Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

This page is semi-protected against editing.
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.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
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
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
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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.


AI porn abuse images (with faces of real persons)

Please mass delete Special:Contributions/Nahé Modertorky Nude Babes and block the user (long-term abuse on skwiki using one-time accounts). --Teslaton (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done blocked and all files deleted. GPSLeo (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also notified WMF legal on this. GPSLeo (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Teslaton: Can you please share the username of the sockmaster so I can make sure this is tagged properly on Commons? I remember this user (or someone else doing the same thing) coming up before. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
​ I don't keep track of his possible activities here on Commons, in fact this particular form of abuse (uploading custom deepfakes instead of using existing sexually explicit images) is quite new from his side AFAIK, but the page set affected on skwiki is highly correlated with previous cases, specific by inserting sexual vulgarisms/profanities and choosing sexually vulgar usernames. On skwiki there are dozens of related accounts over recent years, see [1] with "Jednorázový provokačný účet, vulg." summary. Tehere is also a CU check related from 2023-09, [2]. --Teslaton (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is this within scope of WMF legal? Trade (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Defamation laws. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And revenge porn being illegal in some jurisdictions. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 15:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FlickreviewR

Bringing together several sections about the same issue.

Flickr review bot stuck

Seems like Flickr review bot is stuck again, with the last contribution being on 1:00 at File:AL61A-409 Consolidated O-17 28-384.jpg. Can someone "unstuck" it please? BrazilianDude70 (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate of this thread: Commons:Village pump/Technical#User:FlickreviewR 2 appears to be down; and the issue seems to be on Flickr's side. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FlickreviewR 2 down

As some of you presumably know, FlickreviewR 2 is effectively down, apparently because of recent changes on Flickr that are preventing sites on toolforge from accessing their API. As of this writing, there are nearly 10,000 files in Category:Flickr review needed and another few thousand in Category:Flickr images needing human review and its subcats.

Have we reached the point where we need to work more on dealing with these by hand? I don't think we can presume that Flickr will just start cooperating again. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, in particular, may I request review of the following files, because I have higher-res versions of all of these I'd like to upload, and cannot until review is complete.
- Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jmabel, 5 of 6 are done and reviewed. For File:Camping on Ross Lake, 1971.jpg, the Flickr source got apparently messed up by C&P, as it links to the one of File:Seattle - Senior Sports Festival, circa 1982.jpg. Could you fix it, please? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Grand-Duc. I've now fixed that one. - Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that a maintainer has been notified and is aware of the issue. Flickr is currently blocking all API requests from toolforge. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, though, have we reached the point where we need to work more on dealing with these by hand? - Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The manual review cat needs work, but I think the completly unreviewed cat will continue to grow for a few days until it gets fixed. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I just passed the last review too. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we decide here, the situation in which one can upload files from Flickr automatically or semi-automatically (assuming this is possible) but the files can only be reviewed manually in unsustainable and unacceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major Flickrreview Breakdown

