Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

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

Request to revert mass templating of old images[edit]

Supporting links:

  1. Category:Photographs by the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force
  2. Past discussion User_talk:Fæ#Old_uploads_of_yours_up_for_review
  3. 2014 discussion at time of upload User_talk:Fæ/2014#Picasa_images_from_the_Japan_Ground_Self-Defense_Force
  4. Commenting and related parties @Yann, INeverCry, Ruthven, Revent, Monfulta:
  5. Example DR (Keep outcome) Commons:Deletion requests/File:活動写真展示(第2師団写真展) イベント・行事・広報活動等 53.jpg
  6. Additional release statement (translation, see DR) "In the Ground Self Defense Force, even outside the photo gallery, many pictures are published on multiple social media (Picasa Flickr Pinterest Facebook). Those pictures can be used for the Internet, publications, etc. regardless of whether they are commercial or non-commercial, so long as you specify the source of citation (eg from the Ground Self Defense Force HP)."

License Review templates were retrospectively mass added to Japan GSDF uploads, done by me more than 3.5 years ago. Due to recently occurring link rot, this mass templating puts the files at risk of deletion, even though there is absolutely no risk that the original upload was not correctly licensed. We can be assured that the licensing was correct, not only because the files have persisted on Commons for over 3 years without a single one of the 1,300 photographs being deleted on copyright grounds, but also because of the community discussion at the time and care taken by me with the automated uploads from Picasa (see 3 above). Picasa has now been withdrawn by Google, and not all of these images will have alternative sources, so Commons has become the default master archive, a role highly suited to our project mission.

As a result of discussion (2), Faebot is checking all my uploads for linkrot, so that fixes can be considered. The situation is not unique, and we should plan for link rot for all uploads from externally hosted image sources who do not provide assured permanent links. The results are at Category:Uploads by Fæ with linkrot.

Wikimedia Commons has no policy or guidelines that mandate the use of LicenseReview templates. The templates are intended to be applied to new uploads so that an independent pair of eyes, or an independent bot with suitable license checking capability, can verify the license. Where the uploader is a mass uploader like myself, running license verification at the moment of upload, there is no risk that the licenses are wrong and processes like the LicenseReview are redundant.

The administrator action I am seeking is support for a mass revert of Yann's addition of LicenseReview templates to the 1,300+ photographs. The images needing repaired links can be found in Category:Uploads by Fæ with linkrot if anyone wishes to work on these, and having the LR templates open is causing an unnecessary backlog headache. As can be seen in the referenced discussions, over the past 10 days, Yann has refused to revert the mass templating despite these alternatives and community agreed policy being presented. Thanks -- (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For the few that I've seen, there are no problems with those files. --Ruthven (msg) 22:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a mess. There's 3000 files in the review category. Reviewers need to get to current files to review them, and they shouldn't have to search for them in the middle of 1500 old 2014 uploads with linkrot. I don't think there's anyone on Commons that could express a legitimate concern about any of 's uploads. He's careful and he knows what he's doing. This can be handled in a better way than flooding the review category. lNeverCry 03:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't like to waste time just for unnecessary reviewing. -- Poké95 07:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Unrelated to the issue, but this should have been posted to the village pump since reverting is not an admin action (except for bot rollback) and so that the whole community may be involved in this issue (I will be posting in the village pump linking to this thread). My 2c. Poké95 07:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've tagged Category:Photographs by the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force with Category:License review needed and the images are also now in Category:Uploads by Fæ with linkrot. I've removed the individual files from Category:License review needed. Crowding that category with 1000+ images that may be there for months jeopardizes newly uploaded files needing review and makes the work of reviewers unnecessarily difficult by forcing them to search around all these Japan Ground Self-Defense Force images. lNeverCry 20:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
License reviews are not needed. We probably need to have a community proposal about it, rather than tacitly accepting the impractical and unhelpful mandatory use of License review templates on old uploads or images with recently noticed dead links. -- (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that in this case and a few others, where I've seen mass review tagging of older images, that there's no real need for these reviews. In some cases the link could be updated, but when we're dealing with 1000+ images that becomes an unreasonably labor-intensive task. I would support a proposal to nix the reviews in cases like this. My action as detailed above is only a temporary solution meant to clear out the license review category so that reviewers have an easier time getting to current uploads awaiting review. lNeverCry 10:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I have to repeat myself here, but license review is needed, specially because the source link is dead. Fae could easily do that with his bot, as it should have been done at the time of upload, and I don't understand why he would not do it now. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete this file[edit]

Please, can somebody delete this file (File:GhostinShell.jpeg)?. It was uploaded as a joke about the title of the anime series and 2017 movie Ghost in the Shell and is being used to vandalizing the Spanish version of Wikipedia. The image was uploaded by Mokosea and according CommonsDelinker, it would be a copyvio from another website.

