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
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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	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

^{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.

Current MOTD

Could someone run Whisper or similar to caption it? It seems strange to have such a voice-dependent MOTD without captions. JayCubby (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can run it. ~~Doing…~~ All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. JayCubby (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby, Finished, subtitles are at TimedText:FOSS4G_2022_-_MapLibre_GL_2.x_-_JavaScript_maps_with_React,_Vue.js,_Svelte_or_Angular.webm.en.srt. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coming shutdown of "indafoto.hu"

Indafoto was a popular image sharing site in Hungary for the last two decades. Unfortunately, the (new) owner of the site decided to shut down the service and delete all uploaded images at the end of March 2025. In the past, Wikimedia Hungary ran joint photo contests with the site (e.g. Wiki Loves Monuments, see the result here) and we were able to arrange with the site to allow free licensing of the uploaded images. There is a template on Commons to confirm the free license on Indafoto.hu. The site has over 13.6 million images, of which over half a million are under the CC BY 2.5 license. The default license is copyright; to choose the free license, the uploader had to explicitly set it, and very clearly accept that anyone could modify the work and agree to its commercial use, so it can be reliably said that the images were deliberately licensed under the free license. Many of these images have exceptional cultural value and fit the goal of Wikimedia Commons. Bdamokos developed a script to download all these free images together with their metadata and description page, and in the last two weeks we managed to save them locally. We would like to upload part of this collection to Wikimedia Commons later, but at that time indafoto.hu will not be available for license review. We are trying to archive the image description pages at archive.org and archive.ph to prove the original license, but this will not be possible for all (most) pages. Is it possible to review the script or the indafoto.hu site until it is available in order to upload the images later without the license review process? What can we do? What do you recommend? Thank you! Samat (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a special license template (distinct from {{Indafotó review}} that "wraps" {{CC-BY-2.5}}, explains the situation, and is to be specific to this set of photos. Explain on the talk page of the template exactly what small group of users are working together on this project and have each other's mutual trust to use this template; others should not use it. Also on the talk page, link the relevant script, and reproduce the portion that ensures that only pictures with the correct license were downloaded.

Someone else may have further suggestions, but under the circumstances something like that is probably the best we can do, because the usual review will be impossible. I think it would be reasonable to trust a small group working together on that basis. - Jmabel ! talk 04:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mass-upload to commons and special license template reserved for this case and confirming the license in advance. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! This is how we will proceed. To confirm the license, we can offer to give one or a few people (administrators or image reviewers) online access to the downloaded database so they can check that it indeed contains only images with a free license (the local database has a web interface where you can browse the images and their description page with a link to the original image and the original description page, which allows easy review while the site is still available). Would you like to review it? Samat (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. I don't think license reviewing may be needed as long as we can trust the people who are going to do the job! Bedivere (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review license laundering

I just uploaded two SVG files deliberately resembling some existing SVG and PNG files:

NEW		OLD
	(good match)
	(less perfect match)

Improvements:

reduced bloat by factor 4
improved readability of the source code by factor 4
improved multilinguality by factor 4
removed visual artifacts (zoom up the old image to see them)

There are 16 old files of this type in the cat. Generally they have a complicated licensing situation (example), including migration GFDL -> CC-BY 3.0, possibly invalid "subject to disclaimers", import from wikipedia to commons, and both documented and undocumented creations of derivative work (even brewing PNG from SVG ??).

I created new SVG code from scratch. It has absolutely no similarity with the Inkscape horror appearing in the old files. The rendered subject is indeed very same, but I assume that a 16-point compass rose itself is too old and too trivial to be copyrightable. Nobody knows what user created the very earliest version at wikipedia, and even then it is probable that a similar 16-point compass rose had existed before somewhere on some paper, effectively invalidating possible claimed copyright. Based on that, I laundered the license and released the new files under the preferred license of this site CC-BY-SA 4.0. Please confirm that this is OK, or comment on the situation. I will wait with uploading more such files and starting using those until I get some answers here. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as my understanding reaches, per "I created new SVG code from scratch.", you are totally fine in using a license of your choice. But beware: your wording of "license laundering" has another meaning that is more pre-eminent here, see: COM:License laundering... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is OK. This style of compass rose is a common decoration in maps and has been for hundreds of years; compare, for example, this rose from 1746, or this one from 1543. Omphalographer (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for an impartial voice

There's currently a contentious discussion going on at a topic of discussion regarding File:Flag of Portugal.svg, the said topic is named "File outdated". There's really a need of an outside, unbiased opinion there. Oos88 (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for speedy deletion

Hi, I uploaded this file by mistake and no longer need it. I have already added the speedy deletion tag. Please delete it as soon as possible: file:Amirhossein Abolhasani Morvarid.jpg. Thank you!it. BenyaminAbolhasani1 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Taivo (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer

Verdenlogistic3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Special:Contributions/Verdenlogistic3 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justin: I notified and warned them for you. Maybe use COM:ANV next time? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs up emoji. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly check these uploads

Kindly check the uploads of the following users:

JanVarhanikhistai (talk · contribs)
JanVarhanik (talk · contribs)

Potential COM:SCOPE issues, and if those images were made using royalty-free or stock vector images/assets, then possible COM:DW/copyright issues too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I deleted the only upload of both users as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This can now be archived. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with unblock requests

Seems like I'm the only who every day looks unblock requests. Usually I'm totally happy with that, but during time here's quite some requests, which I do not want to close. Some of them were my blocks and if somebody creates multiple requests, then I do not want to close two requests from same person in row. So please help me and review some unblock requests. Taivo (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined two of the pending requests. Yann (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the archived one as not granted. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 15:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for MassMessage | Wiki Loves Earth in Ukraine

Hello! I have a request from the organizing team of Wiki Loves Earth in Ukraine. We'd like to send an invitations about our new campaign to those who participated in previous-year editions of WLE in Ukraine.

Here's text of the message, and here's the list of receivers. Thanks a lot! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD where I'd appreciate closure

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Sabores regionales de la Provincia de Misiones. I believe there is now consensus to merge to existing Category:Cuisine of Misiones Province, but I gather that if there is anything short of clear unanamity I am not supposed to close it as a participant. - Jmabel ! talk 22:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed it. I made a comment previously in that CFD but not about the discussion itself but rather on the category creator's attacks Bedivere (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]