Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

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

Shortcut: COM:AN

  Welcome to 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

(edit | watch)
User problems
(edit | watch)
Blocks and protections
(edit | watch)
(edit | watch)

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
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
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
Translate this page
Important discussion pages (index)
Gnome User Speech.svg


  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links if required as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • If appropriate, notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.


the email address e-mail removed needs to suppressed, deleted, purged and expunged from the history, page, and any other pages, and now this page, because the email address is mine. The following are the pages that I could find which have my email address: 06:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the archive. If someone decides to hide the history, they may want to hide it on Talk:Main_Page as well. -- Rillke(q?) 07:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is the first instance of the email address. All the subsequent versions have the email address. Can't these versions be suppressed? 04:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I note you said that it is up to someone to decide to hide the history. Isn't it a policy that when someone requests private information to be removed, or redacted, that it is done? I don't see any other avenue to request or do I have to get this done, and requested first?, at Wikimedia Meta-Wiki? 13:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
@ If you want suppression, then you will need to address this to someone with oversight rights. Instructions for this are at Commons:Oversight for Commons, and for those at enWP w:en:Wikipedia:Oversight. The best that administrators can do is to revision delete intermediate versions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue here is:
  1. The email address was publicly visible for a very long time (8 years).
  2. I cannot address your en.wp request at all.
  3. You have written down the email address here again so I doubt it's about privacy.
  4. We would have to delete huge portions of the complete history of the main page talk page. This is unacceptable.
Thus: Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose suppression. -- Rillke(q?) 14:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
My ignorance of the process for such requests on this forum required me to explain exactly what I want removed. It certainly is about privacy when a lack of complete information was given. 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Based on Commons:Freedom of panorama#Japan, I created Category:NoFoP-Japan and Category:Japan law deletion requests and also modified the template {{NoFoP-Japan}} to use the category, as the same style as Category:NoFoP-Russia. If any administrator has an objection, please feel free to correct it. Regards, Humatiel (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed to Category:Japanese law deletion requests.--Humatiel (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright and public domain question[edit]

I think that the 70-year copyright has expired on these Ernst K. images; I believe they are now in the public domain; additionally, they are now featured on wikimedia sister projects. I uploaded them recently but I want to make sure they aren't on grounds of being removed. They are also featured on wikipedia. Any admin check would be nice. Thanks in advance and I hope to hear back from some admins. - Zarbon (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And I deleted them again. First, there is no author named "Greater German Reich government", that claim - written without any source... - does not make any sense. An author is a person, in Germany we have no corporate/government authorship. Second, a work enters the public domain on January 1, 70 years after the death of author. Every work has an author, otherwise it would not exist. So evidence is required that the author died >70 years ago.
p.s.: The photo File:ErnstKaltenbrunner-12.PNG (and a different color version) is by Walter Frentz and will be public domain on January 1 2075, 70 years following Frentz death in 2004. One of the versions has different collors, so maybe someone has to be credited as an author for editing the photo and a longer copyright term for that second author will apply. --Martin H. (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh. That makes sense. I didn't know that it was 70 years after the death of the author of the work. I thought it was 70 years after the death of the person in the image. That was rather confusing to me. However, are you certain that the authors of the other three images I had uploaded were not deceased at the time of 1945? Some of the photographic work may have expired and is in the public domain. I checked the other 3 and they were all stated as "Greater German Reich government." Can you please help find the original authors so as to specify if any of those 3 may still be used here on wikimedia commons? - Zarbon (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Right to Vanish[edit]

I recently came across a discussion at QI about user who had exercise a "Right to Vanish" now Commons doesnt have a specific policy on this... but IMHO we should consider it. Currently a crat can change a user name change when a request is made, which in principle is fair enough. But what happens to person right to attribution under the medias license and our ability to provide providence of the upload, especially where the user has use the {{own}} and the page now refers to uploader as VanishedUser both in the info template and the upload field. As its now the work of VanishedUser has the work become an orphaned work, because that is how most reuser will take such a user name. Then what about some who has already reused the work how can prove providence in author if we are breaking the record. Gnangarra 10:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

An attribution statement is a legally meaningful record independent of how Wikimedia Commons works. I would interpret RTV in such as cases as taking reasonable steps to not retain links between the identities used in attribution statements and any new names (or randomly anonymized names where Commons pages can be changed in a RTV request), but there being no requirement to change attribution statements. This does not appear an immediate concern for Commons, but should RTV proposals get traction within Wikimedia, this would be a useful area to add guidelines for Commons administrators and oversight, probably with some legal advice.
We do have past cases of courtesy changes in identity of this type, however this was as a reasonable courtesy, normally in relation to Photographs of identifiable people, not because it was perceived as a legal imperative. -- (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to find out how other projects handle this issue and what their experiences are. Green Giant (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
other projects just rename the user upon request, the issue for us in the use of {{own}} when the user name is changed as it puts the author field in {{information}} box in direct conflict with the upload information which gets changed along with all the files history which is also changed to the "generic" name, such inconsistencies are enough to deny the potential for re-use. More I think about it the maybe the text of {{own}} should be changed from "own work" to "uploaded by author" Gnangarra 12:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
What I mean't was how does RTV affect edits to Wikipedia articles made by the vanished user. I've always undertood the situation of articles to be that each edit on an article is effectively an attribution to the editor who made the change. So if a user vanishes, does it change the legal situation for that person's article edits? Green Giant (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
not as dramatically as it does here because while user may upload works under a "free" license they still actually own those works. Gnangarra 09:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
But the file you're talking about is not initially uploaded by the "original author"; it still contains the name of original author in the "author" field. So a failed to see any "right to vanish" is applied there. Jee 12:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The specific file in question is what trigger my thought about how its handled, but its not the basis for the question. I know a crat originally uploaded the image via an OTRS ticket they processed and the user then came in and uploaded another version over top with the crat deleting the first upload so that the image could go thru QI. In that particular case the OTRS ticket provides the providence necessary for licensing. I just think that we create a potential for ambiguity(conflict of information about the author) that will prevent reuse if we actually enable RTV without a clear guideline as to what needs to happen or whether we can even provide a RTV as would be expected from the user when we need to also ensure that we have sufficient information available for all reusers should they need it now or in the future. RTV is already being exercised on a regular basis based I presume following en policy but there they dont have the issue of ownership and licensing nor will they have to deal with what could be considered orphaned works. Gnangarra 09:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gnangarra: The RtV should not be considered at a single wiki level, especially not with enforced global SUL being the ultimate goal of the WMF, and the ability to rename users progressing towards stewards. RtV needs to be looked at holistically, and the view of Commons to this aspect will be vitally important.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Gnangarra, weelll what you say about Wikipedia is not strictly true. In fact English Wikipedia has a dark and foreboding secret - tens of thousands of files with Commons-compatible licenses, but which for various unholy reasons are hosted at Wikipedia rather than Commons. Please see Category:Wikipedia free files and in particular its subcategories at Category:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 files‎ which has 120,000 files and Category:GFDL files‎ which has 80,000 files, although doubtless there will be much overlap and undoubtedly some will be copyvios and their ilk. As you can see RTV would affect Wikipedia too but I haven't found any particular discussion of this phenomenon yet. Green Giant (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User continuously uploading copyright images despite warnings.[edit]

ImJasonRivera has continued to upload copyrighted images from various websites despite repeated warnings not to do so. Magiciandude (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked 2 weeks. Revicomplaint? 08:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)