Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:AN

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks 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 legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
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.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 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	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	96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 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

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~209
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~1
• No license since 29 May 2024: ~1
• No permission since 29 May 2024: ~17
• No source since 29 May 2024: ~15
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-06: ~101

Other:

• Duplicates: ~0
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~17
• Other speedy deletions: ~25
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~0
• Undeletion requests: ~21

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~5
• Interface admin: ~19
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~37
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Re-uploading a deleted historical map

Toady I have re-uploaded a historical map which had been deleted. ([1]) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Why were they deleted? Ruslik (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"Out of project scope - Using VisualFileChange." ([2]) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ruslik0 and Shizhao: 　Was this deletion ([3]) within the boundaries of Wikimedia Commons deletion policy at that time?

If the deletion was legitimate, would the rationale given at that time be valid today? That is to say, could the new upload of the map ([4]) be deleted from Wikimedia Commons at this time or ever again at any future time?

If the deletion was not legitimate, what should I do or what should the community do to help prevent future illegitimate deletions of historical maps?

(如果有人需要中文翻譯請告訴我.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I just clean panoramio photos--shizhao (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Shizhao has commented that the historical map was deleted (cleaned) because it was a Panoramio photo. Does that mean that the historical map uploads that I have made can never be taken down on a similar basis? None of my maps are Panoramio-derived- they are all from the online Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection and are US Federal Government works. Are all Panoramio derived historical maps subject to the technical difficulty that lead to this deletion? If so, there are a few more Panoramio-derived maps that I may want to have deleted and then reuploaded to secure their position as permanent fixtures which can't be legitimately removed. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I have invited comment from the copyright noticeboard [5]. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example: [6]. Is this map in danger because of its origin with Panoramio? Should it be deleted and then reuploaded? It can also be found in the online Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection - [7] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I am looking forward to getting clarification on these issues somehow. I have come to the conclusion that [8] really does need to be reuploaded so that users who use that map are no longer forced to give "Attribution" to www.almatymaps.kz . Let me know if you all have any opinions or guidance for me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Update- awaiting result of deletion request at [9] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You did not complete the deletion request. Otherwise, this entire discussion is best for Commons:Undeletion requests rather than reuploading these without actually letting anyone explain the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This was my first time reversing a deletion, so I was unaware of that procedure. I will use that method in the future. I have made a page at Commons:Undeletion requests [10], but I don't actually know if I want that image to be restored- it's origin from Panoramio may be problematic in a way that my newly uploaded version from the online Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection is not problematic. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I have attempted to complete the deletion request for one of the other maps uploaded from Panoramio in the series ([11]) that is mentioned above. I am a little confused by the situation, but I think that I need to know whether or not the Panoramio maps like [12] are "safe" from the type of deletion that happened in 2016 to this map ([13]). If they are not safe, then I can request a deletion and then reupload them without any Panoramio intermediary. Let me know what I need to do to put these historical maps in a sturdier position long term for Wikimedia Commons such that there is no longer any possible leeway that could allow for the deletion of these valuable historical English-language maps that can be used throughout the Wiki projects. Thanks for reading this far. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC) (modified)

Update: discussion ongoing at the deletion page ([14]). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

On 16 Dec 2019, I tried ([15]) to confirm that the changes I made here ([16]) a) were appropriate (I'm still not sure that the edit I made was appropriate) and b) would put the map outside the scope of a future deletion of this type ([17]) which was removed because "I just clean panoramio photos" (accoridng to Shizhao's statement above). So my remaining questions are: a) were the changes I made to the extant "Paramio-derived" map appropriate? and b) Have those changes put the map outside the realm of any future summary deletions like the one from 2016? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello all-- I want to nail down the historical maps in the collection that I am uploading (including the ones that were uploaded in previous years from Panoramio) such that they can't be deleted like this one ([18]) was. If no one is interested in this issue, then I think Wikimedia Commons just becomes a free-for-all where historical maps like [19] can be taken down. I'm asking for help from anyone to clarify what happened in the 2016 deletion mentioned above and what can be done to prevent similar deletions in the future. Thanks. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Diary, The 2016 deletion was seemingly determined to be invalid ([20]). Apparently, I may need to go through and "Upload a new version of this file" straight from the online Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection to remove the Panoramio and CC junk remaining on the maps that were uploaded from sources that claim some kind of control over the map (illegitimately). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello all: Was the deletion of this map in 2016 ([21]) within the boundaries of Wikimedia Commons deletion policy at that time?

If the deletion was legitimate, would the rationale given at that time be valid today? That is to say, could the new upload of the map ([22]) be deleted from Wikimedia Commons at this time or ever again at any future time?

