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
19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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	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.

A1Cafel and email from photographerEdit

In two related deletion debates, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Buckingham Palace Reception (5 May 2023) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Buckingham Palace Realms Lunch (5 May 2023), started by User:A1Cafel, they claim to have conducted email correspondence with a professional photographer, who asserted that their images are not under open licence. In other correspondence, that photographer states that the rights were transferred to the UK government (who, we know, released them, via Flickr, under open licence).

The correspondence has been consolidated under Ticket:2023050910013168.

While it possible that the photographer sent multiple, contradictory emails, this seems unlikely and the matter needs to be investigated by an uninvolved administrator with VRS access. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea why there is a conflict in two emails, but I definitely email Ian Jones under the VRT ticket Ticket:2023050710000407. Any VRT volunteers can check if you don't believe it, and it is a serious offense to claim me of lying/creating a fake email. I won't object the most recent email sent by Mr. Jones after further confirmation of the ownership. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regardless, I think A1Cafel should step back. While they are again allowed to do ordinary DRs (I assume), e-mailing photographers and copyright owners is delicate business, and with the history, I would very much prefer them leaving that to somebody else. –LPfi (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-admin comment Just to link Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Photo by Mark Tantrum where an email to the photographer may also be in progress. - FotoFree (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment A1Cafel should be banned to create any DR. The demonstration is clear about inability to understand policies and deletion criteria. Yann (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur that many of A1Cafel have been problematic, leading to a considerable waste of time by the community, and agree with the motion to entirely ban them from DRs (they are already restricted on that, from what can be seen from his flag log). Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
VRT agent comment I have viewed the emails (ticket:2023050910013168). I don't believe that User:A1Cafel is lying, there are multiple contradictory emails in this ticket. I have asked A1Cafel to confirm one confidential thing via email, and await their response. I would refrain from dogpiling on them at this time (at least for this :)). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, @A1Cafel replied to me. Again, they were not lying, and if I only had the email correspondence that they had at the time they requested deletion, I would have requested deletion too. Pinging people who may have lessened their opinion of A1Cafel based on this to encourage them to restore their opinion of A1Cafel to wherever it was before: @Yann, Stemoc, Pigsonthewing, and LPfi.

That being said, A1Cafel's initial email to the photographer, while it was professional, was not well-phrased to avoid this type of miscommunication--in short, and again without revealing confidential information, it asked the wrong questions. I agree with how LPfi put it, emailing "photographers and copyright owners is delicate business", best suited for more careful hands at this time. I would therefore ask A1Cafel to leave emailing photographers/copyright owners/etc. to someone else.

I hope this resolves the user-focused portion of this dispute. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I seldom email to photographer to ask for permission, unless it involved in my deletion requests. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thats the point, you do this a lot and you have been warned not to do it, you nominated them for deletion so you should NOT be the one sending the photographer any e-mail/correspondence for clarification, you should have thought of that before you MASS NOMINATE anything for deletion which is something you constantly do. It's kinda ironic the one admin on this project thats on your side a lot is the one here defending you. You have been topic banned for a similar situation of constant DR without following the guidelines, you should have been blocked for longer for violating that Topic ban by logging out and continuing to mass nominate images for DR which IMO carries a minimum of 3 months full block but alas the same partial admin "got" involved and you got off easy and now we are here. Can we get an impartial admin with VRT access to deal with this please? or else i fear it will happen again...and again.....he has already had 2 Topic Bans on this, there should not be a third...This project should not be treated like some game and if this user continues to message photographers, I feel it will not be for the good of this project cause a user who doesn't understand the guidelines or the copyright laws is going to do more damage messaging photographers and might even put the project itself in a far worse situation if the people he messages, gets the wrong impression from him..*cough* libel *cough* ... Ste moc 05:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stemoc, adminstrator @DarwIn told me they were willing to deal with that, but I am unsure if they still want to. In my opinion, someone trustworthy should email Jones in order to make this question clear once and for all. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mdaniels5757. "Would" is the past tense of "will." You wrote above, "I would therefore ask A1Cafel to leave emailing photographers/copyright owners/etc. to someone else."

