Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:AN

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 ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[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.
Archives
18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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	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}

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 via their user talk page(s). {{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.

Copy wirght violation and afake license[edit]

4654mm (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/4654mm

all of the uploads of user:4654mm is under fake license and all copyright violation and non of them is own work and taken from google image

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I warned the user and will delete the last remaining copyvios (posters). Taivo (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the user even by receiving a warning still adds more Copy right file [1]

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

Hi. Block User:Scelite's editing access. Thanks Cgl02 (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warned. Kadı Message 07:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

review[edit]

Hello Please review the File:Pushkar Priyadarshi selfie.jpg. Thanks. Pp01902 (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright and blocking[edit]

Since I couldn't find anywhere else to ask and because the user talk page of Yann and blocks and protections is under protection, I ask my question here. As a premise I would like to clarify that I have nothing personal against any user, but I noticed that there are some blatant violations of copyright and I promptly reported it https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/5.91.117.172 and adequately motivated with links and sources of the original origin of the photos, but i was inexplicably and unexpectedly stuck with my cascading undo changes without giving a valid reason. If you do a thorough check you will discover that I am right. I find it inexplicable and strange that those who report copyright infringement are blocked and not those who do it by uploading images that do not have a free license. Example: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ZNEN_Veracruz.jpg this is a copyright violation of that https://www.carousell.com.hk/p/znen-veracruz-1138833991/ the second picture https://media.karousell.com/media/photos/products/2022/1/21/znen_veracruz_1642750798_25e63c88_progressive.jpg or this https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Malaguti_Drakon_125.jpg from that https://www.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de/s-anzeige/malaguti-drakon-125-b196-abs-malaguti-angebot-auf-lager-b-m/2146734064-305-2694 the 15th image https://img.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de/api/v1/prod-ads/images/d1/d1eb9f53-425c-4dfb-b9e6-fee7c06ab24f?rule=$_59.JPG https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZismUl4_1_1GWmSe5MHEJZyxwwrnDmwKIL1WV-U5QP_1trzlE7nwjXjZqaI8_1mCzsqWx4l9ji38lqKekaD72WQLb65e6iCy1YISSlraH1je2E0IUm0I0gQjlXN0V5jnCS0cpeiraHjZ1EIwmUvv8asIGag0GCwQgPz3vdymXG-_1648BwYpzLBOR9WJA88V-fHWSNvkhOh4DF4Fg26zZDWvNWtIIP_1OxH66JI2TMAEyutE1k0oMUNFcQoavaw-2Jtw3cqg23XdybrPE5l_1Vh165foFlFckyWGnGwjlr3Q2CbmCaXjE7i2YcdEZXGnLNUrqur1_1JBbdfJvrlmuc56YAvyhlgNodjqncIizLPmi3MbEfPNgELdhYn1Kd6Wqt2GRL1zSVQacsDa67ax6XOFK-DbhQ9LeixhOg . Therefore I ask for a review and a re-control of the actions and perpetuated against me, as well as a re-evaluation and check on the veracity of the copyrights reported by me as well. I know that blocks are respected even if they are unfair, but there is a clear error of judgment here, as well as various copyright violations. 5.91.177.34 12:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, this does look like a case for flickr washing to me, given these examples. We cannot know which, if any, of the pictures are legit. I think these images should be nominated for deletion in a mass deletion request, so that the merit of the flickr account can be discussed. --rimshot^talk 14:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Save and thanks for replying rimshot^talk. I don't know the technical mechanisms, but I am interested in what is done and not who does it or who does what. I lost more than an hour against control these images, which in my view are only clear violations of copyright and must be eliminated immediately and as soon as possible because they represent a serious violation of the law. Can you do it or where to go to reset the "speed delete" warning banner? 5.91.127.154 15:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done the nomination using an automated tool, the nomination can be found at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Laura Buononome. --rimshot^talk 21:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Android logo 2019 (stacked).svg[edit]

It is constantly vandalized by IP scum. --94.42.59.47 16:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done: Semi-protected for 1 year. --Achim55 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Viona Ielegems at the victorian picnic 2009.jpg[edit]

This discussion has really gone off the rails, with SinghIsFxing making all sorts of wild claims about copyright and GDPR, and encouraging the subject of the nominated image to engage a legal professional. I have warned that user about Commons:Harassment#Perceived legal threats, though that user denies making legal threats.