Dear Admins and Trusted Users,

I don't understand why no one has noticed this but the flickr bot has malfunctioned since May 28, 2025 and there is now a massive Backlog of 12,400+ images Can someone fix the problem with the flickrbot please ASAP. I don't know if it is User:Steinsplitter, User:Multichill, User:Sikander or User:AntiCompositeNumber but this is a major breakdown. No one can mark 12,000 images except a bot...which is malfunctioning right now for 2-3 days. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure people have noticed this, there is for example a thread up on this noticeboard. Ymblanter (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two, actually: #Flickr review bot stuck and #FlickreviewR 2 down.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to @Jmabel for bringing them all together under one header.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi so in the gallery for the green screen of death (Category:Green screen of death) along with the actual images of those errors is just a picture of a nude woman in a green room, which, believe it or not, is not an error. Is there any way someone could remove it? Thanks. Therealkn1ghtsp1der (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category and not a curated gallery. Files should not be removed from categories if they are actually linked to that topic. It is possible to create s sub category like Category:Green screen of death in art and move the photo to this category. GPSLeo (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done, by Capmo. --Túrelio (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still say that it tremendously violates the "law of least surprise" for people to see nude photos when they look up tech topics. We need some general solution to this that will not leave people looking at NSFW images when they had no reason to expect to see them. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support. --Túrelio (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this about the series of tech-themed nudes by that one Russian photographer? I agree that they need to be removed from purely tech-related categories, and instead, it would make sense to create a "tech-related nudes" category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any idea how we can reach a formal, enforceable consensus on this? On the one hand we have the people who want to delete these all. On the other, we have people adding them continually to categories where no one would reasonably expect to encounter an NSFW image. I'd really like to get a firm consensus that on the one hand these images will not be deleted (give or take: I've seen a few bad crops among them that I see no reason to keep) and on the other that they will not turn innocuous tech categories into minefields. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why cant we just hide NSFW media by default. Literally database website but Commons does that Trade (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we can. First, you need to come up with a definition of NSFW that everyone can agree on... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Would titillate the Taliban" could cover it. :)   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Flickr's three levels on this are sane, and would be a good place to start from in hashing this out (if only as something to react to). One thing where I'm almost certain we'd be different: we would not want to require login to go past the "safe" level.
But that is a tougher problem, and I'd rather see us solve the problem at hand rather than dream about where we might be after an inevitably long hashing-out. Does anyone have any idea how we can reach a formal, enforceable consensus to (1) keep Exey Panteleev's "Geekography" images, which there seems to be consensus are in scope and (2) keep them the hell out of categories where there would be a reasonable expectation that you can open that category on your screen in front of a high school class? - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the way be to propose and debate the wording of a new policy? But is this page the best one for that proposal and debate, or should it take place elsewhere? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's just such a narrow and specific thing, it seems weird to call it "policy". It's more a matter of having policies but they collide in a weird way here. (Normally, we'd have subcats to section out images involving nudity, like Category:Nude or partially nude people with toothbrushes, but it seems crazy to make one of those to contain exactly one image each for a ton of tech topics.) It's the sort of thing en-wiki sorts out with en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but we don't seem to have anything analogous. I'd guess our best bet is COM:Village pump/Proposals. Does anyone mind my taking this there? - Jmabel ! talk 23:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have we considered creating an RFC mechanism? I can see value in this. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea of the “principle of least surprise” is fantastic as a guideline, and frankly it should be a policy. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Essay, which I hope we can adopt as a guideline: Commons:Principle of least astonishment. Feel free to edit as usual, but please if you radically disagree with it, make that a signed comment, possibly on the talk page: don't rewrite it to say something else entirely. - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I made a small correction in Special:Diff/1040669945, hopefully preserving your intent. You might want to reference en:Principle of least astonishment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: en:Principle of least astonishment is linked in the first sentence of the essay. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (portrayals of computer technology), maybe Category:Project "Geekography" nude photography by Exey Panteleev (portrayals of computer technology)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: not sure I follow that. Rather than reference a category that exists, I should make up one that doesn't? Or are you saying something else? - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting the category be renamed, so that it doesn't cause undue surprise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I think that would call for a CfD, just like any other cat rename. It would be kind of odd to roll that decision into a discussion with a very different focus. - Jmabel ! talk 21:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected a typo on his name. I  Support this excellent essay. Are we taking a vote here? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not here, because this is not strictly an administrative matter, but I'd like to see this adopted as a guideline even if it is an essay for the moment, so I'll bring it to COM:VP/P. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need some pages unprotected / deleted

I need the following pages unprotected:


And these deleted:

Thanks! Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Userpages deleted, main userpage unprotected. Can't unprotect common.js, it won't let me. I can't edit it either anyway. Bedivere (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere, Only interface admins can change protection on JS/CSS pages. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 02:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done GPSLeo (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys! Much obliged!! Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/GMatteotti

The previously blocked user User:GMatteotti and his socketpuppet User:Ikumir is still trying to avoid blocking by using multiple IP addresses to continue editing, see Special:Contributions/79.45.232.195 and Special:Contributions/87.2.13.43. For additional info, although it is in german, see User_talk:Chem_Sim_2001#z.K. and User_talk:Túrelio#File:Makarij_at_monastery_in_Verhoturje,_1909.jpg. Is it possible to block a several range of IP addresses. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request failed to file correctly..

