Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:AN/U · COM:ANU

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 at COM:HMS.

12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
Commons discussion pages (index)


  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Is it OK to demand a copyright-mark when an image is re-used?[edit]

User User:A.Savin is demanding that - when re-using his images - you are required to either buy a license from him - or add a byline stating: Copyright: A.Savin, Wikimedia Commons (copyright-mark rather than text) (Link to user's template). I was under the impression that demanding copyright-marks (when re-using) were incompatible with Commons' policies. Doesn't this mean that the license (copyleft) is changed? Has the licensing rules here on Commons changed to allow a uploader to retain copyright? (A.Savin refused to discuss further with me on norwegian wikipedia and directed me to this noticeboard). Regards --- Aldebaran (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Under CC-licenses you can require whatever attribution you want; a link, a name or a specific phrase. Secondly, licensing a file under a free license (not including CC0 and PD) does not "remove" copyright from the file, it simply becomes "some rights reserved" instead of "all rights reserved"; it is still protected under copyright laws and is thereby copyrighted, just freely licensed as well. If I want to require the attribution "(c) 2018. This file is owned, made and created by Jonatan. He is the best person ever. Buy his mercy on" I can require it. It is up to re-users if they want to use my images of course, but it is alright to request such attribution. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
OK. I just assumed that the copyleft license was incompatible with copyright-mark. I'll start retaining copyright on my own images from now... Thanks for the quick response --- Aldebaran (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Jonatan, User:A.Savin uses the "Free Art License", not a CC licence. They are similar, and compatible, and the attribution for FAL is "Name of the author, title, date of the work. When applicable, names of authors of the common work and, if possible, where to find the originals"'. CC make it clearer that the author's name may be a pseudonym, but neither permit licensors to demand extra worship phrases like your example. You are right that these images are very much still under copyright law and requesting that this is made clear in the attribution through the use of a copyright symbol is understandable. Strictly speaking, the format of the attribution and its location can only be requested, not required. So A.Savin's text should be a little more accommodating. For example, it would be reasonable to give image credits in many articles at the end of the article or end of a book. However, our own template for this e.g.: {{Credit line |Author = © [[User:Colin]] | Other = Wikimedia Commons |License = CC-BY-SA-4.0}} has the words "(required by the license)" even though the format can't be required -- at least it links through to a useful essay (which I see doesn't actually mention FAL) that explains what is required. Wikipedia seem to think they can get away with no in-text attribution at all, and rely on the image being a hyperlink to the file description which does have full attribution. If that is considered legally compatible with CC or FAL, then we have to permit that for others too. Aldebaran, if you use the "Credit line" template, then that helps fix up the sample text that appears when you click "Use this file" at the top of the page. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I've updated Commons:Credit line to include FAL. In addition to the above attribution, it also demands the text "Copyleft: This is a free work, you can copy, distribute, and modify it under the terms of the Free Art License". This is so that the reader is made fully aware the image is free and given a link to the licence terms under which it may be reused. -- Colin (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Colin for clearing that up. It was exactly that "Copyleft image" (free) vs. copyrighted image (not free) that was bugging me. The reason I approached this user was that he/she had replaced numerous images in many articles with his/her own, and when I checked the license requirements, it occured to me that these images could potentially be deleted due to the license-demand of "either buy a license or mark the image as copyrighted". To re-instate the original images after a mass-deletion is a time-consuming job - especially for a small language-version as norwegian. Your addition in the Commons:Credit line makes it much clearer how to deal with Free Art License here on Commons. Much appreciated. Regards --- Aldebaran (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Aldebaran just to check. "Copyleft" is just a play on words, used to describe a licence. It isn't a legal term that means "not copyright". Indeed it is not possible to add a "free" licence like CC or FAL to an image that is not under copyright. Any image that is in the public domain through age or because of rules like for US government works, cannot be freely licenced because they are not copyright to begin with. A.Savin has been here long enough that his images are unlikely to be deleted and if there was consensus to force a change of words then I guess he'd do it. It is very important to those of us who make our images freely licensed that people appreciate they are still copyright, and potentially if the licence terms are not obeyed, then the full force of copyright law applies. -- Colin (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Reading Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia and Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia/licenses will be helpful. Adding FAL also to the second link is appreciated. Jee 09:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

License review by non-image-reviewer Etid22[edit]

Hi. Etid22 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploadsblock user is usurpating User:Explicit identity by adding a LicenseReview template though he/she 's not an image reviewer. Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

License reviews undone and note left on their talk page. --Majora (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
As LX already noted, it is a fresh Sol-lol’s sock – we know this behaviour. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Ok, blocked. Yann (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


Just to inform you admins. The user is a known sockpuppet of User:Chyah. The latter is globally blocked. --Mhhossein talk 08:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There is definitely something wrong about Chyah (talk · contribs). The account is locked under the “spam-only account” reason, but accumulated 34k edits in fa.Wikipedia, 3k edits in ar.Wikipedia, and interacted with locals in both wikipedias for a long time – an implausible feat for a genuinely pure spammer. Moreover, extensive Commons uploads do not look like a spammer’s ones. @Masti: any comment on this? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
And back to the titular user: are a spammer’s contribs? Rafic.Mufid/Chyah/Sonia_Sevilla may do something wrong to Persian projects, but nowadays we see hounding and abuse of stewards privilege from certain quarters and the user in question is clearly an injured party today. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Followup: meta:Stewards' noticeboard #Wrongful global lock of Chyah. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Logo Motorola.png[edit]

