Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

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

Shortcut: COM:AN

Community portal
Help desk
Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks 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 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, 54, 55, 56, 57
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, 56, 57, 58
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)

Concorso fotografico Wikipedia love monuments[edit]

Mi scuso se ho sbagliato sezione ma non so dove chiedere aiuto in quanto volendo partecipare al concorso fotografico, non riesco a caricare le altre foto (ne ho caricate solo 2) e successivamente mi compare una finestra dove sembrerebbe ci siano dei problemi in quanto il browser non trova la pagina di caricamento delle foto. Qualcuno mi può aiutare? Grazie. Maurizio Marchesin

I like to delete all my uploaded stuff[edit]

Hi Administrators. Please delete all pictures and stuff I've uploaded. Thank you. --DerPetzi (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your request, you cannot "withdraw" your permission. By uploading here, you explicitly release the images under a free licence, which cannot be revoked. We will consider the requests on a case-by-case basis, but there are no promises. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Already speedy-closed some of them which are of good quality and/or in use. --Denniss (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
And I speedy deleted the ones which were copyvios. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Borrar PU de usuario[edit]

Hola, por favor pueden borrar esta pagina de usuario User:Alberto_almaraz_dj, el filtro me lo impide. la biografía no tiene relevancia enciclopédica y es mas promocional. mientras yo marcare las imagenes para borrado de sus contribuciones Saludos! --Elreysintrono (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Alan (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete my own uploaded files?[edit]

how can i delte my own picture file. i did a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teirik (talk • contribs)

@Teirik: ✓ Done -mattbuck (Talk) 21:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding it being difficult, there is no way for a normal user to delete files. This is intentional, as when you upload here you are releasing the file under a free licence which cannot be revoked. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Closure request[edit]

I realise DR is backlogged, but for the reason stated therein can we please have an expedited closure of this DR? Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


I am requesting that Yamla be banned on Wikipedia because he is performing unnecessary edits and keeps reverting back to his edit (Edit wars) which is against the Policy. Yamla is also not listening to users and has had complaints on the Talk page. Please consider blocking. Thanks. 16:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, You are on the wrong page. This is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

DR closed as kept, without file having a license[edit]

Further information: Commons:Village pump#Deleting thousands of Flickr images over faulty PD marking