Following up on an unresolved issue from a few years ago I attempted to start a DR using VFC:-

It failed. Special:Contributions/ShakespeareFan00

I'd like to request an admin rollback all my contributions on Commons made after 1000 this moring on the grounds that I am apprantly too stupid to use the tool. (I will be uninstalling it forthwith). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved without admin assistance, but I'd appreciate someone doing a cleanup check. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kreuzecharmeur

In late April and early May, User:Kreuzecharmeur nominated the files File:County Limerick Coat of Arms.png and File:Navan Coat of Arms.png for deletion on the basis that they were "AI-generated". In the deletion discussion for those files, it was explained to Kreuzecharmeur that the files were not AI-generated, but AI-assisted. Rather than being entirely created from an AI-prompt, only certain difficult-to-illustrate elements were created by ChatGPT, then further edited as part of an overall process in GIMP. 95% of the process is done in GIMP, and no hallucinations are possible as everything is manually done by a human.

All of this was done in compliance with COM:AI, and the use of AI was explicitly noted in the file descriptions. This was explained to Kreuzecharmeur.

Furthermore, users such as User:Omphalographer and User:Ikan Kekek pointed out that regardless of the process to create the files, they were also compliant with COM:INUSE.

Nevertheless, despite the files being marked as kept and ruled to be compliant with Commons guidelines, Kreuzecharmeur has continued to nominated for simply being "AI-generated", as they did in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kilkenny CoA.png. However, they admitted they are not nominating the files because they are in breach of Commons guidelines, but because of a personal distaste for AI. Kreuzecharmeur stated:

Learn how to draw coat of arms, we humans aren't disabled to draw, or keep these abominations to yourself; we don't need Ai generated images in Heraldry

I find this language hostile ("Abominations") and I find the fact they are nominated files created by myself simply because of their personal distaste for AI rather than commons rules to be wrong.

I believe Kreuzecharmeur should be admonished for this behaviour. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my problem with their behavior is that the use of AI does not supersede COM:INUSE, so I agree that they should be warned to stop using that either explicitly or implicitly as a reason to nominate in use files and threatened with being blocked if they continue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to be a problematic position for User:Kreuzecharmeur to be taking. This seems to be a valid and worthy use of AI, done in a transparent manner. They also need to stop making derogatory comments. If they continue to nominate such images I think they need to be formally admonished. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just learn how to draw lol, now I'm also sorta famous for saying a common sense thing. Nothing personal, but with AI you are only becoming more incompetent and maybe also pathetic
I also find it stupid to complain about this instead of deleting the post itself, which by the way, how long did it take you to do? 2 minutes? Kreuzecharmeur (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kreuzecharmeur: if you are trying to get your account blocked, just post again in the same tone as your last remark. Otherwise, I suggest you read Commons:Civility. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a legitimate question, but so far I have not received an answer, only a threat Kreuzecharmeur (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kreuzecharmeur: are you are saying that if you call someone "incompetent" and "pathetic" and then ask them how long something took them, they owe you an answer? Or are you saying something else? - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was clearly the former. Furthermore, Kreuzecharmeur is continuing to nominate files for deletion on the basis of "AI Generated" alone, even when the uploader has marked the files as such. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Abtei St. Lambrecht.png for more. This nomination was after their latest comments here.
Kreuzecharmeur doesn't seem to have any interest in altering their behaviour. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is happening, perhaps we need to prevent them from submitting any files for deletion under the justification that they are AI? If they cannot responsibly make even a deletion request, then we need to prevent them from undertaking the same irresponsible and disruptive actions. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'd support an initial block (on Wikivoyage, the first block for this kind of thing would be 3 days; I am not calling for a userban or really long-term block as their first block). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:NotLessOrEqual sock

13 accounts were blocked last year as socks of NotLessOrEqual, all of them having uploaded copyvio images of guns and tanks and computer parts that had been washed through https://www.deviantart.com/marcusburns1977 (archived). These images had all been badly AI upscaled, and many were found to have been taken without credit from videogames. The main discussion of these was at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with marcusburns1977.

