discussions like this about my uploads, particularly if deletion is being discussed. Normally this would be through a deletion request.
There have been several changes and deletions like this requested by anonymous people in the past 12 months on DoD photographs. Where these have been modified or deleted from the DoD's own websites then it is fair to presume that this has been done for good reason and we should follow suit on Commons. Until that happens then suppression of descriptive data on Commons is pointless as we link to the official source data, which is no concern to the people named or the US government. Claims that there is a "life risk" by mirroring the information about a photograph on Commons as is published by the US Government is over-egging it.
I observe that an experienced administrator would look twice at a single purpose account with the name Takingouttrash that created this move request but is not in this discussion. -- (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
As the file is renamed now, it will be nice if the redirect is removed. Jee 11:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, there is no evidence of "life risk" or any verifiable complaint from anyone connected to the subject. Suppressing names by deleting redirects is a waste of time unless we have reason to suppress names entirely (including changing the EXIF data), such as if the images were removed from military websites and we had an actual complaint. If this were the case I would expect a DR to be raised and I would support it, as I have done with similar cases. -- (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you that there is no improvement in protecting privacy unless EXIF is removed. I just don't like such a long filename. (We have no control on off-wiki matters; so no comments on external link part.) Jee 12:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned that an unverified request with claims about non-obvious personal data results in any changes by Commons rights holders. This type of anonymous request from single purpose accounts could easily be used to bias our content or just be a means to disrupt the project. We should stick to the same line we adopt with those complaining about possible personal rights with Flickr photos; their first step needs to be getting the photographer to remove the source image, there is then a perfectly good rationale to either delete the image or remove any possibly identifying information.
We have literally millions of portraits of people on Commons and we have no firm agreed definition of either the limits of personal rights, or an accepted definition of who is a "public figure" and therefore public interest might override sensibilities of 'intrusion'. We are certainly not competent to assess anonymous claims about "life risk" due to increased terrorism alerts. These are circumstances where I would prefer to see take down notices or private emailed requests that meet COM:IDENT definitions for action. A photograph like this, where it has been irrevocably published by the military as public domain, and there seems little doubt about the consent of the subjects at the time of publication, is a poor one to establish new Commons standards for administrators or file movers. Our actions should remain conservative, defaulting to keep content unless a complaint is verifiable or highly credible, such as by the source site taking down their content. -- (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand your point. But I prefer to look any complaint without any prejudice. Here my thoughts are: "Does their name is important or add values to the image?" "Does removing them reduce the value of the image?" No; I think. For "non public figure", I prefer not to mention names; merely the picture with "some Airman and communications navigation specialist" is enough. Jee 16:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the file again, to re-add the removed VIRIN. The VIRIN is the easiest way to avoid non-identical duplicates from various DoD sites being uploaded. It is best practice to keep unique identifiers in the filename, for example as we do with Flickr photo numbers.

@Medium69: Please take care with aim 6 of COM:FR. With 50,000 other files uploaded and named using the same identifiers, there are many reasons to stick to the same structure. Most users of the rename request template are less familiar with the guidelines. -- (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The file seems deleted on --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
No, all files were removed from public view on that website. A site notice[3] states "We apologize, but due to ongoing system migration, public users will not be able to search DoD imagery at this site at this time. Development of a public search capability is in progress and will be available in the future." and are recommended as alternate sources to find images. In the light of the fact that the US military have stated they will provide a public capability at, I was intending to revise our image links when this becomes available. It should then be something that a bot can sort out. In the meantime, admins should take care not to presume that broken links mean that an image has been removed if they have not checked for it on DVIDs or similar under its VIRIN. -- (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the photo should be deleted due to out of scope? What kind of educational value is here? Taivo (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As is likely to stay down for a while, I have added a search query in DVIDs in {{milim}} for all files with declared virin parameters (this provides working links for over 40,000 of my uploaded images). We probably should add a multiple source link in the same way as we do for OCLC numbers etc. -- (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This edit with spam[edit]

This edit with spam [4] Please check.--Motopark (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Edits nuked, new sock of self-promo sockmaster blocked. INeverCry 07:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone add this flickr account to a blacklist[edit]

Can someone add this flickr account to a blacklist? It has been used to source likely copyvio images below with very low resolution and no metadata to Commons:

Best Regards,--Leoboudv (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Rillke(q?) 09:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

WWE uploader/puppets[edit]

The WWE poster here is an obvious copyvio. However I tagged the same poster as such sometime is the last couple of days or so and I don't appear to have posted on this user's talk page so there are puppets around too. Probably worth some admin action/CU I guess. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

See the history of that deleted file. Was uploaded slightly smaller on January 28 by ShaneH1990 (talk · contribs), and tagged by you. Lupo 20:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol unrelated.svg Unrelated - Public information (or information available to admins) suggests this also. On, ShaneH1990 has edited before and after NevilleWWE, and has never been blocked on either project (i.e., the NevilleWWE account does not appear to have been used to evade a block and/or scrutiny). Also, the versions of the poster uploaded by the two accounts have been of different resolutions, had different sources and different summaries. Generally socks attempt to upload the identical image with a similar summary. Эlcobbola talk 20:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi, can someone please delete the 2 identical file revisions? The photographer mixed up the pictures and only provided permission for the photo with the cigarette. Thanks! XenonX3 (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Blade Symphony[edit]

Category:Blade Symphony

It looks like this category and everything in it is in trouble.
Copyright notice for Puny Human, he developer, at lower left on web page. We hope (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)