Thanks and greetings. --Ravave (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Other speedy deletions backlog[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved

Hi, Just incase no one's aware there's a rather big backlog of images and various pages that need deleting at Category:Other speedy deletions, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Doing Yann (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Yann, Obviously there's no rush or anything but usually these are done instantly so thought I'd best let admins know, Thanks for kindly dealing with it - Much appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 15:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yann & Hedwig had dealt with this so marking as resolved, thanks all .–Davey2010Talk 04:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Permanent ban of Dr. Bernd Gross[edit]

Hi everyone, on behalf of the oversight team, I would like to let you know that Dr. Bernd Gross has now been permanently banned from Commons.

As some of you might have noticed, Dr. Bernd Gross was indefinitely blocked from editing Commons on 25 November 2016 by odder; the block became the subject of significant discussion in January 2017. Following a prolonged review of the situation which necessitated the block, including a discussion among the oversight team and in consultation with the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department, we have reached the decision to permanently ban Dr. Bernd Gross and have now updated his block log and user page accordingly.

We have made this decision jointly in our capacity as long-term community-elected administrators on this project, but based upon information provided to us on a need-to-know basis in our capacity as oversighters. We are taking this measure to fulfill our obligation to protect the safety and privacy of our fellow contributors to this project, and are therefore not in a position to negotiate the ban in any way.

Due to the constraints of the access to nonpublic information policy and the oversight policy, we are unable to disclose any rationale for this action other than "reuploading photos of identifiable minors without permission after numerous warnings." The specifics of the matter are covered by our mandate as oversighters and the abovementioned policies: we cannot discuss them without violating our core obligations as oversighters, and therefore will not go into any further detail.

We recognise that we cannot simply ask the community to blindly trust us in this decision; firstly because we believe that trust is earned continuously rather than given forever, and secondly because we realise that this decision is at the outmost limits of our purview as oversighters. We therefore kindly request that questions on this matter, should there be any, be addressed to a trusted third party, such as the legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation--who, as we mentioned earlier, have been consulted about this case--or any other trusted party competent in such matters, for instance the Support and Safety team at the Foundation.

We realize that this situation is exceptional in its rarity, and has placed us in a very difficult position. We are fully aware that our mandate as community-elected administrators allows us to propose a ban with community discussion, that our mandate as oversighters allows us to take a very specific set of actions without community discussion pursuant to the oversight policy, and that this is a borderline case that dangerously pushes the boundaries of our purview.

We would therefore like to assure you that we have gone to extraordinary lengths to resolve this issue in a different way, but have ultimately decided to permanently ban Dr. Bernd Gross from Commons. This decision should not be considered to establish any precedent that oversighters have any such authority in general, and we would like to call on the Commons community to design institutional procedures to address such situations if they arise in the future.

On behalf of the Commons oversight team, - Reventtalk 04:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Countersigned by:


  • Unrelated to the ban, but why is autoblock disabled? Poké95 07:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note also that the banned user has the accountcreator right, I think it is necessary to remove it since they won't use the right anyway due to their ban. Poké95 07:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I have now amended the block and removed the accountcreator user right; I believe it was left behind by @Revent as only bureaucrats are able to add to, and remove from, this user group. odder (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the time and effort you put in this case and thank you for easing the community by motivating what you have done and why you choosed not to make the ban reason public. I trust your judgement regarding the matter. Natuur12 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
+1 Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It is regrettable that such a course of action has been necessary, but as this involves material which needed oversight, it is only correct and fair that we allow the people we trusted with the oversight permission to deal with this issue as necessary. It is certainly appreciated that the statement was agreed and countersigned by five member of our oversight team. These situations are never easy when oversightable material is involved, but I believe this has been handled in the best manner possible. Thanks to all the OS team involved in this. Nick (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    +1: Thank you for posting this summary and supporting it with the signature by all members of our oversight team. Thank you also for contacting the legal team of the WMF regarding this matter. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have some stomach ache with this descission. DBG uploaded images he was not allowed to upload over a long time. So far, so easy. A lot images were deleted. But there were never consequences - he never was blocked until his final block. No warning (and a real warning is for a lot of people a block, not words). So the first real reaction was a indefinite block. This is in my opinion too hard, the false way. And belive me - in this case this is hard for me to say, because I know casualties of DBG. A indefinite block is at the end not the problem. But if we start to let such people work in this way over years without telling them in clear form (= blocking them for some time) that we don't want this, we are even guilty. What comes next? An indefinite block is a final descission. Final! But until coming to a final, there should be steps between. This should, this can't become the usual way in such cases. I belive, the Oversighters really knew what they've done and I trust them. Even I don't like the way. Please - this to all Administrators and above - we must act earlier in future. It's not OK, that users are allowed to upload over years such images to harm peole he did not liked. A second case DBG should not come again. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can know the problem lasts since at least september 2013 (I was elected OS during the summer of 2013). At some point this has to stop, if the DBG was to acknowledge the problem things would probably be different (speaking only for myself), but the denial doesn't help to build a positive solution. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
To comment on Marcus' remarks,
  • there was no prior disciplinary measure against DBG because the matter arose through the Oversight channels, and in this capacity we do not have explicit disciplinary attributions. We therefore attempted to contact DBG by mail and in person. When we realised that none of our messages had any effect, the problem had taken such a magnitude that drastic measures had to be taken. It is therefore true that the complete ban came without prior blocks, but DBG was notified several times in ways that left no ambiguity as to the seriousness of the situation.
  • Marcus is quite right that we should take some time to think of procedures and clear attributions for such cases in the future. Now that we have an example of what can happen, but are not pressed for time, we have the opportunity for a calm and balanced reflection; this is the best opportunity to build a framework, much better than under pressure, we should seize it.
Best, Rama (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for deletion by LTA[edit]