marcusburns1977 abandoned their DeviantArt account shortly after that (presumably because it had allowed Commons to easily tie all the Commons sock accounts together), and switched to using smaller throwaway DeviantArt accounts instead.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nierkerki is an open deletion discussion about a lot of badly AI upscaled images of computer parts, washed through a number of small but similar DeviantArt accounts. It includes the same GTX/Nvidia/Titan brands of graphics cards that were featured in the marcusburns1977 uploads. Belbury (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely problematic, honestly they need to be blocked and all images deleted. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have to wonder what his motivation for doing this is Trade (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a second account to this report:
Their only upload, from March, is File:NAM 690 GTX Nvidia.jpg, another AI-upscaled Nvidia graphics card from a throwaway DeviantArt account that uploaded it the same day. Belbury (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason not to indef-block? I don't see why we care whether it is sock or a different identically badly behaved user. - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Both accounts blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we do anything at this point?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86u7VXQI480
https://sites.google.com/view/17months/17-months/a-wikipedia-love-story
Are all personal attacks by 17 months who is an sock puppeteer for the sake of harassing me over images and pages i deleted
Harassment is now creating semi erotic writing of me and another person
What can I do at this point Cyberwolf (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contact the external hosting platforms and ask them to take down the defamatory materials? Even if the US free speech law wouldn't mandate it and a hate crime is apparently not present, the terms of usage /community rules of Google / Youtube should forbid such stuff. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just have 0 power legally im fine with the diss but the webpage disgusts me frankly Cyberwolf (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a “Report abuse” button in the Google page, not sure if it will actually do anything but I guess it’s worth a try. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn’t see that thanks Cyberwolf (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberwolf, Is this person WMFbanned yet? If not, email T&S with this, and let them handle it. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet but I will Cyberwolf (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get the email for t&s Cyberwolf (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberwolf it's ca [at] wikimedia.org. But bear in mind they can't do much beyond announcing that the person is banned from WMF sites. As others have suggested, contacting the hosts is probably more effective but frankly you might be best just ignoring it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Cyberwolf (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mellk

Almost the entire editing history of this user is dedicated to adding Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine to the maps of Russia. They are edit warring when reverted. I would propose a stern warning made against them to stop making these edits, and if they refuse, I don't see another option than a permanent block. Ecrusized (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this for background. Ecrusized has a history of disruptive editing (see the mass changes they made on 18 November 2024 and the mass-reverting spree that followed). They were blocked for edit warring not long after this and they are still continuing the same behavior. Mellk (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note they are still restoring their changes to File:Russia administrative location map.svg. They originally used a dubious edit summary ("Crimea is internationally recognized as Ukrainian territory" -- yes, this is why it is marked as disputed on the map, since this is a map of administrative divisions). Mellk (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you have no interest in even discussing to stop your disruptive behaviour. Since you are immediately resorting to battleground behaviour when confronted. And considering your narrow interests on this Wiki (pushing Russian propaganda) I would say that you are not here to build an Encylopedia. Ecrusized (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the one who made disruptive changes to over 300 files without discussion in the span of a few hours, then edit warring to restore those changes even though they were disputed. Your change to the file mentioned above was also disputed, but of course, the rules do not apply to you (if you make nonsensical claims of someone pushing propaganda, you are automatically exempt, right?). Mellk (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, removing Russian propaganda from Wikipedia is hardly a "disruptive change" as you are asserting. I don't need to seek your permission to remove Russian propaganda from Wikipedia. There are about 12 countries who have recognized Crimea as part of Russia, namely Belarus, Bolivia, Burundi, Central African Republic, Eritrea, Mali, Myanmar, Nicaragua, North Korea, Sudan and Venezuela. Most of which are totalitarian dictatorships. While the remaining 182 countries, including all democratic countries and international institutions show Crimea as a part of Ukraine in maps. So once again, you are clearly NOT HERE. Ecrusized (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to review COM:NPOV. The first thing it says is Commons is not Wikipedia. Even if we pretend otherwise, I was not aware that Crimea being shown as a disputed territory is "Russian propaganda". I suppose WaPo and NYT are run by the Russian state then. You should continue your crusade there.
Did you also not check the deletion request you started? Or do you also want to accuse those editors of being Russian propagandists? Mellk (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are now two separate files File:Russia administrative location map.svg and File:Russia administrative location map and Crimea dashed.svg. If you continue edit warring in some way both of you might be blocked. GPSLeo (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Mellk (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The categories need to be fixed now though. And the one without Crimea is now the standard map that is used on all wikis. I don't know whether it's supposed to be that way or not. Nakonana (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to User:CommonsDelinker/commands to notify everyone about the version split that they can check which version is needed for the specific usage. GPSLeo (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pierre Arcand en 2019.jpg

