Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
|
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-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |||
127, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 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 |
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
| ||
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.
Coms problems with VRT (ticket 2025121610008447)
[edit]I have 128k edits on Commons since 2009, hence it would be fair to assume that by now, I know my way around the project and copyright. Having been elected to Tasman District Council, I thought it would be useful to get my hands onto official photos taken for this local authority. When those photos were taken, I checked with the photographer whether he has a contract in place that transfers the copyright to his client, which he said was indeed the case. Next, I checked with council staff whether they'd be happy to release the photos under a free license, which they were willing to do. I asked the council's legal counsel (Leith Townshend) whether he'd be the right person to sign off on the release of rights to the photos, which he agreed to. I then thought it's about time that I learned how use OpenRefine. Probably useful when you are dealing with 240 or so files, and I thought it's useful to have all the structured data defined, too. But that's beside the point.
Timeline of events is roughly like this:
- Dec 2025: finished uploading everything
- 9 Dec: I sent the release of rights email to TDC's legal counsel for him to forward this to VRT
- 17 Dec: TDC's legal counsel forwards the release of rights email to VRT
- 19 Dec: The VRT response comes back stating: "Unfortunately, we cannot use your content on the basis of statements such as "I allow Wikipedia to use my photos"."
- 19 Dec: My reply to that email was: "Well, that's not what Leith said. It was a cover note where he mentioned his "approval for the photos to be uploaded to Wikipedia" - that's a nicety rather than a legal description. The full release text was below that."
- 20 Dec: Email from VRT addressed to me: "The problem is that you were advised, improperly, to forward an email releasing the image under a specific licence. For legal reasons we don't accept forwarded permission statements, besides which it is not clear who is the copyright holder of the image and/or the photographer. First, can you clarify that and then have that person email a release permission statement so the image can be verified.
- How did you become the exclusive copyright holder of this image <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moko_Tepania_official_council_portrait.jpg>? I ask this because normally this is the photographer unless their contract specifies release of the copyright. Mostly photographer's give usage rights which is not sufficient to the Wikimedia Commons.
- I've added detail below for the copyright holder to complete and they should email it from their verifiable email DIRECTLY to this thicket number.
- For the copyright holder, they can use the template found on this page: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates/Consent> or another way of producing a permission statement is through the Wikimedia Permission Release Generator, which can be accessed here: <https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/>.
- This tool will guide you through the process of creating a release statement which we will be able to readily accept, and is the preferred method of releasing the rights to your media for use on Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia.
- Whatever method you choose to make the permission statement, once completed please send the resulting text in an email reply from your own email address and please MAKE SURE the following "[Ticket#:2025121610008447]" is included in the subject line of the email as reference in the reply otherwise it will not be connected to this ticket."
- 21 Dec: My response to that: "Firstly, it wasn't me who forwarded the email. The permissions email came from Leith Townsend; see the 16/12/2025 20:22 (CET) email below. I wrote the permissions statement for Leith. As a lawyer (he is Tasman District Council’s legal counsel), he will have no trouble understanding it.
- Secondly, when the photographer took photos (including of me, e.g. this one), I asked him whether his contract with Tasman District Council deals with copyright. He said that yes, he transfers copyright to the council when he works for them, and that is stated in their contract.
- Thirdly, regarding the Moko Tepania image, I think you are confused. I have nothing to do with that image. The upload history shows us that TheLoyalOrder put it on Commons."
- 4 Jan 2026: Email from me to VRT: "Happy new year from New Zealand. Can you please let me know what’s happening with this ticket?"
- 4 Jan: User:Krd starts deleting the photos with rationale "no ticket permission since..."
- 6 Jan: Email from VRT to Leith Townshend: "Please advise who is the creator (photographer) of the image(s), and by which reason Tasman District Council became holder of the full and exclusive copyright."
- At this point, I'm getting a bit frustrated. Each photo has the photographer specified in the structured data (d:Q136889058). And I've already explained that the photographer transfers copyright to TDC when he works for them.
- 6 Jan: I thought I'd check in with Krd whether they can resolve this stalemate. Not sure why the conversation isn't archived as they appear to archive everything else; from the talk page history, the conversation is here. Most of that conversation was in German. Krd had a few issues with the ticked: unclear who the photographer is, why the client is the license holder, and the list of files submitted in an Excel spreadsheet without clickable links.
- 7 Jan: I've sent a list to VRT with clickable links for the files, along with an apology that I didn't know that this was the expectation.
- 7 Jan: Leith responds to the photographer query: "The Council contracts a photographer called James Mills from Think Visual to take pictures at some official events. I have just confirmed with James’ business partner that the copyright is owned by Council."