Alan and Yann recently closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Badgers and fox foraging.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Church in Marvão (16361810427).jpg withouth the files having a compatible license. How is this in-line with policies? How can we keep files without licenses? Josve05a (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead as a License Reviewer and marked these with {{PD-because}} and left comments on the source images on Flickr, linking them to the Commons copies. There is no doubt of the intent of the photographers (You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.), nor of the stability of their accounts on Flickr. Both images are well established on Wikimedia projects. This is a "fine" argument of license interpretation, however we have the option assessing whether there is "reasonable doubt" and this swings both ways.
Administrators closing individual DRs take care to examine the image page referenced and put right any license problems or open issues. This appears to have been missed in these cases, which would be a serious concern if a pattern is established, but can be put aside as human error otherwise. -- (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Addendum my viewpoint above was before double checking the file histories. This shows that a prior license review was done and reverted. I was mislead by the phrasing of the opening of this thread. Apologies for my confusion, though my license review can hopefully stick. -- (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
As stated elsewhere (multiple times) which has casued 20 DRs to be closed as delete (see Category:Public Domain Mark 1.0-related deletion requests/deleted), we need explicit permission that they allow "You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission" and that it is non-revocable. Nowhere on Flickr does t say this. And it still doesn't change the fact that they were keept with no license. Josve05a (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The license given on Flickr currently links to the text I have put in italics above, I call that explicit. It is perfectly reasonable to make a judgement call based on my many years of reviewing licenses on Commons and mark this with 'PD-because' (this is what is behind all licensing on Commons, we just automate some workflows based on the established experience). An individual human review of the photograph and circumstances around it to assess "doubt", seems a reasonable outcome here, and is the best we can probably expect for the remaining images with this issue. The fact I have contacted the photographers is belt & braces. By all means revert my license review if the reasons for doing so are supported by a credible community consensus. -- (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The number of times you repeat your same personal view doesn't add weight to it. On the other hand, you might want to consider that some 15-20 other people have already told to you that they disagree with your view. All your DRs where this matter was specifically discussed were closed as keep. A few DRs were closed on grounds not directly related to your nominating rationale. The reason why many other DRs were closed as delete is because they went unnoticed because people weren't continually watching over your shoulder to catch and comment on every DR you opened with the same rationale. They were closed almost automatically without scrutiny because they hadn't attracted any comment. Which was probably a mistake.
On the substance of the matter, no particular wording has been required by Commons to accept a release into the public domain found outside Commons, as long as the author's release is clear to a reasonable reader. You may want to start a general discussion with the objective of refining the policies to make mandatory that no public domain file should be uploaded from outside Commons unless it had been released though one particular method such as CC-0, or some other wording, for all future uploads. That might actually be a worthwhile discussion. But as things are right now, Commons accepts many wordings. Also, consider that the wording of the CC PD mark is practically identical word for word with the PD-author tag of Commons. There is only a small difference of style, insignificant in substance. Everybody here agrees that the CC PD mark was not meant by CC to be used for release. Yet, when the actual authors use it to mark their own works, we must reckon that its wording is as good and better than many other wordings of release that Commons has accepted. Have a look at the actual wordings at the sources of all the files that are tagged on Commons with PD-because or PD-author. And I'm not mentioning files released with tags such as WTFPL. if you think the wording of the CC PD mark is bad for a release, you'll be wordless to describe worse cases. Recommended best practice (CC-0) should not be confused with mandatory practice. If someone wants to hit on a nail, a recommended practice is to use a hammer (CC-0). Yet, if they hit the nail with a cast iron frying pan (CC PD mark), that may not be a use recommended by the maker of the pan, but it may do the job, although maybe not as nicely. It does not seem productive to start a war targeting files their authors have released with the CC PD mark on Flickr if the matter is not addressed more generally. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Public domain is a compatible status. The only reason why File:Badgers and fox foraging.jpg is missing a tag is because you removed it after your DR nomination had already been closed as keep. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Hmm; after my initial comment at one DR, I was away for some time. Glad to see it worked in that case as the Flickr user changed the license by some one's request. No doubt; it is the best solution.
I just re-read the discussion at VP. It doesn't arrive into a solution, so far. But it seems Nemo_bis's argument has some merit: "PDM in the case of a very new work means that the person considers the work out of copyright ab origine, or what we'd call PD-ineligible. A declaration on the threshold of originality, when made by the work author, does carry some weight." Since CC says "We anticipate that most of the time, the PDM in its current form will only be applied to very old works", the use of it for newly created own works is definitely a result of some misunderstanding. But as CC mentioned in another FAQ, an author can't make a contradicting claim later. So if we can ensure that the Flickr user is the original author, those works must be PD author, virtually. And we have no serious COM:PRP issues.
But this is not a permanent solution. We need to contact the authors for a better solution as happened in the above example. We may keep them for the time being instead of running some scattered DRs. But the files need to me marked with some maintenance categories for easier handling in future.
The Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images needs a better closing preferably by a crat. The current wording is not so good. Jee 09:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I just made a request at BN. I support 's move as a temporary practical solution. Jee 09:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I asked the user not to revert any reviews by others. Jee 11:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion the closure should be done by a bureaucrat, people chosen by the community for this task, and should be clearer how to act in the future "Officially" (as a policy). Administrators can not be lost regarding decision-making. Alan (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a danger this section will end up as a fork of the VP discussion, which is still open. I don't see how anyone, crat or admin, can close these DRs until there is a community consensus on what to do. Ultimately, imo, the images have to be deleted since the PD mark is simply incorrect: these images are under copyright. I suggest this section be closed and VP discussion continued. -- Colin (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Colin, it is not that simple. See, A said B is free from any copyrights. But, in fact, B is copyrighted by A. So if A is right, he should have released his rights. But where; we have no proof. Do we need a proof as A himself is telling so? Jee 13:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, per COM:PRP and since it is revocable. We do not have anything to fall back on if they change to, say, ARR. Josve05a (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Why would you think it is revocable? Natuur12 (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Natuur12 It is revocable in practice, because the Flickr user can just change the option with two mouse clicks. And revocable legally since the PD mark was bullshit so removing it is simply fixing a mistake. At some point, Flickr could conceivably write to everyone who applied a PD mark to an image taken by a digital camera/phone and point out their mistake. Then all those marks will vanish. Some might be CC0 but others might be a CC licence or even ARR. Jee, I don't want to repeat the VP discussion here. All images hosted on other sites contain "evidence" we can use to determine if an image is free for us to use. A statement that is legally false (the image is not in the public domain, it is copyright) has no value to us as evidence. I think the only thing we should be discussing is the process for handling existing images as a transition towards them being fixed or deleted, and how we try to prevent people making this mistake on upload. That discussion belongs at VP. Meanwhile, if anyone creates a DR, the only legal option is to delete. But clearly some restraint while discussion is ongoing, and not everyone has accepted, might be wise. -- Colin (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes but I find it hard to believe that it really works this way since it doesn't work this way in my home country. (Perhaps a bias) Natuur12 (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
What is different in your home country? Does Flickr make it harder to change licence options? Or are images PD automatically where you live? Or is the PD mark text different? I don't see what can be different. An incorrect statement of fact isn't the same as a statement of wishes, and the CC FAQ makes great effort to explain one simply cannot use the PD mark to release images into PD. Anyway, I don't see what merit there is in forking the conversation that belongs on the VP. Until this matter is agreed by the community, then closing a DR in either direction is likely to produce criticism. -- Colin (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
If you say feel free to use it you cannot revoke it and the Dutch supreme court often stated that such things need to be explained by the spirit of the text and not the letter. Such a statement can be legally binding because I declared that I have no interest in having a copyright for a certain work and after all the disclaimer states the following: You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. See Other Information below. Natuur12 (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Images owned by me were removed[edit]

Dear Administrators,

The images I uploaded to an article were removed, stating "Media without a source." They are family photographs and I am the owner of the images. Is there a way for me to upload them to make that clear? I would like to reinstate the images in the article.

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfed5 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit note[edit]

Any way to avoid the type of edit warning about adding an OTRS ticket to a page when people merely refer to a ticket, between nowiki tags, in a discussion, like here? Note: it's not important, just surprising. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)