In any case, this should be a simple DR but has now been open for more than 58 days. Can someone close this DR? Brianjd (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a simple DR (conducted very civilly with multiple voices on both sides) which could have been closed easily within a Day or 2 under the GDPR exceptions which the nominator has expressed very succintly "I don't want this snapshot of me being published on Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia. It's a part of my past and I do not with it to be public domain. It is harmful for my current personal life and reputation. I am not active as a gothic photographer since many years. Thank you very much for your cooperation.". Everything about this matter is covered under applicable EU law which the nominator is entitled to as of right. The photo was obviously taken without her consent by some anonymous papparazzi who uploaded it to Commons by giving a false assignment of commercial rights which he had no right to do. Even the papparazzi uploader has acknowledged their error and sought deletion. Nothing survives except the desire of some misinformed Commons regulars to turn this into another Monkey selfie case with inapplicable COM guidelines. Accordingly, will somebody close this DR and put the victim out of her misery ? SinghIsFxing (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(user also reported at COM:ANU#SinghIsFxing for different issues) Brianjd (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does not deserve a reply. However, I am ready to do so if requested by an uninvolved 3rd person. SinghIsFxing (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no question of my making any legal "threats". As an EU resident the nominator is additionally entitled to certain rights which the WMF (as an intermediary) specifically acknowledges and acts upon. If this volunteer community cannot decide GDPR removal requests promptly then the WMF is obviously the apprppriate next stop for the victim. GDPR is a procedural matter, non-adverserial and so not a legal proceeding which could cause harm to the project or WMF. SinghIsFxing (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would help if you send the original agreement for the original publishing of the photo to COM:VRT. If you agreed to publish the photo without additional limitations there is no way to revoke this. If the agreement included that you have the right to withdraw the permission the file never complied with the Commons guidelines. GPSLeo (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who exactly is this addressed to for the action suggested to be taken ? This is a COM:CSCR matter for Germany / Belgium. SinghIsFxing (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question is what was the agreement you made with the photographer for publishing the photo. Or if there was no individual agreement what was the photo policy of the event the photo was taken. The point is that if you never explicitly agreed to publish the photo and you just did not act against the publishing it is easier to say that you want to have the photo deleted. If you explicitly signed an agreement that the photo can be published you will need very good arguments to withdraw this. GPSLeo (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no known agreement, no relase and no consent for any kind of publication. The uploader also wants the image deleted. Please read the arguments at the Deletion discussion. SinghIsFxing (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the hole discussion there you never explained the conditions the photo was taken. Was it a public performance? And why you want the file deleted now more then ten years later. Did you not know about the photo until now? As you did not answer these questions I assumed that you do not want to explain this publicly and suggested to write to COM:VRT. GPSLeo (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have 1 and only 1 counter question to put to you. Is the Commons volunteer community authorised by WMF to do GDPR deletions on behalf of WMF ? Otherwise please read the Deletion discussions and figure out who the parties are. Any FYI, the burden of proof to retain the image is on whoever wants to retain it and is not on the nomimator who wants it deleted. SinghIsFxing (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the WMF legal team thinks that a file has to be deleted they do this on their own. This happens very rarely most cases are solved with regular deletion requests or with the COM:VRT. If you come around short after the file is uploaded and complain about the photo this would be different, but this file was here more than ten years. As suggested please just write an explanation of what happened 2009 and why you want the file deleted now and send this together with some kind of proof that you are the person on the photo to COM:VRT and they will decide. GPSLeo (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, I am not the nominator asking for the deletion. Secondly, There does not seem to be any specific COM policy or procedure for handling GDPR type removal requests. Thirdly, it is not clear if COM:VRT is authorised by the data controller to process GDPR requests considering that VRT volunteers are not employees of the hosting entitity. Fourthly, it is not clear why the COM:DR process has taken 59 days without a conclusive result when the prescribed time is 30 days for removal requests from EU citizens. Fifthly, it is very strange that so far nobody has required the nominator to prove her identity. All these circumstances and lapses on part of COM volunteers now call for a prompt delete of the image by somebody. SinghIsFxing (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please look at the official contact information page at Commons:Contact us/Problems "Images of yourself". If you do not agree with the decisions of the volunteer team after your request you can contact the WMF trust and safety team m:Trust and Safety. If you want to make an official GDPR data deletion request send a mail to the contact given at foundation:Privacy policy also linked at the bottom of every page. GPSLeo (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GPSLeo Please don't address this as a reply to me. Instead kindly address it to the user who had nominated it for deletion as that will avoid any confusion. Thanks. SinghIsFxing (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For once I agree: this discussion reads as if SinghIsFxing is the subject, uploader or nominator, when SinghIsFxing is actually none of these people. Brianjd (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I got totally wrong but for me it looked like User:Viona.ielegems and User:SinghIsFxing would be the same person. It is very common that new users loose their password and instead of resetting the password they create a new account. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it make sense to speculate and guess about sockpuppetry. If the user is a sock of someone, have someone here research it. Either way, SinghIsFxing's style of arguing is counterproductive at the very least. These kinds of third-party "Wikimedia could get sued!" are precisely what NLT is about - it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion when one side is allegedly preventing everyone from getting sued. It's a stupid trump card. I made a !vote based separately from the GDPR issue and I'm aware I may be in the minority there. If there is a larger GDPR principle that someone sees, there are proper places to bring it up than lengthy fighting at a single DR. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where, precisely, have I based my deletion comments on the basis "Wikimedia could get sued" or made any legal threats ? It is quite immaterial to me if WMF gets sued or not. As far as I can see there is no COM policy on GDPR anywhere. SinghIsFxing (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The data protection policy is linked in the footer of every page. Commons does not have an own policy because the GDPR does not apply for any kind of press publications. We have to respect the personality rights and there is a page COM:IDENT for this, but the more specific regulations do not apply here. GPSLeo (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is WM Commons a press publication ? COM:IDENT policy is misleadingly written. People who are not native English speakers will easily misinterpret it. SinghIsFxing (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SinghIsFxing That’s why we have translations, although I agree that the page is poorly written. Brianjd (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GPSLeo I share that question: How is Commons a press publication? Brianjd (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wrote "kind of", because I do not know a proper English (and not even a good German word) for what we are. We definitely fall under Article 85 GDPR. If not we would have to ask every person depicted if they agree. This does not mean that people can not request deletion of photos depicting them. This only means that we have to assess whether the personality rights of the person or the public interest of having the photo public is more important. GPSLeo (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category move request[edit]

