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.

User Pipenavis[edit]

Several files like File:Partido de la U - nuevo logo.png, File:Fuerza ciudadana - logo.png, File:Partia Zieloni - logo.jpg and so on are listed for a speedy deletion. Only half of them are real PD-textlogo violations, while others are clearly in PD. I'm afraid that some important and free files will be deleted as part of the trend, without proper attention. -- Andrei (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed: File:Partia Zieloni - logo.jpg is clearly PD-textlogo and should be ineligible for copyright. @LX:. --Túrelio (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Andrew J.Kurbiko: "Speedy" deletion in this case means one week after being tagged. They were tagged yesterday, so no need to panic just yet. :-)
The files were uploaded by Pipenavis, who asserted that the images are protected by copyright and had been published by the copyright holders under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike copyright license, which, by definition, cannot apply to works that are in the public domain, since those are not protected by copyright. It is then up to the uploader to demonstrate that this is correct.
To put it bluntly: It is not acceptable to batch upload a mix of blatant copyright violations and possibly copyright ineligible files with fake licenses and expect others to sort out which is which.
Since the files were tagged, Yilku1 has replaced several of the licensing claims to {{PD-textlogo}}, but apparently without removing the problem tags. I don't know the threshold of originality of all the countries of origin involved, so I don't know how many of these changes were appropriate. The claim that images like File:Nuevo logo USCO.jpg and File:Nuevo logo union patriotica.jpg consist of "simple geometric shapes" certainly seems highly dubious, to put it mildly. (Which simple geometric shapes would that be?) As with the uploader's licensing assertions, it is up to anyone wanting to assert that {{PD-textlogo}} applies to make the case for that. LX (talk, contribs) 16:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment File:Fuerza ciudadana - logo.png and some others are also PD-textlogo. I removed the warning. Some do need a permission. For borderline cases, it may be better to create a DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I removed more warnings. --Yilku1 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Given the history of deletion discussions on your user talk page, I'm really not convinced you have a good enough understanding of Commons:Threshold of originality to be making these calls. Which "simple geometric shape" are you arguing that File:Nuevo logo union patriotica.jpg consists of? LX (talk, contribs) 19:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Then put a Deletion request if you want to delet it. --Yilku1 (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


User:Every hill has its valley has uploaded a dubious file and then has reviewed it under the name of User:Daphne Lantier. [1] 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done No other contribution, blocked indef., file deleted. We can't assume good faith here. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedydelete of double category-side[edit]

I created a category-Site „Category:Marie-Antoinette Hilsz (Maryse)“ Sorry, there WAS a category by this name, but not with the correct first name. So, I could not find. Now old site has the correct first name, too and this category is empty. Please delete. Thanks.--Tozina (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. I deleted the empty category. Next time, please use {{speedydelete}}. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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)