If the deletion was not legitimate, what should I do or what should the community do to help prevent future illegitimate deletions of historical maps? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Mistaken and out of policy deletions happen all the time. Examples being PD by age material being deleted as vaguely out of scope and uploads by the photographer on a pseudonomous account being deleted over a decade after upload as not having sufficient evidence of permission, despite there being no specific rationale to doubt the release. In a future for Commons where we might host a billion media files but with fewer volunteers than we have right now, this erratic implementation of our deletion procedures may actually get worse.

Commons has no bulletproof gurantee against deletion, and we probably should. It would be a trivial matter to accept verified collections and classes of upload as being permanently protected against deletion requests. You may want to move that forward as a proposal along with some generic examples of files or past cases. --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Abdullah's Nationality.jpg

This image is an ID document with personal information and has a description of "This is a prof for my name and Swedish nationality, and I hope that it will be private and no one will have permission to access the photo. However, I give my consent for people to see that my name is [name redacted] and my nationality but not to access the photo. Thank you". I believe the uploader does not realise that the file is public, which, thereby, contradicts his statement as the photo is not private. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 02:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Túrelio deleted the photo. Really, the description is not acceptable, every Commons file must be usable for any purpose, including commercial. Such description makes the file not suitable for Commons. Taivo (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Other views would be helpful

I've just deleted a number of photographs of a UK politician that had come via Flickr and were "correctly" licensed however the EXIF had another name as the author/copyright holder. I'm not unhappy with my deletion action but would happily have it reviewed. What does concern me is that there are a large number of other images transferred from Flickr on the same basis here. I am aware that politicians have remarkable powers (...) however the ability to take professional quality selphies is a new one on me. Does this require further attention? TIA --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

LR review

Examining Commons:License review there does not appear to be an obvious process for asking that the LR membership for a user are reviewed if the user appears unable to apply it correctly. Could someone advise? It seems wise to avoid trying different processes and risking creating avoidable fuss on a noticeboard. --Fæ (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

To me this fits COM:AN/U perfectly. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll take that as the default, unless LR more clearly sets itself as the venue. The case may be superseded by events. --Fæ (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Please delete the first version of File:Radio Times - 1923-12-21 - p467.png, which I have just cropped (after uploading it myself) to remove a not-yet-free component. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Deleted. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 15:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Improper behaviour

Since I am an admin I don't want to take administrative actions. On the category Members of R.E.M. the user @Koavf: is keeping sorting the item by R.E.M. whereas I corrected in Rem because the dots influence the sorting. Instead of accepting the fact the user has started demanding for sources that (that what? that dots influence the sorting order? don't know what). So it's better that another admin manages that question, I cannot use administrative tools like page protection and such. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 18:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Blackcat for discussion. If anyone can provide me with a policy or guideline about sortkeys, I would be grateful. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've given my opinion there. This is an unecessary edit war. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I gave another opinion. Maybe broader discussion is needed (maybe not). Taivo (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Religious user names not allowed in wikipedia .The same rule applicable in Commons? Any user name policy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:MyBuddha

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfC/User_names/Institutional_memory#Names_of_religious_figures

(Dentnoyes (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC))

"Religious" is too vague, but if any name is disruptive or offensive, it may be blocked and the user asked to pick something different. See COM:IU. --Fæ (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me @Dentnoyes: , what do you exactly mean with religious names ? The name an user adopts that is similar or equal to one of the divinities of the about 700 religions existing in the world? Because in the Spanish - talking workd there are a lot of men called Jesus, for example, and we cannot ban someone because he puts "Jesus" in his username... -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 21:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Trolling. See w:en:WP:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 73#The Black list user names - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Hanooz, Magog the Ogre - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't find any restrictions for choosing religious usernames on Commons policies. Hanooz 02:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment :Yes you are right User:Hanooz , at my view religious user name have no restriction in commons.But religious user name restricted in Simple wikipedia , english wikipedia ,en.wikiversity and some local wikies. If a person have religious user name in commons , he have to re open other user account in below specified wikies.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username#Offensive_names_policy Do not use the name of a political, military or religious figure or event (including real people).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfC/User_names/Institutional_memory#Names_of_religious_figures

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Username Names of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah",and other religions names. Which may offend other people's beliefs

(Dentnoyes (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC))(Dentnoyes (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC))

• Someone block this account. Long term abuser spamming this xwiki with a number of socks. See [23] [24]. GMG^talk 13:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:GreenMeansGo I am telling the fact ! I am an user , very much interest on god Jesus...actually inetially i think to create user account with the name jesus, at the time of creation i realised that user name "jesus" blocked, at my furthur curiosity about this subject , i confirmed one point that is , religious user names not allowed in some wikies, due to this reason i posted this question here...

Here some important thing i observed is the following link:

w:en:WP:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte. —Justin , justin posted this link, Please read this link.Nsmutte a sock of wikipedia ,,,but this sock didnt mentioned in this link any where about "religion" .Due to this post some one mis understand me i may be sock.Another point is This Nsmutte sock is againest Bonadea ,a real long term contributor of Wikipedia . One impotent thing is there is a god name "Bonadea" of roman religion..Due to this issue some one mis understand me that i am a sock , but the fact is i want to change my user name to "jesus" related. Nsmutte didnt mention any wher the word "religion" I think now every body may understand the mis understanding. I am a real contributor with very muoch interest on my god Jesus. Now one thing i confirmed i can change my user name to jesus relation , but appplicable only in commons .