To be honest,

This could be the logo for the company, but the website does not appear to use this logo. Feedback is apprecaited. Artix Kreiger (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of copyright or current use (in which even if it was a historical logo it would be in scope) why is this in COM:AN/U? -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I dont know. I thought this specific one could be a hoax. Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The {{cc-zero}} claim obviously is, but the logo itself looks legit. The color is a bit different from the one at the end of, but Motorola tends to use a pretty wide variety of color schemes that change frequently. (I used to work at Motorola many moons ago.) LX (talk, contribs) 20:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
All of the uploads of Stanotron1600 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploadsblock user are either blatant copyvios or have fraudulent claims of {{cc-zero}}. I have flagged them as such and warned the user.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Spam by TATTWA GROUPS (talk · contribs)[edit]

Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page and left them a warning. De728631 (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


userpage is promotional. Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the userpage and left them a warning about advertising at Commons. De728631 (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

salvo of personal attacks[edit]

Me thinks that Kalteneckerpeter (talk · contribs) might need a short break to learn basic civility, as within 4 minutes he 4 times posted the insult "Translate it you stpd cnt!!!" on my talkpage[1] and below my problem-messages on his talkpage[2],[3],[4]. He obviously objects to my permission-missing tagging of several of his uploads, which he is entitled to, of course. As I'm involved I will not admonish/block him by myself. --Túrelio (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry bruh -.-" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalteneckerpeter (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Since this happened yesterday and the user in question apologized here, a warning should be sufficient for now. If this behaviour should continue, other measures might be justified. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrator rights for User:Sealle[edit]

User Sealle has administrator rights on Wikimedia Commons.

He has uploaded

File:Genrikh Yagoda and Ida Averbakh 1922.jpg

which indicates the source of information for this file as Antique shop which tries to sell this image.

According to the description provided people whom the file depicts are Genrikh Yagoda one of the top official in USSR in 1920s and his wife. Consequently User Sealle uploaded the image on the Wikipedia pages linked to these people.

When I indicated in the deletion request that the source indicated does not allow to establish who are these personalities, User Sealle responded that the image has appropriate licenses, which is the deliberate attempt to not answer the question.

In addition, User Sealle tried to arbitrarily delete the images uploaded by myself and personally attack me in the messages threatening to punish me with cutting or restricting the access. The example of his inappropriate actions are

1) my file

(Deletion log); 15:33 . . Sealle (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Lenin funeral photo by Samsonov.jpg ‎(Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing) has been deleted;

2) exactly the same file heavily edited Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pogrzeb Lenina1924.jpg‎; 08:31 . . (+399)‎ . . ‎Armenius vambery (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎File:Pogrzeb Lenina1924.jpg) was not deleted while I directly indicated the problem to User Sealle.

Could you please comment on his actions in regards to the image he uploaded and put on the Wikipedia pages and in regards to my contributions deleted and the way this user communicates.

--Armenius vambery (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not quite sure on File:Lenin funeral photo by Samsonov.jpg (Sealle may wish to explain what is wrong on this upload -- who is Samsonov and when has he died), however I don't think it's about abuse of admin rights, as you claim. --A.Savin 14:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • First of all, Armenius vambery for some reason forgot to mention that after deletion of files they uploaded (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Armenius vambery), they kept uploading clear copyvios and at the same time started to tag massively other users' files for speedy deletion, and when their edits have been reverted, decided to nominate my own upload for deletion. As for funeral photo by Samsonov – I will re-evaluate this. Sealle (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC) → UPD: sent to a regular DR. Sealle (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
This in fact is not correct. Everyone can compare the time log between 1)the date my files deleted and 2) the date I put the tags for speedy deletion. The tag for speedy deletion (not for normal deletion) was used by me incorrectly, and I am sorry. But it is no excuse for attacking with the threat to cut me the access. My understanding that the Administrator Role on this site is to help the new users but not to discourage them to contribute. Please comment on the File:Genrikh Yagoda and Ida Averbakh 1922.jpg and very specifically on the possibility of verification the day and the time the image was created, and why you think it should be on the Wikipedia. --Armenius vambery (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
To illustrate my point that new users do not want to contribute since the administrators (in my case Sealle) make the contribution close to impossible. The major political figures from 1920s USSR do NOT have any image (!) on English language Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia pages of Nikolai Semashko and Yakov Sverdlov. --Armenius vambery (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Filip Matušinský.jpg[edit]

Second opinion requested. The deletion request (by me) was refused as it is used on WP. The article that is it used on is a self promotional article created by the up-loader about himself. The article has been already been tagged. [5] The image is not educational and does not come within our scope. If it did, I would create an article about myself, as so would many others and say boo to WC and WP policies. --P.g.champion (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not the venue for a discussion like this. That being said, the image is in scope per COM:INUSE. The question of autobiography on is not our business as Commons is a different project from Wikipedia. Address the autobiography and or promotionalism there. We can't delete an image simply because you claim it was used on a promotional article. Is there no procedure for nominating promotional articles for deletion at Is there no sysop there? Wikicology (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)