1. Will you formally make this request to A1Cafel or is the above statement by you considered to have been your request to A1Cafel?

2. Who is "someone else?"

3. What was the response to your request?

A1Cafel stated, "I seldom email to photographer to ask for permission, unless it involved in my deletion requests"

Was this an appropriate response to your request by A1Cafel? (assuming that you have already made the above request of A1Cafel.)

A1Cafel's response does not appear to acknowledge your request at all. -- Ooligan (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi. Pinging, because a comment about emailing photographers were mentioned and agreeable to the Admin and are related to my questions. -- Ooligan (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ooligan @A1Cafel

1. Sure: I formally request that A1Cafel refrain from emailing photographers/copyright owners/etc.

2. Literally anyone else.

3. It was inadequate to resolve the concerns. I ask that A1Cafel respond to (ideally, agree to) my "formal" request in (1) above.

Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with the request made by Mdaniels--A1Cafel (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I am the VRT agent who processed the ticket communication and finally accepted the permission, after initially having voted for deletion. With the assertion from the photographer that he has conveyed full rights of usage with no restriction to Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (who were the ones to published the images), and weighing all other circumstances, i found it justified to accept the images. I would be happy if we could close the case now without blaming anyone personally. Cheers, --Mussklprozz (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not yet, he has sent another photographer an email even when told not to and because he lacks the understanding of the copyright laws of that said country where the photographer is from (NZ), one would assume he again said or implied the wrong thing, as he will do anything toe get stuff deleted...mind you, when he filed that DR, he didn't even bother to write the words himself, he just copy/pasted what Elcobbola wrote in a previous DR to justify his deletions, as you can see per the 2nd DR on that link, and now he did it third time just goes to show he has no idea what he is doing and is dangerous to this project.It can't just end here, someone needs to drop the hammer...Multiple violation in the span of 2 years cannot be swept under the rug anymore.. Ste moc 07:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

one would think that if a user wants to challenge copyright claims of some reputable organisations s/he would act cautiously instead of mass DR without consulting the community beforehand,

but this user is not the only elephant in china shops. see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream for the outrageous behaviour of another user, who of course roams free of any fear of punishment. then you understand why these problematic mass DR keep appearing. RZuo (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wikipe-tanCrazy-my.gifEdit

File:Wikipe-tanCrazy.gif is the media of the day. However File:Wikipe-tanCrazy-my.gif is a technically superior version of the very same file. Can it please be replaced with the better version? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i'm curious how it's "technically superior"? it only replaced some characters? RZuo (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

much less gif artefacts. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The old revision of File:Wikipe-tanCrazy.gif may be better. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then there are two better versions to chose from. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No objection, so reverted to the older version (as I don't feel like figuring out how to change the filename for MOTD). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consistency about decisionEdit

Hi, Could you please add your opinion about this case. I simply demand our decisions to be consistent. Most of the similar images have been kept, but Jim and Rosenzweig opposed undeletion of this one. I also ask Rosenzweig to create new DRs, or better a general vote on VPC or a RFC if he believes that these images should be deleted, but AFAIK, nothing was done. Yann (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see how we can claim "de minimis" in cases when the vehicle is covered with copyrighted works, such as on all of the planes at Category:Pokémon Jet. Although I don't agree, I understand the argument if it's just a single character on the nose or tail, but when the there is no part of the plane or train that is not covered, that's not DM. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is fine for me if a consensus is reached that these images should be deleted (actually I was surprised they were kept). But it should be global decision, affecting all the files. Yann (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restore categoryEdit

Category:1989 works in Ukraine. --Микола Василечко (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Taivo (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cameron, Barbara (1996) - by Robert Giard - Copyright Estate of Robert Giard.jpgEdit

Would an admin or license reviewer mind taking a look at File:Cameron, Barbara (1996) - by Robert Giard - Copyright Estate of Robert Giard.jpg? It's currently has no license and has already been tagged for speedy deletion as such, but there's pretty much no license accepted by Commons which could be used to satisfy the permission statement added to the file's description. I've notified the uploader of this already, but I'm not sure what use should be done since the permission statement essentially amounts to a NC/ND type of license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add topic