User:Freedom For Taiwan is locked for Long term abuse. Can someone delete them? MechQuester (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done . Freedom for Taiwan has no userpage and talkpage is very short, so no need to delete them. The user uploaded some photos, but "uploaded by banned user" is not a reason to delete files. It can be an argument, but the photos are in scope and properly licensed. Taivo (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Repetitive speedy deletion errors[edit]

I'm getting the following error notification:

Error: at line 43: Uncaught Error: Unable to parse title

These error messages pop up on the right side of my screen when I'm on a page that has a speedy deletion tag, regular deletion tag, or duplicate tag, and then while I'm doing the deletion, and even after the deletion is done. The lines are 1, 43, 76, and 201. These pop up and disappear over and over and over. It doesn't stop me from doing the deletion, but it's very annoying. Thanks. Daphne Lantier 17:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The above is what the errors look like in Chrome. Here's what they look like in Firefox:

Error: at line 433: Error: Unable to parse title

I hope that helps in getting this figured out. Daphne Lantier 19:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: @Krd: @Zhuyifei1999: @EugeneZelenko: Pinging some tech experts. I've added to Adblock Plus so they go away quicker, but they're still irritating. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Daphne Lantier 21:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 Can't reproduce. Could you add a &debug=1 to the url and get the traceback from the browser console (for Firefox and Chrome, F12 -> Console)? For reference, line 433 of the linked url is
languages[code];return true;}return false;};}(jQuery));});mw.loader.implement("mediawiki.ForeignApi@1qyok8l",function($,jQuery,require,module){});mw.loader.implement("mediawiki.Title@0jol0x5",function($,jQuery,require,module){(function(mw,$){function Title(title,namespace){var parsed=parse(title,namespace);if(!parsed){throw new Error('Unable to parse title');}this.namespace=parsed.namespace;this.title=parsed.title;this.ext=parsed.ext;this.fragment=parsed.fragment;}var namespaceIds=mw.config.get('wgNamespaceIds'),NS_MAIN=namespaceIds[''],,NS_SPECIAL=namespaceIds.special,,NS_FILE=namespaceIds.file,FILENAME_MAX_BYTES=240,TITLE_MAX_BYTES=255,getNsIdByName=function(ns){var id;if(typeof ns!=='string'){return false;}id=mw.config.get('wgNamespaceIds')[ns.toLowerCase()];if(id===undefined){return false;}return id;},getNamespacePrefix=function(namespace){return namespace===NS_MAIN?'':(mw.config.get('wgFormattedNamespaces')[namespace].replace(/ /g,'_')+':');},rUnderscoreTrim=/^_+|_+$/g,rSplit=/^(.+?)_*:_*(.*)$/,rInvalid=new RegExp('[^'+mw.config.get('wgLegalTitleChars')+']'+
This is where the error is raised, but do not indicate at all where the invalid title comes from. (And javascript minification makes debugging much more difficult) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: When I go to console I get the following over and over and over:

Uncaught Error: Unable to parse title
   at new Title (eval at <anonymous> (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1ozcoro:4), <anonymous>:43:2012)
   at eval (eval at <anonymous> (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1ozcoro:4), <anonymous>:116:12)
   at Object.normalizeGalleryTags (eval at <anonymous> (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1ozcoro:4), <anonymous>:114:409)
   at fire (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1ozcoro:45)
   at Object.fireWith [as resolveWith] (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1ozcoro:46)
   at done (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1ozcoro:135)
   at XMLHttpRequest.callback (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1ozcoro:141)

If that doesn't help, is there any way to shut off these mediawiki pop-up notices completely (maybe something I can add to my common.js)? Daphne Lantier 07:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The above is from Chrome. This is from Firefox:

Gadget "popups" styles loaded twice. Migrate to type=general. See <>.  File:Krewella-press-pic-1024x512.jpg&debug=1:56:45
Gadget "Cat-a-lot" styles loaded twice. Migrate to type=general. See <>.  File:Krewella-press-pic-1024x512.jpg&debug=1:56:191
Use of "importScriptURI" is deprecated. Use mw.loader instead. load.php:153:910
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.position".  load.php:57:291
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.widget".  load.php:88:942
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.core".
Please use "mediawiki.ui.button" or "oojs-ui" instead.  load.php:11:84
Use of "addOnloadHook" is deprecated. Use jQuery instead.  load.php:153:910
Error: Unable to parse title  load.php:435:327
onStopRequest resource://gre/modules/WebRequest.jsm:347:7
Adblocker makes it so these errors just flash off the screen quickly, but it's still a little bothersome. Daphne Lantier 08:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Adblocker Plus gets rid of all the pop-ups in Firefox, but I prefer to use Chrome. Firefox can be a bit clunky. Daphne Lantier 08:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea, sorry. --Krd 08:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Krd: Do you know of any way to shut off these mediawiki pop-up notices completely? They seem superfluous. Daphne Lantier 09:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide a screenshot or photo? --Krd 09:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Krd: Here it is in Firefox: File:Error message on speedy deletion pages.png. Here it is in Chrome: File:Error message on speedy deletion pages (Chrome).png. Daphne Lantier 09:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier: Could you, in firefox (I'm more familiar with firefox): 1. add debug=1 the the page you are accessing; 2. send the link to wherever "done" and ".send/callback" links to? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking for. I'm not at all familiar with programming languages. It surprises me that you don't have a way to shut off the mediwiki that controls the pop-up function. It's the same thing that tells you a page has been patrolled when you click the "mark this edit as patrolled". It's called "mw-notification". I've provided two screenshots just above. Daphne Lantier 09:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier:. The URL is; please screenshot And then F12 into the browser console, press the corresponding links for "done" and ".send/callback", it should go to a url. Please screenshot that as well. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: I've uploaded both screenshots on top of each other in this one file: File:Error message on speedy deletion pages.png. The links all go to huge pages of code rather than any url. I'm headed to bed, so that's it for me. If there's no way to shut these pop-ups off, don't worry about it. Adblock Plus kills them completely in Firefox, so I've got that browser, and I'll check out Opera tomorrow. Thanks again for the help. Daphne Lantier 11:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm looking into it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Krd: @Zhuyifei1999: The two screenshots will have to be deleted as soon as we can. I forgot to blur the copyvio in each one of the Arab gentleman. Daphne Lantier 09:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea, sorry. --Krd 09:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
That's OK. Thanks for looking at it. I'll delete the screenshots, though I did black the copyvios out and re-upload. I'll just use Firefox for deletions and license reviews and Chrome for everything else... Daphne Lantier 09:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Now that I think of it, I'll likely get these same errors if I file deletion requests or do speedy tagging in Chrome, so the browser is pretty much useless. I'll have to download Opera and see how that does. Thanks again to Krd and Zhuyifei1999. I appreciate you both taking the time to check this out. Daphne Lantier 10:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Cause: According to the console error, the issue occurs in Gadget Favorites ("Mark images as Favorites and send thanks to uploaders. [documentation] "). After a brief reading of its code, I believe that the gadget attempts to parse the gadget inside User:Daphne_Lantier/Favorites and encounters invalid gallery entries, eg. "|"" by [[User:Akrogonac]]", and these are caused by two seemingly corrupted Delinker edits Special:Diff/234312509 and Special:Diff/233929338. Pinging @Dschwen: as author of the gadget and @Steinsplitter, Magog the Ogre, Magnus Manske: as maintainers of Delinker. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: Yay! I've removed that gadget and I'm getting no more error pop-ups. Thanks for taking the time to look into this and get it figured out. I really appreciate the help. Daphne Lantier 20:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)