Hi, Could someone please move:

These were all without consensus and this new naming style (2013–2018) isn't used here, Many Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 15:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For transparency I've CSD'd the second categories

It's complicated but for once in my life I know what I'm doing - once the (2006-2013) categories get moved back to (2006) the history will have been preserved and everything will be back to how they were before they were messed around with. –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done - @Mdaniels5757 had very kindly deleted all categories so I've moved everything back - Many thanks Mdaniels your help is always greatly appreciated,

Whilst some may see this as being pointless I personally don't agree with losing the page history of all these categories and plus simply deleting and recreating them would give the illusion they were all were created on 18 December 2022 which obviously wouldn't be true if that makes sense.

@MB-one, Again you're more than welcome to seek consensus for this new naming style you've invented but until then the current naming convention should and will stay, If you don't like it again seek consensus for a change. Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category talk:Joseph Stalin[edit]

Please semi-protect it immediately and permanently – it is a target of an LTA. And possibly please also clean its history. 157.25.191.34 01:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done by Teles. Yann (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overwritten file[edit]

Would an admin please take a look at File:Alberto Fernández.png? The original and current version seem are the same, but someone else tried to overwrite the file before it was reverted back. The current version might be the only one covered by the source and license, and it's unclear where the other versions came from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done I deleted these versions, and warned the uploader. Yann (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Yann. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closure request for Commons:License review/Requests#Kaganer[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Commons:License review/Requests#Kaganer that has been archived twice twice by a bot without being given a formal closure. I am writing here to request that an uninvolved administrator or license reviewer to read the the discussion and make a formal closure with the result of the discussion.

Thank you in advance for your help.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk,

Done Kadı Message 18:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]