- 7 Jan: Query from VRT to Leith: "is James Mills the photographer who created the images we are discussing?"
- 8 Jan: Reply from Leith to VRT: "Yes"
- 14 Jan: I follow up with VRT: "Greetings from New Zealand. I was wondering what the status is of this ticket. All the questions that were asked of us have been answered. User:Krd deleted some 200 photos from this upload on 7 and 8 January. Nothing has been restored yet. Is there anything that’s outstanding?"
- 21 Jan: Follow up from me: "Would somebody from VRT please be so kind and let me know what the status is of this ticket? All the questions that were asked of us have been answered. However, the files that have been deleted have not be reinstated. Is there anything else left to resolve?"
How is this reasonable treatment of somebody trying to do the right thing all along? Why am I not being told what the outstanding issue is? Schwede66 08:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: I think it would help matters if VRT had contact from James Mills or Think Visual confirming what happened, along with a copy of the contract with the Council and comment as to where to find the copyright transfer in that contract (citation of chapter and verse, as it were). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Why am I being put through this? The whole rights transfer is based on the copyright holder releasing the photos under a free license. To now have to run after the photographer and talk him into releasing his contract with TDC seems a steep task. I’m getting the impression that the VRT system is fundamentally broken and I shall stay away from them in future. Schwede66 16:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Something also the VRT is unaware of is that under NZ copyright law, the copyright of commissioned photos is by default owned by the employer, which is not the standard elsewhere. So there is no need for @Schwede66 to get a release or confirmation in writing from the photographer, as the copyright transfer to TDC was automatic. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't know that, Mike. Thanks for that! Schwede66 03:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Anyone got any thoughts on that input? Schwede66 07:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think you should not have gotten this kind of response, but I do not have access to Commons VRT, so I am not sure I can help you here. Thanks for trying to transfer the photos to the PD and uploading them on Commons. Ymblanter (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, I've had a look at New Zealand's Copyright Act 1994. Section 21 deals with ownership of copyright, and is titled "First ownership of copyright". Clause 3 reads:
- Where—
- (a) a person commissions, and pays or agrees to pay for, the taking of a photograph ...; and
- (b) the work is made in pursuance of that commission,—
- that person is the first owner of any copyright in the work.
- Hence, Mike (Giantflightlessbirds) is right. The district council owns the copyright by default. Hence, it's not necessary to ask the photographer for the contract. Jeff G., would you concur? Schwede66 01:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: I would agree. Please reply to the ticket citing such. Perhaps something nonpublic is gumming up the works. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Something also the VRT is unaware of is that under NZ copyright law, the copyright of commissioned photos is by default owned by the employer, which is not the standard elsewhere. So there is no need for @Schwede66 to get a release or confirmation in writing from the photographer, as the copyright transfer to TDC was automatic. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Why am I being put through this? The whole rights transfer is based on the copyright holder releasing the photos under a free license. To now have to run after the photographer and talk him into releasing his contract with TDC seems a steep task. I’m getting the impression that the VRT system is fundamentally broken and I shall stay away from them in future. Schwede66 16:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Move needed
[edit]File:20260131 January drive snapshot – Screenshot 2026-01-31 at 4.00.03 PM.png was accidentally uploaded here instead of to enWP. Would someone please move it where it belongs? Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 02:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Miniapolis: cross-wiki moves aren't possible. I have fixed the licensing parameters but if you still want to keep the file on en-wiki, you'd need to upload it there and the file here will have to be deleted. signed, Aafi (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Datasets about potential logos - January 2026 uploads
[edit]Hi all, we have released a new dataset of potential logos uploaded in January 2026, together with another one of those which have already been deleted as of 2026-02-02. We are sharing them with you for your consideration.
This is part of our current work with the logo detection tool. We hope it will be useful for your moderation activities.
If you encounter issues with the datasets or have comments/requests, please reach out to me or to Sannita (WMF).
Thanks for your attention! –-MFossati (WMF) (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Undeletion requests
[edit]Hi, There are a number of requests open for weeks or even months (1.1 Slovenian municipal coats of arms). It would be nice if some more people at least give an opinion (TOO regarding File:Logo WFV04.png?). Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Request for deletion of prior versions of an image
[edit]Please see File:Elliot Rodger monthly allowance.jpg and observe that I have blurred out a portion of it for what I hope is obvious reasons, per Commons:Revision_deletion#When_Revision_Deletion_may_be_used. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Done - Jmabel ! talk 22:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Regarding confirmation and recognition of an allegedly deceased contributor.