Hello, If someone has the time, I would appreciate a little help from an admin for a quick research on a deleted file. File:Pierre Arcand en 2019.jpg was tagged as "missing permision" the same day and by the same user as other files. For some files, it is not obvious if a permission was missing. So, I'm tryig to find if this file looks like if it was really missing permission for some identifiable reason, maybe it was obvious, which is entirely possible, or if it might be a case more like for example this other file. So, if someone could just check a few facts to identify the specific reason for deletion, such as: did the uploader attribute the photo to someone else, or did he source it from somewhere else, or did the EXIF data attribute it to someone else, or does a reverse image search find that the photo was published elsewhere before the upload to Commons (20 February 2019), or some other identifiable reason for missing permission. Thank you in advance. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krd deleted this, so they'd be the best to respond. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader claimed to be Merick Seguin and declared it to be an own work. @Sahaib: tagged it as missing permission. Bedivere (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madleen.jpg

Hi, so I uploaded a file of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla boat and I'm having issues with getting the file's copyright status cleared up. I took the file from the proton.me folder on https://freedomflotilla.org/2025/06/01/a-month-after-conscience-attack-freedom-flotilla-ship-madleen-sets-sail-for-gaza/ listed as being "Media Available for Use with Credit". I don't think they sorted out their licensing properly but they're explicitly OK with using the picture with attribution. I tried reaching out to the Freedom Flotilla Coalition via email to get them to fill out the Interactive Release Generator but they haven't gotten back. I don't blame them as they're probably extremely busy dealing with much more urgent stuff than Wikipedia bureaucracy right now. I also don't blame the bot for flagging the file but any human being can take two seconds to go on the site themselves and see that the files are available for use. DERPALERT (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DERPALERT: Hi, See also Commons:Bistro#"Media Available for Use with Credit", where the same situation was mentioned and it was suggested to request a free license by email. You did what was needed by requesting that. Now we can wait for an answer. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Proton Drive page is headed "FFC MEDIA FOR PRESS USE". No mention of use outside of the press. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ShaoYuWei.jpg

Can this request being closed? The uploader still has not sent VRT permission, even though they have been active in Chinese Wikipedia in recent month. 0x0a (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@0x0a ✓ Done. ChemSim (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Igor Dudinsky.jpg

Please delete the previous version as a derivative of the copyrighted artwork (author died in 2022). Quick1984 (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Quick1984: ✓ Done. ChemSim (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a CCI.

Hi,

I am a long term contributor, However in the past week or so, doubts have arisen as to the status of some PDF/DJVU files I added to Commons in Good faith, due to additional information that arose in other discussions, even though the consensus seems to be emerging that I perhaps am being overly cautious.

I'd therefore like in this interest in keeping the integrity of Commons intact, to ask 2 or more Commons Admins to check over my past uploads and determine if there are any other specific files which might have issues. I have done my own reviews, but feel I might be missing something.

I appreciate it is rare for a contributor, to request a Contributor Copyright Investigation directly, given that it's (normally initiated by Admins against 'problem' users. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Since you don't even say what might have been the nature of the problems with the files you are saying may have had issues, you post here does not shed a lot of light. You are asking an admin to review over 1300 PDFs and DJVUs, probably several days' work. I seriously doubt your uploads are among the riskiest here, and I for one would prefer to focus my efforts elsewhere. If you have particular uploads of yours that you think are potentially problematic, please feel more than free to start DRs yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 04:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free Gamelan recordings

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gamelan angka 3 Kraton Ngayogyakarta.ogg, "other recordings of musical performances, from the same or similar sources, should be reviewed".

Can an admin look at that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1041817280"