(Dentnoyes (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC))

 Blocked 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

License review for MotD needed

Could someone of the admins, please, do the license review for the MotD Leipzig Hauptbahnhof Time Lapse with iPhone 4s 2012.webm? (Side remark: It is fine.) Unfortunately, Roy did forget to ask for this before it was protected. — Speravir – 01:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Ehemm, Roy17 was meant be be pinged. — Speravir – 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

THX. — Speravir – 02:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits to fully protected image descriptions as suggested by SchlurcherBot

Hi, I'm the operator of SchlurcherBot. My bot is tasked to perform internationalization changes, https updates and general fixes to image descriptions. Commons currently has ~500 permanently and fully protected images that unfortunately never get updated, so I'm searching for help with these. Would an admin be willing to help me edit ~100 of these fully protected image description pages? The complete list as well as the proposed changes are listed here: User:SchlurcherBot/Blocked. Thanks --Schlurcher (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Doing… --Majora (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Alternatively you could generate a pywikibot / mwclient / whatever MediaWiki client library code that specify the exact changes, such as below, and I can execute that.

p = pywikibot.Page(SITE, 'File:FISHERMAN.jpg')
p.text = p.text.replace('== {{int:license}} ==', '== {{int:license-header}} ==')
p.save('I18n per [[Special:Permalink/381518752#Edits_to_fully_protected_image_descriptions_as_suggested_by_SchlurcherBot|COM:AN]]')

(After seeing edit conflict) Well, in case this is needed again in the future --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the conflict. I realized my suggestion was rather stupid so I just removed it entirely. Can't do what I suggested for the same reason they are asking for our help in the first place... --Majora (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

And all  Done --Majora (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Update needed

This template {{USSenators}}‎ is horribly outdated, can we get some admins to commit to working on it?--NL19931993 (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The template is not protected. Everybody can edit it, even you. I encourage you to do the work yourself, but be careful not to spoil anything. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Vitold Muratov block

A.Savin blocked Vitold Muratov indefinitely because of personal conflict in Russian Wikipedia--1Goldberg2 (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Boldly fixed formatting and changed title to be about the indef block.

The block log shows a 2 week block followed by an indef block. The rationale of this diff was sufficient to justify the block. If the block were lifted, the nature of the casually homophobic remarks by VM would be sufficient to ask WMF legal to consider a global lock. If the account holder wishes to retract their remarks and apologize for misusing this project to publish them, there may be grounds to review the block, maybe not. --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the two week block was definitely justified, since the uploader continued to upload out of scope images after warnings. I can not really comment on the indef block, since I have a hard time understanding what Vitold meant. But they have the chance to explain themselves on their talk page. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity about: "By the way, silencing the problems of classical heterosexual practice frees up an ecological niche for mass homosexuality. And we don't live in the woods."

This is a very old homophobic trope, it does not require much "understanding" nor is it worth an explanation. Anyone using this project to demean LGBT+ people as if they were a disease or infestation is breaking Commons policies and the WMF terms of use in a way that is not open to debate. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

What about freedom of speach? I am a supporter of LGBT rights, but why user should be block for another opinion very far from hate speech?--1Goldberg2 (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You are perfectly free to write whatever you want on your own blog, or stand outside your house with a poster. That's free speech. Wikimedia Commons and the Wikimedia Foundation are not required to protect anyone's imagined "right" to use these projects as a platform to publish their personal racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic or whatever other nasty opinions that create a hostile environment and only serves to harass and bully contributors. You are free to use this project to host an educationally useful photograph of whatever, including anti-gay protests, that's documentation of real events, rather than using the project like a blog.

BTW, as you are making claims about hate speech, under the law in my country, demeaning minority groups by comparing them to animals or a disease is hate speech. --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in my country laws are anti-gay now. Thats a shame. But do you say (and I understand correct) that on wiki here I can write "Its OK to be black" and it is forbidden to write "Its OK to be white"?--1Goldberg2 (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Context matters. Both are ok to write in some circumstances, and not ok in others. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Its OK to be white--1Goldberg2 (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which point you are trying to prove here. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to see if I will be block for saying it--1Goldberg2 (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The 1Goldberg2 account is currently indef blocked on 3 projects, so already meets the global ban criteria. The "unblock" request on en was "I still hate left betrayers but will not attack them in Wikipedia again", which may illuminate their interests here. --Fæ (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: I find it quite convoluted, but the "mass homosexuality" spectre indeed sounds like a homophobic attack.  Support indef, until an explanation/apology comes forward. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)