[edit]User:Bob Burkhardt has two blocks Special:CentralAuth/Bob Burkhardt with the reason stating that he has "passed away" (in German).
- What is the process to confirm this here on Commons? --
Ooligan (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- We (or at least I) usually accept the deceased-statement at the users home-wiki, especially since this is usually where we learn of a user's death. In the case at hand, we have a detailed statement at [1].--Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Túrelio, can any editor now add Category:Deceased Commons users to this user's page? -- Ooligan (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I had done that already before my last edit (and thereafter protected the userpage). --Túrelio (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Túrelio, I see that now. Here is his alternate account: User:Library Guy. Should that also be treated the same? -- Ooligan (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- wow, didn't realise we lost so many.. Stemoc 11:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deceased contributors plus Commons_talk:Deceased contributors#to do/add. --Túrelio (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you @Túrelio for your kind help and protection of the User page and alternate account of valued former volunteer contributor User:Bob Burkhardt.
- Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deceased contributors plus Commons_talk:Deceased contributors#to do/add. --Túrelio (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I had done that already before my last edit (and thereafter protected the userpage). --Túrelio (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Túrelio, can any editor now add Category:Deceased Commons users to this user's page? -- Ooligan (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Concern Regarding Systematic Bias and Non-Neutral Content
[edit]I am reporting a Wikimedia Commons account (account name: 999real) that systematically uploads images about the Iranian protests and revolution exclusively from the Islamic Republic’s government perspective.
The content appears to rely on state-produced or state-aligned sources while excluding independent documentation from civilians, journalists, and victims of state violence. This creates a one-sided and misleading visual record of events and conflicts with Wikimedia’s neutrality and balance principles.
I respectfully request a review of this account for potential systematic bias, non-neutral content curation, and compliance with Wikimedia Commons policies. Naida4343 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Not done No admin action required; no policies are being violated here. Anyone is free to upload any content that is in scope and freely licensed. The Iranian state (quasi-state?) news agencies release their work under a free license, so anyone can upload them. If there's, say, a Flickr account from someone opposed the Iranian government that releases under a free license photos of protests from the protesters' perspective, that's also fine for anyone to upload. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- As an aside, I do think that 999real's uploads are too indiscriminate - uploading all 20 photos of the same thing just because they're there, instead of choosing the best 1 or 2 - but that's not a policy violation, and many other users do the same thing, scraping entire Flickr accounts. To 999real's credit, they do go back and ask for photos to be deleted when they spot COM:DW issues, which a lot of people that just dump entire Flickr accounts here don't bother doing. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- There are clear policy violations by @999real here. Writing a description like the one on File:تجمع «همبستگی ملی» و تشییع شهید امنیت در بجنورد 4 (Mehr, 2026).jpg without marking them as a citation is a violation of Commons:Harassment. "In alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described throughout the rest of this policy, edits that harass any living or recently deceased people, even if they are not members of the Wikimedia Commons community, are also prohibited. Per the oversight policy, such content will be deleted or suppressed and editors who post such material may be indefinitely blocked." GPSLeo (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Writing a description like the one on File:تجمع «همبستگی ملی» و تشییع شهید امنیت در بجنورد 4 (Mehr, 2026).jpg without marking them as a citation
— but the file description clearly does say that it is a citation ("Translation of original description
"). Nakonana (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)- The untranslated version has no note that it comes from the source and not from the uploader. GPSLeo (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- {{Original description disclaimer}} Can someone translate this then I can add it on all files I uploaded REAL 💬 ⬆ 21:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- The untranslated version has no note that it comes from the source and not from the uploader. GPSLeo (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- There are clear policy violations by @999real here. Writing a description like the one on File:تجمع «همبستگی ملی» و تشییع شهید امنیت در بجنورد 4 (Mehr, 2026).jpg without marking them as a citation is a violation of Commons:Harassment. "In alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described throughout the rest of this policy, edits that harass any living or recently deceased people, even if they are not members of the Wikimedia Commons community, are also prohibited. Per the oversight policy, such content will be deleted or suppressed and editors who post such material may be indefinitely blocked." GPSLeo (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- As an aside, I do think that 999real's uploads are too indiscriminate - uploading all 20 photos of the same thing just because they're there, instead of choosing the best 1 or 2 - but that's not a policy violation, and many other users do the same thing, scraping entire Flickr accounts. To 999real's credit, they do go back and ask for photos to be deleted when they spot COM:DW issues, which a lot of people that just dump entire Flickr accounts here don't bother doing. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment Please see the on-going discussion at COM:VP#Openly licensed propaganda/terrorist material. Yann (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}